national sales tax? VAT

[cebeu]

This s*** Administration just gets more comical every day. It's as if these [well-educated, at least on-paper] wad-gobblers have never even been exposed to the concept of economics. I'm so f****** sick of the trash in leadership positions in this country I just can't stand it.

"Hope and change, eh?"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_man_pitching_national_sales_TyKWnlkz2W09rQuHKP Jx4J

SOURCE: NY Post

Volcker quote; "If, at the end of the day, we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes."

The tax has long had backing from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (http://www.nypost.com/t/Nancy_Pelosi) (D-Calif.), who last year said it is "on the table..."

[Irving]

It'd be okay if
1) They didn't place BOTH the VAT AND the sales tax
2) The government wasn't already so large.
3) Dupe post


But really, the government is too large. The answer isn't raising taxes it is government lay-offs. We aren't really in a position for that though.

[Hoosier]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!

[al_g]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!With two exceptions I agree that not only do we need a balanced budget but a reasonable budget to pay down the deficit.

My two exceptions are in cases of formally declared war and during recessions. Most economist agree that deficit spending by the government has a very positive effect.

[SNAFU]

My favorite part of History

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/C006257/revolution/pre_revolution.shtml

[Elhuero]

for real change to come to the government American people will have to, by the thousands and tens of thousands, truly understand the second amendment and put it into practice.

it ain't about hunting and target shooting.

[BPTactical]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!


Have you noticed with this Admenstruation that they are obsessed with how they can raise more money?

Somebody needs to consider spending less.............


Just a thought[Whacko]

[Hoosier]

Have you noticed with this Admenstruation that they are obsessed with how they can raise more money?

They should be obsessed with raising more money. The last administration should have been. I can't find the number ATM, but it's something like 13% of our budget goes to service the debt. And the situation is getting worse. The last administration to actually lower the deficit was Clinton, due mostly to the first internet bubble.

The only way to do it is to reduce expenditures and/or increase revenue.

We have some even larger "bombs" in the system, like the fact that surplus income from social security that should have been invested or at least kept, was spent. So at some point in the not too distant future, there will be more people wanting their social security benefits than there are people paying in to cover it.

H.

[ARLover]

The last administration to actually lower the deficit was Clinton, due mostly to the first internet bubble.

H.

Also by reducing the size of our miltary.

I got this from a websight, I don't know who wrote it.

"In less than a three-year period under Clinton, America's military manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll by Clinton, some 286,000 (or 90 percent) were military cuts. Over the entire course of the Clinton years, the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. Moreover, the Administration enacted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually."

I will post the web sight in a minute.

[Marlin]

Also by reducing the size of our miltary.

And, CIA,, FBI,, et al...

[ARLover]

Yea National defense was not his priority. I think he had cigars on his mind, or non-sex with interns.

He is the website I got the info above from.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644

[ARLover]

Oops

[jason303]

Obviously the cuts Clinton chose to make were a poor choice but at least he stuck to pay as you go to the best of my knowledge. More than I can say for W and God knows WAY more than I can say for Barry. Now that we've been driven off the cliff, the ground racing toward us is our dwindling line of credit with the far easterners that Geithner is rattling his tin cup at as we type.

[Irving]

I know a lot of people were mad at Clinton for making military cuts, but from my hind sight perspective, it looks like it was pretty successful. I suppose if we needed those troops at the time, my perspective might be different. Plus I was just a kid (more of a kid than I am now any) so I wasn't exactly in tune with economics at that point in my life.

[ARLover]

Well I think that once Clinton had his power put in check he wasn't the worst president ever, but before that he tried this health care crap. To his credit when the people spoke he listened, and gave up on it. My biggest problem was that his posture on National defense invited more and more attacks on both our troops and civilians. In my opinion had he been stronger with his reactions to attacks on the Cole, the barracks attack and the first attempt on the trade centers, perhaps 9/11 would have not happened. But then again these people want to kill us off more than anything, so maybe it was inevitable. But either way, cutting our military and defense budgets is bad posture. Kinda like telling our enemies we won't nuke em if they use biological weopons on us, sounds kinda like an invitation.

[steincj]

In my opinion had he been stronger with his reactions to attacks on the Cole, the barracks attack and the first attempt on the trade centers, perhaps 9/11 would have not happened.

The Barracks attack was during Reagan. Clinton ignored the embassy attacks in Africa, along with the others you stated. He really didn't ignore the African embassy attacks, he respinded by lobbing a half dozen Tomohawk Cruise missiles into the Afgnai desert.

Point is, cutting the military is not the place to gain money on the ferderal budget. There are so many unimaginable government hand-outs run by obscure governament agencies . . . we are amazingly inefficient. Why foreign nations buy our Treasuries is beyond me . . .

[ARLover]

My bad, I was trying to remember which one was his but decided to guess. And I do remember him firing those missles, better than nothing I suppose. Thanks for correcting me.

And I agree on the rest of your point.

[clublights]

The Barracks attack was during Reagan.

unless you mean the Khobar Towers bombing which was in 96.

[Circuits]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

The problem there is the fallacy that raising taxes brings in more revenue, which is only true in small amounts, and for limited times. Raising taxes ramps down the economy, shrinking the tax pool, and resulting in short order in DECREASED tax revenues as the well starts to get low and run dry. Then, to keep up revenues, government raises taxes, which further ramps down the economy, and so forth.

The way to bring in more tax revenue is to grow the economy, so that the same tax rates (or lower rates, even) bring in more gross revenue, without ramping down the economy. In a recession, government should LOWER taxes to stimulate productivity, not raise taxes to further exacerbate the problem.

The longterm solution is not to have the government spending like sailors on a one day shore leave.

[jason303]

The longterm solution is not to have the government spending like sailors on a one day shore leave.


Cut spending, lower taxes. Works every time it's tried. If we ever get real convseratives leading the republican party that make it into power maybe it will turn around. That is, if we don't hit the ground before then.