PDA

View Full Version : Fix the national deficit


Pages : [1] 2

Chris
04-06-2011, 08:50 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=politics

Fix the national deficit.

tsiguy96
04-06-2011, 09:07 AM
a. expanding the military is costing hundreds of billions of dollars
b. super rich dont need more tax breaks

OABB
04-06-2011, 09:09 AM
tax the rich. done.

Smiling Assassin27
04-06-2011, 09:10 AM
tax the rich. done.

Vague, nebulous, and ineffective attempt at social engineering...perfect for a government operation.

OABB
04-06-2011, 09:14 AM
Vague, nebulous, and ineffective attempt at social engineering...perfect for a government operation.

not vague at all.


TAX. THE. RICH.

tsiguy96
04-06-2011, 09:16 AM
Vague, nebulous, and ineffective attempt at social engineering...perfect for a government operation.

so the bottom 99% should have to suffer trying to compensate for a deficit taht was put in place essentially when they STOPPED taxing the super rich? how can someone argue that not taxing them more than those of us who barely survive is a bad idea? in a time when the super rich are just pocketing more money instead of creating jobs with it, you can really justify not taxing them more, rather they should get MORE money than they already have?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 09:16 AM
Its actually not that difficult. If you let the bush tax cuts expire, implemented the ACA (with excise tax) and cap both defense and non defense discretionary, you should technically be there...but well, i suppose thats easier said than done

Smiling Assassin27
04-06-2011, 09:16 AM
not vague at all.


TAX. THE. RICH.


Define 'RICH'. Define 'TAX'. Define 'THE'

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton ;)

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 09:17 AM
so the bottom 99% should have to suffer trying to compensate for a deficit taht was put in place essentially when they STOPPED taxing the super rich? how can someone argue that not taxing them more than those of us who barely survive is a bad idea? in a time when the super rich are just pocketing more money instead of creating jobs with it, you can really justify not taxing them more, rather they should get MORE money than they already have?

its the great paradox of american society. We have stockholm syndrome towards the rich for some reason.

Smiling Assassin27
04-06-2011, 09:20 AM
I found it easy as well.

Tackle entitlements, size of government, defense spending, and keep taxes low for everyone. Return government to its originally delegated responsibilities and you can get there.

Smiling Assassin27
04-06-2011, 09:22 AM
its the great paradox of american society. We have stockholm syndrome towards the rich for some reason.

you're thinking with your cosmic justice gene.

Inkana7
04-06-2011, 09:28 AM
I found it easy as well.

Tackle entitlements, size of government, defense spending, and keep taxes low for everyone. Return government to its originally delegated responsibilities and you can get there.

1803 was a fine year.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 09:32 AM
tax the rich. done.

Taxing "the rich" at 100 percent still wouldn't begin to tackle the problem. Until we seriously tackle defense spending health spending (medicare, medicaid, VA, CHiP, and Obamacare) it matters little. It's not the money coming in that's the problem; ITS THE SPENDING.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 09:33 AM
1803 was a fine year.

Not financially: See the LA Purchase. :)

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 09:35 AM
so the bottom 99% should have to suffer trying to compensate for a deficit taht was put in place essentially when they STOPPED taxing the super rich? how can someone argue that not taxing them more than those of us who barely survive is a bad idea? in a time when the super rich are just pocketing more money instead of creating jobs with it, you can really justify not taxing them more, rather they should get MORE money than they already have?

This country has always ran at a deficit except for one time when Jackson let the Second National Bank charter expire and paid off the national debt. He is the only President to ever do so.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 09:37 AM
Its actually not that difficult. If you let the bush tax cuts expire, implemented the ACA (with excise tax) and cap both defense and non defense discretionary, you should technically be there...but well, i suppose thats easier said than done

If the Bush tax cuts expire then the tax burden on every American go up. George Bush is the only modern era President to lower taxes for 100 percent of the tax paying public. The answer here isn't to raise taxes but to remove ALL deductions and loop holes and make every Citizen, non-charity, and Business pay 10 percent. Strip the tax code clean and cut the IRS to nothing in the process.

Archer81
04-06-2011, 09:38 AM
a. expanding the military is costing hundreds of billions of dollars
b. super rich dont need more tax breaks


Congress has a responsibility to create and fund an army and a navy. They do not need to fund entitlement programs, which cost more per year than anything military related.

Everyone needs a tax break. Lowering taxes for everybody wont kill anything. In fact, you lower taxes on businesses, they grow...which hires more people.

:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 09:39 AM
Congress has a responsibility to create and fund an army and a navy. They do not need to fund entitlement programs, which cost more per year than anything military related.



This is a fact; although defense spending is right up there with total health and human services spending.

bowtown
04-06-2011, 09:43 AM
Congress has a responsibility to create and fund an army and a navy. :Broncos:

I have yet to hear even the most liberal in this country declare that we should not create and fund an army and a navy.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 09:49 AM
It is hillarious to think that the super rich will hold still while you take all of there money.

You can shear a sheep many times you can skin them only once.

Archer81
04-06-2011, 09:49 AM
I have yet to hear even the most liberal in this country declare that we should not create and fund an army and a navy.


This is a joke, right?



:Broncos:

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 09:50 AM
If the Bush tax cuts expire then the tax burden on every American go up. George Bush is the only modern era President to lower taxes for 100 percent of the tax paying public. The answer here isn't to raise taxes but to remove ALL deductions and loop holes and make every Citizen, non-charity, and Business pay 10 percent. Strip the tax code clean and cut the IRS to nothing in the process.

I agree that the tax code needs to be redone, but if you let the bush tax cuts expire for the just the top percent (which is what the plan was), it'll create some revenue without touching the middle class tax rate (which is essentially what the ryan budget would do...though i think that budget was really just made for confrontation rather than implementation).

tsiguy96
04-06-2011, 09:52 AM
It is hillarious to think that the super rich will hold still while you take all of there money.

You can shear a sheep many times you can skin them only once.

yea thats a good argument. thats it everyone, lets just cut their taxes to zero, or they might leave!

DrFate
04-06-2011, 09:52 AM
Because rich people don't pay taxes...

People are so dumb

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 09:53 AM
Because rich people don't pay taxes...

People are so dumb

Theres that too :) Well corporations dont at least.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 09:54 AM
I agree that the tax code needs to be redone, but if you let the bush tax cuts expire for the just the top percent (which is what the plan was), it'll create some revenue without touching the middle class tax rate (which is essentially what the ryan budget would do...though i think that budget was really just made for confrontation rather than implementation).

It would screw me pretty hard. Capital gains would destroy my income from spec houses. But i am rich right. Lost over 50k last year duck him.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-06-2011, 09:58 AM
yea thats a good argument. thats it everyone, lets just cut their taxes to zero, or they might leave!

Yeah, and let's just tax the rich some more.

I mean, the top 5% only pay a little less than 60% of the total income taxes in this country. Let's just pile on a larger burden because they can clearly afford it and hope there won't be any adverse consequenses.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 10:05 AM
I agree that the tax code needs to be redone, but if you let the bush tax cuts expire for the just the top percent (which is what the plan was), it'll create some revenue without touching the middle class tax rate (which is essentially what the ryan budget would do...though i think that budget was really just made for confrontation rather than implementation).

Maybe, but t still is all for not if we don't first curb spending.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-06-2011, 10:05 AM
Taxing "the rich" at 100 percent still wouldn't begin to tackle the problem. Until we seriously tackle defense spending health spending (medicare, medicaid, VA, CHiP, and Obamacare) it matters little. It's not the money coming in that's the problem; ITS THE SPENDING.

Actually, it's both. Spending and a lack of revenue are what have led us to our current predicament.

Dems should force $5 in tax loophole closures for every $1 in cuts.

Then, next year, let the irresponsi­­ble Bush Tax Cuts expire by taking no action whatsoever­­. Half the budget gap would be gone. Like that.

Teabags, you said you wanted a budget, you said you wanted debt to come down. This is how you get there. You might piss off some of your rich donors, and you might not get elected next time. But that's not why you came to Washington­­, remember? You came to balance the budget, not to earn reelection­­. So what's your problem?

Oh right. Bags lie through their tooth. I keep forgetting­­.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 10:36 AM
Actually, it's both. Spending and a lack of revenue are what have led us to our current predicament.

Dems should force $5 in tax loophole closures for every $1 in cuts.

Then, next year, let the irresponsi­­ble Bush Tax Cuts expire by taking no action whatsoever­­. Half the budget gap would be gone. Like that.

Teabags, you said you wanted a budget, you said you wanted debt to come down. This is how you get there. You might piss off some of your rich donors, and you might not get elected next time. But that's not why you came to Washington­­, remember? You came to balance the budget, not to earn reelection­­. So what's your problem?

Oh right. Bags lie through their tooth. I keep forgetting­­.

So I lie and you care nothing for me

El Guapo
04-06-2011, 10:40 AM
not vague at all.


TAX. THE. RICH.

How about a flat tax? It would simplify the tax code and tax everyone equally.

tsiguy96
04-06-2011, 10:42 AM
How about a flat tax? It would simplify the tax code and tax everyone equally.

so people who make 10 million get taxed the same as people who make 10 thousand?

Obushma
04-06-2011, 10:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=politics

Fix the national deficit.

Thats easy, vote Ron Paul

Dukes
04-06-2011, 10:48 AM
so people who make 10 million get taxed the same as people who make 10 thousand?

$1k against $1 Million. Yeah that's not fair at all. LOL

BroncoInferno
04-06-2011, 10:55 AM
$1k against $1 Million. Yeah that's not fair at all. LOL

As a utility of income...no, it isn't.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 10:56 AM
so people who make 10 million get taxed the same as people who make 10 thousand?

Have the explained percentages to you yet?

Dukes
04-06-2011, 11:03 AM
As a utility of income...no, it isn't.

So what is "fair" for someone making less than $40k?

DarkHorse30
04-06-2011, 11:12 AM
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

This.....oh, and thanks democrats for not presenting ANY Budget at all, so that you can blame the republicans (again) for shutting down the gov't.

57's budget doesn't count because I don't think he's even a democrat anymore.....what is to the left of a democrat?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 11:15 AM
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

This.....oh, and thanks democrats for not presenting ANY Budget at all, so that you can blame the republicans (again) for shutting down the gov't.

57's budget doesn't count because I don't think he's even a democrat anymore.....what is to the left of a democrat?

