[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Nope,

Yup.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

The US has been cutting taxes for 30 years now, and all it's done it put them into deep debt. Even during the boom times, the debt increased as taxes decreased. It's madness to think that's they way out for them, and that they could make the kinds of cuts necessary to pay off the debt without raising taxes. They won't have a state left. Madness I tell you.

Whatever you do with taxes is irrelevant if you spend more than you take in.

That said, raising taxes is utterly moot as a solution to deficit spending if all that's going to happen with the extra revenue is that the pols just spend it and keep borrowing at the previous rate.

Control the spending first and then we'll talk about higher taxes. Until then, why should I expect the politicians to be more responsible with more money when they're irresponsible with what they have?

[Thanos]

Austerity measures in Britain haven't kisk-started their economy and they're now on the verge of entering into a stagflation nightmare scenario of a deepened recession combined with growing price inflation. Just more proof that austerity budgetting is an economic delusion that causes far more damage than it ever fixes.

[sandorski]

You can't run a Nation on Bumper Sticker philosophy and Strawmen.

No one has suggested "Borrowing to get out of Debt". Fail.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Austerity measures in Britain haven't kisk-started their economy and they're now on the verge of entering into a stagflation nightmare scenario of a deepened recession combined with growing price inflation. Just more proof that austerity budgetting is an economic delusion that causes far more damage than it ever fixes.

Out of cash is out of cash. Austerity budgets simply reflect the fact that governments are taking in less in revenue than before.

Add to this that the European and American attempt top borrow their way into prosperity has utterly failed and the only possible path is austerity. That or they monetize their national debts and start runaway inflation.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

You can't run a Nation on Bumper Sticker philosophy and Strawmen.

No one has suggested "Borrowing to get out of Debt". Fail.

WORSE, the US has been borrowing to pay interest on the debt and that's what's got the Treasury Secretary in a dither. With the debt ceiling actually being a ceiling for a change that means no more borrowing to pay interest and US bonds will drop in the market as investors start to wonder about the possibility of a default.

The conservatives want that whole train wreck to stop and they want it stopped now.

I agree.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

sandorski sandorski:

You can't run a Nation on Bumper Sticker philosophy and Strawmen.

No one has suggested "Borrowing to get out of Debt". Fail.

WORSE, the US has been borrowing to pay interest on the debt and that's what's got the Treasury Secretary in a dither. With the debt ceiling actually being a ceiling for a change that means no more borrowing to pay interest and US bonds will drop in the market as investors start to wonder about the possibility of a default.

The conservatives want that whole train wreck to stop and they want it stopped now.

I agree.

BS

[bootlegga]

The Republicans act like thy're some financial wunderkind when it come to finance, but the truth is that while they love to cut taxes (especially for the wealthiest part of society), they never seriously cut spending, they just keep it the same (or jack it up with huge increases for defence or something).

It sounds like a nice theory Bart, but I think Andy is correct - cut spending and increase taxes. I don't think he's saying jack them up 25% or 50% or something crazy like that, but a 1% or 2% in federal taxes (or in user fees or whatever) would do wonders for the current deficit and debt.

It's just like up here - every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars - is it any wonder that our deficit is so high. If it were still at 7%, the deficit would drop by about $24 billion - instead it is at $39 billion. Most people wouldn't notice a 1% all that much, yet it would cut our deficit by almost 33%.

[DanSC]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The Republicans act like thy're some financial wunderkind when it come to finance, but the truth is that while they love to cut taxes (especially for the wealthiest part of society), they never seriously cut spending, they just keep it the same (or jack it up with huge increases for defence or something).

It sounds like a nice theory Bart, but I think Andy is correct - cut spending and increase taxes. I don't think he's saying jack them up 25% or 50% or something crazy like that, but a 1% or 2% in federal taxes (or in user fees or whatever) would do wonders for the current deficit and debt.

It's just like up here - every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars - is it any wonder that our deficit is so high. If it were still at 7%, the deficit would drop by about $24 billion - instead it is at $39 billion. Most people wouldn't notice a 1% all that much, yet it would cut our deficit by almost 33%.

Indeed. The fastest way to get out of debt is to stop spending and start earning more. But taxes that aren't even regularly paid, like corporate taxes, shouldn't be increased. I think the U.S. corporate tax rate should be lowered to about Canada's level; then companies might actually pay their taxes to the U.S. and not the Cayman Islands or somewhere.

[Proculation]

They should stop robbing people and stop spending stolen money. That would be a start.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars

No offense, (and slightly off topic) but this comment of yours underlies the difference between statists and individualists.

You think that every 1% off the GST 'costs' the government $12 billion - as if the government is paying out that money.

They're not. They're just not collecting it.

Also, it's not their money. It's yours.

I see it as every 1% off the GST is money that Canadians will have in their pockets to buy groceries, to save, to spend on their kids, and etc.

You think that the people have to justify keeping their money and I say the government has to justify taking it.

**********************************************************************

To get back on topic now, (this is more or less a reply to Sandorski) when I said conservatives earlier I meant actual conservatives, not bootlicking, self-serving, neo-con, Wall Street-walking whores.

I do NOT equate Republicans or neo-cons with actual conservatives.

[Proculation]

very true Bart. It's like saying the police is "costing fraudsters money" because less money is frauded.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars

No offense, (and slightly off topic) but this comment of yours underlies the difference between statists and individualists.

You think that every 1% off the GST 'costs' the government $12 billion - as if the government is paying out that money.

They're not. They're just not collecting it.

Also, it's not their money. It's yours.

I see it as every 1% off the GST is money that Canadians will have in their pockets to buy groceries, to save, to spend on their kids, and etc.

You think that the people have to justify keeping their money and I say the government has to justify taking it.

**********************************************************************

To get back on topic now, (this is more or less a reply to Sandorski) when I said conservatives earlier I meant actual conservatives, not bootlicking, self-serving, neo-con, Wall Street-walking whores.

I do NOT equate Republicans or neo-cons with actual conservatives.

There are so few of those in Government that saying they're doing that is BS in itself. What's going on is a Political Game of Chicken. Not interested in Balanced Budgets, just interested in implementing a draconian agenda.

[Proculation]

sandorski sandorski:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars

No offense, (and slightly off topic) but this comment of yours underlies the difference between statists and individualists.

You think that every 1% off the GST 'costs' the government $12 billion - as if the government is paying out that money.

They're not. They're just not collecting it.

Also, it's not their money. It's yours.

I see it as every 1% off the GST is money that Canadians will have in their pockets to buy groceries, to save, to spend on their kids, and etc.

You think that the people have to justify keeping their money and I say the government has to justify taking it.

**********************************************************************

To get back on topic now, (this is more or less a reply to Sandorski) when I said conservatives earlier I meant actual conservatives, not bootlicking, self-serving, neo-con, Wall Street-walking whores.

I do NOT equate Republicans or neo-cons with actual conservatives.

There are so few of those in Government that saying they're doing that is BS in itself. What's going on is a Political Game of Chicken. Not interested in Balanced Budgets, just interested in implementing a draconian agenda.

It's rare but I totally agree with you sandorski ! I will put a mark on the calendar

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

every 1% off the GST costs the government about $12 billion dollars

No offense, (and slightly off topic) but this comment of yours underlies the difference between statists and individualists.

You think that every 1% off the GST 'costs' the government $12 billion - as if the government is paying out that money.

They're not. They're just not collecting it.

Also, it's not their money. It's yours.

I see it as every 1% off the GST is money that Canadians will have in their pockets to buy groceries, to save, to spend on their kids, and etc.

You think that the people have to justify keeping their money and I say the government has to justify taking it.

I know that they're collecting it, not paying it out.

My point was that by cutting taxes by a measly 2%, the federal government now foregos roughly $24 billion in revenues annually. I'm sure that if the US government increased income tax (or some other tax) by .5% it would go a long way towards wiping out the deficit. However, the former Republican run government (under Dubya with help from a Republican-dominated Congress and the Senate) cut taxes and essentially wiped out all of "evil" Bill Clinton's work to eliminate the deficit he had inherited from the Republican government before him. Don't take that as an endorsement of slick Willy or his financial policies, but under him, the deficit was at least somewhat under control.

Up here, the Conservative government is going to cut corporate taxes AGAIN - to the tune of $60 billion over the next ten years, while increasing spending on prisons and other pet projects. However, Harper has no real plans to cut expenditures (aside from eliminating minor spending habits like funding for political parties and the gun registry). All he's really doing is building a structural deficit and HOPING that another boom will come along create enough taxes to eliminate the deficit he's created.

Guess what, it ain't gonna happen, and unless we get a finance minister with balls to really cut spending (like they did in the 90s), come next election, the deficit will still be around.

FYI, you may believe in cutting spending, the problem is that way too many of your peers (the boomers) don't, and while they don't want to pay taxes, they also want services that are extremely expensive.

Honestly, it's not really their fault, it's human nature to want your cake and eat it too.