So where will Kerry cut spending?

[leftyandproud]

I was asked this yesterday in a little debate, and looked like a total dumbass when I realized I couldn't think of Kerry mentioning his plans for spending cuts in any area. Unfortunately, the Freep made a good point...We can't really complain about the debt Bush is running up unless we plan to make some serious reductions elsewhere in government to change things.

I know the other day, someone took a poll of DU'ers asking where they would like to cut, and we got a nice long list of departments...but this is what WE think. What is Kerry actually going to do to get things under control? If he is serious about some of the national health initiatives he has promised, he needs to cut something...and you can bet your @ss it won't be the military!

Here is the post I mentioned.

Where will you cut?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2382591

I say, fine and good...but what about our man Kerry? Think he will have the guts to do it?

[meti57b]

1. He plans to rescind tax cuts for the most wealthy.

[calico1]

3. He wants to roll back taxes for the very wealthy

plus unlike Bush he does not want to dominate the world. That alone should save billions of dollars. But he will have his work cut out for him cleaning up Bush's mess.

[leftyandproud]

5. cancelling the tax cuts for the top 10% will only bring in..

50-60 billion a year according to the CBO.

Our national debt stands at almost 7.5 TRILLION.

Even if he cancelled ALL of the Bush tax cuts, it wouldn't put a dent in anything. The only way to reduce the debt at this point is to cancel all of the tax cuts and basically freeze spending at all levels of government for the next few years. There is no other way to do it. I know this isn't realistic...The debt will grow under Kerry no matter what, and he needs to make some tradeoffs.

Bottom line: He needs to cut spending...SOMEWHERE.

DU'ers know where he needs to cut it...but I just don't hear him talking about the issue, and I don't hink he will do what it takes to get things under control.

[Xipe Totec]

6. You're Mixing Total Debt And Budget Deficit

The 7.5 Trillion is total projected debt based on cumulative deficits:

On September 7, the Congressional Budget Office released new estimates showing that the budget deficit will grow to $422 billion in fiscal year 2004. This is $46 billion higher than the 2003 deficit, which stood at $375 billion.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-7-04bud.htm

This is still a sizable chunk of change, but not 7.5 Trillion. A combination of tax cut rollbacks, a stimulus package for the economy, and selective elimination of pork barrel projects and corporate welfare should be enough to bring the budget into balance. That will reduce the 7.5 Trillion debt projection but will not eliminate the debt that's already on the books.

After backing out the 200 billion for the war and 60 billion in tax rollbacks, that leaves a 160 billion gap. 80 billion in cuts to federal spending plus 80 billion in additional revenue should be enough to close the gap.

[leftyandproud]

8. 7.5 trillion dollars is not a projection

It is the CURRENT debt.

These 400billion+ yearly deficits will just be adding 4-5 trillion to it over the next decade.

The $7 trillion is real and is here to stay regardless of what Kerry does.

And your plan sounds nice...but I don't see kerry proposing $80 billion in cuts anywhere...and any stimulus package he pushes through will likely be offset by the higher tax rates on businesses, making it a wash.

Kerry is proposing much needed (and very expensive) new programs that will cost much more than 80billion. Don't get me wrong...I have no problem with the spending for free heathcare and stuff like that...but it is going to hurt us in the long run unless we find other stuff to seriously slash in the budget. In a $2.5 trillion dollar 2005 federal budget, we should be able to find 10% in there somewhere...

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

[Strelnikov_]

13. Looks Like We Are On Target For $4-5 trillion Over 10 Years

We have added $1,710 b in the last 4 years. A more stark way to look at the numbers is that 23% of the curent debt has been added in the last 4 years.

Debt at end of fiscal year (Oct-Sep FY)

FY 04 $ 7,384 (a)
FY 03 $ 6,783
FY 02 $ 6,228
FY 01 $ 5,807
FY 00 $ 5,674

(a) Estimated from statement by Tres. Sec. Snow that current $7,384 b limit would be reached in September or October.

