PDA

View Full Version : what would you give up



pat addis
04-12-2010, 10:28 AM
some time back some one asked what goverment programs would you give up to stop taxes from bankrupting our country.i think it was yardley labs i'm not sure. so i'll start. quit the un they are a money pit and most don't like us any way. cut back on foreign aid.cut farm subsidies, i just read where we are giving farmers in brazil 147 bil to subsidies cotton so we can continue to give to american farmers. al gore got 529 bil so he can build cars over seas. any one else

Buzz
04-12-2010, 10:38 AM
This seems like a great place to insert a chart I saw in a Washington Post article yesterday. The blue line indicates the percentage of US citizens polled how favor cuts in that area. The red line indicates what percentage that item represents in the US budget.

Link to the article - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/cutting_defense_spending_more.html


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/VSpending.jpg

YardleyLabs
04-12-2010, 11:50 AM
This seems like a great place to insert a chart I saw in a Washington Post article yesterday. The blue line indicates the percentage of US citizens polled how favor cuts in that area. The red line indicates what percentage that item represents in the US budget.

Link to the article - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/cutting_defense_spending_more.html


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/VSpending.jpg
To make the problem worse, if you eliminated all aid to the poor and half of defense, we would still face a massive deficit. The magic number to cut from spending that is not already supported by dedicated tax revenues (i.e., not social security or medicare), is more than $700 billion per year. That would not eliminate the current deficit, but would eliminate the deficit that will remain even if the economy recovers fully. If you want the Bush tax cuts to be continued, the magic number for spending cuts increases to around $1.3 trillion from programs other than Medicare, Social Security and Highways, assuming the economy recovers. In Paul's graph, national defense represents about $700 billion.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the only candidates that will have a chance of being elected next November will be those that lie most convincingly by telling people that they can have tax cuts and not need to worry about cutting any services that they want maintained. They will talk about eliminating waste, eliminating corruption, eliminating earmarks and pretend that those item will close the gap when they will hardly make a dent. They will talk about the UN and foreign aid, and welfare and Medicaid, knowing that little will be done and that even if massive cuts were made, the deficit would still be massive. Economic recovery will increase revenues by $500+ billion per year and cut spending for unemployment and Medicaid by tens of billions more.That leaves only $700-800 billion per year to go. The biggest recipients of foreign aid are Israel and Pakistan. Eliminating all other foreign aid and closing down the UN, might save $15 billion. Eliminating all farm subsidies would save another $20 billion (I'm not suggesting either of these cuts). Only another $700 billion to go!

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 12:00 PM
That is very interesting...I did suspect that foreign aid would be the top vote getter in a poll like that.

IMO, we need to not necessarily cut programs, but cut the spending in certain programs to save money. I know we have talked about it repeatedly on here, but I am sure that we waste unfathomable amounts of money on handouts to those who don't truly need it. I know that there are people that need help, but I would be willing to wager that there are almost as many people who take advantage of the system. Make welfare and food stamps an uncomfortable place to be so there is more motivation to get off of it...One thing that I would really like to see is drug testing for anyone who receives govt assistance in any form. I get up every day of my life and go to work (where I had to take a drug test to be employed) so that I can support my family and pay taxes. If I left work in the middle of the day and drove to the projects (which are on the waterfront, BTW:mad:) I would no doubt see many healthy young black men (and women) (some of them aren't healthy because 350 lbs is not considered healthy...but you don't get that fat by being poor and not being 'able' to afford groceries!)walking down the street or playing basketball or sitting on their govt owned porches...Why are they not at work like I am? There is a serious drug problem in that place too...Fail the test, guess what..pack you sh1t up and move. We're not giving you anything else!

I would love to see how much money that would save!

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 12:11 PM
#1 Foreign Aid, Keep the money at home!!!!
#2 Welfare : get off your unga bunga in the jungle fat ass!!!!
#3 Pell Grants: NO right to a free college education!!! Work for it or take a loan and pay it all back in full with interest!!!
#4 Medicaid : pay for what you use!!!!! I owe you nothing!!!!!! Get off your ass!!!
#5 section 8 or any public housing. I owe unga bunga nothing , You want a roof over your head get off your ass!!!!!
#6 Child care credits. Pay for your own damn kids!
#7 Cedit for mulitplying like a rabbit. Want a kid then damn well pay for it!!!!!!
#8 NO buying houses for people that 8000 pile of crap
#9 NO making secured bondholders lower than the unsecured cause of the problem unions.
I could go on and on!

