Let's Balance the Budget (GP Plan: Annual $100B+ Surplus)

[thegreekdog]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

Fine, I win.

Thanks, john9blue.

Woah! Uncalled for! I wasn't serious anyway.

[saxitoxin]

Politicians need to suck it up and make hard choices, quit it with these sugar coated fantasies of balancing the budget without tax increases and present voters with reality.

I don't comprehend the fantastical portion of this. In August the US will intake $175 billion in non-debt revenue (and have debt service of $30 billion). Just spend $175 billion in August instead of $250 billion and the budget has been instantly balanced sans tax increases.

Cutting out that much money from the economy would have some pretty serious consequences.

cutting money from government budget

does not equal

cutting money from the economy

hmm where does every dollar the government spends go? into the nether somewhere? Government spending is a source of allot of economic activity. Maybe the spending is inefficient maybe it causes economic distortions. Regardless that spending is still important to many jobs, pulling the rug out from under that spending similarly pulls the rug out from the government's suppliers, and anyone who might sell something to a government employee.

You said "cutting out that much money from the economy."

cutting money from the government budget ]does not equal[ cutting money from the economy

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts

Eight of the nine budget adjustments I outlined above would cut USG spending levels to match, per capita, spending levels of equivalent programmes in Canada. This would cut the deficit without a tax increase and would keep USG spending parallel with GOC spending. With which of those do you disagree?

As a didactic Marxist-Leninist I support spreading the wealth. Taxation is not the correct method to achieve this, however, and increasing taxes just for the sake of increasing taxes - in the demonstrated absence of a budgetary need - is not about spreading wealth. It's about a desire to see the power of the State increase because the State represents a net good. It identifies the State as the most likely hero to vanquish one's enemies, thus placing it as a thing of inherent morality, a qualitative positive. This is the core of fascist thought. See -

The nation as the State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in so far as it develops. To arrest its development is to kill it.

If you only reject capitalism without rejecting the State you are a fascist. A progressive must denounce all sources of institutional power equally.

[Night Strike]

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.

So it's ok to massively increase spending way above the amount of income taken in, but it's not ok to massively cut the spending to return to levels that are simply paid for by the income taken in?

Alright, good to know the absurdity of your position.

Apparently to you "we need to makes cuts= it's a good idea to spend like a drunken sailor"

Where exactly did you see me say that? Where have I said it was ok to allow the US government to get to where it is?

It's implied in that argument regardless of who makes it. "We can't do massive cuts in government spending because too many people rely on that money." It's a false argument, and it's why the people aren't actually sincere about making cuts. In reality it's "Oops, we spent so much more money than we were supposed to spend, but cutting that money is too harmful so we have to raise taxes". It's just a plan to ultimately raise taxes and make people dependent on the government.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts

Eight of the nine budget adjustments I outlined above would cut USG spending levels to match, per capita, spending levels of equivalent programmes in Canada. This would cut the deficit without a tax increase and would keep USG spending parallel with GOC spending. With which of those do you disagree?

As a didactic Marxist-Leninist I support spreading the wealth. Increasing taxes just for the sake of increasing taxes is not about spreading wealth. It's about activating a desire to see the power of the State increase because the State represents a net good. It identifies the State as the most likely hero to vanquish one's enemies, thus placing it as a thing of inherent morality, a qualitative positive. This is the core of fascist thought. See -

The nation as the State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in so far as it develops. To arrest its development is to kill it.

The government budget is inevitably part of the economy. Cutting government budgets result in money being taken out of the economy in at least the short term.

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue. The USG doesn't need to raise taxes 2%. It could raise revenue through a variety of ways, but it does need to raise revenue in tandem with cuts, as this will minimize the negative aspects of budget cuts as well as the negative aspects of increased revenues.

I'm not suggesting increasing taxes for the sake of increasing taxes. Overall if it is possible it is always preferable to cut taxes. However at the moment the USG is cash strapped and therefore it necessitates some increased revenue (be it through a 2% tax increase, closing loop holes, ect.).

The state should not be placed on pedestal, nor should it be thrown down into the mud. It has an important role to play but as everything else it must be in moderation.

[saxitoxin]

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue.

lolwut

The cuts I outlined - with which you agree - would eliminate the deficit. You support raising taxes even if not needed? Just for the sake of raising taxes? Just because you can?

You don't support spreading wealth. You support spreading pain. You see Person X suffering and Person Y not suffering. Instead of making sure Person X doesn't suffer you want to make Person Y suffer equally. This is the mindset at the core of the irrational "income equality" arguments. It's a jealous and vengeful outlook on life.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm not saying don't cut government spending. It needs to be cut, just don't go crazy with the cuts as they could have more serious economic impacts than the spending does. This is why it is a good idea to mix both, as you will suffer only the moderate consequences of both actions rather than the sever consequences of one or the other.