[Xipe Totec]

27. Nevertheless, you're still confusing debt with deficit

That's similar to confusing a credit card balance with the monthly payment due.

As for health care, we're spending that money right now whether you realize it or not. Right now it is akin to a hidden tax on your paycheck which your employer collects and spends for you. Don't you think that is hurting you right now? On top of it all, since the medical coverage contract is between your employer and the health care provider, you don't have any leverage over the provider regardless of how lousy the service gets. You can't sue because you are not a party to the contract. Isn't that nice? Your only option is to quit and work for somebody else.

[TahitiNut]

7. Don't ignore the TEN MILLION workers without jobs.

We are currently employing ten million fewer workers than would be employed if employment had merely grown at the average rate it had for the last 30-50 years.

With ten million more people employed, there would be ten million more people paying taxes - income taxes and payroll (OASDI/HI) taxes. That's at least ten billion dollars more in taxes annually.

[leftyandproud]

9. I know the solution!

Government just needs to hire 10 million new workers...then we have 10 million new taxpayers...

problem solved!;)

[dumpster_baby]

10. cut military spending

where do YOU think the spending cuts will come?

[Xipe Totec]

2. Kerry Will Cut 200 Billion From Operation Piss Off The Planet

That should be a good start. We've done enough money wasting on high-tech ordnance used to blow up adobe huts.

:grr:

[German-Lefty]

4. Kill star wars

I think you could make the point pretty easily that as long as there are people willing to sneak a nuke across our boarders in a truck, we don't need to worry about missiles. Besides we dump billions on it an haven't seen many results.

You could make the same argument about several conventional military weapons programs.

You don't need to cut government services. A good executive tries to get the job done with as little money as possible, to make the same bureaucracy do the same job with less resources, using experience and new technologies.

A dumb conservative can create problems by blindly cutting funding. A dumb liberal can throw money at a problem. We have to make the point that we not going to try any of these dumb tactics, but really want to make government less wasteful.

If you look at government spending it's increased wildly during Bush's time, more than in Clinton's, more than inflation. The question we should ask is: So what did we get for our extra money?

Lots of bureaucracies are mismanaged piles of crap. Someone has to sit down and look at them and figure out how to fix them. It's hard work best done by someone in Washington, not someone who'd rather be off at the Crawford ranch.

[dumpster_baby]

11. cut spending on military and raise taxes on the rich even more

Put the top tax rate at 60%. that should raise a lot of money.

[elehhhhna]

12. Reintro the inheritance tax with a different name. (Gift tax? Why not?)

It affects an infintessimally small number of very well provided for people, does not destroy the family farm and small business (Lord knows the second-generation owners cause more damage to farms & small busineses than any tax policy could...GW's a good example).

[meow2u3]

19. Windfall profits tax

Either that, or cut, or even elminiate, spending on Pentagoon programs that interfere with our Constitutional rights.

End corporate welfare as we know it. Corprorate welfare kings are bankrupting the country.

Kerry plans also to end the corporate welfare program known as the overseas job outsourcing loophole.

[More Than A Feeling]

46. Billionaire tax

to make it clear how few people will have to pay it

[YNGW]

14. It Won't Work.

Raising taxes on the rich won't work. They have too many shelters and loopholes, and that isn't going to change. Also the inheritance tax isn't going to be altered. Congress isn't going to bite the hand that feeds it.

Besides, even if it were possible, there aren't enough rich people to pay in to make up the difference in what we need at current spending levels. Unfortunately, there are way too many "pork" projects on both sides of the aisle that need to be eliminated. And cutting much of the bureaucratic waste and red tape of doing business for both the government, businesses and for individuals would be a good start. Of course, we as Americans have been complaining about that for decades now, and nothing ever seems to change.

But, I see several in this thread hit upon something I'm seeing more and more of my fellow DUers recognize lately, and why it wasn't immediately recognized I don't understand, that being that domestically and internationally things aren't going to be that much different in the next four years than they are right now. Status quo as far as the eyes can see.

