Worthy of Consideration

[GearHead_1]

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

 

[black bart]

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

It looks to me like our government thinks it can spend it's way to prosperity.

I have seen some individuals try that but it did not work out well for them.

 

[Bunky]

Do you guys think the House will propose a balanced budget next year or we just see tax cuts with not as much spending cuts?

 

[GearHead_1]

Man I would like to see them work towards a balanced budget. I don't think it's happening within the next two years.

 

[Mr. Clean]

I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

-Winston Churchill

I agree, but from my perspective we are hardly trying to tax our way to the positive side of the ledger, more like trying to generate revenue to pay for our past (and current) spending indiscretions. Can't the government go out and pick up a part-time job? :rofl

Man I would like to see them work towards a balanced budget. I don't think it's happening within the next two years.

Wouldn't we though! Seems we had one for a minute there. I can't imagine how we can even hope for a balanced budget in just 2 years when ***Disclaimer - I'm not certain of these numbers*** @ 5% of the budget (doesn't sound like a significant amount when you look at it this way - but the upcoming number should cause a double take) or @ $250+ BILLION goes to debt retirement. I read somewhere that by 2020 this number could rise to 15% and @ $800+ BILLION and become the 4 largest budget item.

There is supposed to be an online app which allows you to play budget master and try your hand at balancing the budget. It is supposedly much harder than we think.

 

[GearHead_1]

Wouldn't we though! Seems we had one for a minute there. I can't imagine how we can even hope for a balanced budget in just 2 years...

I simply meant I didn't see this becoming top of the page or part of our agenda during the next two, possibly six years. It will obviously take much longer than a couple of years to get there.

 

[Mr. Clean]

I simply meant I didn't see this becoming top of the page or part of our agenda during the next two, possibly six years. It will obviously take much longer than a couple of years to get there.

Sadly, I agree. In spite of all the media sound-bite campaign rhetoric, there doesn't appear to be any current or forthcoming fiscal conservatives making their way to Washington (or Austin for that matter). All this talk about conservatives and liberals, they all seem to be pretty liberal when it comes to spending our money. I need to think of something more fun on a Saturday morning.

 

[Mr. Gloss]

If they just focus on cutting wasteful spending and actually do it, that would solve a large part of the budget deficit.

The difficult part is trying to convince a politician, "what is wasteful spending?"

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

It will obviously take much longer than a couple of years to get there.

EXACTLY. That's the problem so many people seem to be having in this country (and it's the same problem they've had ever since Obama took office in '08). People expect immediate answers and think they should be able to get instant gratification from any changes that are made.

The plain and simple fact is that government does not work that way. Never has, never will. It may suck having to live with the fact that there are problems, but impatience will only serve to make the problems worse. Give solutions enough time to take effect before demanding new/different changes.

 

[GearHead_1]

EXACTLY. That's the problem so many people seem to be having in this country (and it's the same problem they've had ever since Obama took office in '08). People expect immediate answers and think they should be able to get instant gratification from any changes that are made.

The plain and simple fact is that government does not work that way. Never has, never will. It may suck having to live with the fact that there are problems, but impatience will only serve to make the problems worse. Give solutions enough time to take effect before demanding new/different changes.

I don't know that I'm in 100% agreement with this statement. I do think that people expect change. I believe most people to be reasonable and know that it won't happen with the flick of a switch.

When you come to realize that you are driving in a direction that takes you farther from the place you wish to go you have to flip a U-Turn at some point. That said, I know of no one that has ever been able to spend their way out of debt. The government's seemingly endless increasing payroll would be an example of this. In order to accommodate growth of this nature you have one of two choices, increase taxes/tax base or cut spending. We have not been accomplishing the latter. One thing is for sure, with the stroke of a pen, we can significantly increase our debt.

Yeah, it's true, I'm pretty dang conservative.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

I don't know that I'm in 100% agreement with this statement. I do think that people expect change. Most people are reasonable and know that it won't happen with the flick of a switch. That said, I know of no one that has ever been able to spend their way out of debt. Yeah, it's true, I'm pretty dang conservative.

Oh I don't disagree... I mean on one hand I fully believe that you have to spend money to make money (so long as your spending isn't disproportionate to your income, obviously), but there's also a lot to be said about being frugal.

Where I was coming from was that being fairly young (two days away from 25) and still in college, I hear a lot of people in their late teens and early twenties spouting about how "Obama promised change, and there are still a bunch of people without jobs right now" as though they think he was going to be able to get into office and fix the entire economy/create a bunch of new jobs within 6 months' time. They just don't understand the concept that even if new economic policy is passed into law, it can take a year or sometimes more before the effects are actually felt by the mainstream public.

 

[GearHead_1]

It's true, unfortunately many heard the word change and attached their own time frame to that battle cry. No one did anything to set a realistic expectation of how long that might take. In reality when this claim was made there were only 4 years that were guaranteed to the person who made the claim. Half way through this 4 year period most still see the car driving down the same road. What happened to the U-Turn. We have taken a couple of lefts and a couple of rights (there has been change) but still aren't any closer to the place we want to be.

We've had too many leaders that have a term of X number of years and create a game plan that takes X plus Y number of years in order to accomplish their plan. It's a great thing for the leader as they have either created their own job security or simply turn the table and say I didn't have the chance. I think I would like to see a leader that would under promise and over deliver. That isn't the case at the present time.

I would like to be drawn to this thread two years from now and see where the car is at that time. I've said too much, in starting this thread I just thought Churchill's words to be apropos.

 

[C. Charles Hahn]

I think I would like to see a leader that would under promise and over deliver. That isn't the case at the present time.

Same here. Too bad any politician that under-promises would never win an election.

 

[Concours.John]

Maybe a portion of all the state funds that cities and counties are using to start new road work projects could be invested in small business.
Where we are at construction everywhere with the government funding signs posted. I see sidewalks put in everywhere where no one uses or walks that way.
Once the funds dry up and they are, there are already cities trying to figure out how to fund and finish.
It would make sense to invest in solid plans that could generate new tax revenue ie. Income tax, real estate tax, etc. from a business employing people large or small.

Sidewalks, roads, etc. If they don't improve the area for business or property values is just money spent cause it's being offered. The kicker is the money really isn't just sitting there to spend. IMHO

 

[chet31]

If they just focus on cutting wasteful spending and actually do it, that would solve a large part of the budget deficit.

The difficult part is trying to convince a politician, "what is wasteful spending?"

Exactly. I think a politician believes any spending in his own district or state is not wasteful.

 

[Poorboy]

I think many try to simplify the whole political process and expect with a new leader or party in control that change can be instantaneous. The reality of government is that there are bills to be drafted, then committees to pass through and then compromise within the committees and then it might make it to a full vote in either houses , and then more committees and then more amendments to the bill to reach more compromises and then either house can change it again only to be sent back to committee to have it changed again.
Our political process has some serious flaws which were never considered when it was written with 13 colonies in mind.
As said before, how many politicians would actually be elected or re-elected if they told the truth and gave their electorate the reality that they will have to raise taxes, and cut "pork" to their states to truely have a balanced budget.
How do you tell the current unemployed that their benefits are now cancelled and there will be no programs to feed their hungry families?
Or the elderly who count on medicare and social security, that their benefits are no longer available and you better find some way to pay for your medicine and taxes/ rent on your own? AARP is one of the biggest lobby groups and are also the highest percentage of groups that go out and vote on election days. Tell the AARP that you will cut their benefits and see if you can get elected in any state. Tell people that they can't retire until they are 70 and see what happens. If you follow the news and see what happen in France when they decided to raise the age from 60 to 62, it pracatically shut down the country.
Saying that you want smaller government and lower taxes is a great selling point but too unrealist considering how decimated our working class has become. Government projects and money needs to be spent on our infrastructure or we will see more and more devistation from colapsing aging bridges like the one connecting Minneapolis & St. Paul a couple years ago , the levees in Louisiana , my local Tappan Zee bridge which is the gateway for commerce to New England and probably hundreds more that many people can name.
Local communities and states will never have the billions needed to update 50-100 year old infrastructures. These projects provide thousands of jobs!
I was talking to an owner of an aftermarket company from Detroit on the way out of Vegas and he opened my eyes to a different Detroit than I expected. Even though there is over 20% unemployment in the city of Detoit, many small business that survived are thriving, but they will not be expanding or hiring , but they are now increasing their levels of capacity.
He said many were only at 20-40% of their capabilities and now they are near 80% using the same workers. Instead of hiring more people they work more hours and some even work 7 days a week with no complaints.
Saying this party or that party is better, really is simplistic. Not giving programs a chance to run their course and making a quick u- turn in the middle only brings you back to square one again. Remember the big bail out were initiated during a Repblican presidency with a Democratic congress with the idea that it was a bi-partisan plan to prevent a depression. Finger pointing is easy, but reality is this is the hand we are living with and when people stop taking sides and work together, that is when America will become again the standard the rest of the world will want to emulate.
Independant jumping off soap box assout:

 

[Mr. Gloss]

Steve,

You make some outstanding points.

But you forgot one important issue. The greed and corruption that was tolerated for so long until it brought down America's financial institutions, which resulted in massive job losses, foreclosures, factory shut-downs, etc.

We do need to do some housekeeping in regards to fair trade and we need to get out of wars. IMHO

 

[Concours.John]

Without quoting Steve's whole post I agree. The problem is it takes sometimes at least 4 years to correct or turn around a previous mindset after taking office to any administration.
What do you do other than your civil duty and hope you were not lied to. Again just MHO.

 

[GearHead_1]

... Not giving programs a chance to run their course and making a quick u- turn in the middle only brings you back to square one again. Remember the big bail out were initiated during a Repblican presidency with a Democratic congress with the idea that it was a bi-partisan plan to prevent a depression. Finger pointing is easy, but reality is this is the hand we are living with and when people stop taking sides and work together, that is when America will become again the standard the rest of the world will want to emulate.
Independant jumping off soap box assout:

I agree with much that is said here but see differently the changing course in the middle and ending up back at square one. I would ask middle of what? Being in the middle of something doesn't mean it is a better something. When in the middle of a sink hole going straight ahead isn't necessarily the best way out. You will no doubt be just as tired reaching either side of the sink hole. Make darn sure you don't find yourself further from where you want to be. If we are in the middle of an uncontrolled spending pattern and the course isn't altered, where will we be at the end of this path? If square one is less debt than we now have, is square one a bad place? Certainly many of the metrics we use to monitor progress show little improvement in major areas of concern. Partisan politics just leaves us treading muck in the middle of the sink hole and we get tired.

As far as finger pointing goes we have very good examples of what not to do at our highest levels of government. Our leaders are quick to say look what the other guys are doing or what the other guy left me.

Leaders should take responsibility that which they have been entrusted, that's what winning office gets them. They should say, "regardless of how we got here, it's my watch and I take responsibility." Our leaders are not dong this. I'm referring to all of our leaders not just the POTUS.

In my opinion, people who run for know where they will be standing once elected. They supposedly ran for office because they can do better. Dwelling on what got us here won't fix the problem. Elected officials should recognize the errors of the past, stop placing blame (it won't change a thing) and move forward cautiously. They should monitor their steps carefully, making sure they are improving the things most important to the majority of those they represent.

Conservative (with no party affiliation) now stepping down.

 

[Poorboy]

Steve,

You make some outstanding points.

But you forgot one important issue. The greed and corruption that was tolerated for so long until it brought down America's financial institutions, which resulted in massive job losses, foreclosures, factory shut-downs, etc.

We do need to do some housekeeping in regards to fair trade and we need to get out of wars. IMHO

Unfortunately you are correct ... Greed and Corruption date back to the first civilizations and governments and I highly doubt that we will ever see a government or ambitious people without it.