Take the Deficit Reduction Quiz
Original post made
by stephen levy, University South,
on Nov 14, 2010
The New York Times has a deficit reduction quiz based and a series of related articles on their homepage today.
Here is the link to the quiz.]
I made my choices and balanced the budget in less than five minutes.
Here are my cholces]
I would go further and let the Bush tax cuts expire for folks making more than $100,000 or $150,000 but possibly keep the low rates for capital gains and dividends. This would save even more money while preserving investment incentives.
I invite readers to take the quiz and share their choices.
Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 19, 2010 at 6:41 am
I did "take the test" Mr. Levy, but did not submit it, not willing to be a tool in yet another highly biased "survey" with extremely limited options to support the foregone conclusion desired...which is to raise taxes, cut military.
That is what the left in this country has wanted since after JFK, ( he, on the other hand, understood economics), and I won't play with that ball.
I will not let my opinions be defined by that template.
Simply go back to the spending levels of any time before now, and I will be happy. Even to just 2 years ago. Start there, then keep chiseling.
Do the very odd thing that the rest of us have to do..live within what we make, or go bankrupt.
There is the continued fallacy promoted by folks who have yet to learn from history, from FDR through now in California, from France to Cuba...the more we confiscate from producers, the less we all have to actually use.
Stop confiscating from producers, stop the never ending spiral of shifting the tax burden to fewer and fewer people ( only 52% of us pay any Federal taxes at this point in our nation's history..the top 25% pay 86% of all the bill)..and guess what? We will explode. Spread the tax burden wider, decrease it on those who produce jobs, and voila, more jobs, more tax base.
What brings in more money into the tax coffers? 100,000,000 employed people, all paying something, or 10,000,000 people paying a lot? Just asking a hypothetical, not based on any actual numbers, to get the point across.
In other words "spread the burden", not "spread the wealth", works a lot better for all to rise.
What works better to encourage risk taking and hiring? Fear of having the benefits, if the risk-takers win, confiscated by the Feds, fear of being regulated out of business, fear of being a "loser" in the govt picking winners and losers? Or people knowing that if they win, they get to keep their winnings and continue to grow them without interference?
Think of a raffle, or a lottery. How many takers would you get in a lottery that costs $100, if the most the winner could win was $200? How many takers if the most you can win is $1,000,000,000? How many if the most has another zero? How many if the winner didn't know what he would be allowed to spend it on? How many takers if the winner knew that as soon as he won, the govt would arbitrarily decide, at that time, how much it would confiscate, and how the winner would be allowed to utilize the winnings?
Apply these basic rules of human nature to us, the people of the USA, trying to create businesses, and you will see why your basic game rules don't work.
That is why we won't play the game by the NYT/Democrat "rules". The rules ignore the reality of human behavior results.
And results count.