[annabanana]

17. "this isn't going to change"

Well... people are going to deep on smoking pot then..no point in making THAT illegal either

and if someone is DETERMINED to kill someone else, who's to stop him?

I was FLOORED when I heard GW say "The rich are just going to hire lawyers so they don't have to pay taxes"

what a cop out

[YNGW]

20. Call it what you will.

You know it's true, though. The rich will take advantage of the loopholes and shelters and Congress isn't going to close them. You won't see a single congressman vote to close the loopholes or shelters without creating new ones at the same time. Knowing that, we need to get beyond the argument that raising taxes on the rich is really going to do anything. Oh sure, they can raise the marginal rate from 38% to 70%, but it won't matter. The rich have the means by which to avoid paying it and legislatures consisting of members who are made up of the wealthy who are going to make damn sure things don't change.

The easiest people to raise taxes on are the W-2 employees. They have very few ways of sheltering the income they receive.

As I stated, these are things that Americans have complained about for a long time, but the status quo remains, and there's no signs of it going away. I've accepted the fact that it won't and have learned to adjust what I do accordingly.

One small difference to point out, that is, using the tax code to your advantage is not illegal, unlike the laws currently on the books regarding pot and murder.

[dumpster_baby]

22. rewrite the tax code

Get rid of the loopholes. We can do and we will do it. Period.

[dumpster_baby]

21. T.I.N.A. == "There Is No Alternative"===> I call B.S. on that!

You wrote:
Raising taxes on the rich won't work. They have too many shelters and loopholes, and that isn't going to change. Also the inheritance tax isn't going to be altered. Congress isn't going to bite the hand that feeds it.


Why not get rid of the loopholes? We can do it, and we will. You are simply parroting the TINA mantra of the wealthy and the corporations. Well, I say fuck them--they have the vast bulk of the wealth, and I say we starting taking our fair share of it from them.


you also wrote:
Besides, even if it were possible, there aren't enough rich people to pay in to make up the difference in what we need at current spending levels.


Oh, really. Just because the upper 25% have about 90% of the wealth, that means that there aren't enough rich people to make up the difference? Nonsense!

[YNGW]

26. OK

I'm telling ya, the shelters and loopholes aren't going to go away anytime soon. It's a pipe-dream. I suppose you'll just have to wait and see for yourself. I've already been down that road and have decided to move on.

[dumpster_baby]

28. yeah yeah yeah.... n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

30. You're right-they won't go away

because the Congressmpeople get campaign money from the wealthy. Campaign finance reform must come first.

[leftyandproud]

32. If you make the top bracket 60 or 70%...

people will simply stop working when they hit it..

Shit...70% federal and an national average of 15% state & local medicaid/medicare etc etc...You really think people will work for .15 or .10 on the dollar? I sure as hell wouldn't? I'd find something else to do with my time once I hit those higher brackets. Thousands of others would do the same thing...and you wouldn't get any new revenue...I wouldn't be surprised if a rate of 20% brought in twice as much revenue as a rate of 80%. Clinton knew this in the 90's...when he slashed the capital gains tax, revenue soared 300% because people finally stopped hoarding their old stocks...they sold them and put them into something productive. They would simply never sell if the tax burden is too high. Those incentives work the same way in every area of life. People won't work 5 days of the week to be compensated for one.

[dumpster_baby]

33. nonsense! Top rate used to be NINETY percent

And what ON EARTH makes you think people is the top tax brackets work at ALL, unless they are greedheads consumed with lust for money. In which case they will just keep on working, and we can ride on their labors. Hey, if an employer can do it, why cannot America do it?

[YNGW]

34. Not Today

I have no desire to "ride" on the taxes the government has collected from the rich. I prefer to make it on my own. If you want to mooch off the rich, that's up to you. I don't want anything to do with that.