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 12:16 PM
I would have to argue that Pell grants generate much, much more tax money than they originally cost the govt...

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 12:30 PM
I would have to argue that Pell grants generate much, much more tax money than they originally cost the govt...

They are nothing more than redistibution of wealth. It is a race based pile of gov't crap.
Student loans are one thing. Pell grants are a freebie take my money and give it to the goof off unga bunga in the jungle.
I payed for my education, why the F*&& should I pay for someone elses?
SCREW THAT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNGA BUNGA can pay for themselves!
UNGA BUNGA needs to get off their ass!!!!!

paul young
04-12-2010, 12:31 PM
#1 Foreign Aid, Keep the money at home!!!!
#2 Welfare : get off your unga bunga in the jungle fat ass!!!!
#3 Pell Grants: NO right to a free college education!!! Work for it or take a loan and pay it all back in full with interest!!!
#4 Medicaid : pay for what you use!!!!! I owe you nothing!!!!!! Get off your ass!!!
#5 section 8 or any public housing. I owe unga bunga nothing , You want a roof over your head get off your ass!!!!!
#6 Child care credits. Pay for your own damn kids!
#7 Cedit for mulitplying like a rabbit. Want a kid then damn well pay for it!!!!!!
#8 NO buying houses for people that 8000 pile of crap
#9 NO making secured bondholders lower than the unsecured cause of the problem unions.
I could go on and on!


lots of hate and anger there, TIGER!

now tell me that wasn't racist......-Paul

Franco
04-12-2010, 12:35 PM
So, how much would we save if we did massive cuts to the cost of our Bureaucracy? Eliminated some of the useless agencies and cut staff for the agencies that survive.

Lets don't forget that with Health Care Reform, we are getting ready to grow the bureaucracy by leaps and bounds.

As I see it, the way to get to a balance budget is by making the Fed Government much smaller.

Buzz
04-12-2010, 12:39 PM
So, how much would we save if we did massive cuts to the cost of our Bureauc
Lets don't forget that with Health Care Reform, we are getting ready to grow the bureaucracy by leaps and bounds.


Are referring to the contention that the IRS will be hiring over 16,000 new auditors? Question, how many auditors does the IRS currently employ?

Buzz
04-12-2010, 12:43 PM
lots of hate and anger there, TIGER!

now tell me that wasn't racist......-Paul

For awhile I've been wondering what "animal in the jungle" meant.

I think the phrase "unga bunga in the jungle" pretty well clears that up in my mind.

Franco
04-12-2010, 12:43 PM
#1 Foreign Aid, Keep the money at home!!!!
#2 Welfare : get off your unga bunga in the jungle fat ass!!!!
#3 Pell Grants: NO right to a free college education!!! Work for it or take a loan and pay it all back in full with interest!!!
#4 Medicaid : pay for what you use!!!!! I owe you nothing!!!!!! Get off your ass!!!
#5 section 8 or any public housing. I owe unga bunga nothing , You want a roof over your head get off your ass!!!!!
#6 Child care credits. Pay for your own damn kids!
#7 Cedit for mulitplying like a rabbit. Want a kid then damn well pay for it!!!!!!
#8 NO buying houses for people that 8000 pile of crap
#9 NO making secured bondholders lower than the unsecured cause of the problem unions.
I could go on and on!

No doubt that the Fed Government has not only been subsidizing illegitimte births but, actually encourging it by paying entitlements per child. Then there are those that think that mandatory birthcontrol for welfare recipients is racist not realizing that by limiting the births of the indigent it is actaully helping them.

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 12:47 PM
lots of hate and anger there, TIGER!

now tell me that wasn't racist......-Paul



NOt racist, anyone in the jungle falls into the same damn place!
Get a job!!!!

Franco
04-12-2010, 12:47 PM
Are referring to the contention that the IRS will be hiring over 16,000 new auditors? Question, how many auditors does the IRS currently employ?

I wasn't refering to the IRS as much as the Dept Of Energy, Education and all the other failed Fed agencies. But since you bring up the IRS, a fair tax system would elimate that outdated agency as well saving billions.

