The worst deficit reduction plan ever!

[Booster4324]

New York Times Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

[Peace]

New York Times Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget

 

Cool. Did it. Only took a few minutes. Had to click a few boxes I wouldn't have wanted but that's life.

[Chef Jim]

You solved the deficit!

 

Yeah that was hard. I'm a !@#$ing genius.

[Andy Rooney]

Yeah that was hard. I'm a !@#$ing genius.

You've got my vote.

 

 

/connor/

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Good to see patriotic Americans stand up for what's right

 

 

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

 

[pBills]

So what is she saying exactly here? Is she saying that upper class Americans caused this deficit.

 

 

Aren't they ones making the decisions, the power players, the ones investing, etc. :-)

 

Give the wealthiest their tax breaks and do not extend unemployment... that what I say. F the people who lost their jobs. Lazy sons of b!tches!!!

[Magox]

Aren't they ones making the decisions, the power players, the ones investing, etc. :-)

 

Give the wealthiest their tax breaks and do not extend unemployment... that what I say. F the people who lost their jobs. Lazy sons of b!tches!!!

This argument doesn't hold water.

 

At what point PBills do we stop extending unemployment benefits? 2 years, 3 years, permanent? This is what amazes me, I can plainly see that if you continue to provide unemployment benefits, the incentive for a portion of those recipients to look for work diminishes. Now let me be clear here, I am only restating this for the sake of the simple minded such as the likes of Conner and hopefully not you, a portion of the recipients of the extended unemployment benefits become complacent. The incentive to look for work becomes less, this is a fact. It's not a hypothetical it is a proven fact.

 

You know, when Gingrich and house republicans back in 95, after the GOP onslaught of 94 pushed for Welfare reform, it was the same lame nonsensical, praying on the emotions of the public argument of "If you reform welfare, there will be many people thrown out on the street" or "Those Conservatives, they lack tolerance and compassion and bla bla bla". Much the same as what you are doing right now.

 

Well you know what happened as a result of Welfare reform? I can tell you that what the liberals fear-mongering prognostications never came about. As a matter of FACT, more people that were on Welfare dropped out of it, joblessness amongst the recipients went down DRASTICALLY and it was an overall success.

 

Now how could that of happened? Simply put : INCENTIVE. INCENTIVE INCENTIVE INCENTIVE

 

The incentive for people to work becomes lessened when there is a government backstop. If you lessen the government backstop, it forces people to stand on their own feet.

 

We have been providing jobless benefits for 2 !@#$ING YEARS! Enough is enough.

 

Good to see patriotic Americans stand up for what's right

 

 

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

 

Good, when they extend the tax cuts for everyone, I fully expect to read a story about these same folks and how they cut out a check to the government. YOu know they are free to do so, so I expect to see it, and I will be awaiting your link with the story.

[IDBillzFan]

Good to see patriotic Americans stand up for what's right

 

 

http://www.fiscalstrength.com/

 

Geez, a little LAMPish, no? "Hey, look at me! I'm a millionaire! The government should make me give it more money!!! Because taking more of my money is not just patriotic, but it's right!" :lol:

 

Ummm, if you're really so eager to give the government more of your money, what, precisely, is holding you back? Oh, you need them to MAKE you do it? Should they shove a ball gag in your mouth while they wear a dominatrix outfit and force you to your knees to pull the money out of your latex wallet like the trampy little dog you are? Would that make it more fun for you?

 

Thank god most people don't equate "a lot of money" with intelligence.

[pBills]

This argument doesn't hold water.

 

At what point PBills do we stop extending unemployment benefits? 2 years, 3 years, permanent? This is what amazes me, I can plainly see that if you continue to provide unemployment benefits, the incentive for a portion of those recipients to look for work diminishes. Now let me be clear here, I am only restating this for the sake of the simple minded such as the likes of Conner and hopefully not you, a portion of the recipients of the extended unemployment benefits become complacent. The incentive to look for work becomes less, this is a fact. It's not a hypothetical it is a proven fact.

 

You know, when Gingrich and house republicans back in 95, after the GOP onslaught of 94 pushed for Welfare reform, it was the same lame nonsensical, praying on the emotions of the public argument of "If you reform welfare, there will be many people thrown out on the street" or "Those Conservatives, they lack tolerance and compassion and bla bla bla". Much the same as what you are doing right now.

 

Well you know what happened as a result of Welfare reform? I can tell you that what the liberals fear-mongering prognostications never came about. As a matter of FACT, more people that were on Welfare dropped out of it, joblessness amongst the recipients went down DRASTICALLY and it was an overall success.

 

Now how could that of happened? Simply put : INCENTIVE. INCENTIVE INCENTIVE INCENTIVE

 

The incentive for people to work becomes lessened when there is a government backstop. If you lessen the government backstop, it forces people to stand on their own feet.

 

We have been providing jobless benefits for 2 !@#$ING YEARS! Enough is enough.

 

 

Good, when they extend the tax cuts for everyone, I fully expect to read a story about these same folks and how they cut out a check to the government. YOu know they are free to do so, so I expect to see it, and I will be awaiting your link with the story.

 

 

I wouldn't think extending them for another 2 or 3 years would be necessary. At least one more would be nice. Of course some people will become complacent and just want to use the system. I also know that I wouldn't want to lump everyone into that group. People do need help. Everyone loves incentives, why use losing even more than they already have as that incentive?

 

I also laugh at the NEED to extend cuts for the wealthiest. Oh yeah, they are the power players, the people who invest, etc. which may lead to job creation/growth. However, most of these people aren't investing or moving money these days. So then what, extend the tax breaks for them for nothing? Where is their incentive to invest? Remember... INCENTIVE INCENTIVE INCENTIVE.

 

Geez, a little LAMPish, no? "Hey, look at me! I'm a millionaire! The government should make me give it more money!!! Because taking more of my money is not just patriotic, but it's right!" :lol:

 

Ummm, if you're really so eager to give the government more of your money, what, precisely, is holding you back? Oh, you need them to MAKE you do it? Should they shove a ball gag in your mouth while they wear a dominatrix outfit and force you to your knees to pull the money out of your latex wallet like the trampy little dog you are? Would that make it more fun for you?

 

Thank god most people don't equate "a lot of money" with intelligence.

 

 

Look at me, I'm a millionaire!! Keep giving me these tax breaks. I desperately need them because people think I am actually investing.

[IDBillzFan]

However, most of these people aren't investing or moving money these days. So then what, extend the tax breaks for them for nothing?

In other words, if our economic policies are so messed up and give you such financial pause that you refuse to spend your money, we're just going to take it from you and spend it how we see fit.

 

Awesome plan. A real winner.

[pBills]

In other words, if our economic policies are so messed up and give you such financial pause that you refuse to spend your money, we're just going to take it from you and spend it how we see fit.

 

Awesome plan. A real winner.

 

 

So why should they extend the tax breaks for those who don't need them?

[Magox]

I wouldn't think extending them for another 2 or 3 years would be necessary. At least one more would be nice. Of course some people will become complacent and just want to use the system. I also know that I wouldn't want to lump everyone into that group. People do need help. Everyone loves incentives, why use losing even more than they already have as that incentive?

 

I also laugh at the NEED to extend cuts for the wealthiest. Oh yeah, they are the power players, the people who invest, etc. which may lead to job creation/growth. However, most of these people aren't investing or moving money these days. So then what, extend the tax breaks for them for nothing? Where is their incentive to invest? Remember... INCENTIVE INCENTIVE INCENTIVE.

"one more would be nice"? It has already been two, if I were the GOP and president, I would say "OK, we will extend it through the holidays in exchange for ____________" Enough is enough, it is time for people to stand up on their own feet. I guarantee you that the unemployment rate will drop faster when this happens. I guarantee it.

 

And in regards to

I also know that I wouldn't want to lump everyone into that group.

 

Did I not say:

Now let me be clear here, I am only restating this for the sake of the simple minded such as the likes of Conner and hopefully not you, a portion of the recipients of the extended unemployment benefits become complacent. The incentive to look for work becomes less, this is a fact. It's not a hypothetical it is a proven fact.

?

 

So are you as thick-headed as Conner?

 

And to your last point

 

 

You do know that small businesses and corporations plan in advance don't you? The reason why businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars is because of uncertainty. They don't know if there will be strong demand for their goods and services, they are uncertain of future regulations from the Wall Street Bill, they are uncertain what the consumer protection agency may impose on their business, they are uncertain of the health insurance law, they are uncertain of the health insure mandates, they are uncertain of taxes, they are uncertain if the economy can withstand itself after the "stimulus" runs out.

 

So what you just said, makes no sense when you put everything into context.

 

Having said that, I believe they should allow all the tax cuts to be extended for a short period of time and then let them all expire. I have said that on many occassions. I don't believe in class warfare, it is a divisive issue that doesn't help our country advance. It is part of the liberal tactics to prey on the weak-minded. Much like charges of racism, bigotry and extremism.

 

So why should they extend the tax breaks for those who don't need them?

It's their money. It's not the government's money. Why do you feel entitled to decide what they can and can't keep? I am against the tax cuts for everyone because we have a debt problem. You are against it because you believe they "don't need them".

Edited November 19, 2010 by Magox

[pBills]

"one more would be nice"? It has already been two, if I were the GOP and president, I would say "OK, we will extend it through the holidays in exchange for ____________" Enough is enough, it is time for people to stand up on their own feet. I guarantee you that the unemployment rate will drop faster when this happens. I guarantee it.

 

And in regards to

 

Did I not say: ?

 

So are you as thick-headed as Conner?

 

And to your last point

 

 

You do know that small businesses and corporations plan in advance don't you? The reason why businesses are sitting on trillions of dollars is because of uncertainty. They don't know if there will be strong demand for their goods and services, they are uncertain of future regulations from the Wall Street Bill, they are uncertain what the consumer protection agency may impose on their business, they are uncertain of the health insurance law, they are uncertain of the health insure mandates, they are uncertain of taxes, they are uncertain if the economy can withstand itself after the "stimulus" runs out.

 

So what you just said, makes no sense when you put everything into context.

 

Having said that, I believe they should allow all the tax cuts to be extended for a short period of time and then let them all expire. I have said that on many occassions. I don't believe in class warfare, it is a divisive issue that doesn't help our country advance. It is part of the liberal tactics to prey on the weak-minded. Much like charges of racism, bigotry and extremism.

 

 

It's their money. It's not the government's money. Why do you feel entitled to decide what they can and can't keep? I am against the tax cuts for everyone because we have a debt problem. You are against it because you don't believe they "don't need them".

 

 

You guarantee that people would be able to get jobs? Ok??

 

Of course businesses and corporations plan in advance. And I understand why they are sitting on trillions of dollars. If they were going to sit on money that most of these companies received, why give it to them? Why do some companies hand out huge bonuses yet lay off workers or not open hiring? Sorry but it seems to me that those millions of dollars being used to retain the "top talent" could have been and should have been used elsewhere.

 

I believe that the tax cuts should be extended for the middle-class but for a limited time. Anyone with half a brain should know and understand that taxes will have to be raised to help take care of the debt. Removing the tax breaks at a different times not all at once.

[Magox]

You guarantee that people would be able to get jobs? Ok??

 

Of course businesses and corporations plan in advance. And I understand why they are sitting on trillions of dollars. If they were going to sit on money that most of these companies received, why give it to them? Why do some companies hand out huge bonuses yet lay off workers or not open hiring? Sorry but it seems to me that those millions of dollars being used to retain the "top talent" could have been and should have been used elsewhere.

 

I believe that the tax cuts should be extended for the middle-class but for a limited time. Anyone with half a brain should know and understand that taxes will have to be raised to help take care of the debt. Removing the tax breaks at a different times not all at once.

Yes, I guarantee that more people will find jobs as a result of not extending the unemployment benefits. Yes

 

 

And you ask why are they sitting on that money? Because of uncertainty. And you say "why give it to them?" It's their money, no one is giving them ****.

 

Why do companies give huge bonuses and lay off workers and not open hiring? It's their business, they can do what they choose to do. They are responsible to their share holders, and for maximizing profits, they don't hire people just for the sake of hiring people. If you don't like it, well tough ****, that is capitalism. You can not logically criticize a company for maximizing profits knowing that you live in the U.S

 

And there you go again, you feel that the government is entitled to spend their hard earned money, because they can spend it more effectively.

 

That is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in wealth redistribution and feel that they can spend your money better than you can, and that you don't "deserve" to keep your own money. Where conservatives believe that they can spend their own money that they earned, better than the government.

 

History has shown us that economies that believe in wealth redistribution are economies that fail. Look at Southern EUrope right now.

[Chef Jim]

So why should they extend the tax breaks for those who don't need them?

 

Why should the extend unemployment benefits for those that don't need them?

[pBills]

Yes, I guarantee that more people will find jobs as a result of not extending the unemployment benefits. Yes

 

 

And you ask why are they sitting on that money? Because of uncertainty. And you say "why give it to them?" It's their money, no one is giving them ****.

 

Why do companies give huge bonuses and lay off workers and not open hiring? It's their business, they can do what they choose to do. They are responsible to their share holders, and for maximizing profits, they don't hire people just for the sake of hiring people. If you don't like it, well tough ****, that is capitalism. You can not logically criticize a company for maximizing profits knowing that you live in the U.S

 

And there you go again, you feel that the government is entitled to spend their hard earned money, because they can spend it more effectively.

 

That is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in wealth redistribution and feel that they can spend your money better than you can, and that you don't "deserve" to keep your own money. Where conservatives believe that they can spend their own money that they earned, better than the government.

 

History has shown us that economies that believe in wealth redistribution are economies that fail. Look at Southern EUrope right now.

 

 

Sure. You'll have people taking on jobs that may pay them less than what they received via unemployment. On the other hand, removing unemployment benefits doesn't mean that companies will be hiring either.

 

Many of those businesses who gave bonuses received bailout money. Should they be wasting the money they received on bonuses? Handing out those ridiculous bonuses does not guarantee that the companies profits will go up. So I can criticize at least the bonus aspect of this.

 

Did I ever say the government can spend effectively? Umm no. Hell, I hate the way the government does business. I also do not believe in the distribution of wealth. I believe in not giving tax cuts for those who do not need them. Pretty simple. Walking down the street.. you have $40 to give away. Do you give money to the wealthy businessman or to the person needing legit help?

 

Why should the extend unemployment benefits for those that don't need them?

 

 

How do you know they don't need them?

[Chef Jim]

I wouldn't think extending them for another 2 or 3 years would be necessary. At least one more would be nice. Of course some people will become complacent and just want to use the system. I also know that I wouldn't want to lump everyone into that group. People do need help. Everyone loves incentives, why use losing even more than they already have as that incentive?

 

I also laugh at the NEED to extend cuts for the wealthiest. Oh yeah, they are the power players, the people who invest, etc. which may lead to job creation/growth. However, most of these people aren't investing or moving money these days. So then what, extend the tax breaks for them for nothing? Where is their incentive to invest? Remember... INCENTIVE INCENTIVE INCENTIVE.

 

 

 

 

Look at me, I'm a millionaire!! Keep giving me these tax breaks. I desperately need them because people think I am actually investing.

 

They're not? Where did you get this little tidbit? The incentive to invest is lower cap gains and taxes on dividends. It's interesting how when Bush dropped the tax rate on dividends that people all of a sudden started investing in dividend paying stocks. INCENTIVE, INCENTIVE, INCENTIVE.

 

Sure. You'll have people taking on jobs that may pay them less than what they received via unemployment. On the other hand, removing unemployment benefits doesn't mean that companies will be hiring either.

 

Many of those businesses who gave bonuses received bailout money. Should they be wasting the money they received on bonuses? Handing out those ridiculous bonuses does not guarantee that the companies profits will go up. So I can criticize at least the bonus aspect of this.

 

Did I ever say the government can spend effectively? Umm no. Hell, I hate the way the government does business. I also do not believe in the distribution of wealth. I believe in not giving tax cuts for those who do not need them. Pretty simple. Walking down the street.. you have $40 to give away. Do you give money to the wealthy businessman or to the person needing legit help?

 

 

 

 

How do you know they don't need them?

 

I interview people every week. I've offered people jobs that refused it because they were on unemployment and could make more doing nothing than working. And these were people wearing suits and ties. Lots of short sighted people out there.

[Magox]

Sure. You'll have people taking on jobs that may pay them less than what they received via unemployment. On the other hand, removing unemployment benefits doesn't mean that companies will be hiring either.

 

Many of those businesses who gave bonuses received bailout money. Should they be wasting the money they received on bonuses? Handing out those ridiculous bonuses does not guarantee that the companies profits will go up. So I can criticize at least the bonus aspect of this.

 

Did I ever say the government can spend effectively? Umm no. Hell, I hate the way the government does business. I also do not believe in the distribution of wealth. I believe in not giving tax cuts for those who do not need them. Pretty simple. Walking down the street.. you have $40 to give away. Do you give money to the wealthy businessman or to the person needing legit help?

 

 

 

 

How do you know they don't need them?

 

Two different things. First off, I was against the bank bailouts, hell for that matter I was against them all. This is what we call a moral hazard. You bailout a private company with taxpayer money, then they are expected to do what the government tells them because they were bailed out by the government. That isn't capitalism, a private company should be able to spend their money the way any other company spends their money. BUT, now taxpayer money is involved, so that changes the entire dynamic. Now you have government obliged to tell a private company how they should spend their money (which isn't capitalism) because if they don't then there will be public outrage, and rightfully so. There is an indirect price that the government pays when it bails out company and that is public trust. PUblic trust for the government recedes when they see our taxpayer money bailing out certain companies. This mistrust makes it more difficult for government to initiate any other plans simply because of mistrust. ANd that at the end of the day has a tangible effect on governments efficiency.