What makes the top brackets individuals work at all? They have loopholes and shelters and accountants and legislators to keep them from having to pay the top marginal rate no matter what it is, the same way the rich used the laws to not ever pay the 90% bracket when it was in place. Those same loopholes and shelters you've convinced yourself are going to go away and they're not but you may one day figure it out but it doesn't appear likely at this point.

[dumpster_baby]

35. not today, but TOMORROW

We did it before, and we will do it again.

You wrote:
I have no desire to "ride" on the taxes the government has collected from the rich. I prefer to make it on my own. If you want to mooch off the rich, that's up to you. I don't want anything to do with that.


I maintain that this is a country FOR "The People", as it says in our Constitution. So it looks like the majority of whatever profits are earned in this country should go to The People. Just like in a business. The workers make just a fraction of what the earnings are. If a business pays $1 Million to the workers and earns $3Million, outside of taxes, expenses, the profits go to the owners. Well, I am saying that The People are the owners of America, and that most of what is earned should go to them.

Why is it that if a business owner makes a lot of money via his business, you types have NO PROBLEM with the owner reaping a vast windfall, while the workers get the same old pay, but if a person makes a huge income, you think they should get to keep most of it?

We the people own America. We the people should get most of the profits of business that is transacted here.

I have no problem with capitalism. I just think that the owners of the place of business are getting ripped off.

[YNGW]

36. Why?

You said: Why is it that if a business owner makes a lot of money via his business, you types have NO PROBLEM with the owner reaping a vast windfall, while the workers get the same old pay, but if a person makes a huge income, you think they should get to keep most of it?

Maybe it's because they're the one's who took the risk.

Let's do it in reverse. If someone uses their own capital to start a business, and it goes sour, then those who worked for the business should share equally in the loses of that business. That's right, everyone, including the employees, should pony up out of their own savings and equity to pay off the bad debts. How's that sound?

Fact is, it's to the advantage of most owners to share the good fortune with their workers who helped them reach success. I would say those who don't are not being prudent in their business practices.

Your description is a little too close to "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" for my taste. Don't want anything to do with that philosophy either.

[dumpster_baby]

41. "The People" BUILT this country with their lives. It is OUR heritage

you wrote:

Maybe it's because they're the one's who took the risk.


So you are saying that if I borrow your money and I risk it, then I get to keep all the proceeds?

The fact is that my ancestors and yours built this country with the sweat. blood and tears. And as it says in the Constitution, this govt is FOR The People. So we inherited this country, and all the benefits gained therefrom. THerefore, we the people are entitled to an ownership cut.


Let's do it in reverse. If someone uses their own capital to start a business,


"The capital" was always the people's from the beginning (c.f., the Constitution of the United States of America).



Your description is a little too close to "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" for my taste. Don't want anything to do with that philosophy either.


Gee, what a surprise. Yeah, I figured you would get to the "Commie Commie, you dirty Commie" pretty soon.

[YNGW]

43. Pay Attention.

If you borrow my money, I'm the one willing to take the risk. We would determine ahead of time what percentage of the proceeds, should there be any, would go to whom.

The capital to which I am referring is capital which was accumulated through hard work and wise investments by the individual. It's the American way.

Don't put words in my mouth. If I wanted to call you something, I would have directly. I didn't. Your "solutions" strike me as socialist in nature, suggesting that all rewards of individual work should be redistributed so we can all share equally, something of which I personally do not agree works based upon human nature alone.

Now, go ahead and have the last word. I see how important it is to you.

[leftyandproud]

47. just how much...

of their money belongs in your bank account?

"I say we starting taking our fair share of it from them."

[dumpster_baby]

48. I already called for at least 65% top tax rates

We own America, not the rich.

[Elginoid]

15. There's not much left to cut.

This has been true for a number of years- lots of people get elected to congress on promises of cutting spending, then get to washington dc, and find out that there's nothing left to cut.