So it's ok to massively increase spending way above the amount of income taken in, but it's not ok to massively cut the spending to return to levels that are simply paid for by the income taken in?

Alright, good to know the absurdity of your position.

Apparently to you "we need to makes cuts= it's a good idea to spend like a drunken sailor"

Where exactly did you see me say that? Where have I said it was ok to allow the US government to get to where it is?

It's implied in that argument regardless of who makes it. "We can't do massive cuts in government spending because too many people rely on that money." It's a false argument, and it's why the people aren't actually sincere about making cuts. In reality it's "Oops, we spent so much more money than we were supposed to spend, but cutting that money is too harmful so we have to raise taxes". It's just a plan to ultimately raise taxes and make people dependent on the government.

You can do large scale cuts, its just not a good idea to do it all at once. See Russia taking 13 years to recover after undertaking massive cuts. Gradual scaling back of government spending allows the economy time to adjust to the effects of less government money in the economy.

If the government has the wiggle room to take time cutting spending (which the USG doese) they should take that time and avoid the shocks of rapid cuts.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the biggest problem with massive government cuts is that so much that the government does is pain not replicable outside the government. I have said it before, but environmental regulation and study is a big one. Also, in some cases changing to a "for profit" system would irrevocably alter the way certain things are managed, in a bad way. Parks, for example. There is a reason we don't have tons of private natural parks. Natural parks are not as profitable as amusemen centers and the like. When they were basically privatized (it happened for a time), then the parks were on the verge of being destroyed.

I am all in favor of converting regulation of pollution, etc onto the private sector, but I don't know how that can be done. Cap and trade was supposed to do that, in a way, but was(per my understanding, which might be wrong) poorly designed

[Baron Von PWN]

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue.

lolwut

The cuts I outlined - with which you agree - would eliminate the deficit. You support raising taxes even if not needed? Just for the sake of raising taxes? Just because you can?

You don't support spreading wealth. You support spreading pain. You see Person X suffering and Person Y not suffering. Instead of making sure Person X doesn't suffer you want to make Person Y suffer equally. This is the mindset at the core of the irrational "income equality" arguments. It's a jealous and vengeful outlook on life.

Mayeb I should have been more specific. I don't disagree with any one of the cuts you propose. All together without any increase in revenues the cuts would do more harm than good. Also remember the government has a great deal of debt, although it is manageable it still needs to be paid down. Increased revenues will help that occur faster. Actually I support neither. I support effective governance. Slashing government spending on a short term basis (which a single fiscal year is) would have a serious negative impact on the economy. Realistically the best course of action for the USG is to cut its deficit over the next 5 to 10 years. Maybe it could do this purely through cuts alone this may not be advisable though. Each government program provides a service of some sort. Cutting those programs you are also cutting the services provided increasing revenue allows you to maintain some of those services.

[saxitoxin]

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue.

lolwut

The cuts I outlined - with which you agree - would eliminate the deficit. You support raising taxes even if not needed? Just for the sake of raising taxes? Just because you can?

You don't support spreading wealth. You support spreading pain. You see Person X suffering and Person Y not suffering. Instead of making sure Person X doesn't suffer you want to make Person Y suffer equally. This is the mindset at the core of the irrational "income equality" arguments. It's a jealous and vengeful outlook on life.

Mayeb I should have been more specific. I don't disagree with any one of the cuts you propose. All together without any increase in revenues the cuts would do more harm than good.

Your position continues to be irreconcilable with itself.

You say you support $800 billion in cuts to negate the deficit but then say we need $800 billion in new taxes to eliminate the cuts. This is a double-negative.

It also keeps the USG spending 15% more per capita than the GOC. I continue to maintain Americans are not inherently better than Canadians such that they need substantially more of the world's resources allocated to them. You are free to disagree.

Each government program provides a service of some sort.

I've randomly selected 3 of my 9 proposed cuts. I would like you to briefly outline what you feel the practical impact would be of these cuts that makes it impossible to make them:

1. cut NASA funding to equal, per capita, the amount Canada spends on the CSA
2. withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan
3. price-index social security benefits like Canada does

[thegreekdog]

Slashing government spending on a short term basis (which a single fiscal year is) would have a serious negative impact on the economy.

I'm not trying to pile on. I just wanted to take out this one sentence. I'm not sure most people understand that the "spending cuts" that were part of the increase to the debt ceiling were (mostly) not actually spending cuts; rather, they were cuts to future spending (for the most part). The politicians get to say "Look, we got $X billion cut" without actually cutting $X billion.