 

This is why we have bankruptcy courts. We have the best in the world, companies are able to restructure under bankruptcy.

 

And you just said you don't believe in wealth redistribution yet you say

Walking down the street.. you have $40 to give away. Do you give money to the wealthy businessman or to the person needing legit help?

Let's take this into context, we are talking about the Bush Tax cuts. WHich means it is their own money to start with. You are implying that the government is "giving" this $40 to the wealthy businessman. It's the "wealthy" man's money to begin with. The government isn't giving them anything. Do you understand how taxes work? Taxes are when government TAKES money from an individual and spends it on other initiatives. That is how taxes work. Then you say that they should give this to the "person needing legit help". WHere did that money come from? The wealthy man maybe?

 

That is wealth redistribution

Edited November 19, 2010 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

So why should they extend the tax breaks for those who don't need them?

I'm sorry, I missed the part where "they" were able to decide specifically what anyone does or does not need when it comes to their earned income. Are you suggesting, as our president did, that at some point you should just have enough money? Are "they" going to tell us what enough is?

 

I guess it's that whole "drop in the bucket" theory you progressives tend to adhere to in your little world of justifying distributive wealth.

 

"It's a drop in the bucket to them. They don't need it. Other people do. Since they won't part with it, we'll take it from them."

 

Gotta say, so far, that plan doesn't seem to be gaining a lot of traction these past two years.

[pBills]

They're not? Where did you get this little tidbit? The incentive to invest is lower cap gains and taxes on dividends. It's interesting how when Bush dropped the tax rate on dividends that people all of a sudden started investing in dividend paying stocks. INCENTIVE, INCENTIVE, INCENTIVE.

 

 

 

I interview people every week. I've offered people jobs that refused it because they were on unemployment and could make more doing nothing than working. And these were people wearing suits and ties. Lots of short sighted people out there.

 

 

Most are sitting on their money, not investing because they are rightfully so... worried about the economy. Since they are not falling for the incentives, why continue them?

 

Just because you interview people does not mean that everyone falls into that line of thinking. That being said I have heard of people doing that because they do make more from unemployment. If you were in their shoes you would do the same thing. Earn a little amount from unemployment and continue to look for a better paying job or take on that offers considerably less and risk losing more for you or your family.

 

I'm sorry, I missed the part where "they" were able to decide specifically what anyone does or does not need when it comes to their earned income. Are you suggesting, as our president did, that at some point you should just have enough money? Are "they" going to tell us what enough is?

 

I guess it's that whole "drop in the bucket" theory you progressives tend to adhere to in your little world of justifying distributive wealth.

 

"It's a drop in the bucket to them. They don't need it. Other people do. Since they won't part with it, we'll take it from them."

 

Gotta say, so far, that plan doesn't seem to be gaining a lot of traction these past two years.

 

 

Why should they extend these tax cuts for those people? You haven't answered that question? And as I said, I believe that taxes that should be raised for everyone. I think that move should be staggered, not done across the board all at once.

 

Two different things. First off, I was against the bank bailouts, hell for that matter I was against them all. This is what we call a moral hazard. You bailout a private company with taxpayer money, then they are expected to do what the government tells them because they were bailed out by the government. That isn't capitalism, a private company should be able to spend their money the way any other company spends their money. BUT, now taxpayer money is involved, so that changes the entire dynamic. Now you have government obliged to tell a private company how they should spend their money (which isn't capitalism) because if they don't then there will be public outrage, and rightfully so. There is an indirect price that the government pays when it bails out company and that is public trust. PUblic trust for the government recedes when they see our taxpayer money bailing out certain companies. This mistrust makes it more difficult for government to initiate any other plans simply because of mistrust. ANd that at the end of the day has a tangible effect on governments efficiency.

 

This is why we have bankruptcy courts. We have the best in the world, companies are able to restructure under bankruptcy.

 

And you just said you don't believe in wealth redistribution yet you say Let's take this into context, we are talking about the Bush Tax cuts. WHich means it is their own money to start with. You are implying that the government is "giving" this $40 to the wealthy businessman. It's the "wealthy" man's money to begin with. The government isn't giving them anything. Do you understand how taxes work? Taxes are when government TAKES money from an individual and spends it on other initiatives. That is how taxes work. Then you say that they should give this to the "person needing legit help". WHere did that money come from? The wealthy man maybe?

 

That is wealth redistribution

 

Would you give that wealth person the break or the person truly needing it? Personally, I would give to the person that truly needed it. And if I was in position to offer them a job or something more through incentives... great. Wouldn't you give the person needing a bit more help a little longer before you remove their tax breaks? Probably not.