Defense, "entitlements", and service on the debt take up the VAST majority of the budget, and defense is the only one with discretionary spending.
But-
trying to make defense cuts in the climate of fear that the illegal bush regime & military junta have created and fostered would be political suicide, and probably cause even more repuke gains in the mid-term elections.

[annabanana]

16. close a batch of corporate tax loopholes

a post office box in the Caymans is not a reasonable excuse not to pay US taxes

no rewards for outsourcing jobs

cut back on bloated "depreciation allowances'

stop mopping up after corruption ridden MASSIVE business failures until the officers responsible for the melt down are managing on the same minimum wages that they fought raising

there's lots

[RollergirlVT]

18. he'll put a stop to....

***'s new nuclear weapons research & development. How many billions will that save?

[Hubert Flottz]

23. Star Wars!

Roll back tax cuts!

[LSK]

24. defense contracts

Huge amounts of money dissappear into these black holes. I believe a lot of our national debt went into the pockets of defense contractors.

Check out the book Blank Check.

[sangh0]

25. Too simplistic and propogandistically "framing the debate"

There are three basic tactics that can be used to reduce a deficit -

1) Cut spending
2) Raise revenues
3) Grow the economy

Notice how the repukes concentrate on #1 only. Don't fall for it.

Kerry's plan will grow the economy by reducing the corporate tax rate for corps that create jobs here in the US. Kerry's health plan will help grow the economy and create jobs by releiving businesses of the burden of covering their employees catastrophic health care. This will also help put us on the road to universal, single-payer health care.

Don't let the other side define the debate and it's terms.

[dumpster_baby]

29. RAISE SPENDING and RAISE TAXES on upper income earners (top rate of 65%)

--Raise taxes on upper income earners: raise taxes on both earned AND unearned income.


--Make the top income tax rate 65%.

--reinstate the inheritance tax

--remove the ceiling on the payroll tax

--simplify the tax code by eliminating loopholes, writeoffs, deductions, etc.

[Elginoid]

31. yeppers...

we already have one of the lowest tax "burdens" in the industrialized world, and our quality of life is statring to slip because of it.
increased spending on infrastructure, as well as energy research will help the economy tremendously.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dumpster_baby]

42. the greedheads have to have SOME carrot

Let 'em slave for their enhanced social status, I say....

[Nicholas_J]

37. Doesnt really need to cut spending

in order to do what he wants. The Bush people have pushed the cost of his health care probram to 2 trillion, but bothe the GAO and other indepenedent examininers all have plaede the cost at a bit bellow 700 billion dollars.

Now lets look at Bush's tax cuts. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 together add up to 2.3 trillion dollars. Kerry is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts to the top 2 percent of taxpayers. They received 46 percent of the 2.3 trillion of the Bush tax cuts.so repealing the tax cut to the wealthiest Americans will provide Kerry with 1.06 trillion dollars. Just repeaing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy will pay for Kerry's health care plan and still leave over 300 billion dollars.

Remember, that these figures are not the cost per year, but the cost over a ten yyear period. One of the ways that conservatives attempt to make any democratic program look like it is going to be enourmously expensive it to quote the cost for ten years of the program. If in fact, you take the GAO or independent analysis of the Kerry health care progran, about 700 billion dollars, and then look at the annual cost, you get a figure of 70 billion per year.

The tax loopholes for corporate outsourcing cost the country 40 billion dollar a year in lost revenues. Muiltiply by ten add this to the amount of money that Kerry will gain by repealing the Bush tax cuts to the welthiest Americans and you see that even after his health care plan, just repleaing this tax cut, and closing the outshoucing loophole gives Kerry another 700 billion dollars over ten years for programs he wants to start, or for increaases to the tax cuts to the middle class (which will be far less costly to do, as they are simply a small increase to the tax cuts that were already given under the Bush tax cuts, but enough to comensate for increases in taxes at the local level.

This still gives Kerry enough money to start helping the states out again, which should eventually result in reduced taxes at the local level (but they will never go back to the pre Bush tax cut levels, as not every state and locality will reduce the taxes they are already receiving).

Kerry really only needs to make government cuts to pork programs, particularly those government givaways to large corporation. Like the over 160 billion dollars in giveaways to the pharmaceutical comanies that are part of the Bush Medicare prescription program. Get rid of that and you reduce the cost of the drug program by one third.

Closing the corporate loopholes on comanies that outsource American jobs (the companies can run without paying a cent in corporate taxes as long as the money earned overseads is kept overseas, whichs is no longer the problem that it once would have been given the international nature of banking). On top of that a corporation that outsources jobs actually pays less taxes on the money it does earn and brings back into the U.S, than it would if it kept the jobs in the U.S.

[paulk]

38. The spending cuts argument is a strawman

Like Sangho says upthread - don't let the Republicans frame the debate.

The Democrats approach is fundamentally different that the Repuke "supply side" nonsense. The Democrats will grow the economy by helping the middle class rather than the rich. A robust economy will bring in more revenue - and that's how you decrease the deficit.

It's what Clinton did - granted he was helped by the tech bubble - but there are other bubbles out there waiting to happen. Technologies related to stem cell research, for instance. Alternative energy is another. These are areas of potential growth and the Bush administration is sitting on it's hands and letting other countries take the lead.

The Bush administration's faith based economy will have devastating effects on our nation's economic future.

Hit 'em up with that argument.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. The bloated and ineffective military could use some chainsaw size cuts.

Our much vaunted, technologically bound, military, which is still fighting WWII is ineffective against guerillas, especially urband guerillas. Unfortunately, for our brilliant military thinkers, they have yet to realize that the country is much more threatened by a handful of guys with boxcutters or suitcases full of explosives, biological, chemical, weapons than by invading armies or high-tech missles.

To the tune of billions upon billions of dollars spent on weapons that are useless except to impress the gullible American public who thinks that blowing up buildings accomplishes something.

Those billions could be spent helping the poor around the world where the guerillas come from. But, noooooo, we insist on displaying our jockstraps and trying to bully the world into submission.

There's a long list of tough guy empires who attempted the same thing and are now interesting studies in futility.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kanary]

45. He'll cut entitlements, what else?

Not Social Security and Medicare -- at least not at first. That would bring on a loud scream from the elderly people.

But, like Clinton, he'll cut those without a voice...... those who aren't noticed......... those who will go quietly.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but.........

Kanary

[George W. Dunce]

49. Didn't he say on Beat the Press

this summer that he wont have to cut these programs. He said just like during the Clinton era the payroll tax intake increases when people are working. He told Tim "I wish I could play for you what you said right as we were facing these same choices during the Clifton Admin." and "you said we are going to have to cut X and Y and we never had to cut either"
Something to that effect.Closing loop holes and getting people back to work.

[Kanary]

50. Same as Clinton.

Sure sounds like it to me.

And those deaths won't matter, either.

Kanary

[Julien Sorel]

51. I think he's still screwing up the guts

to release his military records all over again, just to make you happy.

You sure do have a hard time finding information on Kerry when people have been posting it here for months, and it's permanently posted on his campaign website.

Not that it will stop these asinine threads, but here is a link to his website. If you bookmark it, you can look up the answer to these questions yourself! Won't that make you feel like a big kid?

[Hutzpa]

52. Hmmm...very clever question lefty, very clever n/t

http://illwillpress.com/tech.html

[Hutzpa]

53. Its about time we stop posing these.

type of question around here with so many freeper lying dormant. If we(I mean long term DU'ers)have been following Kerry and listening to him, we should now know where he stands, not asking over and over again the same freeping type questions.

This is the time where cards have to be held close to chest, not putting everything on the table. Start exposing his policies so soon, then what, he gets accused of flip-flopping again, this flip-flopping was started right here in DU, by someone similar to you posing a question, only this time you are posing a tax cut question.

:think: