• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

So you think you can balance the national budget?

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
A currancy trader from NYC shared this with me. It's a little like a game in a way. It shows how much debt we have and possible sources for spending cuts, as well a possible sources or revenue. You get to pick what is done and then see what effect it has graphicly.

It shows how bad this situation is, and how hard it will be to undo. Trying to fix this without raising taxes on some one will be hard if not impossible to do. The sender is a very good repulican by the way....

Here is the link:


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

Best regards, Kirk
 

Gatorboy

Active member
That was pretty simple to do without raising taxes -- and there are many, many other things that can get CUT as well.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I agee. Easy peezy.
If they changed the question to:
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget & get reelected
then it becomes clear why we need term limits now. If they didn't have to worry about being reelected maybe they'd do the job they were elected to do. :pat:
 

loboloco

Well-known member
Easy as pie, just have to get the politicians to use their cojones and do it. No new taxes required.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I think that many of these charts are designed to convince people that the only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes. However, sending more money to Washington is not only not going to decrease the deficit, it will provide a slush fund for politicians to increase spending, and politicians too often use new cash as a down payment on their favorite project. Take a look at unemployment as an example. What was recently a 26 week state run safety new is now a federally run and funded program with no expiration date.

What is missing from the chart are two of my first choices. Sending all illegal workers home and reducing the welfare and unemployed numbers by a similar amount. That is a double hit. Less government spending and less unemployment.





After cutting all the places possible, and that includes low income sacred cows, then a tax increase may be in order.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Here Jim is some information on what illegal immigration costs us. It doesn't mention the fact that 400,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records have been deported in 2011 which is considerably higher than in previous years. However they are going after those without criminal records either.

http://immigrationcounters.com/
 

Kane

New member
Seems that they knew how to do it 2,000 years ago:"

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero - 55 BC
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Here Jim is some information on what illegal immigration costs us. It doesn't mention the fact that 400,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records have been deported in 2011 which is considerably higher than in previous years. However they are going after those without criminal records either.

http://immigrationcounters.com/
The direct cost of illegals is just half the equation. The other half is the jobs lost, which we badly need. I really don't care if Americans don't want them or won't do them. Given the choice of eating and working or not eating and not working, I think the number of Americans who won't do the jobs would change.

Government will tell you that they will go after the illegal criminals. Fact is, anybody standing on the north side of the river with wet hair is a criminal and therefore not eligible for work permits or benefits.

Perry lost any chance of my vote when he defended his signing of the bill giving in state tuition to illegals. My kids would not have been eligible for in state tuition in Texas, and they are natural born taxpaying citizens.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
The direct cost of illegals is just half the equation. The other half is the jobs lost, which we badly need. I really don't care if Americans don't want them or won't do them. Given the choice of eating and working or not eating and not working, I think the number of Americans who won't do the jobs would change.

Government will tell you that they will go after the illegal criminals. Fact is, anybody standing on the north side of the river with wet hair is a criminal and therefore not eligible for work permits or benefits.

Perry lost any chance of my vote when he defended his signing of the bill giving in state tuition to illegals. My kids would not have been eligible for in state tuition in Texas, and they are natural born taxpaying citizens.

I do agree especially as coming from Miami Florida BC (before Cubans). Now it means no one can work their unless they are bi-lingual which means you can good morning in English and speak Spanish. It doesn't work the other way around either.

If it was up to me any one caught with and illegal working for them the first time a major fine, next time jail time and third they are out of business completely. I also don't buy that American's won't do the jobs, though they may ask for a bit more like minimum wage that they won't pay the illegals.
 

tommu56

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
They missed the boat for making politicians part time
putting all federal workers on the same plans as we have for medical and social security with out them it wont float

tom
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
They missed the boat for making politicians part time
putting all federal workers on the same plans as we have for medical and social security with out them it wont float

tom

Now I can agree with that completely, and don't let them vote themselves a raise ever. Hell they only work part time as it is about 3 days a week really.
 

thcri

Gone But Not Forgotten
If it was up to me any one caught with and illegal working for them the first time a major fine, next time jail time and third they are out of business completely.


