U.S. Politics

[Tommy]

I've read that number and heard it quoted enough times.  Feel free to look it up.  I can throw GE in there as an example.

I think you're referring to the report that 1 and 5 big companies paid no corporate taxes from 2009 to 2011 (link: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/) Nothing about them "getting more than they paid", and I don't even know what you mean by that. That wasn't surprising considering many of the losses these companies incurred during the financial crisis, etc. It's  not unusual. But I do agree that we need corporate tax reform. Lower the rate, make it flat, and there will be no need for deductions. That includes personal income taxes as well. I'm all for that. We've spoken before about flat taxes across the board.

Also, I can't find anything about GE not paying corporate taxes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had one year where they were able to write off losses sustained by GE Capital, which was going through some trouble during the financial crisis.

If we had universal health care, we could eliminate the VA for the most part, if not entirely.  A much smaller entity could stick around to cover pensions and other benefits.

You have to reform health care before you can just cut military spending. Otherwise you'll suddenly have millions of veterans inflating our Medicare and Medicaid budget, which will do way more harm than good. Those are two separate issues.

As far as emiminating military jobs, so what?  Like coal and other fossil fuel jobs, folks need to transition to the 21st century.

So what? Millions of active duty personnel and those who work for defense contractors suddenly out of a job and looking for work is a good thing? Your solution to reducing the debt and providing everyone with free higher education is to lay off millions of paid workers and having them stand on the unemployment line?

[dcm1602]

I think you're referring to the report that 1 and 5 big companies paid no corporate taxes from 2009 to 2011 (link: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/) Nothing about them "getting more than they paid", and I don't even know what you mean by that. That wasn't surprising considering many of the losses these companies incurred during the financial crisis, etc. It's  not unusual. But I do agree that we need corporate tax reform. Lower the rate, make it flat, and there will be no need for deductions. That includes personal income taxes as well. I'm all for that. We've spoken before about flat taxes across the board.

Also, I can't find anything about GE not paying corporate taxes, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had one year where they were able to write off losses sustained by GE Capital, which was going through some trouble during the financial crisis.

You have to reform health care before you can just cut military spending. Otherwise you'll suddenly have millions of veterans inflating our Medicare and Medicaid budget, which will do way more harm than good. Those are two separate issues.

So what? Millions of active duty personnel and those who work for defense contractors suddenly out of a job and looking for work is a good thing? Your solution to reducing the debt and providing everyone with free higher education is to lay off millions of paid workers and having them stand on the unemployment line?

Well sure the more unemployed workers receiving federal benefit the more likely they are to vote for some hippie socialist, who would then tax all the rich and give everybody free everything. Problem solved!

[Badger]

This is very true. If you're going to cut defense you have to do it judiciously. There's a shitton of pork and the problem is Congressional Quid Pro Quo with defense spending. Good luck getting anything meaningful done here other than killing (not literal) the regular soldier.

The Republicans aren't afraid to make countless suggestions for how to shrink the civilian federal workforce, they could apply the same policies to military if their peers wouldn't start shrieking about how they're literally Bin Laden for cutting military spending.

[Miamipuck]

As far as emiminating military jobs, so what?  Like coal and other fossil fuel jobs, folks need to transition to the 21st century.

You can't complain about Trump and his supporters saying something as patently stupid as this.

[Miamipuck]

The Republicans aren't afraid to make countless suggestions for how to shrink the civilian federal workforce, they could apply the same policies to military if their peers wouldn't start shrieking about how they're literally Bin Laden for cutting military spending.

I think we can all agree that the pork barrel spending is ridiculous, in particular the $12,000 hammer and $5000 screwdriver. The problem is the quid pro quo. I am all for getting rid of the pork, the Republicans and conversely the Democrats will all say the same thing. However, when it comes to their district they all have that needle in their arm.

The lucky thing is most soldiers can get their Bachelors free of cost and or have some of the best OJT there is. So in many respects they will be ok. I am ok with defense cuts and such if they're made where the guys that actually fight aren't the ones getting screwed over. However, that so rarely happens.

[Tommy]

The Republicans aren't afraid to make countless suggestions for how to shrink the civilian federal workforce, they could apply the same policies to military if their peers wouldn't start shrieking about how they're literally Bin Laden for cutting military spending.

But it's not just cutting staff (military personnel), it's the hundreds of defense contractors and sub-contractors that employ millions of people and rely on defense spending. You can't say the same about the Parks Department, etc. Cutting defense spending in half would be a massive blow to that industry, and those people, including the military personnel, would flood the labor market, and most will have to rely on unemployment insurance and Medicare. That'll only drive mandatory spending way up, forcing more cuts.

Simply put, $250b in defense cuts would add MORE to the deficit than it would take out. There are plenty of other ways to save $250b just by removing pork spending, as Puck said, and by increasing tax revenue through means other than raising taxes.

[Fenwyr]

I understand some of your points, but simplifying just to rip on the concept is childish.

Cutting defense spending in half over the next 10 years is absolutely doable.  Transitioning some the best trained people on the planet to civilian jobs, particularly in verticals that have a drought of talent is doable.  Transitioning those contractors to infrastructure doable.  Cutting needless spending on tanks and trillion dollar aircraft carriers, not to mention $2000 toilet seats is doable.

If insurance companies cannot survive by providing cadillac plans to the wealthy, too bad.  If american pharmaceuticals cannot compete with other countries prices, too bad.

Finding a fair corporate tax and eliminating loopholes would benefit small to mid size businesses bigly, without killing the large ones.