Blackstone
04-12-2010, 01:05 PM
They are nothing more than redistibution of wealth. It is a race based pile of gov't crap.
Student loans are one thing. Pell grants are a freebie take my money and give it to the goof off unga bunga in the jungle.
I payed for my education, why the F*&& should I pay for someone elses?
SCREW THAT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNGA BUNGA can pay for themselves!
UNGA BUNGA needs to get off their ass!!!!!

Would you please define what "UNGA BUBGA in the jungle" are?

Blackstone
04-12-2010, 01:14 PM
One thing that I would really like to see is drug testing for anyone who receives govt assistance in any form.

Interesting idea, but how do you propose paying for all that drug testing. It would have to be done frequently and at random. Sure, you would knock some people of the welfare rolls, but you would have to hire people to do the job. It just seem like we would be spending even more tax dollars to administer such a program.

YardleyLabs
04-12-2010, 01:26 PM
#1 Foreign Aid, Keep the money at home!!!!
#2 Welfare : get off your unga bunga in the jungle fat ass!!!!
#3 Pell Grants: NO right to a free college education!!! Work for it or take a loan and pay it all back in full with interest!!!
#4 Medicaid : pay for what you use!!!!! I owe you nothing!!!!!! Get off your ass!!!
#5 section 8 or any public housing. I owe unga bunga nothing , You want a roof over your head get off your ass!!!!!
#6 Child care credits. Pay for your own damn kids!
#7 Cedit for mulitplying like a rabbit. Want a kid then damn well pay for it!!!!!!
#8 NO buying houses for people that 8000 pile of crap
#9 NO making secured bondholders lower than the unsecured cause of the problem unions.
I could go on and on!
1. Foreign aid: $25 billion if you cit off everyone, half that if you keep foreign aid programs that re actually part of our national defense spending (e.g. aid to Israel and Pakistan).

2. Welfare: Are you cutting off only those receiving aid to dependent children, or also those receiving aid to the aged and the permanently disabled. Obviously, the latter will be a little slower getting off their behinds. Just for the record, the majority of welfare payments are to whites. Depending on you answer, the potential savings are $200-400 billion. A number of states would probably go bankrupt.

3. Eliminate Pell Grants: saves $15 billion

4. Eliminate Medicaid: Save about $400 billion and bankrupt probably 1/4 to 1/2 of nation's hospitals.

5. Eliminate section 8 housing subsidies: Saves about $15 billion with some pretty dramatic economic effects

6. Child Care Credits: Would you eliminate the biggest child care credit -- the deduction for dependents and the deduction for child care - or just the EIC. Assuming the latter, the savings total about $35 billion. BTW, credits are capped at three children.

7. How is that different from #6? Both EIC and welfare cap the number of children for which assistance is provided.

8. The $8000 home buyer subsidy was part of the stimulus program and has already expired. No savings.

9. ??? - Secured bond holders already rank higher than union contracts.

Adding it all up, if everything you suggest is implemented, less than half the deficit would be closed.

Marvin S
04-12-2010, 01:26 PM
This seems like a great place to insert a chart I saw in a Washington Post article yesterday. The blue line indicates the percentage of US citizens polled how favor cuts in that area. The red line indicates what percentage that item represents in the US budget.

Link to the article - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/cutting_defense_spending_more.html


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/VSpending.jpg

My :2c: !

I believe Scientific programs to be long term beneficial, we just need to ensure the public participates in the profits from these endeavors.

There is no doubt that prevailing wage & the enviro studies have contributed to a lot of unnecessary spending. Agriculture also has a lot of room to consolidate, the number of farmers has gone down while employment increases in the bureaucracy. I do not believe foreign aid should go to countries that do not have our democratic principles nor our interests in mind.

Education, Housing & Energy are all departments that need to go away, they are rightfully state responsibilities. & they have been around long enough to prove they cannot accomplish anything. While I think there is some waste in the vet's programs, long term I believe the country benefits. We need to stop retiring people at 38 years of age!!!!!!!!!!!

Again Unemployment is a state responsibility, when the kitty built up runs out so does the unemployment - it is paid originally by employers.

Medicaid & Aid to the Poor need to be made a little less comfortable for the recipients, stuffing unearned funds into someone who does not want to work is non value added.

