Old Fashioned Conservative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Franco, You are what You are & it shows in your posts. & it's certainly not conservative though you are not a RINO.

I believe I did post that I was somewhat sorry & though I believe I had enough ammo to back my statement will not pursue it any further. I got fooled by Dippity :). I would post what my rationale was but dnf doesn't post on POTUS any more so couldn't defend himself, at least that's what he said :confused:.

Don't lump Medicare (a paid for benefit administered by the government) with Medicaid (a welfare program). They are not the same. The Drug benefit is something I have gone on record as opposing & would like to see it discontinued. I pay more for insurance than I receive in benefits, it's self preservation.

I'll get back later with more cuts, I'd like to see what others think.

---

I wish that the government had never started medicare. I wish they would do away with it for all but the poor that are past 65. I am not smart enough to lay out a plan for them to do it. Hubby and I are not really in need of government help and I feel that a lot of people our age are in a position to buy their own medical insurance. On the other hand I don't know about the meds........maybe it needs to be a different plan. Our company insurance was and still is good so I really don't know what others need. What I do know is what a plain old American farmer once said that rings true.........."you can't send a dollar to the USA government and have it turn around and come back to anyone and it still be worth a dollar". The cost of administering that dollar has gotten to be out of control. Much worse than when the farmer made that statement.

How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks.

I understand that this thread is about cuts, but there are two sides to finances...income and expenditures. Raising income accomplishes the same goal as decreasing expenses. We need to attack our current problem on both fronts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducknwork

How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks.

I understand that this thread is about cuts, but there are two sides to finances...income and expenditures. Raising income accomplishes the same goal as decreasing expenses. We need to attack our current problem on both fronts.

---

I believe that's what started the big one in in the early '30s. I believe in free open markets, with similar conditions. If a country doesn't want to do that, then they get no access to our markets. somehow those who negotiate these trade agreements can't seem to fathom that. I believe in the American worker's ability to turn out a superior product given a level playing field. I had a long time involvement in the manufacturing sector, rampant unionism & poor management were just about able to turn that advantage in the wrong direction. It has happened in other sectors :o.

On a different note, reading an article from a reliable source says "State spending on Medicaid nationwide is higher than the spending on K-12 education. While I consider the K-12 spending more than adequate, does anyone find that level of spending on Medicaid unreasonable?

The assumption in this thread is that program cuts are the only way to balance the budget. A serious discussion on balancing the budget has to include raising taxes, if not then your just going fishing without any bait.
As I have stated before the people benefiting from the claim that tax cuts are the panacea to all our financial woes are the Politicians. If tax cuts were so good then why not eliminate them completely? Most of us here can figure that out on our own, but just as it is ridiculous to have the tax rate at zero it is just as deleterious to have them at these historical low rates. There is a balance here and we havent' found it.
Of course I agree completely that the same can be said for the spending side. Things have to be cut, but cutting alone will not solve this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cotts135

The assumption in this thread is that program cuts are the only way to balance the budget. A serious discussion on balancing the budget has to include raising taxes, if not then your just going fishing without any bait.
As I have stated before the people benefiting from the claim that tax cuts are the panacea to all our financial woes are the Politicians. If tax cuts were so good then why not eliminate them completely? Most of us here can figure that out on our own, but just as it is ridiculous to have the tax rate at zero it is just as deleterious to have them at these historical low rates. There is a balance here and we havent' found it.
Of course I agree completely that the same can be said for the spending side. Things have to be cut, but cutting alone will not solve this issue.

---

Like I said earlier, providing a Trillion instantly without any cuts, use existing budgets for bureaucratic agencys such as HHUS.
(that budget is to grow by $500 billion itself since 2009)
Don't spend unspent stimulus money.
($500 billion unspent as yet)

It is truly that simple.


I know, let's not go there.



RK

Privatize USPS.
Privatize AMTRAK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

I believe that's what started the big one in in the early '30s.

---

So you think charging tariffs on imported products started the depression? Explain, please.

I'm not being argumentative, but I am very curious about that line of thinking. I don't see how it could do anything but good for the US and our workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

Like I said earlier, providing a Trillion instantly without any cuts, use existing budgets for bureaucratic agencys such as HHUS.
(that budget is to grow by $500 billion itself since 2009)
Don't spend unspent stimulus money.
($500 billion unspent as yet)

It is truly that simple.


I know, let's not go there.



RK

---

Your right with your last statement since very few people want to give up their Medicare benefits especially since they have paid into that fund already. Cuts..........yes Elimination.................not possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducknwork

How about raising tariffs on imported goods? That will do a few things for us:

1. The tariffs will be an increased source of revenue for the govt. More money in your paycheck leaves you more money to pay down your debt. It is a given that imposing tariffs will increase the cost of goods purchased by US consumers, no? If you agree with that given, then your Item 1 presumes that the govt. better knows how to spend a surplus of money than you do (i.e. a non-tariffed t-shirt that you buy is $5 and a tariffed t-shirt would cost you $6...do you want the govt. to have that extra dollar or do you want to save that extra dollar?). One could make respectable arguments on either side, but you can't really claim that giving that dollar to the govt. is rooted in Conservative idealology.
2. They will force the price of imported goods to rise and therefore be more comparable to domestically made products. Using my t-shirt example above, what's better...to save one $10 hour American job making t-shirts or to save thousands of Americans who buy the t-shirt a dollar? I honestly don't know the answer, but I would think as a country we get more economic bang for our buck with the lower priced t-shirts than proping up a job that can only be profitable via govt. interference.
3. They may provide an incentive (if they are high enough) for companies to start moving factories back to the US. Most of the lost jobs are in cheap labor industries. It doesn't make any more sense for our govt. to artificially prop up, say our textile industries, than it would have been wise for the govt. to subsidize horse carriages after the arrival of the Model T. Those types of jobs are lost forever and tariffs will only make our remaining industries less competitive internationally when all the countries we slap tariffs on turn around and do the same to our goods.

2&3 will both increase employment in America. More employment=more consumers at the store pumping money into the economy and more tax revenue from their paychecks. Using my rebuttal of your Item 1, tariffs will suck money out of the economy (particularly, if as you said, the govt. should use tariff revenue to be applied to the debt).

I'm not big on protectionist tariffs to subsidize non-competitive industries and as a means of revenue for the govt (at the consumer's expense). That said, however, we shouldn't be international patsies to other country's unfair trade practices (mainly China and Japan). If one of our industries in getting screwed by another country's tariffs/unfair practices (like when Japan would let our fruit sit days at the dock waiting for inspection ((also known as rotting :rolleyes:))) then I think we can use tariffs as a big stick to assure fair treatment.

---

...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cotts135

Your right with your last statement since very few people want to give up their Medicare benefits especially since they have paid into that fund already. Cuts..........yes Elimination.................not possible

---

I proposed no cuts, just hodling current wasteful spending practices until we can catch up.
Very difficult concept to grasp.

Holding spending is not cutting.



RK