Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (145)	8/30/2011 5:09:51 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

Steve you shouldn't be so darn irritable. Doesn't help the hypertension at all. (G) I see you're posting on threads, those dandies over at Vfc don't even think about. :-) That's a good thing, Steve! While I'm not a numbers person, how about a flat tax (say in the neighborhood of 15%) with a surcharge of a few points that has a built in expry of 2-4 years.? The concept isn't new for sure, but it would bring a level of equity back to those of us that are priviledged to be paying taxes. And it would bring new revenues. Yes, I voted for Bush (because I thought him to be the lesser of two evils (and, I was correct)). But he spent money like he was still the president of a major league baseball team in Dallas. Personally I feel there are many Repubs who wouldn't mind paying additional taxes, IF JUSTIFIED. Too many equate excessive government spending with a NO NEW SPENDING/TAXES. IMO spending cuts doesn't necessarily translate into tax cuts.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (145)	8/30/2011 5:37:20 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I see....you ask for me to be specific: Steve Lokness>Where do you see the savings being made to balance the budget? BE SPECIFIC! And I respond with specifics....lots of specifics, and you bitch about it. Steve Lokness>Hey I don't have the time nor anywhere close to the desire to go through your numbers. And the start of your post to me was complaining about Perry worship: Steve Lokness>Eight post to me this morning all telling me how stupid I am to be afraid of Perry and his religion. This site - as I expected - should be named the I love Perry (and his religion) site. As expected a bunch sitting around making sweet with each other - a sad waste. When the post you were responding to showed that there really hasn't been a whole lot of federal government hiring, but that fed government employees have been getting very generous pay increases, regardless of party. My posts about Perry have been hardly worshipful Message 27602423 Message 27602514 This one to you was hardly worshipful and in fact suggested that his record as a governor will help us to see if he mixes politics and religion Message 27602347 this one I point out that he needs to stay focused on the 10th amendment. Though I discuss the whole intelligent design thing. Message 27602220 Steve Lokness>Soooo, the big new government created by Bush the best you can do is whack 5 billion? Looks to me your intention is just to turn stuff back to the States - which doesn't necessarily reduce cost or an individuals tax burden at all.Frankly the idea of turning TSA back to the States so that different states might run the program differently is rather silly. .......In the old days the States were enclaves of themselves - not today. We are so interconnected as to give State boundaries a different meaning. Actually, I counted about $738B in direct cuts and that doesn't include savings on support staff as the size of the departments is reduced. Nor does it show the reduction in IRS staff if a flat tax were instituted as I suggested. I don't think that is too bad of a start. But it is obvious that you have already reached a conclusion about my motives. Which I don't think is supported by evidence, but that's cool. Have a nice day.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (145)	8/30/2011 7:20:09 PM
From: Bearcatbob	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

It is not practical for we mere observers to define the cuts. However, we can define a process. As stated in a prior post I believe if we simply restrict the growth of spending to less than the growth in GDP we will come into balance. If there is a statuatory limitation to spending it would force prioritization decisions to be made. I think Bernanke has been pretty clear that the key is clear visibility to long tern reductions that are credible. The problem is that all long term solutions previously put in place never come true - eg the famous Pay Go. Bob