The democrats should present a budget (and apparently will) and it should be as pie in the sky as the Ryan budget is....but im sure it wont be. It'll be some moderate BS that will give the right wing most of what it wants. What people fail to realize is our government has so few true liberals. What you guys consider a liberal these days is really just a slightly left of center dem. want a liberal, look at bernie sanders!

OABB
04-06-2011, 11:19 AM
How about a flat tax? It would simplify the tax code and tax everyone equally.

I'm ALL for this. Not only would it simplify, it would make it harder for the wealthy to skirt the tax code.

This would be a huge help imo.

Also, no more bailing out criminals who destroy the economy.

They should be beheaded in a public square.

seriously.

If the rich pay, and corporate fraud is punished, America will return to it's glory.


Also, anyone who believes that trickle down economics works(and not that they are for it because it helps the wealthy, but the stupid people who bought this BS hook line and sinker) should be beheaded as well.

all lazy people on government assist programs(not the crazies like Ronald Reagan threw out on the street when he was the governater) should be crushed up and made into fertilizer.


kill the rich criminals, kill the poor lazies, kill the people who believe in trickle down economics and tax all of the rest of us...

problem solved.

thank you.

BroncoInferno
04-06-2011, 11:23 AM
I'm ALL for this. Not only would it simplify, it would make it harder for the wealthy to skirt the tax code.

How? They would just buy all their luxery items overseas.

Houshyamama
04-06-2011, 11:23 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=hn1k36p0

DarkHorse30
04-06-2011, 11:28 AM
The democrats should present a budget (and apparently will) and it should be as pie in the sky as the Ryan budget is....but im sure it wont be. It'll be some moderate BS that will give the right wing most of what it wants. What people fail to realize is our government has so few true liberals. What you guys consider a liberal these days is really just a slightly left of center dem. want a liberal, look at bernie sanders!

I believe you are just hatin' on the whitey from wisconsin......

Hercules Rockefeller
04-06-2011, 11:31 AM
The democrats should present a budget (and apparently will) and it should be as pie in the sky as the Ryan budget is....but im sure it wont be. It'll be some moderate BS that will give the right wing most of what it wants. What people fail to realize is our government has so few true liberals. What you guys consider a liberal these days is really just a slightly left of center dem. want a liberal, look at bernie sanders!

You know when the Dems should have presented a budget? Last year like they were supposed to when they still controlled the House. But they punted because they didn't have the ****ing guts to do that in an election year.

Bernie describes himself as a socialist, if that's what you guys want to be called in the future, so be it.

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 11:35 AM
If the Bush tax cuts expire then the tax burden on every American go up. George Bush is the only modern era President to lower taxes for 100 percent of the tax paying public. The answer here isn't to raise taxes but to remove ALL deductions and loop holes and make every Citizen, non-charity, and Business pay 10 percent. Strip the tax code clean and cut the IRS to nothing in the process.

Why am I not surprised you are clinging to a semantic argument? However, I'm glad to see you've finally learned enough arithmetic to understand that raising taxes is necessary.

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 11:38 AM
It is hillarious to think that the super rich will hold still while you take all of there money.

You can shear a sheep many times you can skin them only once.

So the super rich of today are different from the super rich of 1930-1980 how?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 11:42 AM
You know when the Dems should have presented a budget? Last year like they were supposed to when they still controlled the House. But they punted because they didn't have the ****ing guts to do that in an election year.

Bernie describes himself as a socialist, if that's what you guys want to be called in the future, so be it.

Bernie is a democratic socialist, as am i. Yes, id love more of us in the government. The only reason socialism is a curse word in America is because of cold war propaganda. Essentially, every single society in the world today is a capitalist/socialist hybrid...some are more capitalist than others, some are more socialist

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 11:43 AM
How about a flat tax? It would simplify the tax code and tax everyone equally.

A flat tax would be a massive, crippling tax increase for the lower 3 quintiles.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 11:46 AM
I believe you are just hatin' on the whitey from wisconsin......

Actually, i respect the work he put in, at least its something with substance rather than just claiming the democrats are wrong.

that said, the budget is right wing ideological nonsense. But, again, i think this was to be more confrontational than right. Why else would he try to repeal Dodd-Frank and cut green energy development, which really has no effect on the budget?

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 11:49 AM
A flat tax would be a massive, crippling tax increase for the lower 3 quintiles.

Yeah, the day we're all born on equal plane, luck and circumstance don't play into success, and we dont have to rely on each other for pretty much everything....thats the day a flat tax will be fair.

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 11:52 AM
When House Republicans flat out state that their ideologically based policy riders on the budget are non-negotiable, you know two things:

* Who is at fault for preventing resolution to the budget problem.
* The true intentions of the GOP (hint: it's not about doing the right thing and fixing the budget)

Hope we all have fun with the 3-5% jump in effective unemployment that is about to happen on Friday.

Dukes
04-06-2011, 11:56 AM
When House Republicans flat out state that their ideologically based policy riders on the budget are non-negotiable, you know two things:

* Who is at fault for preventing resolution to the budget problem.
* The true intentions of the GOP (hint: it's not about doing the right thing and fixing the budget)

Hope we all have fun with the 3-5% jump in effective unemployment that is about to happen on Friday.

Link?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-06-2011, 11:59 AM
If only the Dems had done their job and passed a FY2011 budget last summer like they were supposed to. Huge majorities in both houses and they were still too petrified to do their jobs in an election year.

Now that's leadership.

enjolras
04-06-2011, 12:15 PM
* Tax higher income earners
* Cut defense spending.

It's funny, my father was a fairly high ranking officer in the Air Force (base commander). Late in his career there was a big movement to decrease the size of the military by something like 80% by 2015, which he was involved in.

The military brass were completely on board (and as far as I know, that hasn't changed much). It would be a HUGELY painful cut mainly because it means consolidating most of the military into a small number of VERY large bases. Meaning that all of those communities that depend on local military bases to exist would be left out in the cold.

Yet it resulted in just staggering cost savings, while still maintaining an effective military force.

We should do that. Simply letting the bush tax cuts expire and following the existing plan would more than balance our budget.

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 12:17 PM
Link?

"Boehner also said he would not drop the GOP's insistence on including provisions relating to hot-button social issues such as abortion, calling them important to his conservative caucus. Democrats oppose the so-called "policy riders" in the spending bill."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/06/congress.budget/index.html

Google will locate a multitude of additional sources for you.

bendog
04-06-2011, 12:18 PM
Neither party has the stones. When the dems proposed holding down the cost of medicare, the gop went 'deathpanels.' It'll be bipartisan or not at all, because the gop needs cover on raising taxes and the dems need cover on cutting entitlements, and neither side wants to be accused of soft on defense.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 12:19 PM
(Excited to see the govt shut down) maybe someone can finally get some work done.

Obushma
04-06-2011, 12:22 PM
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

This.....oh, and thanks democrats for not presenting ANY Budget at all, so that you can blame the republicans (again) for shutting down the gov't.

57's budget doesn't count because I don't think he's even a democrat anymore.....what is to the left of a democrat?


Paul Ryan Ha! The Neo-Con/APIAC poster boy, the Aspen a-hole, you really think real Conservatives are gonna fall for that again. Him and Rubio are already pegged.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-paul-ryan-is-worse-than-bill-clinton

WASHINGTON - In response to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new budget proposal, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

"Americans hoping to get real about our national debt just got sucker-punched by Republican Paul Ryan.

"Republicans want to spend $40 trillion over ten years. That averages a staggering $4 trillion per year. As recently as 2000, federal spending was only about $1.8 trillion.

"They also want to increase the federal debt from $15.0 trillion to $23.1 trillion. I hope our children and grandchildren enjoy paying interest on that extra $8.1 trillion.

"People should not judge the quality of this Republican plan by the standard President Obama has set. Everyone knows Obama is a big spender. Democrats rarely campaign on cutting government. What this budget shows is, Republicans are hypocrites. They have no intention of cutting the federal government down to size. In 2021, Paul Ryan still wants the feds to be spending 19.9% of GDP. That's a higher percentage than during Democrat Bill Clinton's second term. In 1997, federal spending was 19.5% of GDP, and it dropped to 18.2% by 2000. Paul Ryan is worse than Bill Clinton.

"Another unfortunate but predictable thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it continues to mollycoddle the Pentagon. Paul Ryan is the Military-Industrial Complex's best friend. He apparently can't find one penny to cut from Obama's bloated levels of military spending. Only a big-government Republican could come up with language like 'reinvesting $100 billion in higher military priorities.'

"It's interesting that when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House from 2001-2006, they did nothing to shrink government, or even slow down government growth. On the contrary, back then, Paul Ryan was busy voting for expensive foreign wars, No Child Left Behind, and the huge 2003 Medicare expansion. More recently he's voted for the TARP bailouts and even ethanol subsidies.


Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

...and to push the point further, the son of one of the founders of Neoconservatism, Bill Kristol

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IFD3Tye0_rg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

...and Tom Woods educating Dennis Miller on Paul Ryan

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0AE4VD3f-3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Paul Ryan Hilarious!

Hercules Rockefeller
04-06-2011, 12:22 PM
* Tax higher income earners
* Cut defense spending.

It's funny, my father was a fairly high ranking officer in the Air Force (base commander). Late in his career there was a big movement to decrease the size of the military by something like 80% by 2015, which he was involved in.

The military brass were completely on board (and as far as I know, that hasn't changed much). It would be a HUGELY painful cut mainly because it means consolidating most of the military into a small number of VERY large bases. Meaning that all of those communities that depend on local military bases to exist would be left out in the cold.

Yet it resulted in just staggering cost savings, while still maintaining an effective military force.

We should do that. Simply letting the bush tax cuts expire and following the existing plan would more than balance our budget.

FY2011 Deficit- $1.65 Trillion
Letting the all the Bush tax cuts expire per the "savings" in that NYT link: $226B
FY2011 Funding for the military including Iraq and Afghanistan- $712B

You're still over $700B short of balancing the budget even if you were to cut the military entirely.

Rohirrim
04-06-2011, 12:38 PM
My solution ended up 50% spending and 50% taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mx145lt

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 12:51 PM
so people who make 10 million get taxed the same as people who make 10 thousand?

Yes. BEcause under our current system of deductions for God knows what, the 10 million doesn't actually pay their rate. They pay near zero.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 12:53 PM
A flat tax would be a massive, crippling tax increase for the lower 3 quintiles.

The lower 3 need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to pay taxes or get the **** out.

Rigs11
04-06-2011, 01:02 PM
the repubs also want to lower the corporate tax to 25%. Ha!

Crushaholic
04-06-2011, 01:06 PM
A flat tax is a very bad idea. I'm disappointed that one of my senators has been championing the flat tax. Not only would it make the lower economic tiers pay taxes, but it would erase behavioral incentives (like charity donations, or going to college). The country would REALLY go into the tank, if a flat tax is enacted...

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 01:06 PM
the repubs also want to lower the corporate tax to 25%. Ha!

It should be lowered. In fact lower Corp tax rates combined with a flat tax will encourage business and increase revenue.

Dukes
04-06-2011, 01:09 PM
the repubs also want to lower the corporate tax to 25%. Ha!

What do you have against jobs? You're a jobs bigot.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 01:21 PM
It should be lowered. In fact lower Corp tax rates combined with a flat tax will encourage business and increase revenue.

Lowered? They dont pay it anyway

orange skier
04-06-2011, 01:23 PM
Yeah.......I think it's a great idea to send more money to the government.......it's such an efficient, well run operation.......we're from the government and we're here to help...signed...

the IRS, the Post Office, and the Welfare people.........

Blart
04-06-2011, 01:28 PM
Cut NPR and Planned Parenthood = all problems solved.

Swedish Extrovert
04-06-2011, 01:48 PM
1. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts must happen, but this will only solve about 10 percent of the problem.

2. Cut the defense budget in half. Think about WHO we're fighting - terrorists, not nations. Cut the budget for large-scale weaponry by 75 percent. Rotate units based on personell, not machinery, BUT double spending on Special Forces trained in close-warfare and terrorism.

3. Democrats should be more on board with scaling back social security payouts (**** the baby boomers) and scale back subsidies for things like corn-based ethanol. Hold the banks responsible for their toxic assets.

4. Republicans should be more on board with raising taxes and (reasonable) trade barriers that will start to tip the BOP with nations like China back to the US.

5. The US spends about $35k per prisoner, per year. That's by far the largest in the developed world, and that’s untaxable, unworkable money down the drain. Forget about racial injustices for one second – our prison system is the largest in the developed world and most of that is drug related. Just legalize marijuana and cocaine, give it a crazy sin-tax. That right there is several billion dollars moved from red to black.

6. Speaking of sin tax…. We should tax the **** out of other things that are bad for people, along with cigs and alcohol, tax soda, chips, things high in saturated fat… speaking of, maybe we should legalize prostitution and tax and regulate the crap out of it.

7. Eliminate the Laffler Curve as a policy tool, as it has largely been disproven by John Quiggin. This is a long-term problem, and removing the national debt cannot be done without depleting the economy. Obama's appropriate Keynesian response to the recession has kept us out of another great depression. We should follow j-curve economics, and for future stability:

1. Invest in mass transportation (ie high speed rail) and give tax breaks to people who choose to purchase fuel-efficient cars. This will allow us to focus current oil supply in transportation and the development of rail as another medium for transport of food and goods, thus minimizing transportation markup.

2. Bust up teachers unions and offer the opportunity for higher salaries for merit-based pay. Increase education funding and double the Math and Science requirements for high school graduation.

3. Make Civics a required course in HS, giving students the tools to develop a new sense of patriotism and knowledge of politics and increase public involvement. Increase funding for arts – this has been shown to increase students critical thinking elsewhere. Make PE mandatory as well by requiring the passing of a physical fitness test for all graduating students to lower future health care costs – all Americans should be able to run an 8-minute mile and do 25 push-ups. No more lazy fatasses.

4. Give tax breaks to corporations to companies based on the amount they spend on R&D and the percentage of Americans they employ.

5. Offer citizenship to illegal immigrants who earn college degrees in our school systems or serve in our military. (In fact, give citizenship to ANY foreign national who comes to an American college and earns a degree.)

6. Develop a public option for health care. This will reduce costs of intensive care through preventative medicine and lossed man-hours. Government oversight will increase HMO competition and minimize waste, fraud, and abuse.

7. Increase the amount of humanitarian aid we give to the UN mandate for OECD nations of .7 percent of GNP, building economic relations with valuable trade partners.

8. Invest in renewable, sustainable energy so further down the road we can use that energy to develop other sustainable models (while we still have the resources).

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 02:21 PM
Lowered? They dont pay it anyway

Yes and combined with a flat tax no deduction tax code they HAVE to pay.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 02:23 PM
Yes and combined with a flat tax no deduction tax code they HAVE to pay.

Im all for eliminating loopholes, but im not for the flat tax. Too crippling for poor people.

Garcia Bronco
04-06-2011, 02:26 PM
Im all for eliminating loopholes, but im not for the flat tax. Too crippling for poor people.

"Poor" people need to pay up or the should have no vote or say in how taxes are collected and assigned. In fact they should have no voice of any kind because they aren't putting money into the system.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 02:40 PM
"Poor" people need to pay up or the should have no vote or say in how taxes are collected and assigned. In fact they should have no voice of any kind because they aren't putting money into the system.

What do you call Sales Tax? Are you serious with this ****? This is insane. I still dont know where your "all poor people are poor because they choose to be" bs comes from

jhns
04-06-2011, 02:43 PM
What do you call Sales Tax? Are you serious with this ****? This is insane. I still dont know where your "all poor people are poor because they choose to be" bs comes from

Not all, just the large majority.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 02:44 PM
What do you call Sales Tax? Are you serious with this ****? This is insane. I still dont know where your "all poor people are poor because they choose to be" bs comes from

Same place as the dmv is a life sucking experiment. Peoples experience.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-06-2011, 02:47 PM
Same place as the dmv is a life sucking experiment. Peoples experience.

Oh, this is rich. What a simplistic way of thinking.

Chris
04-06-2011, 03:19 PM
Cut NPR and Planned Parenthood = all problems solved.

I don't know much about planned parenthood. I know NPR has screwed some things up at late but it's important to have a public source of information that is at least supposed to be impartial. Most other rich countries have them and they play a much bigger role in educating their societies than do NPR / PBS in the US. If anything I wish they had more of a presence.

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 03:20 PM
(Excited to see the govt shut down) maybe someone can finally get some work done.

Excited to see millions of people put out of a job for an indeterminate amount of time? Excited to see our just starting to recover economy take another blow?

Fedaykin
04-06-2011, 03:24 PM
The lower 3 need to pay taxes. Everyone needs to pay taxes or get the **** out.

Everyone does pay taxes. What are you going to do with the single moms working two jobs who are working paycheck to paycheck do -- have them try to find a third job to make up the lost 25% of their paycheck?

I know you don't understand this, but you can't get blood from a stone.

Chris
04-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Everyone does pay taxes. What are you going to do with the single moms working two jobs who are working paycheck to paycheck do -- have them try to find a third job to make up the lost 25% of their paycheck?

I know you don't understand this, but you can't get blood from a stone.

This picture says otherwise

http://www.offdutygamers.com/wp-content/uploads/blood-from-stone-275x300.jpg

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 03:30 PM
[QUOTE=SonOfLe-loLang;3152323]Oh, this is rich. What a simplistic way of thinking.[/QUOTE

Occam's razor. Its not always the mini nukes

TailgateNut
04-06-2011, 03:31 PM
I found it easy as well.

Tackle entitlements, size of government, defense spending, and keep taxes low for everyone. Return government to its originally delegated responsibilities and you can get there.


LOLHilarious! especially the rich. Part of the republicon budget idea is to LOWER to top tax bracket from 35% - 25%. I used to just assume that they were ignorant, now I'm positive the GOP is ****ing NUTS!

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 03:33 PM
LOLHilarious! especially the rich. Part of the republicon budget idea is to LOWER to top tax bracket from 35% - 25%. I used to just assume that they were ignorant, now I'm positive the GOP is ****ing NUTS!


Noone else would have a better perspective.

TailgateNut
04-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Thats easy, vote Ron Paul


LOLHilarious!LOL

Rigs11
04-06-2011, 03:39 PM
What do you have against jobs? You're a jobs bigot.

you idiots still don't get it do you?these companies have had these tax cuts in place for years now and the jobs still haven't been created. could it be...gasp...that they sit on their wealth?And garcia just because they are taxed at 35% does not mean that they pay this amount.With all the loopholes and deductions it's nowhere near that amount.Look at GE as a recent example. they have not paid anything for the last 2 years.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 04:59 PM
you idiots still don't get it do you?these companies have had these tax cuts in place for years now and the jobs still haven't been created. could it be...gasp...that they sit on their wealth?And garcia just because they are taxed at 35% does not mean that they pay this amount.With all the loopholes and deductions it's nowhere near that amount.Look at GE as a recent example. they have not paid anything for the last 2 years.

You seemed open for debate. Please don't act like there is only one side to the debate. Makes this place sound like the Ed Schultz show.

ScottXray
04-06-2011, 05:14 PM
1. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts must happen, but this will only solve about 10 percent of the problem.

2. Cut the defense budget in half. Think about WHO we're fighting - terrorists, not nations. Cut the budget for large-scale weaponry by 75 percent. Rotate units based on personell, not machinery, BUT double spending on Special Forces trained in close-warfare and terrorism.

3. Democrats should be more on board with scaling back social security payouts (**** the baby boomers) and scale back subsidies for things like corn-based ethanol. Hold the banks responsible for their toxic assets.

4. Republicans should be more on board with raising taxes and (reasonable) trade barriers that will start to tip the BOP with nations like China back to the US.

5. The US spends about $35k per prisoner, per year. That's by far the largest in the developed world, and that’s untaxable, unworkable money down the drain. Forget about racial injustices for one second – our prison system is the largest in the developed world and most of that is drug related. Just legalize marijuana and cocaine, give it a crazy sin-tax. That right there is several billion dollars moved from red to black.

6. Speaking of sin tax…. We should tax the **** out of other things that are bad for people, along with cigs and alcohol, tax soda, chips, things high in saturated fat… speaking of, maybe we should legalize prostitution and tax and regulate the crap out of it.

7. Eliminate the Laffler Curve as a policy tool, as it has largely been disproven by John Quiggin. This is a long-term problem, and removing the national debt cannot be done without depleting the economy. Obama's appropriate Keynesian response to the recession has kept us out of another great depression. We should follow j-curve economics, and for future stability:

1. Invest in mass transportation (ie high speed rail) and give tax breaks to people who choose to purchase fuel-efficient cars. This will allow us to focus current oil supply in transportation and the development of rail as another medium for transport of food and goods, thus minimizing transportation markup.

2. Bust up teachers unions and offer the opportunity for higher salaries for merit-based pay. Increase education funding and double the Math and Science requirements for high school graduation.

