28 Jan 15
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/27/cbo-director-predicts-unsustainable-debt-heightening-the-risk-of-fiscal-crisis/
By 2025, in our baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79% of GDP. When CBO last issued long-term budget projections in the summer, we projected that, under current law, debt would exceed 100 percent of GDP 25 years from now, and would continue on an upward trajectory thereafter. That trend that could not be sustained.
I guess the government's credit card does have a limit.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by EladarNonsense, the CBO is a well known Tea Party puppet.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/27/cbo-director-predicts-unsustainable-debt-heightening-the-risk-of-fiscal-crisis/
[b]By 2025, in our baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79% of GDP. When CBO last issued long-term budget projections in the summer, we projected that, under current law, debt would exceed 100 percent of GDP 25 years from ...[text shortened]... nd that could not be sustained.
I guess the government's credit card does have a limit.[/b]
Where did you hear this, Fox News? 🙄
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by EladarCut the military budget in half and tax dividends, capital gains and inheritances like other income.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/27/cbo-director-predicts-unsustainable-debt-heightening-the-risk-of-fiscal-crisis/
[b]By 2025, in our baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79% of GDP. When CBO last issued long-term budget projections in the summer, we projected that, under current law, debt would exceed 100 percent of GDP 25 years from ...[text shortened]... nd that could not be sustained.
I guess the government's credit card does have a limit.[/b]
Goodbye budget deficit + we'd have money left over to improve our infrastructure and thus improve our long run balance sheet.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1marauderI've got one better, take half of what the 1% make, create a lavish welfare system, round up all the Jewish bankers and take their gold and send them to concentration camps.......wait, this has been done already?
Cut the military budget in half and tax dividends, capital gains and inheritances like other income.
Goodbye budget deficit + we'd have money left over to improve our infrastructure and thus improve our long run balance sheet.
Curses!! ðŸ˜
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by whodeyad hitlerum. slippery slope fallacy.
I've got one better, take half of what the 1% make, create a lavish welfare system, round up all the Jewish bankers and take their gold and send them to concentration camps.......wait, this has been done already?
Curses!! ðŸ˜
awesome debater.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by no1marauderDo it!
Cut the military budget in half and tax dividends, capital gains and inheritances like other income.
Goodbye budget deficit + we'd have money left over to improve our infrastructure and thus improve our long run balance sheet.
Though maybe cut the military by 20% at first instead of 50% to stay on the safe side.
But I have to ask: Is that assertion based on numbers crunching or a general guesstimate/surmise?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sh76It's not far off. The military budget is about $600 billion, while the deficit in 2014 (which is projected to fall in 2015) was roughly $500 billion.
Do it!
Though maybe cut the military by 20% at first instead of 50% to stay on the safe side.
But I have to ask: Is that assertion based on numbers crunching or a general guesstimate/surmise?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sh76The catch is that there is a considerable industry supplying the military and cutting the military budget harms the defence industry. This isn't a reason not to do it, but does mean that you have to do some careful planning to work out how you're going to replace the jobs lost.
Do it!
Though maybe cut the military by 20% at first instead of 50% to stay on the safe side.
But I have to ask: Is that assertion based on numbers crunching or a general guesstimate/surmise?
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes, that's always the catch to cutting back government programs.
The catch is that there is a considerable industry supplying the military and cutting the military budget harms the defence industry. This isn't a reason not to do it, but does mean that you have to do some careful planning to work out how you're going to replace the jobs lost.
I'm guessing No1 will tell you that we'll employ more people in the new infrastructure projects than people who will lose jobs based on cuts in defense spending. While such an argument (if made) sounds right, I don't have any way or really knowing one way or the other.
28 Jan 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedBecause religious organizations are non-profits and other non-profits also get tax exempt status. If you cut religious organizations as tax exempt orgs, they'll just reorganize as non-profit social clubs or charities or educational institutions, which also get tax exempt status.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sh76Back of the envelope number crunching:
Do it!
Though maybe cut the military by 20% at first instead of 50% to stay on the safe side.
But I have to ask: Is that assertion based on numbers crunching or a general guesstimate/surmise?
Military budget 2015: $756.4 billion - $65.3 billion for the VA = $691.1 billion/2 = $345.5 billion http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
Cost of capital gains preference: $120 billion per year
http://crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-preferential-rates-capital-gains
Harder to get figures for the other two, but when Obama proposed that dividend income for the two 2% be taxed at ordinary levels, it was supposed to raise $20 billion a year. They have a disproportionate share of dividend income, so lets conservatively double that assuming all dividend income was taxed as ordinary income.
So: $345b + $120b + 40b = $505 billion per year
Federal deficit 2014: $483 billion http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2014/10/16/stop-and-smell-the-roses-final-2014-federal-deficit-fell-big-time/
That's without even considering taxing inheritances as ordinary income.
28 Jan 15
Originally posted by sh76Righto.
Yes, that's always the catch to cutting back government programs.
I'm guessing No1 will tell you that we'll employ more people in the new infrastructure projects than people who will lose jobs based on cuts in defense spending. While such an argument (if made) sounds right, I don't have any way or really knowing one way or the other.
http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/military-spending-poor-job-creator