In our area I don't see business's hiring the illegals. I am sure there is some. I know in other areas it is more prevalent. What I do see a lot of here is illegals having their own cash run business's.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
We used to have a contractor here that bragged one day how that is all he would hire. According to him they would work what ever hours he wanted, not expect a break and work for $5 per hour. He is now out of business but due to his divorce. He would buy up foreclosed houses, do a little work and resell them. He was doing pretty well at that time too.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Now I can agree with that completely, and don't let them vote themselves a raise ever. Hell they only work part time as it is about 3 days a week really.
It is an often missed fact that the politicians never vote themselves a raise.

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. (27th amendment).

What Congress has done is to vote themselves automatic raises in perpetuity. That way they don't have to go on record as voting themselves a raise. They have to vote that they do not get a raise.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
joec said:
If it was up to me any one caught with and illegal working for them the first time a major fine, next time jail time and third they are out of business completely. I also don't buy that American's won't do the jobs, though they may ask for a bit more like minimum wage that they won't pay the illegals.

I agree, but the illegal should be sent packing, and in a manner that would make other illegals want to voluntarily leave.

Americans taking those jobs can ask anything they want for compensation. The market, if left alone, will determine how much they actually get paid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
If it was up to me any one caught with and illegal working for them the first time a major fine, next time jail time and third they are out of business completely. I also don't buy that American's won't do the jobs, though they may ask for a bit more like minimum wage that they won't pay the illegals.

jimbo said:
I agree, but the illegal should be sent packing, and in a manner that would make other illegals want to voluntarily leave.

Americans taking those jobs can ask anything they want for compensation. The market, if left alone, will determine how much they actually get paid.

Jobs and opportunity is what attracts them in the first place, dry it up and they won't come without going to proper channels. No need to deport them really they simply won't come. Look at the immigration from Mexico over the last 3 years it is down a lot. It has nothing to do with government it is more to do with the lack of jobs. At least that is my opinion and the US does need some legal immigration as that is what put us on top all of these years was different points of views mixed in the melting pot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
jimbo said:
I agree, but the illegal should be sent packing, and in a manner that would make other illegals want to voluntarily leave.

Americans taking those jobs can ask anything they want for compensation. The market, if left alone, will determine how much they actually get paid.

joec said:
Jobs and opportunity is what attracts them in the first place, dry it up and they won't come without going to proper channels. No need to deport them really they simply won't come. Look at the immigration from Mexico over the last 3 years it is down a lot. It has nothing to do with government it is more to do with the lack of jobs. At least that is my opinion and the US does need some legal immigration as that is what put us on top all of these years was different points of views mixed in the melting pot.
Joe, we've got somewhere around 20 million illegals in the country. If they do not go home one way or another they are going to cost the country. If one takes a job, one citizen does not get that job. If one sends their kid to school, uses the emergency room, road, or any other government perk, then that money has to come from somewhere. That will be you, me, or our grand kids.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't know how I got this post screwed up, but I did. Hopefully someone can fix it for me.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
My point was cut off the very thing they come here for and then if they don't leave we should make them go. As for their kids etc well that is a bit more complicated as is medical care.
 

Catavenger

New member
SUPER Site Supporter
Raise the Social Security retirement age to 70
yeah wonderful so people pay into that their whole lives then never live long enough to receive a payout. That has to be about the stupidest idea ever.
What's with this "Cut foreign aid in half?" Why not cut it 80 percent? Or cut ALL of it?
"Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent," only 10 percent?
How about selling New York city and using that money?
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
My point was cut off the very thing they come here for and then if they don't leave we should make them go. As for their kids etc well that is a bit more complicated as is medical care.
Seems to me it is fairly straightforward. Until and unless we send them packing they will stay. The only solution has to be twofold. Dry up the bennies and get rid of those here. Each one gone is another job created or saved.

While I don't disagree that the anchor babies have a bitch, that bitch is with their parents and/or their own country, not me or mine. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and passing that debt down the line to our kids and grand kids. I'm far more worried about what we are doing to our kids than what we are doing to someone else's. Likewise medical. If we are so hung up on high costs and quality of care here, why then are we so worried about someone else's medical problems.

I believe we do not have either the resources or energy to expend on someone else's problems.

After we get the country right side up once again, perhaps a law stating that each and every prospective immigrant, legal or illegal, should be treated exactly the same as a US citizen is treated in their homeland. Using Mexico laws for US citizen residency, virtually no illegal would qualify for residency here.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Seems to me it is fairly straightforward. Until and unless we send them packing they will stay. The only solution has to be twofold. Dry up the bennies and get rid of those here. Each one gone is another job created or saved.

While I don't disagree that the anchor babies have a bitch, that bitch is with their parents and/or their own country, not me or mine. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and passing that debt down the line to our kids and grand kids. I'm far more worried about what we are doing to our kids than what we are doing to someone else's. Likewise medical. If we are so hung up on high costs and quality of care here, why then are we so worried about someone else's medical problems.

I believe we do not have either the resources or energy to expend on someone else's problems.

After we get the country right side up once again, perhaps a law stating that each and every prospective immigrant, legal or illegal, should be treated exactly the same as a US citizen is treated in their homeland. Using Mexico laws for US citizen residency, virtually no illegal would qualify for residency here.

This is precisely true of every country on this planet also I might add. Costa Rico is one I considered actually moving to when I retired. However though I could live really well there on nothing but Social Security there are limits on what I can own such as a business which I could own but not operate. So unless you are building a large operation you are forced to live on what you have.

I have no problem with anything done to stop illegal immigration regardless of country of origin. I just stated it is a bit more complicated with the laws of this country due to if you are born here you are a citizen. We also require an Emergency room to treat the sick regardless of their citizenship. Simply human to do so nothing more.

I have no problem either with those that have been here, gone through collage, served in the military for us not be made citizens as soon as they complete their service. We took the Cubans due to Castro and not because they where afraid for the lives but their lively hoods mostly.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I agree that many countries have residency requirements far greater than the US. The exceptions seem to be in Europe, and is doesn't to be working out all that well. I just picked Mexico as an example as it has more than 80% of the total US illegals.
 

SShepherd

New member
yeah wonderful so people pay into that their whole lives then never live long enough to receive a payout. That has to be about the stupidest idea ever.
What's with this "Cut foreign aid in half?" Why not cut it 80 percent? Or cut ALL of it?
"Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent," only 10 percent?
How about selling New York city and using that money?
look into when SS was implemented-

look at the age that you can collect
then
look at the life expectancy of a male in the US at the time.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
look into when SS was implemented-

look at the age that you can collect
then
look at the life expectancy of a male in the US at the time.
In my view, the difference between SS and medicare and other entitlements is that I look at both as bought and paid for contracts between the government and its citizens. The rest: wefare, adc and others are simply government programs. The exception might be unemployment, but the contract in that case is with the state and was limited to 26 weeks or thereabouts depending on the states. Past that, the program became a government program and just welfare under another name. Military pensions would fall under contractual obligations.
If anything needs to be cut, the non paid for programs need to go second, just after the entitlements of the Congress and administration.

Instead, welfare and reduction of government employee numbers and compensation are never even considered, even though there are as many senior citizens that will suffer is SS and Medicare benefits are cut.
 

muleman

Gone But Not Forgotten
GOLD Site Supporter
I could balance the budget. Just take a little more from Dargo each week!:whistling::clap:
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
SS was enacted in 1935

benifit age was 65

life expectancy in 1935;
men- 59.9
women- 63.9

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

house odds ?
No, contractual obligations. You make a deal, you live by the deal. I don't get why the SS (and Medicare) systems are on the chopping block, and other government "entitlements" are not. Congress should cut first their own perks, second cut those non contractual, i.e. Welfare, unemployment, and other programs, third, government employees compensation. Ain't gonna happen.
 
Top