[PLAYER57832]

Slashing government spending on a short term basis (which a single fiscal year is) would have a serious negative impact on the economy.

I'm not trying to pile on. I just wanted to take out this one sentence. I'm not sure most people understand that the "spending cuts" that were part of the increase to the debt ceiling were (mostly) not actually spending cuts; rather, they were cuts to future spending (for the most part). The politicians get to say "Look, we got $X billion cut" without actually cutting $X billion.

Good point, but I think most people posting in this thread do know that. There is, of course, dispute over how much that is true and so forth (not so much here as in the world "out there")

[john9blue]

Democrats actually just wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire -- that would have eliminated all of them.

And the estate tax has been discussed. You will recall that there was some debate about it when it was about to expire.

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

Fine, I win.

Thanks, john9blue.

wait wait wait... ink did the same thing i did and you take HIS side?

oh wait, the morality of an action depends on the political beliefs of the actor. LOL okay woody.

[Baron Von PWN]

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue.

lolwut

The cuts I outlined - with which you agree - would eliminate the deficit. You support raising taxes even if not needed? Just for the sake of raising taxes? Just because you can?

You don't support spreading wealth. You support spreading pain. You see Person X suffering and Person Y not suffering. Instead of making sure Person X doesn't suffer you want to make Person Y suffer equally. This is the mindset at the core of the irrational "income equality" arguments. It's a jealous and vengeful outlook on life.

Mayeb I should have been more specific. I don't disagree with any one of the cuts you propose. All together without any increase in revenues the cuts would do more harm than good.

Your position continues to be irreconcilable with itself.

You say you support $800 billion in cuts to negate the deficit but then say we need $800 billion in new taxes to eliminate the cuts. This is a double-negative.

That isn't what I said at all. You are very good at willfully misunderstanding people. What I've said is the in order to kill the deficit there needs to be cuts and revenue increases, and that killing the deficit cannot happen in one year.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years. If the goverment manages to raise an extra 50 billion a year, then then need only cut 150 billion a year for 4 years and the deficit would be gone debt starting to be paid down.

It also keeps the USG spending 15% more per capita than the GOC. I continue to maintain Americans are not inherently better than Canadians such that they need substantially more of the world's resources allocated to them. You are free to disagree.

Each government program provides a service of some sort.

I've randomly selected 3 of my 9 proposed cuts. I would like you to briefly outline what you feel the practical impact would be of these cuts that makes it impossible to make them:

1. cut NASA funding to equal, per capita, the amount Canada spends on the CSA
2. withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan
3. price-index social security benefits like Canada does

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

[Woodruff]

Do you have a link to those (seriously)?

Apart from that I don't recall the Democrats proposing to eliminate all tax cuts in any serious way (i.e. they caved to political pressures) and I certainly don't recall the Democrats trying to reinstitute and raise the estate tax rates.

At risk of sounding snarky, I'm not going to waste my time burrowing for past articles that would satisfy you just because my memory happens to be superior.

Fine, I win.

Thanks, john9blue.

wait wait wait... ink did the same thing i did and you take HIS side?

When they BOTH "do the same thing you did", it seems really silly for you to complain about my having pointed out only one of the instances. However, the truth is that I simply didn't notice what Inklosed said and caught thegreekdog's remark. Probably because I tend to think of Inklosed as a loon and thegreekdog as worth paying attention to. I'm pretty certain that Inklosed politics and mine do not equate.

[saxitoxin]

I don't disagree with any of the cuts you propose, or even the idea of reducing government spending to a similar level as Canada's. What I disagree with is doing it in exclusion of increased revenue.

lolwut

The cuts I outlined - with which you agree - would eliminate the deficit. You support raising taxes even if not needed? Just for the sake of raising taxes? Just because you can?

You don't support spreading wealth. You support spreading pain. You see Person X suffering and Person Y not suffering. Instead of making sure Person X doesn't suffer you want to make Person Y suffer equally. This is the mindset at the core of the irrational "income equality" arguments. It's a jealous and vengeful outlook on life.

Mayeb I should have been more specific. I don't disagree with any one of the cuts you propose. All together without any increase in revenues the cuts would do more harm than good.

Your position continues to be irreconcilable with itself.

You say you support $800 billion in cuts to negate the deficit but then say we need $800 billion in new taxes to eliminate the cuts. This is a double-negative.

That isn't what I said at all. You are very good at willfully misunderstanding people. What I've said is the in order to kill the deficit there needs to be cuts and revenue increases, and that killing the deficit cannot happen in one year.

In response to GP's question, I actually just demonstrated it could be killed in one year. Simply repeating "it can't happen" isn't a rational assertion in the face of evidence that it can.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years.

Or maybe eliminate it over 1 year as I've demonstrated can be done with 9 simple cuts.

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

Come on Beav, you know this is a cop-out. You're better than that. I'd like to know why you believe the USG needs to spend 20% more than GOC, as it currently does. Are there unique circumstances in the U.S. that require massively more spending, or does the GOC spend 20% too little and you believe the U.S. is a progressive icon after which Canada should be modeled?

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

"XYZ" won't exist if you cut funding to "XYZ" is presumed. That doesn't describe why "XYZ" not existing is negative. Simply acknowledging it won't exist is not a qualitative expression.

1. NASA: So what? That's the tactile result, that doesn't describe why a decrease is negative. Canada spends 1/3 per capita on space exploration as the U.S. What is it about the U.S. that you feel requires the U.S. spend 300% as much as Canada, per capita? This should be a simple answer to enunciate.

2. WARS OF AGGRESSION: Did Canada suffer a "serious loss of face on the international scene" when it withdrew from Afghanistan? What is the positive for America of being a superpower? Does Canada exist in a state of horrific deprivation as the result of not being a super power? Was the U.S. worse off in the 1898 to 1945 time period when it only had great power, instead of super power, status?

3. PRICE INDEXING: And yet you affirm that it is unquestionably necessary to raise taxes?

All this said, I'm absolutely cognizant why you feel taxes need to be increased, even though we can demonstrate it's unnecessary. You want income equality and you believe using the state's police power to take from the rich to give to the State is the best way to achieve this, on the premise the State is an intrinsic force of good.

I want income equality but recognize there are non-compulsive, non-violent, terminally effective ways that have practical chances of legislative success. I want everyone to be equally rich.* You want everyone to be equally poor.

* that's not entirely true; I do want the net standard-of-living of white nations to be lowered en masse but that has to do with resource allocation, not revenue models, so gets off-topic for this thread

However, Beav is still maybe #3 on my list of CC people I'd be likely to appoint to the Politburo of the WSR, after radiojake and GreecePWNS. I'd just have to request the Political Police keep an especially close eye on him.

[Baron Von PWN]

[q
1.In response to GP's question, I actually just demonstrated it could be killed in one year. Simply repeating "it can't happen" isn't a rational assertion in the face of evidence that it can.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years.

2.Or maybe eliminate it over 1 year as I've demonstrated can be done with 9 simple cuts.

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

3.Come on Beav, you know this is a cop-out. You're better than that. I'd like to know why you believe the USG needs to spend 20% more than GOC, as it currently does. Are there unique circumstances in the U.S. that require massively more spending, or does the GOC spend 20% too little and you believe the U.S. is a progressive icon after which Canada should be modeled?

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

"XYZ" won't exist if you cut funding to "XYZ" is presumed. That doesn't describe why "XYZ" not existing is negative. Simply acknowledging it won't exist is not a qualitative expression.

4.

1. NASA: So what? That's the tactile result, that doesn't describe why a decrease is negative. Canada spends 1/3 per capita on space exploration as the U.S. What is it about the U.S. that you feel requires the U.S. spend 300% as much as Canada, per capita? This should be a simple answer to enunciate.

5. 2. WARS OF AGGRESSION: Did Canada suffer a "serious loss of face on the international scene" when it withdrew from Afghanistan? What is the positive for America of being a superpower? Does Canada exist in a state of horrific deprivation as the result of not being a super power? Was the U.S. worse off in the 1898 to 1945 time period when it only had great power, instead of super power, status?

6.3. PRICE INDEXING: And yet you affirm that it is unquestionably necessary to raise taxes?

7.All this said, I'm absolutely cognizant why you feel taxes need to be increased, even though we can demonstrate it's unnecessary. You want income equality and you believe using the state's police power to take from the rich to give to the State is the best way to achieve this, on the premise the State is an intrinsic force of good.

I want income equality but recognize there are non-compulsive, non-violent, terminally effective ways that have practical chances of legislative success. I want everyone to be equally rich.* You want everyone to be equally poor.

* that's not entirely true; I do want the net standard-of-living of white nations to be lowered en masse but that has to do with resource allocation, not revenue models, so gets off-topic for this thread

(I have put numbers in the quotation rather than parsing the quotes)

1. Very true. It can be done, which I haven't denied. It would just be a very bad idea. If I needed to lose 20 pounds I could just stop eating for a few weeks. This would cause me to lose 20 pounds but it isin't a very healthy way to go about it.
2. again its possible, the consequences would make it a very poor decision.
3. I don't think they need to. I never said they did. I don't think either state represents an ideal model to be emulated. The organization and priorities of a state comes with a wide range of trade offs. There is no one way to run a country. However if a country is running a structural deficit that deficit should be eliminated, the best way to do that is through a combination of cuts and revenue increases.
4. I personally believe space exploration is vital for the future of mankind, the longer we remain on a single planet the grater the chance humanity is wiped out by some calamity. Nasa represents an investment in the future of humanity and our chances of ever leaving this planet. Maybe its just the sci-fi novels speaking there, but either way opening up space has produced tangible benefits here on earth which otherwise would not have occurred without space exploration (statelite technology, GPS, and advanced materials)
5. too soon to tell, but Canada wasn't a major player and its withdrawal is unlikely to embolden other powers. Depends, America certainly did not have a leading role in deciding the course of international politics. it had to deal with other great powers on even footing, when things escalated this led to major conflicts which make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a petty squabble in comparison.
6. As I said I'm not realy opposed to any one of your proposed cuts, I'm opposed to your proposed application of cuts rather than the cuts themselves.
7. You haven't demonstrated why it isn't necessary. all you have done is attack arguments I never made. You haven't addressed my concern as to the consequences of cutting 800 billion in 1 year . That is what withdrawing 800bn$ in state expenditures would do to the economy. Previous states who have done cuts on a similar scale suffered sever economic consequences (Russia's 13 year recovery from its cuts).
I want revenues increased as that allows the state to attack the deficit from both ends and ends the flow of red ink quicker. Can it be done without any increased revenue? yes. Is it a good idea to do it that way? no.

[saxitoxin]

[q
1.In response to GP's question, I actually just demonstrated it could be killed in one year. Simply repeating "it can't happen" isn't a rational assertion in the face of evidence that it can.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years.

2.Or maybe eliminate it over 1 year as I've demonstrated can be done with 9 simple cuts.

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

3.Come on Beav, you know this is a cop-out. You're better than that. I'd like to know why you believe the USG needs to spend 20% more than GOC, as it currently does. Are there unique circumstances in the U.S. that require massively more spending, or does the GOC spend 20% too little and you believe the U.S. is a progressive icon after which Canada should be modeled?

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

"XYZ" won't exist if you cut funding to "XYZ" is presumed. That doesn't describe why "XYZ" not existing is negative. Simply acknowledging it won't exist is not a qualitative expression.

4.

1. NASA: So what? That's the tactile result, that doesn't describe why a decrease is negative. Canada spends 1/3 per capita on space exploration as the U.S. What is it about the U.S. that you feel requires the U.S. spend 300% as much as Canada, per capita? This should be a simple answer to enunciate.

5. 2. WARS OF AGGRESSION: Did Canada suffer a "serious loss of face on the international scene" when it withdrew from Afghanistan? What is the positive for America of being a superpower? Does Canada exist in a state of horrific deprivation as the result of not being a super power? Was the U.S. worse off in the 1898 to 1945 time period when it only had great power, instead of super power, status?

6.3. PRICE INDEXING: And yet you affirm that it is unquestionably necessary to raise taxes?

7.All this said, I'm absolutely cognizant why you feel taxes need to be increased, even though we can demonstrate it's unnecessary. You want income equality and you believe using the state's police power to take from the rich to give to the State is the best way to achieve this, on the premise the State is an intrinsic force of good.

I want income equality but recognize there are non-compulsive, non-violent, terminally effective ways that have practical chances of legislative success. I want everyone to be equally rich.* You want everyone to be equally poor.

* that's not entirely true; I do want the net standard-of-living of white nations to be lowered en masse but that has to do with resource allocation, not revenue models, so gets off-topic for this thread

(I have put numbers in the quotation rather than parsing the quotes)

1. Very true. It can be done, which I haven't denied. It would just be a very bad idea. If I needed to lose 20 pounds I could just stop eating for a few weeks. This would cause me to lose 20 pounds but it isin't a very healthy way to go about it.
2. again its possible, the consequences would make it a very poor decision.
3. I don't think they need to. I never said they did. I don't think either state represents an ideal model to be emulated. The organization and priorities of a state comes with a wide range of trade offs. There is no one way to run a country. However if a country is running a structural deficit that deficit should be eliminated, the best way to do that is through a combination of cuts and revenue increases.
4. I personally believe space exploration is vital for the future of mankind, the longer we remain on a single planet the grater the chance humanity is wiped out by some calamity. Nasa represents an investment in the future of humanity and our chances of ever leaving this planet. Maybe its just the sci-fi novels speaking there, but either way opening up space has produced tangible benefits here on earth which otherwise would not have occurred without space exploration (statelite technology, GPS, and advanced materials)
5. too soon to tell, but Canada wasn't a major player and its withdrawal is unlikely to embolden other powers. Depends, America certainly did not have a leading role in deciding the course of international politics. it had to deal with other great powers on even footing, when things escalated this led to major conflicts which make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a petty squabble in comparison.
6. As I said I'm not realy opposed to any one of your proposed cuts, I'm opposed to your proposed application of cuts rather than the cuts themselves.
7. You haven't demonstrated why it isn't necessary. all you have done is attack arguments I never made. You haven't addressed my concern as to the consequences of cutting 800 billion in 1 year . That is what withdrawing 800bn$ in state expenditures would do to the economy. Previous states who have done cuts on a similar scale suffered sever economic consequences (Russia's 13 year recovery from its cuts).
I want revenues increased as that allows the state to attack the deficit from both ends and ends the flow of red ink quicker. Can it be done without any increased revenue? yes. Is it a good idea to do it that way? no.

This formatting is too difficult to follow. Please resubmit.

[Baron Von PWN]

[q
1.In response to GP's question, I actually just demonstrated it could be killed in one year. Simply repeating "it can't happen" isn't a rational assertion in the face of evidence that it can.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years.

2.Or maybe eliminate it over 1 year as I've demonstrated can be done with 9 simple cuts.

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

3.Come on Beav, you know this is a cop-out. You're better than that. I'd like to know why you believe the USG needs to spend 20% more than GOC, as it currently does. Are there unique circumstances in the U.S. that require massively more spending, or does the GOC spend 20% too little and you believe the U.S. is a progressive icon after which Canada should be modeled?

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

"XYZ" won't exist if you cut funding to "XYZ" is presumed. That doesn't describe why "XYZ" not existing is negative. Simply acknowledging it won't exist is not a qualitative expression.

4.

1. NASA: So what? That's the tactile result, that doesn't describe why a decrease is negative. Canada spends 1/3 per capita on space exploration as the U.S. What is it about the U.S. that you feel requires the U.S. spend 300% as much as Canada, per capita? This should be a simple answer to enunciate.

5. 2. WARS OF AGGRESSION: Did Canada suffer a "serious loss of face on the international scene" when it withdrew from Afghanistan? What is the positive for America of being a superpower? Does Canada exist in a state of horrific deprivation as the result of not being a super power? Was the U.S. worse off in the 1898 to 1945 time period when it only had great power, instead of super power, status?

6.3. PRICE INDEXING: And yet you affirm that it is unquestionably necessary to raise taxes?

7.All this said, I'm absolutely cognizant why you feel taxes need to be increased, even though we can demonstrate it's unnecessary. You want income equality and you believe using the state's police power to take from the rich to give to the State is the best way to achieve this, on the premise the State is an intrinsic force of good.

I want income equality but recognize there are non-compulsive, non-violent, terminally effective ways that have practical chances of legislative success. I want everyone to be equally rich.* You want everyone to be equally poor.

* that's not entirely true; I do want the net standard-of-living of white nations to be lowered en masse but that has to do with resource allocation, not revenue models, so gets off-topic for this thread

(I have put numbers in the quotation rather than parsing the quotes)

1. Very true. It can be done, which I haven't denied. It would just be a very bad idea. If I needed to lose 20 pounds I could just stop eating for a few weeks. This would cause me to lose 20 pounds but it isin't a very healthy way to go about it.
2. again its possible, the consequences would make it a very poor decision.
3. I don't think they need to. I never said they did. I don't think either state represents an ideal model to be emulated. The organization and priorities of a state comes with a wide range of trade offs. There is no one way to run a country. However if a country is running a structural deficit that deficit should be eliminated, the best way to do that is through a combination of cuts and revenue increases.
4. I personally believe space exploration is vital for the future of mankind, the longer we remain on a single planet the grater the chance humanity is wiped out by some calamity. Nasa represents an investment in the future of humanity and our chances of ever leaving this planet. Maybe its just the sci-fi novels speaking there, but either way opening up space has produced tangible benefits here on earth which otherwise would not have occurred without space exploration (statelite technology, GPS, and advanced materials)
5. too soon to tell, but Canada wasn't a major player and its withdrawal is unlikely to embolden other powers. Depends, America certainly did not have a leading role in deciding the course of international politics. it had to deal with other great powers on even footing, when things escalated this led to major conflicts which make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a petty squabble in comparison.
6. As I said I'm not realy opposed to any one of your proposed cuts, I'm opposed to your proposed application of cuts rather than the cuts themselves.
7. You haven't demonstrated why it isn't necessary. all you have done is attack arguments I never made. You haven't addressed my concern as to the consequences of cutting 800 billion in 1 year . That is what withdrawing 800bn$ in state expenditures would do to the economy. Previous states who have done cuts on a similar scale suffered sever economic consequences (Russia's 13 year recovery from its cuts).
I want revenues increased as that allows the state to attack the deficit from both ends and ends the flow of red ink quicker. Can it be done without any increased revenue? yes. Is it a good idea to do it that way? no.

This formatting is too difficult to follow. Please resubmit.

you're a big boy you can figure it out.

[Phatscotty]

What was wrong with cut cap and balance? It balanced the budget in 8 years with gradual cuts across the board as well as revenue increases.

[Baron Von PWN]

What was wrong with cut cap and balance? It balanced the budget in 8 years with gradual cuts across the board as well as revenue increases.

Don't see how you could accomplish that with a debt cap. You would need to increase the debt ceiling to give time for the gradual cuts.

[saxitoxin]

[q
1.In response to GP's question, I actually just demonstrated it could be killed in one year. Simply repeating "it can't happen" isn't a rational assertion in the face of evidence that it can.

Maybe reduce the deficit over 4 years.

2.Or maybe eliminate it over 1 year as I've demonstrated can be done with 9 simple cuts.

How much either government spends per capita is up to each individual nation and really doesn't have anything to with the worth of its citizens. Rather how much those societies feel their governments should do.

3.Come on Beav, you know this is a cop-out. You're better than that. I'd like to know why you believe the USG needs to spend 20% more than GOC, as it currently does. Are there unique circumstances in the U.S. that require massively more spending, or does the GOC spend 20% too little and you believe the U.S. is a progressive icon after which Canada should be modeled?

I haven't said your cuts are impossible. I have said it would be a bad idea to make them all in one fiscal year, and that it is important to understand cuts in funding results in cutts in services. In my opinion these would be the consequences of those specific cuts (asside from the obvious effect of saving money).

1. cutting nasa funding would reduce the amount of research into space and space exploration.
2. serious loss of face on the international scene, a defeat for america, possible acceleration of the decline of America as a supper power.
3. don't know enough about this one to comment.

"XYZ" won't exist if you cut funding to "XYZ" is presumed. That doesn't describe why "XYZ" not existing is negative. Simply acknowledging it won't exist is not a qualitative expression.

4.

1. NASA: So what? That's the tactile result, that doesn't describe why a decrease is negative. Canada spends 1/3 per capita on space exploration as the U.S. What is it about the U.S. that you feel requires the U.S. spend 300% as much as Canada, per capita? This should be a simple answer to enunciate.

5. 2. WARS OF AGGRESSION: Did Canada suffer a "serious loss of face on the international scene" when it withdrew from Afghanistan? What is the positive for America of being a superpower? Does Canada exist in a state of horrific deprivation as the result of not being a super power? Was the U.S. worse off in the 1898 to 1945 time period when it only had great power, instead of super power, status?

6.3. PRICE INDEXING: And yet you affirm that it is unquestionably necessary to raise taxes?

7.All this said, I'm absolutely cognizant why you feel taxes need to be increased, even though we can demonstrate it's unnecessary. You want income equality and you believe using the state's police power to take from the rich to give to the State is the best way to achieve this, on the premise the State is an intrinsic force of good.

I want income equality but recognize there are non-compulsive, non-violent, terminally effective ways that have practical chances of legislative success. I want everyone to be equally rich.* You want everyone to be equally poor.

* that's not entirely true; I do want the net standard-of-living of white nations to be lowered en masse but that has to do with resource allocation, not revenue models, so gets off-topic for this thread

(I have put numbers in the quotation rather than parsing the quotes)

1. Very true. It can be done, which I haven't denied. It would just be a very bad idea. If I needed to lose 20 pounds I could just stop eating for a few weeks. This would cause me to lose 20 pounds but it isin't a very healthy way to go about it.
2. again its possible, the consequences would make it a very poor decision.
3. I don't think they need to. I never said they did. I don't think either state represents an ideal model to be emulated. The organization and priorities of a state comes with a wide range of trade offs. There is no one way to run a country. However if a country is running a structural deficit that deficit should be eliminated, the best way to do that is through a combination of cuts and revenue increases.
4. I personally believe space exploration is vital for the future of mankind, the longer we remain on a single planet the grater the chance humanity is wiped out by some calamity. Nasa represents an investment in the future of humanity and our chances of ever leaving this planet. Maybe its just the sci-fi novels speaking there, but either way opening up space has produced tangible benefits here on earth which otherwise would not have occurred without space exploration (statelite technology, GPS, and advanced materials)
5. too soon to tell, but Canada wasn't a major player and its withdrawal is unlikely to embolden other powers. Depends, America certainly did not have a leading role in deciding the course of international politics. it had to deal with other great powers on even footing, when things escalated this led to major conflicts which make Afghanistan and Iraq look like a petty squabble in comparison.
6. As I said I'm not realy opposed to any one of your proposed cuts, I'm opposed to your proposed application of cuts rather than the cuts themselves.
7. You haven't demonstrated why it isn't necessary. all you have done is attack arguments I never made. You haven't addressed my concern as to the consequences of cutting 800 billion in 1 year . That is what withdrawing 800bn$ in state expenditures would do to the economy. Previous states who have done cuts on a similar scale suffered sever economic consequences (Russia's 13 year recovery from its cuts).
I want revenues increased as that allows the state to attack the deficit from both ends and ends the flow of red ink quicker. Can it be done without any increased revenue? yes. Is it a good idea to do it that way? no.

This formatting is too difficult to follow. Please resubmit.

you're a big boy you can figure it out.

I'll just work my way through these one at a time, starting with:

4. I personally believe space exploration is vital for the future of mankind, the longer we remain on a single planet the grater the chance humanity is wiped out by some calamity. Nasa represents an investment in the future of humanity and our chances of ever leaving this planet. Maybe its just the sci-fi novels speaking there, but either way opening up space has produced tangible benefits here on earth which otherwise would not have occurred without space exploration (statelite technology, GPS, and advanced materials)

At what point is it the onus of the United States specifically, rather than mankind generally, to fund the future of mankind? Why do you believe each American should be 3-times more responsible for "the future of humanity" than each Canadian?

[BigBallinStalin]

Some additional numbers stretching to 2021:

The total deficit from 2012-2021 is estimated at $7,205B
The total deficit reduction the GP Plan for 2012-2021 is estimated at $8,512B

The average yearly deficit for 2012-2021 before changes is $720.5B
The average yearly surplus for 2012-2021 after changes is $130.7B

In other words, the future would look even better.

Assuming no negative, unintended consequences occur...

[Baron Von PWN]

At what point is it the onus of the United States specifically, rather than mankind generally, to fund the future of mankind? Why do you believe each American should be 3-times more responsible for "the future of humanity" than each Canadian?

Since when have I been a believer in American exceptionalism? I actually think Canada should be spending more on space research and exploration. However governments are niggardly so its unlikely any government will actually increase funding for any space related research. My hopes are that the private sector will one day step in.

[PLAYER57832]

1. Limit extended unemployment benefits (those provided after 6 months) to an amount that may not exceed the federal minimum wage for people who have not obtained other work. (An exception is noted in #3) I understand that people who are long term unemployed are in harship. However, it is time for them to adjust to the new reality for them, which is not getting the wages to which they were accustomed. I don't have a problem continuing to support people who have worked, who are seriously looking for work, for more than 6 months in this current economy. Six months is just not long enough for many to find employment. However, at that point, it is time to take ANY job, not just one in the "correct" field, one that "pays enough", etc. Its not right for people paying low wages to wind up supporting higher wage people for an extended time. Keeping high unemployment checks rolling does just that.

2. ALSO, I would actually allow people to obtain some unemployment compensation when their new wages are significantly lower than the prior wage, but ONLY for a limited time. This, again, gets back to the above. Right now, its "all or nothing", when it comes to hours. People can work part-time for low wages, but if they just take a lower wage job, they completely lose their unemployment. That means people wanting to work are actually penalized over those just sitting back and waiting for the new job. This would extend for just a few months, (not over 6), and would be a way to help people ease into a lower level lifestyle. Saving and cost here are very hard to estimate, because its very difficult to say who would use this option. Also, whether this is a loss or gain depends a lot on the wage difference. The point is that this encourages someone to stay employed at whatever wage they can get and in the long run, this will be beneficial.

3. Allow people who take jobs while on unemployment to get true extended benefits. That is, allow them to continue to get an amount that will bring their new wages up to at least what they were getting from unemployment for 6 months. For the next 12 months they would get 1/2 the the difference between the old and the new benefit. After a year and a half, they will get no more unemployment benefits.

Again, the point of this is to ensure that people are not penalized for taking a lower wage job instead of staying on unemployment. The savings is more long term.

[saxitoxin]

At what point is it the onus of the United States specifically, rather than mankind generally, to fund the future of mankind? Why do you believe each American should be 3-times more responsible for "the future of humanity" than each Canadian?

Since when have I been a believer in American exceptionalism? I actually think Canada should be spending more on space research and exploration. However governments are niggardly so its unlikely any government will actually increase funding for any space related research. My hopes are that the private sector will one day step in.

OK, let me get this straight before we move on. To recap:

- Canada spends 1/3 per capita of what the U.S. spends on space
- you believe Canada is not contributing its fair share to space research
- you believe Canada should increase space research spending by 300% and the U.S. should maintain current space spending levels
- you believe Canada should finance increased space spending through [help me understand this one]: (a) deficit spending, or, (b) increasing _____ [insert tax] by _____ [insert percent]

This is difficult to follow so LMK if part of this is incorrect.