Medicare & Social Security are programs which most recipients paid into, the fact that the bureaucracy did a poor job of shepherding the funds is not the recipients fault. The recipients had no choice as to whether they would participate or not. We need to allow the younger folks to invest some of those funds to supplement their retirement.

National Defense is just that - do we spend too much, probably, but there are also side benefits. One of the reasons we spend a lot is there is a lot of leading edge technology being pushed, at that level costs go up :o . But there are everyday side benefits from these programs.

But the biggest problem of all is the Public Employees, both elected & in the bureaucracy who have created cadillac plans in compensation & benefits for themselves while basically being responsible for the condition we are in as a country.

I would note that a Flat Tax would do a lot to cut down the IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 02:19 PM
They are nothing more than redistibution of wealth. It is a race based pile of gov't crap.
Student loans are one thing. Pell grants are a freebie take my money and give it to the goof off unga bunga in the jungle.
I payed for my education, why the F*&& should I pay for someone elses?
SCREW THAT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNGA BUNGA can pay for themselves!
UNGA BUNGA needs to get off their ass!!!!!

Race based? BWAHAHAHAHAHAA! I am pretty sure that I, nor my wife is 'unga bunga' and we have, in the past, received pell money...I bet it chaps your ass that we get tax breaks for our two kids, doesn't it? I bet it bugs you even more that I'll have a third to claim next year! I bet I don't give a sh1t because I have contributed more than I have received by a long shot...

BTW, have you ever heard the term 'return on investment'? Think about that term in conjunction with the term 'Pell Grant'.

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 02:29 PM
Lets start with # 9. SEcured bond holders were given the shaft in the GM bailout and the unsecured Unions were given a share of the company. The gov't threw the bondholders and longstanding law unders the bus for the damn Unions that caused the problem to begin with.
Medicaid : flat out pay for services. payment up front then no hospital goes broke. Might eliminate a bunch of illegals in the process. BY the way, no I do not believe I should in any way pay some one elses bills for anything including medical.


EIC needs to go.
A deduction for child care on your taxes needs to go.
A child credit needs to go, they already get a depedent deduction.
Remember kids cost taxpayers, thru education etc. Pay for your own darn kids!!!!!

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 02:36 PM
Pell grants are a forced gift from a taxpayer to another person. It is a gov't theft. A student loan is ok as it must be repaid. OK that was before a few weeks ago.

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 02:38 PM
Personally if I choice how to invest my money then I may get an ROI. Gov't theft does not result in an ROI for my investment.

dnf777
04-12-2010, 02:39 PM
They are nothing more than redistibution of wealth. It is a race based pile of gov't crap.
Student loans are one thing. Pell grants are a freebie take my money and give it to the goof off unga bunga in the jungle.
I payed for my education, why the F*&& should I pay for someone elses?
SCREW THAT CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNGA BUNGA can pay for themselves!
UNGA BUNGA needs to get off their ass!!!!!

Set down the bottle, and step away from the keyboard!

From a gov't standpoint, they gave me a few thousand in Pell Grants, and based on what I've paid back in taxes, they've had over a 1900% return on their investment in me, by rough calculation.

You criticize the gov't for not being able to do anything right, or efficient. I'd bet their investment in me and many others who took advantage of educational grants and made productive members of society out of themselves has done better than any investment you ever made. Now you criticize them for doing something right. What can I say?

Oh, and I'm not from the jungle. I'm a good ol' boy, just like you. Even chewed a little Southern Pride in my deer stand last season, if that validates me in some macho way.

luvmylabs23139
04-12-2010, 02:49 PM
Oh, and I'm not from the jungle. I'm a good ol' boy, just like you. Even chewed a little Southern Pride in my deer stand last season, if that validates me in some macho way.

I'm not a good ol' boy. I'm a tranplanted yankee girl who tried to get the heck away from the liberal way of life. But it came to the south too.
I worked full time to pay on my own for my college education.
Personally I think it was worth it. I can say that I did it on my own!