All of this would leave plenty of money for single payer health care.  Not having to pay for health insurance would be huge for smaller businesses.

Yes, its a dream, but nothing there is not doable.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Fenwyr]

And here's a radical idea.  Eliminate overseas tax shelters.  Allow the super rich to buy bonds pre tax to stow their cash, up to a certain amount.  I don't pretend to know what that amount should be.  But that alone could fund a massive infrastructue plan.

Let the government borrow from own wealthy citizens rather than other countries.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Miamipuck]

I understand some of your points, but simplifying just to rip on the concept is childish.

Cutting defense spending in half over the next 10 years is absolutely doable.  Transitioning some the best trained people on the planet to civilian jobs, particularly in verticals that have a drought of talent is doable.  Transitioning those contractors to infrastructure doable.  Cutting needless spending on tanks and trillion dollar aircraft carriers, not to mention $2000 toilet seats is doable.

If insurance companies cannot survive by providing cadillac plans to the wealthy, too bad.  If american pharmaceuticals cannot compete with other countries prices, too bad.

Finding a fair corporate tax and eliminating loopholes would benefit small to mid size businesses bigly, without killing the large ones.

All of this would leave plenty of money for single payer health care.  Not having to pay for health insurance would be huge for smaller businesses.

Yes, its a dream, but nothing there is not doable.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion on cutting the military in this post, it's a lot better than saying freak the military, like your last post.

For all the corporate loopholes, the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. It keeps foreign earned cash out of the country and significantly alters the economy in that respect. Make a deal and repatriate the cash and lower the corporate tax rate such that companies can profitably bring foreign earned money onshore. Then make it such that companies are not desperate to keep it in overseas banks. That will greatly improve our economy in the long run.

Lowering the corporate tax structure seems like a win for the big company but it actually will help the smaller ones as well. Besides, a well run small to midsize company can keep their profits to a minimum through legal means anyhow. Lowering the tax rate may behoove them to show a profit.

[Tommy]

And here's a radical idea.  Eliminate overseas tax shelters.  Allow the super rich to buy bonds pre tax to stow their cash, up to a certain amount.  I don't pretend to know what that amount should be.  But that alone could fund a massive infrastructue plan.

Let the government borrow from own wealthy citizens rather than other countries.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

So fund the infrastructure plan by issuing more bonds, thus increasing our debt?

[Miamipuck]

So fund the infrastructure plan by issuing more bonds, thus increasing our debt?

I guess he means issue more municipal debt, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Throughout history it has been shown to be a boon to growth.

However, I mean when it's done right. We all know, municipalities will issue more debt and then raise taxes because they can't pay for it all.

[dcm1602]

But it's not just cutting staff (military personnel), it's the hundreds of defense contractors and sub-contractors that employ millions of people and rely on defense spending. You can't say the same about the Parks Department, etc. Cutting defense spending in half would be a massive blow to that industry, and those people, including the military personnel, would flood the labor market, and most will have to rely on unemployment insurance and Medicare. That'll only drive mandatory spending way up, forcing more cuts.

Simply put, $250b in defense cuts would add MORE to the deficit than it would take out. There are plenty of other ways to save $250b just by removing pork spending, as Puck said, and by increasing tax revenue through means other than raising taxes.

I have to disagree with you on this. Relying on the government to stimulate the economy is relying on tbe government to stimulate the economy. Whether it's on defense spending, infrastructure, union jobs, teaching and education, college, energy, etc. You can make the argument that it will have a far reaching and compounding effect on the economy, in a multitude of ways.

I think decisions regarding military spending should be based on "maximizing value", as well as what is actually necessary to strengthen our standing/safety in the world . This whole argument about military spending being about the economy is bullshit, and sounds like a left wing nut job who thinks only the government can save us kind of argument.

(and yes of course military spending will have economic consequences, all spending will)

[Fenwyr]

So fund the infrastructure plan by issuing more bonds, thus increasing our debt?

If that debt is to american citizens who were forced to bring their taxable wealth back here, it would a start.  I said it was a radical idea, but for now, until we balance the budget, it seems like a better idea.  Interest on the bonds could be taxable when they cash out I suppose.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Tommy]

If that debt is to american citizens who were forced to bring their taxable wealth back here, it would a start.  I said it was a radical idea, but for now, until we balance the budget, it seems like a better idea.  Interest on the bonds could be taxable when they cash out I suppose.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

So you're saying that instead of re-investing their profits, they should lend the profits to the US government so that it can fund infrastructure projects? I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.

[Fenwyr]

There's nothing wrong with your opinion on cutting the military in this post, it's a lot better than saying freak the military, like your last post.

For all the corporate loopholes, the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. It keeps foreign earned cash out of the country and significantly alters the economy in that respect. Make a deal and repatriate the cash and lower the corporate tax rate such that companies can profitably bring foreign earned money onshore. Then make it such that companies are not desperate to keep it in overseas banks. That will greatly improve our economy in the long run.

Lowering the corporate tax structure seems like a win for the big company but it actually will help the smaller ones as well. Besides, a well run small to midsize company can keep their profits to a minimum through legal means anyhow. Lowering the tax rate may behoove them to show a profit.

I never said freak the military Puck.  I have all the respect in the world for those who serve.  If we focus on the items I mentioned, we wouldn't necessarily need to cut down on boots.  I would certainly cut down on some overseas bases, and transition some boots to an increased national guard.  Would much rather have guys building houses, policing our streets, watching our borders, but still be ready to fight if need be.

On the rest I agree.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk