Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (6): akkere, alicorn, lulzformalaysiaair, pebar, thatguyontheright, themarineelite, anonymous(24).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #15336 - rageisfunny (12/05/2012) [-]
Why won't Democrats match tax hikes with spending cuts? They are fine to use the media to shit on the GOP for "not making a deal" when they are the ones not compromising. Raising taxes alone is not going to fix the deficit. If they raised taxes enough and had a surplus of say 50 billion, they would create some new program to put the money into and eventually it would grow and we'd be in a deficit once more. Spending cuts are the only thing that will completely solve the deficit without a big raise on middle class taxes.
#15354 to #15336 - largenintimidating (12/05/2012) [-]
Because the US government doesn't actually have a "spending" problem. It has an attitude problem the entire country shares. We want all the social programs with none of the taxes necessary to pay for them. And have been told since God knows when that that's actually possible.

US tax revenue (according to the Heritage Foundation) as a % of GDP is 26.9% (includes state and federal taxes), which is lower than pretty much any developed country.

There was a great article in TIME on how spending cuts would have a surprising negative effect on middle-class families, since so much is subsidized by the federal government. And of course, if you cut Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, you're fucking over everybody who currently lives on the support of those programs.

Raising taxes to more reasonable levels, especially on the upper-class who have received pretty much all the GDP growth since the 1980s at the expense of the middle-class going into insane levels of debt, is more than acceptable. And it probably won't cause a recession, because there's not one documented case of tax hikes ever doing that. Cutting some spending (*cough* defense *cough*), probably necessary. But it shouldn't be the main weapon of budget stabilization.

On your final point. Wouldn't it be the exact same situation if spending cuts left the government with a surplus? They'd just put it in some program.
#15364 to #15354 - Womens Study Major (12/06/2012) [-]
It took a TIME article to get people to realize that spending cuts -gasp- will harm middle and working glass people?

Well golly-gee. Fuck me and call me sally. I don't believe it. I've got to go call all my friends who didn't know that.

Oh, and I totally agree with you. For real. Like I genuinely wholeheartedly agree with you.
User avatar #15358 to #15354 - rageisfunny (12/06/2012) [-]
Should have worded it better, it would go into programs that claim they need more money. If you cut, then it eliminates a mouth to feed. Raising revenue will just go into already existing programs, making the government bigger. The Federal Government should never have gotten into social welfare in the first place. Its no their job. Also, they are much less capable to do said job then say state governments. The closer you are to a problem, the better able you are to fix it. So that's where cuts should be, but for compromise, some military could be cut as well. Shouldn't be acceptable that the federal government runs a deficit, especially so repeatedly over such a long time. However, the nation as a whole doesn't think of it as such a big deal because everyone has debt and uses credit cards to buy things.
User avatar #15352 to #15336 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Neither side actually wants serious spending cuts. How else would they buy votes? Use their own money? It's way easier to use the taxpayer.
User avatar #15339 to #15336 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure neither party is being very compromising. I agree that spending cuts are the best way to fix the economy though.
User avatar #15344 to #15339 - rageisfunny (12/05/2012) [-]
The federal government is to damn big. But last I read Boehner had put forward a tax plan that was an increase on the rich. Idk, maybe things have changed since then but I sure haven't read anything about the left proposing domestic spending cuts.
User avatar #15349 to #15344 - pokemonstheshiz (12/05/2012) [-]
there's a lot of demand from them to cut military spending
User avatar #15350 to #15349 - rageisfunny (12/05/2012) [-]
Of course, but that's not something that they are sacrificing to compromise. Just something else they demand the Republicans put on the table. Why should the Republicans have to put up the spending and tax sacrifices and the Democrats nothing? As newmoxn was saying they should agree to match cuts from both.
User avatar #15359 to #15350 - pokemonstheshiz (12/06/2012) [-]
If you look at history, our biggest debts (as a percentage of the GDP) occur after/during war times, we had a higher percentage after WW2 than we do now. That seems pretty correlative enough to take it seriously and make defense cuts. It shouldn't be about stubbornness of the parties, it should be about cutting things that put us into debt. I agree both parties should be making some sacrifices, but this is something pretty obvious. Cuts don't have to be made all at the same time, they can make some obvious ones and then bitch at each other about the others later, it's our money they're wasting
 Friends (0)