3. Make Civics a required course in HS, giving students the tools to develop a new sense of patriotism and knowledge of politics and increase public involvement. Increase funding for arts – this has been shown to increase students critical thinking elsewhere. Make PE mandatory as well by requiring the passing of a physical fitness test for all graduating students to lower future health care costs – all Americans should be able to run an 8-minute mile and do 25 push-ups. No more lazy fatasses.

4. Give tax breaks to corporations to companies based on the amount they spend on R&D and the percentage of Americans they employ.

5. Offer citizenship to illegal immigrants who earn college degrees in our school systems or serve in our military. (In fact, give citizenship to ANY foreign national who comes to an American college and earns a degree.)

6. Develop a public option for health care. This will reduce costs of intensive care through preventative medicine and lossed man-hours. Government oversight will increase HMO competition and minimize waste, fraud, and abuse.

7. Increase the amount of humanitarian aid we give to the UN mandate for OECD nations of .7 percent of GNP, building economic relations with valuable trade partners.

8. Invest in renewable, sustainable energy so further down the road we can use that energy to develop other sustainable models (while we still have the resources).

All pretty good.

Revamping the tax code is a huge priority to me....but it won't happen.

End subsidies to oil and most other companies. End all Ethanol subsidies and payments to farmers to grow the corn that is used for it. End Farm subsidies for any crop that is exported or not used as food HERE.

If I have to pay it (and I do) why can't there be a CORPORATE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX. Why am I paying 52000 more in federal tax than Exxon or General Electric?

Lowering the corporate tax rate is fine as long as companies can't shift their income to tax shelters and pay nothing. Eliminate that kind of BS.

Give tax breaks to companies that establish and maintain their factories HERE. Impose a tax penalty on any company that exports their manufacturing to other countries, and make it hurt and not be avoidable.

Build hi speed rail and other infrastructure, Yes. Insist that all steel used in that construction must be smelted and produced HERE or no contract or federal assitance my be used for those projects. ( This is to force the resurgence of a modern domestic steel industry, which we will need in the coming years and also create jobs)

The super wealthy know how to use the tax code to shelter their income so they always pay the lowest amount. Make ANY income, even capital gains or muni bond income that is greater than 5 million a year gross ( weighted to the COL index) fully taxable at the Regular tax rate. Income is income. If you have that much you can afford to pay the same as anyone that doesn't have the dodges available because they aren't rich enough.

Basically we need to raise taxes AND cut spending. Millionaires in 1960 paid 90% tax rates. I think people that have over 3 or 4 million a year in income can afford 45% of everything over that. If they bitch they can move to the places they sent the jobs, or anywhere else.

Cut defense ..yes.

Lots of things to be done, none of which EITHER party will do.

Leave Social security alone. ( I am a baby boomer and I have paid Plenty in....so **** you.) By the way, SS is not part of the deficit...it has nothing to do with it, other than the Feds have been BORROWING the SS trust fund to fund the deficit.

StugotsIII
04-06-2011, 05:26 PM
How'bout this:


Raise taxes on literally everyone AND stop the out of control spending until there is no more deficit. Once their is no more deficit...


Reduce taxes and continue spending freezes...

orange skier
04-06-2011, 05:36 PM
That good old American Icon Company called Halliburton recently relocated their corporate charter to Dubai..........their worldwide income is now no longer taxed in the US.....and Houston lost a lot of high paying jobs......raising taxes in the U. S. will only exacerbate the problem........it's the same in Michigan and other high tax states...the companies relocate, and the original states lose out on tax revenues, and on jobs.........we're now competing with an international list of countries that are actually trying to intice companies to move to their locale.........sooner or later we need to get smart and start competing also, and we do that by lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and reducing litigation. Lowering the corporate rates to 25 percent is a great start, but we really need to change the way we think in this country about job creation. Raise taxes equals lose jobs.........period, end of story, case closed.

OABB
04-06-2011, 06:19 PM
That good old American Icon Company called Halliburton recently relocated their corporate charter to Dubai..........their worldwide income is now no longer taxed in the US.....and Houston lost a lot of high paying jobs......raising taxes in the U. S. will only exacerbate the problem........it's the same in Michigan and other high tax states...the companies relocate, and the original states lose out on tax revenues, and on jobs.........we're now competing with an international list of countries that are actually trying to intice companies to move to their locale.........sooner or later we need to get smart and start competing also, and we do that by lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and reducing litigation. Lowering the corporate rates to 25 percent is a great start, but we really need to change the way we think in this country about job creation. Raise taxes equals lose jobs.........period, end of story, case closed.

outsourcing=losing jobs period, end of story.

Laying off employees to increase profit margins for stock holders=lose jobs period, end of story.

corporate crimes to the tune of billions in bailouts= lose jobs period, end of story.

loss of value to the american dollar= lose jobs period, end of story.

letting rich people keep money instead of trickling it down via taxes=lose jobs period, end of story.

raising taxes= lowering profits, not loss of jobs. If a company is too lazy to pick itself up by it's bootstraps and increase profit without layoffs, it doesn't deserve corporate welfare. why should companies get away with being lazy and living off of entitlements, and not people?

they may have to fly a g5 instead of a gold plated g7. When the top 1% can sacrifice the gold plated planes, all will be better.

Chris
04-06-2011, 06:25 PM
I think if people in this country actually held this to a vote they could come up with an agreement faster than the government.

Swedish Extrovert
04-06-2011, 06:45 PM
You lose a lot of intellectual cred any time you say the words "period, end of story, case closed."

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 06:49 PM
outsourcing=losing jobs period, end of story.

Laying off employees to increase profit margins for stock holders=lose jobs period, end of story.

corporate crimes to the tune of billions in bailouts= lose jobs period, end of story.

loss of value to the american dollar= lose jobs period, end of story.

letting rich people keep money instead of trickling it down via taxes=lose jobs period, end of story.

raising taxes= lowering profits, not loss of jobs. If a company is too lazy to pick itself up by it's bootstraps and increase profit without layoffs, it doesn't deserve corporate welfare. why should companies get away with being lazy and living off of entitlements, and not people?

they may have to fly a g5 instead of a gold plated g7. When the top 1% can sacrifice the gold plated planes, all will be better.


Why Pretend that Govt Beurocrates are any different than Corporate CEO's . They are the same People group.

Obama=CEO of any Company you hate.

They do the same thing. The difference is that Companies don't have the power of the US military.

rugbythug
04-06-2011, 06:50 PM
You lose a lot of intellectual cred any time you say the words "period, end of story, case closed."


This is Forfeit when you get an OM Registration.

OABB
04-06-2011, 07:04 PM
I think if people in this country actually held this to a vote they could come up with an agreement faster than the government.

This. It's time for a peoples party. I believe this deep down tht people can compromise if they can get all the facts without agendas.

Being a part of any political party means you have subscribed to an agenda.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 07:19 PM
A lot of hot air by people who have never looked at Tax Policy. A flat tax would bankrupt the country overnight. That's because the US tax system is heavily "progressive".

A national sales tax, or the weighted FAIR tax would be a ideal approach.

Then slap two back to back ten percent cuts - across the board - on all discretionary programs. Companies maintain that you need to do a 10% cut ever year or two to keep things efficent. The US government has never done that. Finally adapt social security to the longer life duration, and go with the conrad plan (which is similar to the French Model) for health insurance instead of copying the bankrupt Canadian and English system.

If you really are serious. That's what you have to do.

gunns
04-06-2011, 07:42 PM
Define 'RICH'. Define 'TAX'. Define 'THE'

Sincerely,

Bill Clinton ;)

This may solve your dilemma. Have a flat tax so that NO ONE gets out of paying the same percentage of their income. Also make those who now do not pay a medicare and social security tax pay the same percentage of their income in this tax. Even if they may not be eligible for it I pay school taxes out the wazoo and have no children in school. That would also solve the social security dilemma down the road.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 07:47 PM
1. Eliminating Bush's tax cuts must happen, but this will only solve about 10 percent of the problem.


Just as a note to all of those ranting about how evil Bush is, bear in mind that if the Government does shut down, the number of employees left on "critical jobs" who will still be working will be _more_ then were in Federal Service when Bush left office.

That's a really freaking huge cost issue. Federal outlays are up near triple digit since Bush (no moderate himself) left office. That's insane, unsustainable and irresponsible.


2. Cut the defense budget in half. Think about WHO we're fighting - terrorists, not nations. Cut the budget for large-scale weaponry by 75 percent. Rotate units based on personell, not machinery, BUT double spending on Special Forces trained in close-warfare and terrorism.


We tried that before - in the 1920s. How well did that work out for us? (Hint, a hell of a lot of Americans died in the pacific because they were not ready for a war). 20 Percent across the board in two waves. Defense, Interior, Commerce, IRS, etc.


3. Democrats should be more on board with scaling back social security payouts (**** the baby boomers) and scale back subsidies for things like corn-based ethanol. Hold the banks responsible for their toxic assets.


The TARP money is gone. Obama already spent it. Bank's books are relatively good, and the Fed's discount window is open.


4. Republicans should be more on board with raising taxes and (reasonable) trade barriers that will start to tip the BOP with nations like China back to the US.


China allowing their currency to float will fix the trade deficit, and there are already signs that it's less of a issue. Trade Barriers would require pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO, and condemning East Asia to return to the mass starvation they were in before Globalization.


5. The US spends about $35k per prisoner, per year. That's by far the largest in the developed world, and that’s untaxable, unworkable money down the drain. Forget about racial injustices for one second – our prison system is the largest in the developed world and most of that is drug related. Just legalize marijuana and cocaine, give it a crazy sin-tax. That right there is several billion dollars moved from red to black.


No on cocaine. Period. It destroys lives left and right. Marijuana I don't care about. Simple rule. Deal drugs, go to prison for life for attempted murder, and if anyone dies due to a drug OD, due to the drugs someone sold, string them up on murder charges.


6. Speaking of sin tax…. We should tax the **** out of other things that are bad for people, along with cigs and alcohol, tax soda, chips, things high in saturated fat… speaking of, maybe we should legalize prostitution and tax and regulate the crap out of it.


Spoke like a true liberal. Make the bad things legal, the legal things more expensive to encourage good behavior.


7. Eliminate the Laffler Curve as a policy tool, as it has largely been disproven by John Quiggin. This is a long-term problem, and removing the national debt cannot be done without depleting the economy.


The problem is not the Laffler Curve per say, it's that congress has never cut spending in the last fifty years. That's led to a insane situation where revenues increase, but spending increases far faster. People seem to have forgotten 1999 and 2000, but there was a contest between Democrats and Republicans to see who could spend the money more. Then the .COM crash and 9/11.



Obama's appropriate Keynesian response to the recession has kept us out of another great depression. We should follow j-curve economics, and for future stability:


Bull****. Pure and simple. I work at a financial analysis company, and our models basically don't see a whit of difference between a crash scenario and what occurred. Even Bush's initial TARP money made only a marginal difference. The 3.5 trillion additional spent above that is mostly accounting tricks.

If Obama had done what he promised - a true stimulus package with infrastructure changes and true investments in alternative technologies - it would be a different matter. That was less then 100 billion of the original stimulus package.

1. Invest in mass transportation (ie high speed rail) and give tax breaks to people who choose to purchase fuel-efficient cars. This will allow us to focus current oil supply in transportation and the development of rail as another medium for transport of food and goods, thus minimizing transportation markup.


High speed rail makes sense as long as it's on the eastern seaboard or california. Everywhere else, it's pretty much a boondoggle. If you want to have a better effect, raise the gas taxes to start fixing infrastructure and driving people to higher MPG vehicles.

People like to mock it, but the United States freight system is the best in the world. Europe can only dream about approaching the percentage of freight movement that we do.

So put rail in place in the biggest air corridors - Los Angeles to San Francisco, Chicago to New York. New York to Washington. Orlando to Miami? Worthless. Denver to Grand Junction? Worthless.

If you want a real impact, build fifty new nuclear plans across the nation with the appropriate improvements to the grid.

2. Bust up teachers unions and offer the opportunity for higher salaries for merit-based pay. Increase education funding and double the Math and Science requirements for high school graduation.
Don't stop with teachers unions. Fair merit based pay across the board is needed.

3. Make Civics a required course in HS, giving students the tools to develop a new sense of patriotism and knowledge of politics and increase public involvement.

Agreed.

Increase funding for arts – this has been shown to increase students critical thinking elsewhere.

American school systems already outspend every other program in the world in non-core programs. Despite the assertions, this has done absolutely nothing for the competitiveness of a American worker. Testing and core subjects on the other hand are already having a marked effect on technical work.

Make PE mandatory as well by requiring the passing of a physical fitness test for all graduating students to lower future health care costs – all Americans should be able to run an 8-minute mile and do 25 push-ups. No more lazy fatasses.

That's what we need. A HombreGuapo Youth. Anything else about my life you want to dictate life Hitler did to the Hitler Youth?

[qupte]
4. Give tax breaks to corporations to companies based on the amount they spend on R&D and the percentage of Americans they employ.
[/quote]

R&D tax credits already exist. Percentage of Americans are illegal type restrictions are illegal under WTO.

5. Offer citizenship to illegal immigrants who earn college degrees in our school systems or serve in our military. (In fact, give citizenship to ANY foreign national who comes to an American college and earns a degree.)


Agreed, so long as they renounce citizenship of other nations. You are either American or not.


6. Develop a public option for health care. This will reduce costs of intensive care through preventative medicine and lossed man-hours. Government oversight will increase HMO competition and minimize waste, fraud, and abuse.

No. The British and the Canadian system they keep pushing is broken, and shutting down. They just shut down all but one hospital in Edinburgh for example. Instead adopt the French model and the Conrad Compromise that allows for personal portability, and mandated co-operatives.

You want government oversight to prevent abuses, but government operation comes with vastly increased bureaucracy costs for both tax payers and companies. Therefore the thing to do is actually have them, you know, oversight and govern, rather then act as the entire enterprise.


7. Increase the amount of humanitarian aid we give to the UN mandate for OECD nations of .7 percent of GNP, building economic relations with valuable trade partners.


No. We already do the vast majority of charitable and state aid giving in the world. Putting it under UN mandate is moronic.

8. Invest in renewable, sustainable energy so further down the road we can use that energy to develop other sustainable models (while we still have the resources).

Carbon Neutral and I agree with you. Nuclear must play a role, as well as carbon sequestration and in the short term, native oil resources.

9. Shut down NPR and Planned Parenthood.
The government has no business running a propaganda branch, and no right in paying for abortions.

10. Increase the number of House members by Tenfold. Allow them to meet in state capitals rather then on capital hill to start to rebalance the state versus federal balance.

11. Establish a balanced budget amendment.

12. Make secretary of the Treasury a elected position, and give him the authority that Congress gave away to the president - the initial writing of the budget.

tsiguy96
04-06-2011, 07:50 PM
figure ill throw this out there, if you are gonna tax anything for being a "sin", saturated fat is the least of your worries. people get fat because they chug sugar and carbs like its their business, chronic insulin promotes insulin resistance and huge amounts of abdominal adipose. saturated fat is not the devil, honey buns and coke are. FYI :)

gunns
04-06-2011, 07:53 PM
A lot of hot air by people who have never looked at Tax Policy. A flat tax would bankrupt the country overnight. That's because the US tax system is heavily "progressive".

A national sales tax, or the weighted FAIR tax would be a ideal approach.

Then slap two back to back ten percent cuts - across the board - on all discretionary programs. Companies maintain that you need to do a 10% cut ever year or two to keep things efficent. The US government has never done that. Finally adapt social security to the longer life duration, and go with the conrad plan (which is similar to the French Model) for health insurance instead of copying the bankrupt Canadian and English system.

If you really are serious. That's what you have to do.

LOL The only "heavily progressive tax" is for the single people in this country. Theirs get "more progressive" each year while the upper echelon receives more reasons to not pay their percentage. Hell if a flat tax were instituted the upper ecelon would be paying a hell of lot more than they do now. The upper echelon DO NOT pay their fair share of tax, only the middle class. Paying 31% of 39% vs 95% of 25% does not make sense.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 07:54 PM
figure ill throw this out there, if you are gonna tax anything for being a "sin", saturated fat is the least of your worries. people get fat because they chug sugar and carbs like its their business, chronic insulin promotes insulin resistance and huge amounts of abdominal adipose. saturated fat is not the devil, honey buns and coke are. FYI :)

You might as well start by taxing the cereal aisle in the supermarket out of existence. People don't believe how healthy it is just to drop the carbs, and get more protein in their diet.

This raises a great point though. The entire reason Americans have such a carb heavy diet is because the Government decided to adopt the concept of a "food pyramid" based on sketchy science, and indoctrinated generations with the "meat is bad, grain is good" mentality.

I've been on South Beach for two weeks. I'm down twenty pounds, and only ten above my ideal weight now. That's insane, and just from cutting carbs and some saturated fat (I still have bacon in the morning ;-)

lostknight
04-06-2011, 07:59 PM
LOL The only "heavily progressive tax" is for the single people in this country. Theirs get "more progressive" each year while the upper echelon receives more reasons to not pay their percentage. Hell if a flat tax were instituted the upper ecelon would be paying a hell of lot more than they do now. The upper echelon DO NOT pay their fair share of tax, only the middle class. Paying 31% of 39% vs 95% of 25% does not make sense.

I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but that's incorrect:

http://www.econdataus.com/avgtax05.jpg

As you can clearly see, your percentage that you pay in taxes (this is effective rate) goes up as you make more money. This is why a flat tax would fail, and everyone would end up spending a much higher percentage of their income in tax, with the exception of the top brackets.

People who have families get a tax credit because more of their "discretionary" income goes to keeping kids alive.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 08:02 PM
End of the day, the only way to fix the deficit is to raise taxes and cut spending. Republicans hate the first, Democrats the second. The only way to get them to actually be financially solvent is to force them to be, by law, in the constitution.

Arkie
04-06-2011, 08:06 PM
cut defense spending
cut entitlements
abolish the IRS
overhaul the tax code

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-06-2011, 08:57 PM
I love everybody that basiclly say "Tax the Rich". Do you guys know that if you took every penny from the top 10% of income earners you would have enough money to run the government for 8 months!

And guess what you get to do that once! You guys are so stupid. Guess what guys when you tax "rich" people. "Rich" are smart people that's how they got "rich". When they get taxed they change their behavior.

Here's an example: In Hawaii they had free health care for the "poor". You know what the "rich" people did? They quit there jobs worked less so they qualified for the "poor" health care. Guess what happened? Health care tripled over government estimates!

UberBroncoMan
04-06-2011, 09:18 PM
Cut out the billions of dollars in bull**** pork/programs from our budget, outlaw lobbying, have term limits on the house and senate. BAM.

OABB
04-06-2011, 09:33 PM
I love everybody that basiclly say "Tax the Rich". Do you guys know that if you took every penny from the top 10% of income earners you would have enough money to run the government for 8 months!

And guess what you get to do that once! You guys are so stupid. Guess what guys when you tax "rich" people. "Rich" are smart people that's how they got "rich". When they get taxed they change their behavior.

Here's an example: In Hawaii they had free health care for the "poor". You know what the "rich" people did? They quit there jobs worked less so they qualified for the "poor" health care. Guess what happened? Health care tripled over government estimates!

you say smart, I say immoral. You do realize that you are only making our point about how rich people don't pay their share, right?

pricejj
04-06-2011, 10:01 PM
Solving the U.S. Federal Deficit? Hilarious!

Easy, return federal spending to 2001 levels...

The last year that the U.S. Government ran a balanced budget was 2001.
In the past 10 years federal spending has increased 86%, from $1.9T to $3.5T.
Today, federal spending is almost double what it was 10 years ago.
Tax receipts have remained the same, approximately $2T.

Defense spending has went up 148% ($400B) since 2001.
Welfare spending has went up 125% ($400B) since 2001.
Healthcare spending has went up 91% ($500B) since 2001.
Pension spending has went up 72% ($400B) since 2001.

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN who has voted to spend more than the total of federal tax receipts NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
If there aren't any laws making this act an illegal activity, there need to be.

Don't Tread On Me.
REAL Americans Unite

Swedish Extrovert
04-06-2011, 10:06 PM
- Do the opposite of what the AARP says.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-06-2011, 10:08 PM
Solving the U.S. Federal Deficit? Hilarious!

Easy, return federal spending to 2001 levels...

The last year that the U.S. Government ran a balanced budget was 2001.
In the past 10 years federal spending has increased 86%, from $1.9T to $3.5T.
Today, federal spending is almost double what it was 10 years ago.
Tax receipts have remained the same, approximately $2T.

Defense spending has went up 148% ($400B) since 2001.
Welfare spending has went up 125% ($400B) since 2001.
Healthcare spending has went up 91% ($500B) since 2001.
Pension spending has went up 72% ($400B) since 2001.

