Presidential Commiions Debt Reduction Proposal

[CitadelGrad]

Oh, and I almost forgot. Limit the presidency and congress to one term so they can have the guts to make these type of decisions without the fear of pissing off voters

And what of the consequences of limiting presidents and especially members of Congress to one term? I don't suppose the number and quality of people seeking office would be affected, right?

[Appaholic]

Oh, and I almost forgot. Limit the presidency and congress to one term so they can have the guts to make these type of decisions without the fear of pissing off voters

And what of the consequences of limiting presidents and especially members of Congress to one term? I don't suppose the number and quality of people seeking office would be affected, right?

Agree. I think it's incumbent upon the voters to make a decision about which is more important to them - campaigning or legislating? The voters get the government they deserve by not researching their candidates further than a bumper sticker. Leave to a dem like Kalm to try to legislate personal responsibility yet again... (j/k kalm)

[CitadelGrad]

This stuff has been proposed before and within the past few years. Entrenched interests in Congress will never let any significant part of it come to reality.

Here's a WSJ editorial written by Greg Mankiw in 2006, talking in part, about several of these proposals.

http://i.imgur.com/EA4fk.png

[kalm]

Oh, and I almost forgot. Limit the presidency and congress to one term so they can have the guts to make these type of decisions without the fear of pissing off voters

And what of the consequences of limiting presidents and especially members of Congress to one term? I don't suppose the number and quality of people seeking office would be affected, right?

The one thing I do admire GWB for is political courage. He governed like he wasn't concerned with getting re-elected. Of course he might not have if it wasn't for 9\11 and Kerry.

[OL FU]

GF said the personal loss to the housing incentive would be made up elsewhere, so the net effect is zero. I'm asking why it is necessary to eliminate this tax break if you're just going to give in somewhere else.

Agree. That's why I support simplifying the code to remove the plethora of taxes that make it necessary to give a plethroa of tax breaks instead of just playing a shell game with the existing tax code which is used to incentivize behavior.

that is exactly the reason to do it. If there is an industry that needs to be put out of business it is the tax preparation business for 99% of Americans. It is quite simply ridiculous that it is so difficult for so many people to file their taxes.

[Ibanez]

Nothing in the report can't be done. I'm alright with getting rid of the home interest deduction assuming taxes in other areas come down to compensate. There's no doubt that a simpler tax code would be highly effective. And the Social Security stuff isn't shocking either - most people are working later anyway so it wouldn't be as big of a burden as it's been made out to be. Gotta start doing something along these lines.

The problem is that we have politicians not statesmen/women. Hard choices and tough decisions need to be made. Sacrifices have to be made but nobody wants to pull the trigger. It's a f'n shame. This is a case where drastic measures need to be taken to ensure our stability and survival. We don't want to be one of those powerful countires that ends up being a 3rd world country.

[Ibanez]

Oh, and I almost forgot. Limit the presidency and congress to one term so they can have the guts to make these type of decisions without the fear of pissing off voters

I think limits should be set but it takes a new president a few years to get his agenda and policies in place, let alone implemented. 8 years is hardly enough time for a President to be extremely, positively effective considering all the crap that is passed on from previous administrations.

[Ivytalk]

How about we start by not wasting money on stupid commissions who only recommend?

Cut spending, raise the top marginal tax rate, close corporate loopholes, protect domestic manufacturing like every other country does, and place heavy tariffs on companies that leave or outsource but still want our markets.

Sounds like it came out of Andy Stern's mouth. Except the cut-spending part.

Ban public employees anywhere from unionizing. That'll save a couple trillion.

[AZGrizFan]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the right, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, whose opinions carry great weight among Republicans, blasted the plan for its $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade. But Bowles and Simpson say eliminating costly tax deductions could bring income tax rates way down.

For every $1 of new revenue, the plan demands $3 in spending cuts. That was acceptable to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a panel member. "If we do the cuts, I'll go for it," he said. "We may have to go for some revenues at some point."

I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

[Appaholic]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html

From the right, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, whose opinions carry great weight among Republicans, blasted the plan for its $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade. But Bowles and Simpson say eliminating costly tax deductions could bring income tax rates way down.

For every $1 of new revenue, the plan demands $3 in spending cuts. That was acceptable to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a panel member. "If we do the cuts, I'll go for it," he said. "We may have to go for some revenues at some point."

I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

+1

[danefan]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html

From the right, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, whose opinions carry great weight among Republicans, blasted the plan for its $1 trillion in tax increases over the coming decade. But Bowles and Simpson say eliminating costly tax deductions could bring income tax rates way down.

For every $1 of new revenue, the plan demands $3 in spending cuts. That was acceptable to Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a panel member. "If we do the cuts, I'll go for it," he said. "We may have to go for some revenues at some point."

I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

[Appaholic]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html



I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

yes
hell yes
hell fokking YES!

[Cap'n Cat]

Fvck it, fvck it, FVCK IT!! It simply time for armed insurrection!!!!!!

[AZGrizFan]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html



I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

Absolutely.

[Col Hogan]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html



I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

As Appa and AZ said....

YES

[AZGrizFan]

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

As Appa and AZ said....

YES

ESPECIALLY if it's $3 in cuts for every $1 in additional revenue collected.

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm on board. If military spending's on the table I'm game for cutting medicare/madicaid and social security.

[CitadelGrad]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html



I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

Is there really another option at this point? No.

[danefan]

I'm on board. If military spending's on the table I'm game for cutting medicare/madicaid and social security.

I agree.

Honestly - what is stopping our elected officials from doing this? Or at least having a sane debate about it?

[YoUDeeMan]

And what of the consequences of limiting presidents and especially members of Congress to one term? I don't suppose the number and quality of people seeking office would be affected, right?

Agree. I think it's incumbent upon the voters to make a decision about which is more important to them - campaigning or legislating? The voters get the government they deserve by not researching their candidates further than a bumper sticker. Leave to a dem like Kalm to try to legislate personal responsibility yet again... (j/k kalm)

Not quite that simple. The incumbant has way too many advantages in any race. Free spending (free meaning taxpayer funded) for name recognition via "official" business mailings, signs, etc. and the ability to bring in votes with some pork projects are just some of the ways to ensure that incumbants can enjoy a steady diet of government checks for a long time.

6-8 years should be the limit. Career politicians do no one any good.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm on board. If military spending's on the table I'm game for cutting medicare/madicaid and social security.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

[Ibanez]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... reaks.html



I agree with Coburn. I'm willing to pay more in taxes if I know its going to pay down the deficit and not just some other politician's wet dream.

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

Yes! Sacrifices must be made. A cut in defense will not necessarily equal a decrease in strength or quality of our defense capabilities.

[Ibanez]

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

Is there really another option at this point? No.

Yes, but you don't want to know what that option is.

I would go futher and suspend foreign aid. We don't have the money to spend. If we get can get our act together, as a country, we will be more able to responsibily assist other countries. Just my opinion....

Let's start by NOT giving Palestine $150 million.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/mid ... 47048.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Earlier, Clinton announced that the United States has transferred $150 million in new aid to the Palestinian Authority to help close its budget gap

That's awesome, we have record setting deficits but we're helping them with thier budget. Charity begins at home. It's time for us to be selfish and make the hard sacrfices.

[AZGrizFan]

Agreed - but the only spending cuts that will really make any material difference in the long run are in Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Are you willing to cut those?

Yes! Sacrifices must be made. A cut in defense will not necessarily equal a decrease in strength or quality of our defense capabilities.

Yes, it most likely will, but that's ok.

[Ibanez]

Yes! Sacrifices must be made. A cut in defense will not necessarily equal a decrease in strength or quality of our defense capabilities.

Yes, it most likely will, but that's ok.

There are programs that can be cut and should be cut.