YardleyLabs
04-12-2010, 02:55 PM
Lets start with # 9. SEcured bond holders were given the shaft in the GM bailout and the unsecured Unions were given a share of the company. The gov't threw the bondholders and longstanding law unders the bus for the damn Unions that caused the problem to begin with.
Medicaid : flat out pay for services. payment up front then no hospital goes broke. Might eliminate a bunch of illegals in the process. BY the way, no I do not believe I should in any way pay some one elses bills for anything including medical.
...
The GM bailout was a specific deal, not a modification in bankruptcy laws. The government negotiated terms of bailout with most of the parties involved to create a situation in which it believed that there might be a possibility of salvaging the company through an infusion of government cash. The alternative was liquidation of the company. In such a liquidation, the government would have been on the hook for all union pensions and for unemployment and some Medicaid costs, secured bondholders would have received a fractional payout of their loans, and unsecured creditors would have received nothing. The bondholders had the right to ask the court to reject the settlement, in which case the offer of a government bailout would appropriately have been withdrawn altogether and the liquidation would have been handled by the courts. Personally, I think bankruptcy law in general gives too much preference to bondholders, who are willing investors in the company, and too little consideration to unsecured creditors, who are unwilling investors in the company.

I don't understand what you are suggesting with respect to Medicaid. Medicaid now pays hospital and physician bills for care rendered to an eligible beneficiary. Altogether, Medicaid and Medicare represent the majority of hospital revenues and Medicaid represents anywhere from 20-30%. Nothing is paid to the beneficiary. What are you planning to change that would provide "flat out pay for services. payment up front then no hospital goes broke."

pat addis
04-12-2010, 03:16 PM
1. Foreign aid: $25 billion if you cit off everyone, half that if you keep foreign aid programs that re actually part of our national defense spending (e.g. aid to Israel and Pakistan).

2. Welfare: Are you cutting off only those receiving aid to dependent children, or also those receiving aid to the aged and the permanently disabled. Obviously, the latter will be a little slower getting off their behinds. Just for the record, the majority of welfare payments are to whites. Depending on you answer, the potential savings are $200-400 billion. A number of states would probably go bankrupt.

3. Eliminate Pell Grants: saves $15 billion

4. Eliminate Medicaid: Save about $400 billion and bankrupt probably 1/4 to 1/2 of nation's hospitals.

5. Eliminate section 8 housing subsidies: Saves about $15 billion with some pretty dramatic economic effects

6. Child Care Credits: Would you eliminate the biggest child care credit -- the deduction for dependents and the deduction for child care - or just the EIC. Assuming the latter, the savings total about $35 billion. BTW, credits are capped at three children.

7. How is that different from #6? Both EIC and welfare cap the number of children for which assistance is provided.

8. The $8000 home buyer subsidy was part of the stimulus program and has already expired. No savings.

9. ??? - Secured bond holders already rank higher than union contracts.

Adding it all up, if everything you suggest is implemented, less than half the deficit would be closed.

you have to start some where. a billion here a billion there pretty soon we're talking real money. also we need to drill for our own oil and build refineries that would creat a lot of jobs and keep the money at home.yes i know the arguemant about how it will take 10 years to get this done if clinton had started this we would be using our own oil now then we could tell the mid east countries to blow them selfs up

dnf777
04-12-2010, 03:31 PM
you have to start some where. a billion here a billion there pretty soon we're talking real money. also we need to drill for our own oil and build refineries that would creat a lot of jobs and keep the money at home.yes i know the arguemant about how it will take 10 years to get this done if clinton had started this we would be using our own oil now then we could tell the mid east countries to blow them selfs up

Why haven't the oil companies built new refineries?

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 04:41 PM
Personally if I choice how to invest my money then I may get an ROI. Gov't theft does not result in an ROI for my investment.

Sure it does (in this case). It's simple, try to stay with me here...

Pell grant=more people go to college=more people get better paying jobs=more people pay taxes=you pay less

No pell grant=less people can afford college=more McDonald's employees that can't afford to live on that salary=more government leeches=you pay more

Did I lose you anywhere?

ducknwork
04-12-2010, 04:46 PM
Pell grants are a forced gift from a taxpayer to another person. It is a gov't theft. A student loan is ok as it must be repaid. OK that was before a few weeks ago.

