MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 43.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Waz up with Woodward?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby snoqueen » Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:12 pm

No, you are confusing tax receipts with tax rates. Tax receipts are at a all time low because of high unemployment, over regulation on business, and business fear of Obamacare.


So you think tax rates should be lower, at a time when you say tax receipts are at an all time low?

You are starting to not make sense.

No, you didn't make sense to begin with.

And you haven't dealt with the question what you think should be cut. I did.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:50 pm

snoqueen wrote:And you haven't dealt with the question what you think should be cut. I did.


How about unspend funds? Duplicate programs? Unspent funds from 2012 alone would make up the difference. We only need to find $44 Billlion for fiscal 2013.

WASHINGTON - Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has come up with a way he says could help ease the pain of a sequester.

The Senator said, during a time of budget cuts, it's irresponsible to pay two or more people to do the same job, while laying off essential employees.

Senator Coburn's answer to sequestration is to consolidate duplicate programs and overlapping jobs.

He said there are more than 1,300 duplicate programs within the federal government, accounting for at least $364.5 billion in federal spending every year.

For instance, he said there are 103 similar science & technology programs inside the Pentagon alone.

"Consolidating those would save $1.7 billion over the next 10 years," Coburn said.


That is just a quick start and doable.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:57 pm

How does not spending money that has been funded contribute to the national debt?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19856
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:14 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:How does not spending money that has been funded contribute to the national debt?


The point is while it has been funded, and part of the debt now, it has not been spent. Reclaiming it doesn't remove it from current overall debt. But it can be used to offset the sequester shortfall. That makes sense. You are making up the difference with already borrowed funds, instead of more borrowing.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby DCB » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:32 pm

Sandi wrote:
snoqueen wrote:Income taxes are near a historic low, and Sandi thinks they're too high.


No, you are confusing tax receipts with tax rates.

I won't speak for Sno, but I'm not confusing anything: see my post above; tax rates are at all time low for the 1979-2009 period.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2645
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Donald » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:41 pm

Sandi is not living in the real world. Cutting duplicate programs sounds easy. It's not. There is a reason we have duplicate programs---it keeps all sections of the country less inclined to cut programs. Even when the Pentagon wants to get rid of duplicate or unneeded defense systems, Congress won't allow it.

There are duplicate bases in the US piloting the drone strikes in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Assuming we even want a drone program, it would be much less costly and more efficient to have the drone program located in one spot. Doing that, though, would mean the drone program might lose support. Spreading this stuff around the country allows the Department of Defense to have a built-in lobby.

The problem is most of the duplicate programs in the Department of Defense are there because Congresspersons (the majority from Republican districts) wanted those programs and guard them with their lives because they represent jobs and "economic development." I lived near a US. Air Force Base when BRAC was closing bases. The Republican dominated Legislature and the Republican Governor, the Chambers of Commerce and the nearby cities and towns hired Washington-based lobbyists to prevent it.

Coburn can talk all the pie in the sky nonsense about cutting duplicate programs in defense, and people on this thread can regurgitate it. It ain't going nowhere because the Republican Party ain't gonna do it.
Donald
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:53 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:51 pm

DCB wrote:I won't speak for Sno, but I'm not confusing anything: see my post above; tax rates are at all time low for the 1979-2009 period.


Well yes, if yearly income drops enough for some, so does tax rate if they fall into a lower bracket. Taxing more in a poor recovery will only exacerbate tax receipts. But that speaks through 2009: this is 2013, and we know taxes have since been increased.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby pjbogart » Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:10 pm

How is it that laying off hundreds of thousands of people would improve our economy? When people get laid off they collect unemployment, right? Maybe get some aid from the Ag department, some Medicaid. They aren't paying taxes anymore because they have no income and they're spending less money at local businesses too, I assume.

How is it that in some circles "improving the economy" simply means "cutting federal spending"? There's certainly long-term benefit to reducing our deficit, but if unemployment is already too high, how would cutting "duplicate" programs give us any immediate relief as taxpayers?

If we're so desperate to simply cut the deficit without regard to how that impacts the overall economy or the individuals in it, why don't we simply quit paying social security to everyone whose first name begins with the letter "S"? That would save a lot of money. I mean, it sucks if your name starts with an "S" but dammit, the government just spends too much and some people are going to have to sacrifice.