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN who has voted to spend more than the total of federal tax receipts NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
If there aren't any laws making this act an illegal activity, there need to be.

Don't Tread On Me.
REAL Americans Unite

YES!

gunns
04-06-2011, 10:12 PM
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but that's incorrect:

http://www.econdataus.com/avgtax05.jpg

As you can clearly see, your percentage that you pay in taxes (this is effective rate) goes up as you make more money. This is why a flat tax would fail, and everyone would end up spending a much higher percentage of their income in tax, with the exception of the top brackets.

People who have families get a tax credit because more of their "discretionary" income goes to keeping kids alive.

The only mistake I made was putting 39% for the upper echelon. Right now a person in the upper 1% pays an average of 31% of the 35% they are supposed to pay. The middle class which pays 25% pays an average of 95% of that amount. Paying a flat tax would have the rich paying approx 100,000 (looking at someone who's income is $1,000,000) more than they are paying now. We middle class would pay almost the same as now. It would go up as people have more income. That's an increase.

Yes I understand that families get more to support their kids. Bravo! Maybe I'm just a little bitter. When I was raising 6 kids by myself and they instituted the EIC I got it one year and then was over the income limit. My refunds were never anything to write home to mom about. Now families with 3 kids are couping $8000 refunds. I'm paying for a family's refund when you look at it. I'm paying for their choice. No one knows more than me how difficult and expensive it is to raise kids but if you are going to have them, support them and not me paying for you to keep them alive. Taxes are a reality for everyone and having children shouldn't turn into a pity party funded by some. It's a choice.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 10:18 PM
The only mistake I made was putting 39% for the upper echelon. Right now a person in the upper 1% pays an average of 31% of the 35% they are supposed to pay. The middle class which pays 25% pays an average of 95% of that amount. Paying a flat tax would have the rich paying approx 100,000 (looking at someone who's income is $1,000,000) more than they are paying now. We middle class would pay almost the same as now. It would go up as people have more income. That's an increase.


This is the IRS "effective" tax rate - ie, what they actually paid.

Yes I understand that families get more to support their kids. Bravo! Maybe I'm just a little bitter. When I was raising 6 kids by myself and they instituted the EIC I got it one year and then was over the income limit.

Welcome to the wonders of progressive tax rates.

My refunds were never anything to write home to mom about. Now families with 3 kids are couping $8000 refunds.

I don't know anyone with three kids who are paying that. In reality, most of them adjusted their witholdings and are paying that evil word again - effective tax rates - comparable with the rest of the population.

I'm paying for a family's refund when you look at it.


Quite frankly, unless you are in the upper 50% of Americans, your marginal tax rate is laughably low - NPR yesterday was citing it as a 50 year low in terms of effective GDP.

I'm paying for their choice.
Once again, no you are not. You are paying your taxes. Same as any one else.


No one knows more than me how difficult and expensive it is to raise kids but if you are going to have them, support them and not me paying for you to keep them alive. Taxes are a reality for everyone and having children shouldn't turn into a pity party funded by some. It's a choice.

It's a choice that results in parents spending more on kids, rather then on themselves. Getting a tax write off (that doesn't cover all of the expenses of the hypothetical three kids you cite) is a reflection of the fact that the Government tends to tax discretionary rather then non-discretionary monies.

Replace it with a sales tax.

lostknight
04-06-2011, 10:20 PM
By the way, a visualization is worth 10,000 words. Play around with this for a bit:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners

epicSocialism4tw
04-06-2011, 10:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?ref=politics

Fix the national deficit.

Fix the deficit by reducing spending.

Broncojef
04-06-2011, 11:38 PM
Fix the deficit by reducing spending.

Sounds like Paul Ryan has a plan!! What we really need right now is Reagan!! Nice Av!!!

Broncojef
04-06-2011, 11:44 PM
Solving the U.S. Federal Deficit? Hilarious!

Easy, return federal spending to 2001 levels...

The last year that the U.S. Government ran a balanced budget was 2001.
In the past 10 years federal spending has increased 86%, from $1.9T to $3.5T.
Today, federal spending is almost double what it was 10 years ago.
Tax receipts have remained the same, approximately $2T.

Defense spending has went up 148% ($400B) since 2001.
Welfare spending has went up 125% ($400B) since 2001.
Healthcare spending has went up 91% ($500B) since 2001.
Pension spending has went up 72% ($400B) since 2001.

EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN who has voted to spend more than the total of federal tax receipts NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
If there aren't any laws making this act an illegal activity, there need to be.

Don't Tread On Me.
REAL Americans Unite

Maybe Obama can give us another lecture on fiscal accountability. How the media hasn't crucified this idiot yet is incredible, lectures the TEA Party and republicans and squirms when asked to cut $61Bill from his 3.4Trillion budget...$1.7Bill of which adds to the national debt this year. Agreed, Don't tread On Me!!

Broncojef
04-06-2011, 11:52 PM
I love everybody that basiclly say "Tax the Rich". Do you guys know that if you took every penny from the top 10% of income earners you would have enough money to run the government for 8 months!

And guess what you get to do that once! You guys are so stupid. Guess what guys when you tax "rich" people. "Rich" are smart people that's how they got "rich". When they get taxed they change their behavior.

Here's an example: In Hawaii they had free health care for the "poor". You know what the "rich" people did? They quit there jobs worked less so they qualified for the "poor" health care. Guess what happened? Health care tripled over government estimates!

And when you encourage smart entrepenuers to stop making money because you tax them at too high of a level they close up shop, its not worth their time to work their asses off if they aren't going to make a profit, they then lay people off and work less just as you said. Then the poor who are layed off whine cause they don't have a job.

Broncojef
04-07-2011, 12:06 AM
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but that's incorrect:

http://www.econdataus.com/avgtax05.jpg

As you can clearly see, your percentage that you pay in taxes (this is effective rate) goes up as you make more money. This is why a flat tax would fail, and everyone would end up spending a much higher percentage of their income in tax, with the exception of the top brackets.

People who have families get a tax credit because more of their "discretionary" income goes to keeping kids alive.

A flat tax along with a consumption tax is the best solution. I like the flat tax and doing away with the IRS, the code and the loopholes. I really really hate the class warfare being waged right now by this administration and the distribution of wealth crap. The poor and those with entitlements demand more from the system and vote for corrupt leaders that will shower them with unending benefits. At some point we have to admit we are all Americans and all have the same shot to make tons of money someday if we work hard. Success is not evil and shouldn't be punished. The consumption tax would hit those buying large items (mainly the wealthy) and even out the tax structure. I might also add if the flat tax rate tomorrow went to 15% it would encourage many to save money and grow the country stronger through personal investments and give many folks in the middle class and above much more discretionary spending to encourage money flowing through the economy which would truly stimulate the economy and create jobs. Smart tax policy stimulates the economy and the free market and jobs not a government program or kickbacks to ACORN, planned parenthood or the glut of other left wingnut organizations Obama wants to payback for putting him into power.

OABB
04-07-2011, 02:34 AM
Fix the deficit by reducing spending.

When Reagan created the largest debt in American history, was this his plan?

Btw, how can you post in this thread with a Reagan avatar? That's like someone with a Jeffry dahmer avatar posting in a thread about how to protect black teenagers.

Arkie
04-07-2011, 06:37 AM
By the way, a visualization is worth 10,000 words. Play around with this for a bit:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners


the bottom 50% tax burden declined 4%
the middle class (top 26%-50%) declined 9%
the well-off (top 6%-10%) declined 9%
the rich (top 2%-5%) increased 3%
the super rich (top 1%) increased 22%

UGA-Bronco
04-07-2011, 06:44 AM
I have a few ideas on how we could shake things up and balance the budget:

1. Institute a flat 30% income tax rate which only kicks in after the first $40K for individuals and $60k for couples filing jointly. Capital gains would also be apart of income, but any money lost in investments would essentially be a write off as it deducts from your total income. This same flat rate would also be applied to the corporate tax as well and would eliminate all tax loop holes for businesses.

2. Because a large number of people will not be paying any income tax, I suggest that there be a small (~5%) national sales tax to help make up any lost revenue. This sales tax could also help foster personal savings rather than unnecessary consumer spending. This would also act as a way to tax the 'underground economy' that don't pay taxes on their earnings.

3. Create a health care model similar to the French model that is part private and public. We currently spend about 16% of GDP on health care while France only spends about 10% and covers everybody. While Social Security isn't a problem now, it will be if the US doesn't make changes to how it operates. I would propose that part of the SS revenue be invested into the stock market at a low risk rate so that the program doesn't go bankrupt in a couple of decades.

4. Reform the US military to fight in the 21st C. Right now our military is still operating under the conditions of the Cold War (ie its big and slow to move) where nations fight other other nations. A smaller but faster and well equipped army could much more easily respond to the problems we face around the world. Doing this would also help to dramatically reduce military spending.

5. As much as some people would kick and scream about it, a cap and trade program would be a great way to raise revenue to invest in infrastructure. With the money from the program the United States could invest in mass transit (especially commuter rail) and some high speed rail where it would be feasible. We could create a smart electric grid in order to reduce demand for energy and rapidly become energy independent by through the use of wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear power. Investments could be made to find a viable alternative to crude oil. One candidate I personally like is biodiesel made from algae rather than making fuel from corn (a primary food source).

6. In order to keep pace with the rest of the world we need to dramatically change our failing education system. The problem is not that we spend to little but that we spend it in all the wrong places like administration and testing. To remedy this I suggest creating a national voucher system that would go directly to the parents who could then choose where they want their children to go. These vouchers would follow students from the time they start preschool till the time the finish their education. Along with this I suggest implementing a Finland style public education system where the teachers are well regarded and are able to directly control their own curriculum which could be done be getting rid of the unnecessary number of standardized tests. Following the Finland model, around 10th grade the students would be separated into two kinds of education. One of the more traditional educational model and the other a more vocational track which could significantly help to increase graduation rates.

Requiem
04-07-2011, 06:46 AM
Never is gonna happen. You are more likely to see the day where America is just a pool of smoldering piss.

orange skier
04-07-2011, 07:09 AM
UGA Bronco should get a trophy for the best first post...........ever..........

Arkie
04-07-2011, 07:18 AM
UGA Bronco should get a trophy for the best first post...........ever..........

Good ideas for the size of France or Finland, or even our own states if we just give them back their rights and responsibilities of education and healthcare.

Drunk Monkey
04-07-2011, 08:11 AM
Slightly off topic, I can't help but notice that big chunk of money that disappears off my check every 2 weeks for social security. Being 31 I have 0 expectation that any of the $ I have paid in over the years will still be around when I am ready to retire. How do you other young people feel about this? I could see a youth movement in the not to distant future that demands social security reform. Financial reform could snow ball from there.

Garcia Bronco
04-07-2011, 08:14 AM
Slightly off topic, I can't help but notice that big chunk of money that disappears off my check every 2 weeks for social security. Being 31 I have 0 expectation that any of the $ I have paid in over the years will still be around when I am ready to retire. How do you other young people feel about this? I could see a youth movement in the not to distant future that demands social security reform. Financial reform could snow ball from there.

We feel the same...and I am speaking for most young people. It's a joke of epic proportion.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-07-2011, 08:27 AM
Slightly off topic, I can't help but notice that big chunk of money that disappears off my check every 2 weeks for social security. Being 31 I have 0 expectation that any of the $ I have paid in over the years will still be around when I am ready to retire. How do you other young people feel about this? I could see a youth movement in the not to distant future that demands social security reform. Financial reform could snow ball from there.

At 30, I have 0 expectations I'll ever receive anything from it nor do I want it. At the same time, I don't see anything ever happening that will allow me to opt out of the system.

They need to raise the retirement age to closer to the average life expectancy. In 1938, you had to be 65 to collect benefits. Average life expectancy at that time was 62 for males and 65 for females.

jhns
04-07-2011, 08:31 AM
Slightly off topic, I can't help but notice that big chunk of money that disappears off my check every 2 weeks for social security. Being 31 I have 0 expectation that any of the $ I have paid in over the years will still be around when I am ready to retire. How do you other young people feel about this? I could see a youth movement in the not to distant future that demands social security reform. Financial reform could snow ball from there.

Yeah, I hate paying into social security. I don't get the government telling me I have to pay for when I retire, only to later say that it will never last that long. It doesn't make much sense.

Rohirrim
04-07-2011, 08:35 AM
You lose a lot of intellectual cred any time you say the words "period, end of story, case closed."

So do you when you say, "**** the baby boomers." Basically what you are saying is, they paid into the system all their lives so let's just **** them and take take their money. Nice. Hope you get the same.

Anyway, I don't know why we are floundering around with this bs. Obviously, monetarism, trickly down and the privatization of saving were all massive failures and destroyed our economy. So let's just go back to banking and market regulation and progressive taxation which we already know worked just fine.

Garcia Bronco
04-07-2011, 08:39 AM
So do you when you say, "**** the baby boomers." Basically what you are saying is, they paid into the system all their lives so let's just **** them and take take their money.

They are also the people that spent the money out of the trust fund. Nice ****ing try.

OABB
04-07-2011, 08:40 AM
So do you when you say, "**** the baby boomers." Basically what you are saying is, they paid into the system all their lives so let's just **** them and take take their money. Nice. Hope you get the same.

Anyway, I don't know why we are floundering around with this bs. Obviously, monetarism, trickly down and the privatization of saving were all massive failures and destroyed our economy. So let's just go back to banking and market regulation and progressive taxation which we already know worked just fine.

Socialist! Burn him!

Drunk Monkey
04-07-2011, 08:47 AM
At 30, I have 0 expectations I'll ever receive anything from it nor do I want it. At the same time, I don't see anything ever happening that will allow me to opt out of the system.

They need to raise the retirement age to closer to the average life expectancy. In 1938, you had to be 65 to collect benefits. Average life expectancy at that time was 62 for males and 65 for females.

You don't want to receive money you have paid in and are owed? The more I think about it I do think something will change. As Garcia said it is an epic jacking of our $. As more young people start planning long term I can see a movement demanding more security for what we are contributing to.

Rohirrim
04-07-2011, 08:56 AM
They are also the people that spent the money out of the trust fund. Nice ****ing try.

Reagan stole that money to pay for his extremist, irresponsible 50% tax cuts for the rich, which have been dragging this country down ever since. In effect, what that policy did is shift saving from companies to individuals. Prior to that, the rich reinvested in their companies in order to protect their assets. After that, they began to suck the wealth out of their companies so they could stuff it in their pockets. Remember junk bonds? Cannibalizing companies for their liquidity? Savings went from public to private. The secondary effect was the destruction of public infrastructure - highways, education and a concurrent reduction of jobs and attacks on labor.

Yeah. Reagan started it all. What a hero.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

OABB
04-07-2011, 09:16 AM
Reagan stole that money to pay for his extremist, irresponsible 50% tax cuts for the rich, which have been dragging this country down ever since. In effect, what that policy did is shift saving from companies to individuals. Prior to that, the rich reinvested in their companies in order to protect their assets. After that, they began to suck the wealth out of their companies so they could stuff it in their pockets. Remember junk bonds? Cannibalizing companies for their liquidity? Savings went from public to private. The secondary effect was the destruction of public infrastructure - highways, education and a concurrent reduction of jobs and attacks on labor.

Yeah. Reagan started it all. What a hero.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105


But he wore a cowboy hat and was presidnt when gorbs decided to end the cold war!

Who cares about his actual record as a terrible president.

Garcia Bronco
04-07-2011, 09:18 AM
Reagan stole that money to pay for his extremist, irresponsible 50% tax cuts for the rich, which have been dragging this country down ever since. In effect, what that policy did is shift saving from companies to individuals. Prior to that, the rich reinvested in their companies in order to protect their assets. After that, they began to suck the wealth out of their companies so they could stuff it in their pockets. Remember junk bonds? Cannibalizing companies for their liquidity? Savings went from public to private. The secondary effect was the destruction of public infrastructure - highways, education and a concurrent reduction of jobs and attacks on labor.

Yeah. Reagan started it all. What a hero.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Yeah and his adminstration and congress was represented by what generation(s)?

Rohirrim
04-07-2011, 09:30 AM
Yeah and his adminstration and congress was represented by what generation(s)?

What the **** would that matter? What generation he comes from affects policy? Since when? Arguing with you is like watching a chimp throw feces at the glass of his enclosure. It is political philosophy that determines your policy, not the year you were born. To answer your inane question, I'm sure Washington during Reagan's presidency was represented by a broad spectrum of people whose birth dates made them all adults, from their twenties to their seventies, no doubt. How's that?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-07-2011, 09:48 AM
Glad they got those NPR and Planned Parenthood things figured out.

Budget: Balanced.

Garcia Bronco
04-07-2011, 09:51 AM
What the **** would that matter? What generation he comes from affects policy?

You said it was wrong to say "**** the baby boomers" and that they were getting robbed. They robbed themselves. Again, Nice try.

Rohirrim
04-07-2011, 10:02 AM
You said it was wrong to say "**** the baby boomers" and that they were getting robbed. They robbed themselves. Again, Nice try.

Thump! More poop on the glass. ;D

Peoples Champ
04-07-2011, 10:19 AM
i have the solution, its called FIX IT !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3uxqwTxk0

pricejj
04-07-2011, 10:46 AM
Glad they got those NPR and Planned Parenthood things figured out.

Budget: Balanced.


Continue to vote politicians into office who refuse to drastically reduce spending...

USA: Bankrupt.

Inkana7
04-07-2011, 10:53 AM
GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
APRIL 5, 2011 | ISSUE 47•14

WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-07-2011, 10:55 AM
Continue to vote politicians into office who refuse to drastically reduce spending...

USA: Bankrupt.

There's more than one problem. Spending is an issue. Cutting our defense budget would be a big first step, not nickel and diming things like NPR.

Know what else is an issue? Revenue.

Taxes are a necessary evil. I hate paying them, but I pay them every year because A) I see the point, B) I know I'm required to by law, and C) it's worth it to me to have nice roads, bridges, waterways, nature preserves, and government programs.

Difference between a first world nation and a third world nation is taxes.

Getting the uber-rich to pay a bit more isn't a bad thing. Neither is requiring companies with outstanding tax bills to pay.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-07-2011, 11:15 AM
Reagan stole that money to pay for his extremist, irresponsible 50% tax cuts for the rich, which have been dragging this country down ever since. In effect, what that policy did is shift saving from companies to individuals. Prior to that, the rich reinvested in their companies in order to protect their assets. After that, they began to suck the wealth out of their companies so they could stuff it in their pockets. Remember junk bonds? Cannibalizing companies for their liquidity? Savings went from public to private. The secondary effect was the destruction of public infrastructure - highways, education and a concurrent reduction of jobs and attacks on labor.

Yeah. Reagan started it all. What a hero.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

You are so wrong. I love how you say this crap but don't report what happened after those tax cuts. Guess what smart guy, after those tax cuts federal income from taxes doubled!

Peoples Champ
04-07-2011, 11:23 AM
You are so wrong. I love how you say this crap but don't report what happened after those tax cuts. Guess what smart guy, after those tax cuts federal income from taxes doubled!


Its easy, here is the solution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3uxqwTxk0

Fedaykin
04-07-2011, 11:39 AM
You are so wrong. I love how you say this crap but don't report what happened after those tax cuts. Guess what smart guy, after those tax cuts federal income from taxes doubled!

No it didn't. (newflash: tax revenue is always going up over the long term because the size of the workforce is always growing and inflation is also occurring).

Pre Reagan, tax revenue (non inflation adjusted) was increasing on the order of 300% per 8 years for several decades. During Reagan tax revenue (non inflation adjusted) increased only 65% in 8 years.

ZONA
04-07-2011, 11:48 AM
It's not even about taxing the super rich or cutting the defense budget (but both sure would make a huge dent in the deficit though).

All they have to do is quit being held captive by corporations. The largest corporations wiggle their way out of paying tax. I mean, we who make $50K or less even have to pay our share but these large corporations, many who claim profits in the billions annually, don't pay anything close to what they should. They hold a knife to the people's throat and say, if you tax us, we'll move to another country and take our jobs with us.


There once was a civil war in this country (North against South) and I honestly believe if there were to be a second one, it would be the people against the corporations.

They demand 40 to 50 hour work weeks from their employee's yet only want to give back the smallest amount of benefits. Some places now only offer workers 1 week vacations and you have to work an entire full year before you even earn that. Company's used to care about their employee's well being. Now they only care about making their CEO's more richer then ever.

tsiguy96
04-07-2011, 12:19 PM
It's not even about taxing the super rich or cutting the defense budget (but both sure would make a huge dent in the deficit though).

All they have to do is quit being held captive by corporations. The largest corporations wiggle their way out of paying tax. I mean, we who make $50K or less even have to pay our share but these large corporations, many who claim profits in the billions annually, don't pay anything close to what they should. They hold a knife to the people's throat and say, if you tax us, we'll move to another country and take our jobs with us.