So is that road you are driving on. My truck could get me to work on gravel or even in mud. The government forcefully takes my money from my check and maintains the roads. Dammit, now I'm pissed.:rolleyes:

pat addis
04-12-2010, 05:47 PM
Why haven't the oil companies built new refineries?

we don't drill and we don't build refineries becouse of radical enviromentalist nuts and thier democrat allies. if oil is 85 dollars a bbl at least that money stays here.can you think of the jobs that would be created here plus all the tax money staying in the us.

dnf777
04-12-2010, 05:53 PM
Pell grants are a forced gift from a taxpayer to another person. It is a gov't theft. A student loan is ok as it must be repaid. OK that was before a few weeks ago.

Not quite. Low interest loans brokered through commercial banks are funded by gov't dollars. Also, those of us who pay full interest rates from the same bank for car loans are in part subsidizing the bank's ability to provide student loans.

And educating the citizenry benefits all. You do benefit from having educated Americans out there, creating wealth and paying taxes for you. Jefferson didn't establish University of Virginia because teaching was a pastime of his. It was to help the young country prosper and grow. You'll be hard pressed to find a prosperous, civilized country that does not provide public education and assistance for advanced education to its citizens.

Blackstone
04-12-2010, 06:05 PM
Lets start with # 9. SEcured bond holders were given the shaft in the GM bailout and the unsecured Unions were given a share of the company. The gov't threw the bondholders and longstanding law unders the bus for the damn Unions that caused the problem to begin with.

The Union was not a secured bond holder, but they gave wage concessions, retiree health care concessions, and took over their own health care costs after a one time funding to get that stake in GM. These were all obligations GM owed the UAW under their contract. The UAW did not want a stake in GM, but it was preferable to losing thousands of union jobs and retiree benefits had GM collapsed, so they took it.

As far as the secured bond holders, they made an investment in GM. Every investment carries risks. This time they lost. In any bankruptcy, some investors are going to lose. The secured bond holds may not have done as well as they did if the bankruptcy court had made the liquidation decisions.

To say that the UAW caused GMs problems show that you do not understand what happened in the U.S. the auto market. While the union shares some blame, so do the manufacturers and the government.

P.S. Still hoping for a clarification of the UNGA BUNGA in the jungle comment.

Sundown49 aka Otey B
04-12-2010, 08:16 PM
easy to fix
1) write a new ONE page income tax law.....everyone all pays 12..5% of their income whether it comes from welfare or being a Billionaire.
2) I paid into SS for all my working years (48 YEARS).....the small stipInd I get back sure won't pay me back what I put in.
3) Use the wages of the 95% of unemployed IRS workers for the social nonsense that the Libs come up with..........
4) TermLimits on the Senate & House....one and done then put their a$$ in jail for all the crooked deals they made in office.......does two things at once gets the crooks off the streets and eliminates lobbiests..LOL

zeus3925
04-12-2010, 09:45 PM
we don't drill and we don't build refineries becouse of radical enviromentalist nuts and thier democrat allies. if oil is 85 dollars a bbl at least that money stays here.can you think of the jobs that would be created here plus all the tax money staying in the us.

Oil companies may not be building new refineries but they have been expanding capacity at existing facilities all along.

Petroleum exporting countries have been building new refineries in order to market finished products at higher profits while providing jobs at home. Kuwait can make gasoline cheaper. Foreign competitors are elbowing into the market.

Even with drilling domestic sources will not contribute significantly to our falling domestic production. The easy domestic oil has been largely tapped out. Domestic drilling activity will be a reflection of market forces but there is no more easy oil.

dnf777
04-13-2010, 06:24 AM
we don't drill and we don't build refineries becouse of radical enviromentalist nuts and thier democrat allies. if oil is 85 dollars a bbl at least that money stays here.can you think of the jobs that would be created here plus all the tax money staying in the us.

Can you back that up? My understanding is that there are millions of acres in BLM lands that are undrilled currently. I doubt a bunch of kids in tie-dyed t-shirts and posters are really standing in the way of economic growth and opportunity!

Growing up in Baytown, Tx, home of the largest oil refinery in the world (at least at the time) I know very well the job opportunities that creates. I earned lots of beer money in those yards, working summers between semesters. Building would certainly create jobs. Operation would surprise you though. One man in front of a bank of computer screens can do the job of 30 or 40 men back when I worked there.

luvmylabs23139
04-13-2010, 10:26 AM
Not quite. Low interest loans brokered through commercial banks are funded by gov't dollars. Also, those of us who pay full interest rates from the same bank for car loans are in part subsidizing the bank's ability to provide student loans.

And educating the citizenry benefits all. You do benefit from having educated Americans out there, creating wealth and paying taxes for you. Jefferson didn't establish University of Virginia because teaching was a pastime of his. It was to help the young country prosper and grow. You'll be hard pressed to find a prosperous, civilized country that does not provide public education and assistance for advanced education to its citizens.
Well if I pay cash for a car I'm not paying!
WE just paid cash for the car we bought in Nov 2009.
Screw that I should have my tax money stolen!!!
If I want a loan I expect to pay for the use of somebody's money.
You could say the same thing for a mortgage.
Bottom line is if someone wants to borrow money for anything that person needs to decide whether or not they consider the price of the money worth it.

I chose not to pay anyone for a car loan thus we saved to buy it outright.
Vehicle has been bought and now we put money away to replace the other one with a cash payment.
Personally I find this very responsible, You make it out to be a bad thing.

dnf777
04-13-2010, 10:31 AM
Well if I pay cash for a car I'm not paying!
WE just paid cash for the car we bought in Nov 2009.
Screw that I should have my tax money stolen!!!
If I want a loan I expect to pay for the use of somebody's money.
You could say the same thing for a mortgage.
Bottom line is if someone wants to borrow money for anything that person needs to decide whether or not they consider the price of the money worth it.

I chose not to pay anyone for a car loan thus we saved to buy it outright.
Vehicle has been bought and now we put money away to replace the other one with a cash payment.
Personally I find this very responsible, You make it out to be a bad thing.

We do the same thing. How do you construe that I make that out to be a bad thing?

I'm glad you pay for your cars outright. I'm glad I do. We should start a car club.

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 12:08 PM
We do the same thing!! How do you construe that I make that out to be a bad thing?!!!!!

I'm glad you pay for your cars outright! I'm glad I do!!! We should start a car club!!!

Pssst...Dave, I don't think she understands unless you put those in there...

captainjack
04-13-2010, 01:39 PM
So is that road you are driving on. My truck could get me to work on gravel or even in mud. The government forcefully takes my money from my check and maintains the roads. Dammit, now I'm pissed.:rolleyes:

What a waste of pell grant money. Road construction/repair is funded primarily through motor fuel taxes, which aren't taken out of your pay check.

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
Ronald Reagan

dnf777
04-13-2010, 02:08 PM
Pssst...Dave, I don't think she understands unless you put those in there...

THANKS DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;)

Buzz
04-13-2010, 02:37 PM
I would like to officially welcome ducknwork to the ranks of the flaming liberals.

Only on RTF!;)

YardleyLabs
04-13-2010, 02:40 PM
What a waste of pell grant money. Road construction/repair is funded primarily through motor fuel taxes, which aren't taken out of your pay check.

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
Ronald Reagan
Federal funding for highways is actually not quite that simple. Federal fuel taxes are theoretically paid into the highway trust fund for use in maintaining and constructing the interstate highway system. However, since the 1980's a grwing portion of the fund was dedicated to deficit reduction in the general budget. Some of this was then reversed in the late 1990's, but a portion of the fuel tax still goes to general budget support. On the other side, general tax funds are used to support some of the costs for interstate maintenance since the trust fund has been insufficient to meet maintenance needs. The stimulus bill dedicated substantial additional funds to maintenance for both interstate and state highways. Finally, general tax revenues are used to support highway costs for roads that are not part of the interstate system.

The shift away from the implicit user tax structure of the trust funds paralleled increases in the price of gasoline. As prices went up, no one was willing to authorize an increase in the highway tax, which has remained constant at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. However, while costs for maintenance (which are themselves linked to the cost of oil) have increased faster than inflation, consumption of gasoline and therefore collection of fuel taxes has increased more slowly than inflation. This has starved the highway trust fund and forced diversion of general tax revenues to meet highway maintenance needs.

Buzz
04-13-2010, 02:45 PM
The shift away from the implicit user tax structure of the trust funds paralleled increases in the price of gasoline. As prices went up, no one was willing to authorize an increase in the highway tax, which has remained constant at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. However, while costs for maintenance (which are themselves linked to the cost of oil) have increased faster than inflation, consumption of gasoline and therefore collection of fuel taxes has increased more slowly than inflation. This has starved the highway trust fund and forced diversion of general tax revenues to meet highway maintenance needs.

This was a big problem for the State of South Dakota. When gas prices went to $4, gas tax revenue plummeted. I heard the governor state that he wished that the gas tax was on a percentage basis rather than a fixed per gallon tax. Obviously an increase in the tax would have been extremely unpopular at the time.

captainjack
04-13-2010, 03:00 PM
Federal funding for highways is actually not quite that simple. Federal fuel taxes are theoretically paid into the highway trust fund for use in maintaining and constructing the interstate highway system. However, since the 1980's a grwing portion of the fund was dedicated to deficit reduction in the general budget. Some of this was then reversed in the late 1990's, but a portion of the fuel tax still goes to general budget support. On the other side, general tax funds are used to support some of the costs for interstate maintenance since the trust fund has been insufficient to meet maintenance needs. The stimulus bill dedicated substantial additional funds to maintenance for both interstate and state highways. Finally, general tax revenues are used to support highway costs for roads that are not part of the interstate system.



Are you saying that my post is factually incorrect?

It appears to me that, according to your post, the funds were in the Trust Fund, they took some of them out and used them for deficit reduction and diverted a portion of new tax revenues for general budget support, and now they say that the Trust fund is not sufficient to meet maintenance needs.

If they had not used the Trust fund for deficit reduction, and they hadn't used the fuel tax proceeds for general budget support but added to the Trust fund as intended, would they have needed to suppliment the Trust fund? If so, by how much?

Does this mean that the road maintenance is not primarily funded by motor fuel tax?

Please provide a source with your response.

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 03:34 PM
What a waste of pell grant money. Road construction/repair is funded primarily through motor fuel taxes, which aren't taken out of your pay check.

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
Ronald Reagan

What did you major in? Douchebaggery? With a minor in trollism and another in psychotelekinesis?

You're doing awesome with 1 and 2, but 3...not so much!


I would like to officially welcome ducknwork to the ranks of the flaming liberals.

Only on RTF!;)

I'm glad yalls tent is big enough for me.:D



Please provide a source with your response.

Yep. Total noob. You don't know what hornets nest you just stirred up with that one! DOH!

ducknwork
04-13-2010, 03:45 PM
I would like to officially welcome ducknwork to the ranks of the flaming liberals.

Only on RTF!;)

BUZZ! HE THOUGHT YOU WERE SERIOUS!


BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA....*slaps knees*

YardleyLabs
04-13-2010, 04:19 PM
Are you saying that my post is factually incorrect?

It appears to me that, according to your post, the funds were in the Trust Fund, they took some of them out and used them for deficit reduction and diverted a portion of new tax revenues for general budget support, and now they say that the Trust fund is not sufficient to meet maintenance needs.

If they had not used the Trust fund for deficit reduction, and they hadn't used the fuel tax proceeds for general budget support but added to the Trust fund as intended, would they have needed to suppliment the Trust fund? If so, by how much?

Does this mean that the road maintenance is not primarily funded by motor fuel tax?

Please provide a source with your response.
In 1999, the year after motor fuel taxes dedicated to the general fund were allocated back to the trust fund, motor fuel taxes attributable to highways totaled $29.8 billion and taxes for transit totaled $5.5 billion, for a total of $35.3 billion. In 2008 (the most recent year for data), revenues for highways totaled $30.7 billion, for transit totaled $5.2 billion, with a total of $35.9 billion, or only 1.4% more than in 1999. (source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/fe210.cfm). Other types of excise taxes add about 10% to the total. When those are factored in, actual revenues declined slightly between 1999 and 2008. Spending for highways exceeded available revenues by $8 billion, which was covered by an appropriation from the general fund of $7 billion plus a payment of interest from the general fund of $1.5 billion, leaving a balance of about $16 billion in the trust fund for both highways ($10 billion) and transit. (source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/fe10_2009.cfm).

For fiscal 2009, spending totaled $57 billion, which included $27 billion from the general fund as part of the stimulus program. For 2010, the budget estimates $44 billion in spending which will probably exceed the trust fund revenues by about $12 billion. (sourcehttp://www.dot.gov/budget/2011/budgetestimates/fhwa.pdf).
: