Deficit Commission

[pBills]

So what does everyone think of the proposed plan? Thoughts about Social Security, cutting taxes for Corporations and Individuals, Spending and Job Cuts?

Edited December 1, 2010 by pBills

[Rob's House]

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/11/16/deficit_reduction

 

Thomas Sowell has an interesting take on Deficit Reduction Commissions.

[Magox]

So what does everyone think of the proposed plan? Thoughts about Social Security, cutting taxes for Corporations and Individuals, Spending and Job Cuts?

I'd go along with it. Too bad they won't agree on anything.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/11/16/deficit_reduction

 

Thomas Sowell has an interesting take on Deficit Reduction Commissions.

I don't believe Sowell truly understands the Laffer Curve.

[IDBillzFan]

Link to document here.

 

Have not read it all yet, but I'm encouraged by three things:

 

1) It's only 59 pages long.

 

2) If admitting you have a problem is the biggest step, this is a pretty decent and (at least to my eyes) particularly blunt step:

 

In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra Rule: Don’t shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place.

 

After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back. We sign our names to this plan because we love our children, our grandchildren, and our country too much not to act while we still have the chance to secure a better future for all our fellow citizens.

 

3) Apparently there is not a single person at the Huffington Post who likes the proposal, so I'm sure I'll probably enjoy a lot of it.

[Rob's House]

I don't believe Sowell truly understands the Laffer Curve.

I agree. I thought about posting this yesterday but didn't for that very reason. I did think his observations in the earlier part were worth reading though.

[pBills]

I would go along with a lot of it. However, I do not like lowering tax rates for corporations and high earning individuals. For the corporation side, companies who do not ship job overseas should be able to receive those lower tax rates. Others should receive no break what-so-ever.

 

How come no one is doing anything about extending unemployment benefits? That is a shame.

[Magox]

How come no one is doing anything about extending unemployment benefits? That is a shame.

Haven't we had this conversation?

[IDBillzFan]

How come no one is doing anything about extending unemployment benefits? That is a shame.

I suspect they would have no problem extending unemployment benefits if someone will just show where that money is going to come from. I believe the plan right now is to once again borrow the money, which flies in the face of everyone wanting to reduce the deficit.

[pBills]

Just think that it's a shame that so many people are just cut off. No help what-so-ever.

[Rob's House]

Just think that it's a shame that so many people are just cut off. No help what-so-ever.

If you can't find a job in a year then GFY. At that point you might need to be eliminated from the gene pool. Just sayin.

[Magox]

" No help what-so-ever." ???????

 

Try two years of unemployment benefits, which OBTW is the most help in regards to unemployment benefits we have ever seen.

 

I have a novel idea, why don't we take money from the Stimulus funds or cut it from somewhere else to pay for it? How about that?

 

I find it funny PB that in this deficit reduction thread you created, you are advocating for more borrowing on top of our $14 Trillion Debt for more extensions of jobless benefits.

 

Does anyone else find this to be absurdly hilarious?

[IDBillzFan]

Just think that it's a shame that so many people are just cut off. No help what-so-ever.

If I'm not mistaken, you can currently receive unemployment benefits for up to 46 weeks. FORTY SIX FREAKING WEEKS!

 

How is that "no help what-so-ever"?

[pBills]

" No help what-so-ever." ???????

 

Try two years of unemployment benefits, which OBTW is the most help in regards to unemployment benefits we have ever seen.

 

I have a novel idea, why don't we take money from the Stimulus funds or cut it from somewhere else to pay for it? How about that?

 

I find it funny PB that in this deficit reduction thread you created, you are advocating for more borrowing on top of our $14 Trillion Debt for more extensions of jobless benefits.

 

Does anyone else find this to be absurdly hilarious?

 

 

Deficit reduction thread that gives corporations and high earners more breaks? How does that make sense?

[Magox]

Deficit reduction thread that gives corporations and high earners more breaks? How does that make sense?

It's because you don't understand what these proposals mean. So let me educate you, we as a nation have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. It gives our economy a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting capital, so in order to become more competitive, you lower the corporate tax rate, which therefore increases the amount of capital that enters into our economy, which then leads to more growth, which leads to more jobs, which leads to more tax revenues.

 

In regards to lowering the tax code, funny how you mention only "high earners", it's that class warfare mentality that you have. The proposal is to lower taxes for EVERYONE, yet at the same time BROADEN the tax code, meaning that more stuff will be subject to taxation. In other words, they want to eliminate certain tax loop holes that these "high earners" that you refer to won't be able to take advantage. In actuality, by broadening the tax code, these "high earners" will pay more in taxes.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

Deficit reduction thread that gives corporations and high earners more breaks? How does that make sense?

I'm starting to think you're one of those guys who believes the unemployment rate remains high because corporations are hoarding their profits in a concerted effort to ruin the Obama presidency.

[pBills]

I'm starting to think you're one of those guys who believes the unemployment rate remains high because corporations are hoarding their profits in a concerted effort to ruin the Obama presidency.

 

 

No one is hoarding to screw over the President. They may be hoarding until they feel better about the market though.

 

Can you justify giving all of those tax breaks, especially if we're trying to reduce the deficit? I have stated for companies that keep jobs in the US give them the tax breaks, those who cut jobs here and ship them overseas... receive nothing. Their rate can go up to the scheduled 39.6%. Now, can you justify the high earners receiving such tax breaks?

Edited December 1, 2010 by pBills

[Gary M]

" No help what-so-ever." ???????

 

Try two years of unemployment benefits, which OBTW is the most help in regards to unemployment benefits we have ever seen.

 

I have a novel idea, why don't we take money from the Stimulus funds or cut it from somewhere else to pay for it? How about that?

 

I find it funny PB that in this deficit reduction thread you created, you are advocating for more borrowing on top of our $14 Trillion Debt for more extensions of jobless benefits.

 

Does anyone else find this to be absurdly hilarious?

 

Don't extend the benefits and see how fast these folks find jobs.

 

Why would you look for work if you can live on the un-employment check?

[pBills]

Don't extend the benefits and see how fast these folks find jobs.

 

Why would you look for work if you can live on the un-employment check?

 

 

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

[Rob's House]

No one is hoarding to screw over the President. They may be hoarding until they feel better about the market though.

 

Can you justify giving all of those tax breaks, especially if we're trying to reduce the deficit? I have stated for companies that keep jobs in the US give them the tax breaks, those who cut jobs here and ship them overseas... receive nothing. Their rate can go up to the scheduled 39.6%. Now, can you justify the high earners receiving such tax breaks?

It depends on your objective.

 

If you want to create jobs it absolutely makes sense to reduce the cost of doing business in America, because in a global economy, business will flow to lands of highest efficiency.

 

If you just want to cut an inch of your neighbors dick to make yours look bigger by comparison, then sure, jack the taxes up and let those "high earners" suffer to make you feel better about earning less. Sure a bunch of middle class jobs won't be created, but then you never had them to lose, so they won't look so bad on a report. I guess it's a win-win.

[erynthered]

I love this mentality. F the person who lost their job in possibly the worst economy since the Great Depression. They'll find something soon enough... they'll just have to fight it out with millions of other people looking for work. Merry F'ing Christmas.

 

 

Well, how much time on unemployment is enough then? When do you say that thats enough, ever? What do you think that would create if they had unending unemployment benifits?

 

Answer the questions, please.

Edited December 1, 2010 by erynthered