Alternatively, the government could come into areas hard hit by manufacturing jobs losses and hire a few hundred unemployed workers to work on roads, bridges, schools, maybe do some subsidized energy saving improvements to older homes. All those extra paychecks would certainly help out local businesses and maybe they'd hire some more of those unemployed people, who would then also be paying taxes and spending money in the community, which would in turn create more jobs, etc, etc. You get the picture.

Spending cuts do not equal economic improvement. In fact, they quite likely will have the opposite effect.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6147
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Leroy Gates » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:01 pm

How exactly do unemployed people fix bridges and roads? Do they show up with wheelbarrows and shovels? Won't this take jobs away from companies that have skilled workers, a huge investment in equipment and who bid on government contracts? Instead of reputable companies like Kraemer from Plain, Wisconsin building bridges you prefer some guy with a truck finding a crew at the Home Depot parking lot?

You say spending cuts hurt the economy. When the government takes more of my money I spend less, this is a spending cut that also hurts the economy. Since most of us spend our own money more effectively than the government spends our money the money I don't get to spend hurts the economy more than the money the government doesn't get to spend.
Last edited by Leroy Gates on Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leroy Gates
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Bland » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:23 pm

Leroy Gates wrote:Since most of us spend our own money more effectively than the government spends our money the money I don't get to spend hurts the economy more than the money the government doesn't get to spend.
You must be joking.
You spend your money more "effectively?"
Really?
You personally spend your money building roads and bridges?
You personally spend your money to make Medicare payments?
You personally spend your money paying soldiers their wages and providing them with educations and health care?
You personally spend your money employing tens of thousands of people?

You, sir, are amazing.

Of course there is bureaucratic waste in government. Defunding them will improve that how, exactly?
Bland
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby snoqueen » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:28 pm

Sandi:

The tax cuts proposed by the president would not be a rate increase, but rather a limit on tax deductions to 28 percent of income for high earners. Obama has advocated this change since 2009.


That's from DCB's link, which apparently you didn't read. If you want to discuss tax rates, discuss them with an eye to reality.

And please note the graph I posted was titled "tax RATES" not tax receipts.

Leroy:

Infrastructure spending! I'm so glad you mentioned it -- one of the best ways we have to lower unemployment. Infrastructure contracts go to companies like your example Kramer, they call in their workers who are presently laid off (and collecting unemployment, which is how the unemployment rate is figured by the government in the first place) and voila: the unemployment rate goes down. The Kramer workers are making more money, they go to Home Depot for new livingroom carpeting or deck lumber, and voila again: other regional and lower-skilled hiring increases. See? That's the effect of putting average people back to work, and it's got one of the best multiplier factors of any government spending. Plus we get, say, safer bridges on the interstate because we're actually maintaining them.

I like it when the government takes my money and uses it that well, personally. I can't possibly hire Kramer to fix my driveway, but I'm happy to help them fix the bridges over the Mississippi so we all can escape to Minnesota.

(Thanks to Bland for making the same point one minute before me. Leroy set himself up so nicely.)
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Leroy Gates » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:52 pm

Of course there is bureaucratic waste in government. Defunding them will improve that how, exactly?
Bland

Less for them to waste.

Yes, Bland the government is better at raising an army than I am, they already slice off more than enough taxes to do what the government does best and they need to butt out of the rest, Obamacare for example.

SnoQueen, I was responding to this liberal trope "Alternatively, the government could come into areas hard hit by manufacturing jobs losses and hire a few hundred unemployed workers to work on roads, bridges, schools.." Which isn't how bridges get built.
Leroy Gates
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Sandi » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:53 pm

How is it that laying off hundreds of thousands of people would improve our economy?


When ( not happening ) hundreds of thousands are layed off, maybe then we can discuss it.
Sandi
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby Stebben84 » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:59 pm

Leroy Gates wrote:Obamacare for example.


How much did your taxes increase this year because of the Afordable Care Act. Mine didn't go up.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4836
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Waz up with Woodward?

Postby snoqueen » Sat Mar 02, 2013 9:11 pm

Sandi wrote:
How is it that laying off hundreds of thousands of people would improve our economy?


When ( not happening ) hundreds of thousands are layed off, maybe then we can discuss it.


You think the government is going to meet the terms of this sequester by purchasing less toilet paper? Come on.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11490
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar