patrick.net

@Vicente

>That’s why all these freeloaders must be people who have spanky new jobs who are defrauding the government just to get some cheese and butter.

LOL! (I think).

Whatever happened to the "recovery?" This just in: 1 in 7 Americans are now receiving food stamps!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/03/about-1-in-7-americans-receive-food-stamps/

More good news for the Obama Recovery Team: new jobless claims highest in 8 months. Go Team!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-claims-jump-to-rb-1852891451.html?x=0&.v=1

thunderlips11 says

Doughnuts, Porn and Paper are the key to the New Era of Prosperity.

+1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576304823992479068.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5 - unemployment going up too.

We as a nation let government run our lives for us just too much. Maybe it did sound like a great social experiment at some point, today it is evident that giving up control of our future to some lazy unmotivated government bums was not the right answer.

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

ChrisLA says

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

Chris ... you are 100% correct. The Beast needs to be starved and the only way to do it is to cut their access to increased revenues.

RayAmerica says

ChrisLA says

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

Chris … you are 100% correct. The Beast needs to be starved and the only way to do it is to cut their access to increased revenues.

I really don't understand this thinking. We spend much more than we take in now, right? And have been for many, many years.

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we'd balance the budget?

tatupu70 says

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we’d balance the budget?

Why would you continue to give free happy meals to a 500 pounder that needs to lose weight?

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we’d balance the budget?

Why would you continue to give free happy meals to a 500 pounder that needs to lose weight?

You completely miss the point. We spend much more than we get in now. What makes you think we would stop spending more than we get if we get less?

tatupu70 says

RayAmerica says

ChrisLA says

We need to really pull the plug on the big brother.

Chris … you are 100% correct. The Beast needs to be starved and the only way to do it is to cut their access to increased revenues.
I really don’t understand this thinking. We spend much more than we take in now, right? And have been for many, many years.

On what planet is it logical to think that if we took in less revenue, all of the sudden we’d balance the budget?

Far more logical to make the rich who influence policies and spending the most pay extremely progressive taxes to fund the spending they want. Then just watch how good of a job they do figuring out what to cut.

Yeah, starve the beast has worked out real well. It's what is leading to fascism, because now with a choice between maintaining the momentum behind the military industrial complex and basic necessities for the people, democracy might have to die.

So what programs should we cut? Be specific. Anyone who says we need to cut spending but won't name specific programs to cut is a clown and should not be taken seriously.

HousingWatcher says

So what programs should we cut? Be specific.

As I've said before (this is really getting kind of boring):

I believe you have, or at least others have, asked me this question in a variety of ways before. As I have stated before, I strongly believe we need to cleanse the economy of a lot of wrongheaded policies that have led us, over several decades (if not longer) to this mess that we find ourselves in.
If I were King: End the colonialism that has become U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. End our “Israel or nothing” approach to the region. Close down the vast majority of armed forces bases (currently over 700) throughout the world and bring home the troops. End both involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Libya). Drastically cut military spending, including a dramatic reduction in the size of our Navy. Drastically cut government programs across the board. Eliminate entirely the Department of Education. End virtually all welfare for able bodied recipients. If they are going to be on the public dole, they’ll have to perform some type of public service to earn it, even if that means cleaning parks, streets, etc. Do whatever is necessary to balance the budget and begin to reduce the debt. Immediately end ALL earmarks connected to legislation. Drastically reduce foreign aid. Bring government salaries more in line with the private sector. Enforce all illegal immigration laws, particularly when it comes to employers. Illegal immigrants that are taking jobs from American citizens must stop. Work to end the “anchor baby” laws that currently exist. Secure the border, in particular the southern border with Mexico. By becoming less dependent on foreign loans in which to operate our government, we will be able to effectively negotiate trade policies that are fair and balanced. Develop an energy policy with long term goals, especially alternative fuels, along with a vast expansion of nuclear energy plants. Reinstate the Glass Stegal Act. End all bailouts with taxpayers’ money to banks, Wall Street, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. Allow the housing market to cleanse itself via natural market forces without government support or intervention. Cut taxes (along with capital gains, estate taxes, etc.) commensurate with the cuts in the size of government spending AFTER the budget is balanced and the national debt is vastly reduced.That’s just off the top of my head …

http://patrick.net/?p=534025

I'm confused Ray. So you want to drastically cut spending to balance the budget, and then you want to run a deficit by cutting taxes. So there goes all the money you save by slashing military spending.

How much would you cut taxes by? What amount?

HousingWatcher says

I’m confused Ray.

You are confused. Your solution is to continue along the same course that we are on now; increased size of government, fueled by higher taxes (eventually), more borrowing, more printing of paper money, etc., etc. My proposal is that this has to stop. I find it interesting that you conveniently took my "cutting taxes" statement out of context:

RayAmerica says

Cut taxes (along with capital gains, estate taxes, etc.) commensurate with the cuts in the size of government spending AFTER the budget is balanced and the national debt is vastly reduced.

It's very interesting you missed the word in block letters: "AFTER" ... the budget is balanced and the national debt is vastly reduced." This translates into (please read very slow ... one word at a time) keeping the current tax rates. Get it?

But Ray, what you propose doing is working hard and cutting spending in order to pay off the balance on your Mastercard. Then, when the Mastercard balance is paid off, you want to take your Visa card and go on a shopping spree.

Why is it so imporatant to cut the estate tax? Were talking about a tax that 99% of Americans will never pay. For all intensive purposes, the estate tax does not exist.

According to the American Bar Association, 0.5% of Americans will pay the estate tax in 2011. That's right, one half of 1%:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/your-money/taxes/18wealth.html

Why do you support cutting the estate tax Ray? What is it about the tax you don't like? Do you have super wealthy parents or grandparents you plan on getting money from?

HousingWatcher says

Why do you support cutting the estate tax Ray?

Why should the government have a claim on your estate when you die? What has accumulated in an estate (for the most part) has already been taxed. Why do liberals love taxation so much? What exactly is it?

RayAmerica says

The goal is to reduce the deficit by massive spending cuts

Fine. You're 1/3 of the way there with your plan. What's your plan to get the other 2/3?

"The goal is to reduce the deficit by massive spending cuts."

If that is the goal, then you have failed miserably. First off, foreign aid and earmarks make up about 1% of the budget. Way too small to have an impact. You also said to end the bailouts, but those already ended last year. You can't balance the budget by cutting phantom spending.

FYI: You could cut ALL domestic spending to ZERO and you would still have a $1 trillion deficit. Not to mention that Social Security and Medicare have about $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. That's right, $100 trillion. And you honestly think your going to make a difference by cutting earmarks and the Dept. of Education?

In Ray's conservative utopia, we will get things like this:

Florida Senate approves business tax cut that shrinks unemployment benefits

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/03/2199530/florida-senate-approves-business.html#ixzz1Ln6TXE2u

Apparently Ray supports wealth re-distribution just like liberal Democrats do, except that he wants wealth re-distribution in the opposite direction... from the bottom to the top.

Liberals beleive in raising taxes. Conservatives beleive in cutting spending. But there is a 3rd way to reduce the deficit, which is the way the Fed believes in: Substantially devaluating the dollar. We could pay off our debt in useless dollars worth 75% less than the dollar is currently worth.

HousingWatcher says

But there is a 3rd way to reduce the deficit

Nope. 1970s-style inflation would stiff our debt-holders, but do nothing for the deficit.

Plus if our bond rates start going up due to inflationary feedback, we've got to pay interest on $10T+ of debt (plus another $4T+ held in trust) and much of our debt is pretty short-term and thus we're vulnerable to interest rate shocks.

Going forward our dominant expenses are going to be feeding our war machine ($1T/yr), Welfare State ($1T/yr), retirees ($1T/yr) and Medicare ($1T/yr).

Can't inflate our way out of those -- gonna have to raise taxes.

HousingWatcher says

Apparently Ray supports wealth re-distribution just like liberal Democrats do, except that he wants wealth re-distribution in the opposite direction… from the bottom to the top.

TBH, neither the dems nor the republicans really understand anything. We might as well call them Blue Team and Red Team for all the real-world signficance they have.

The Red Team rightfully fears that the US will make the mistakes of Greece, Spain, and the other socialist economies of Southern Europe. These economies over-promised benefits to all and under-taxed to provide it, and now all of them are screwed.

What the Red Team steadfastly eliminate from their understanding, though, is that there is a Northern Europe tier of states that actually did establish this high-tax / high-service economy, and these demonstrably work well.

The bottom line, of course, is that if you're rich you want to keep your loot and not actually pay the progressive tax burden that the rich of the Nordic countries shoulder.

So they argue for cutting back the socialism we have now, to defend their own economic interests.

Technically, we could actually raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich like the Blue Team wants -- "widening the base" as it were. What would happen over time, I think, is all these extra taxes would just come out of rents and land values, which is why I'm a tax proponent.

Raise payroll taxes to FULLY cover people's health and pensions, like they do up in Communist Canada. Raise taxes across the board to pay for the national security state (the top 20% of this country make over half of the income, so they'll be on the hook for most of it anyway).

I think we'd see rents and home price fall dollar for dollar. Win win!

Well, in honor of Mother's Day, I'll share my story. I realize this is adecdotal and maybe some of the suggestions in this thread that statistics show welfare doesn't work might be connected to information with which I'd agree. Still, I was born to a teenage mother who, at the time, was a waitress at Pizza Hut. After a divorce with my father, she struggled. Her struggles resulted in a personal bankruptcy even though by that point she'd worked her way up to a supervisor position at a bank. She moved my sister and me to a small town where she began to waitress at a truck stop. I've not asked about many of the details, but now that I know how people sometimes struggle through their twenties, especially as a single parent, I figure she was just finding the weight of her responsibilities difficult.

Around this time, I remember our family beginning to use food stamps. We ate very simply. My mom developed strong habits around using coupons and buying sales. From what I remember, we only used food stamps for a short time as my mother once again worked into a job as an assistant to a small CPA firm.

Her example and responsibility eventually(there's much more to the story), led to me being the first in my immediate family to start and finish a Bachelor's Degree after high school. My sister would do the same. My mom and dad also both went back to school and got Bachelor Degrees.

Now I realize it might take someone like my mom, to whom, of course, I think few compare, but just wanted to relate a success story for welfare as they don't often come up in discussions like this one.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

>Raise payroll taxes to FULLY cover people’s health and pensions, like they do up in *Communist Canada*.

LoL! I know many Americans think like this...