There once was a civil war in this country (North against South) and I honestly believe if there were to be a second one, it would be the people against the corporations.

They demand 40 to 50 hour work weeks from their employee's yet only want to give back the smallest amount of benefits. Some places now only offer workers 1 week vacations and you have to work an entire full year before you even earn that. Company's used to care about their employee's well being. Now they only care about making their CEO's more richer then ever.

US should say goodbye, and tariff the absolute **** out of everything coming in to the country. how does the US tariff compare to other countries? its like they do nothing to support keeping corporations within the country, but maybe its overstated in my head.

Swedish Extrovert
04-07-2011, 12:29 PM
Just as a note to all of those ranting about how evil Bush is, bear in mind that if the Government does shut down, the number of employees left on "critical jobs" who will still be working will be _more_ then were in Federal Service when Bush left office.

That's a really freaking huge cost issue. Federal outlays are up near triple digit since Bush (no moderate himself) left office. That's insane, unsustainable and irresponsible.


I didn't say otherwise


We tried that before - in the 1920s. How well did that work out for us? (Hint, a hell of a lot of Americans died in the pacific because they were not ready for a war). 20 Percent across the board in two waves. Defense, Interior, Commerce, IRS, etc.

You think war is the same as it is now?

A. We no longer fight state actors, and the buildup of NATO has made our military might virtually indestructible.

B. The mere existence of nuclear weaponry acts as a balance of state power.

C. The threat is coming from non-state actors. The Taliban will exist in Waziristan weather we blow up Islamabad or not. Special forces are far more effective and far cheaper.

D. We spend twice as much on our military as the rest of the world combined, and six times more than any other nation. Factor in NATO and the OECD has a virtual monopoly on sea power, weaponry and manpower


The TARP money is gone. Obama already spent it. Bank's books are relatively good, and the Fed's discount window is open.

Good. Now tighten it up when the economy recovers.


China allowing their currency to float will fix the trade deficit, and there are already signs that it's less of a issue. Trade Barriers would require pulling out of NAFTA and the WTO, and condemning East Asia to return to the mass starvation they were in before Globalization.

It might take a very very long time for that to happen. Also, you forget that this will devalue the dollar significantly, especially if China dumps it's bond holdings in favor of infrastructure and social programs - and there are signs they're doing that as well.


No on cocaine. Period. It destroys lives left and right. Marijuana I don't care about. Simple rule. Deal drugs, go to prison for life for attempted murder, and if anyone dies due to a drug OD, due to the drugs someone sold, string them up on murder charges.


I've seen cocaine destroy lives. I've also seen guns kill people. Should we give arms dealers prison sentences, too?

Spoke like a true liberal. Make the bad things legal, the legal things more expensive to encourage good behavior.

I'm not so much of a liberal, but... yeah. If the government needs revenue, why not tax things that are detrimental to the economy.

The problem is not the Laffler Curve per say, it's that congress has never cut spending in the last fifty years. That's led to a insane situation where revenues increase, but spending increases far faster. People seem to have forgotten 1999 and 2000, but there was a contest between Democrats and Republicans to see who could spend the money more. Then the .COM crash and 9/11.


That might be true, but lower taxes are supposed to fix that by increasing GDP, and therefore increasing tax revenue. Hasn't worked.

Bull****. Pure and simple. I work at a financial analysis company, and our models basically don't see a whit of difference between a crash scenario and what occurred. Even Bush's initial TARP money made only a marginal difference. The 3.5 trillion additional spent above that is mostly accounting tricks.

If Obama had done what he promised - a true stimulus package with infrastructure changes and true investments in alternative technologies - it would be a different matter. That was less then 100 billion of the original stimulus package.

Much more debatable than you make it out to be. You're right that the stimulus has had less of an effect, even Paul Krugman would agree. Obama hasn't been able to push things through because of resistance. Obama has prevented a depression. (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/364008/november-01-2010/jonathan-alter)


High speed rail makes sense as long as it's on the eastern seaboard or california. Everywhere else, it's pretty much a boondoggle. If you want to have a better effect, raise the gas taxes to start fixing infrastructure and driving people to higher MPG vehicles.

So put rail in place in the biggest air corridors - Los Angeles to San Francisco, Chicago to New York. New York to Washington. Orlando to Miami? Worthless. Denver to Grand Junction? Worthless.

Agreed, but we can put one line from, say, LA to Phoenix, Phoenix to Denver, Denver to DC, with lines feeding in to the main rail.

People like to mock it, but the United States freight system is the best in the world. Europe can only dream about approaching the percentage of freight movement that we do.

Maybe... I haven't heard it... source?

If you want a real impact, build fifty new nuclear plans across the nation with the appropriate improvements to the grid.

Agreed

Don't stop with teachers unions. Fair merit based pay across the board is needed.


Basically what I was saying.

American school systems already outspend every other program in the world in non-core programs. Despite the assertions, this has done absolutely nothing for the competitiveness of a American worker. Testing and core subjects on the other hand are already having a marked effect on technical work.

Maybe, but there is causation/correlation between higher test scores and involvement in music and arts.

That's what we need. A HombreGuapo Youth. Anything else about my life you want to dictate life Hitler did to the Hitler Youth?

Because making physical fitness a requirement for high school is tantamount to Nazism LOL

R&D tax credits already exist. Percentage of Americans are illegal type restrictions are illegal under WTO.


I'm pretty sure the WTO says nothing about limiting the number of illegal aliens you employ.

Agreed, so long as they renounce citizenship of other nations. You are either American or not.

I disagree with this. You should be able to have dual citizenship, and having to renounce foreign citizenship will just drive skilled workers away. They'll still come, but not in as high of levels.

No. The British and the Canadian system they keep pushing is broken, and shutting down. They just shut down all but one hospital in Edinburgh for example. Instead adopt the French model and the Conrad Compromise that allows for personal portability, and mandated co-operatives.

You want government oversight to prevent abuses, but government operation comes with vastly increased bureaucracy costs for both tax payers and companies. Therefore the thing to do is actually have them, you know, oversight and govern, rather then act as the entire enterprise.


First of all, the public option is not what they have. I don't know that they're broken either. There are a myriad of factors playing in to this, including food regulation and social disparity, but they're generally healthier than the US and have longer life expectancies. The French model might work... but that would make you a socialist (it wont pass). I think that a PO can only serve to increase competition and decrease fraud.

No. We already do the vast majority of charitable and state aid giving in the world. Putting it under UN mandate is moronic.

This isn't true. First of all, all the UN (a product born out of US isolationism - we established the UN so we wouldn't have to fight in another world war) asks OECD nations to give .7 percent. We give more than any other country at $23b, but as a percentage, the US gives less than most developed countries.

Carbon Neutral and I agree with you. Nuclear must play a role, as well as carbon sequestration and in the short term, native oil resources.

Ok

9. Shut down NPR and Planned Parenthood.
The government has no business running a propaganda branch, and no right in paying for abortions.

**** that. NPR is less biased than you think, and I guarantee you that if you drop it that no commercial station will play Schoenberg and Stravinsky - because it isn't profitable. Sometimes fine arts aren't profitable, but there is a vast amount of potential out that, and we can't just kill it.

Planned parenthood not only saves more money than it takes out, it also prevents more abortions than it carries out. It's budget is less than 1/12,000 of the total budget. Abortion is only 3 percent of THAT. Planned parenthood also provides contraceptives and decreases the number of broken homes, which in turn decreases crime and economically draining citizens.

10. Increase the number of House members by Tenfold. Allow them to meet in state capitals rather then on capital hill to start to rebalance the state versus federal balance.

Granted this wouldn't cost as much at it sounds, I'm just not sure how effective this will be.

11. Establish a balanced budget amendment.

Nah, sometimes we need deficit spending.

12. Make secretary of the Treasury a elected position, and give him the authority that Congress gave away to the president - the initial writing of the budget.

This is a bad idea because people will elect someone who is just doing what sounds good rather than what is right.

C130Herkload
04-07-2011, 12:53 PM
Its pretty awesome that the a-holes that tell us what to destroy/protect/feed have let it be known that we (the military folks here) are only getting paid until the 8th, yet they continue to recieve their payroll, whilst we are fighting in multiple serious conflicts and in harms way in places that most havent even heard of. Oh and as of tomorrow we are doing it for free. Guess all the folks down in Africa that I've committed to helping, feeding or blowing up arent gonna get their daily dose of smiles from the Military...we may be a tad more salty in the coming days, now that we are off the clock.

Houshyamama
04-07-2011, 01:26 PM
interesting article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FACT-CHECK-Are-federal-apf-3113687231.html?x=0

Houshyamama
04-07-2011, 01:27 PM
Its pretty awesome that the a-holes that tell us what to destroy/protect/feed have let it be known that we (the military folks here) are only getting paid until the 8th, yet they continue to recieve their payroll, whilst we are fighting in multiple serious conflicts and in harms way in places that most havent even heard of. Oh and as of tomorrow we are doing it for free. Guess all the folks down in Africa that I've committed to helping, feeding or blowing up arent gonna get their daily dose of smiles from the Military...we may be a tad more salty in the coming days, now that we are off the clock.

Thanks for your service

pricejj
04-07-2011, 04:43 PM
There's more than one problem. Spending is an issue. Cutting our defense budget would be a big first step, not nickel and diming things like NPR.

Know what else is an issue? Revenue.


Paul Ryan's "path to prosperity" is on the table, and is aimed to save $6T over the next 10 years. A good start, but more is needed.

Revenue is NOT an issue. Federal Tax revenues have basically stayed the same over the past 10 years, ~$2T (a little more some years). Federal spending has almost doubled. The culprits: defense, healthcare, welfare, and pensions (all have went up at least $400B). Reduce all four to 2001 levels. I have no problem with paying taxes. 10% flat tax for all would be enough for all necessary governmental expenditures.

Nobody said they were against paying taxes.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Paul Ryan's "path to prosperity" is on the table, and is aimed to save $6T over the next 10 years. A good start, but more is needed.

Revenue is NOT an issue. Federal Tax revenues have basically stayed the same over the past 10 years, ~$2T (a little more some years). Federal spending has almost doubled. The culprits: defense, healthcare, welfare, and pensions (all have went up at least $400B). Reduce all four to 2001 levels. I have no problem with paying taxes. 10% flat tax for all would be enough for all necessary governmental expenditures.

Nobody said they were against paying taxes.

Have you read Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity"? For it to be viable, it requires an unemployment rate of no higher than 2.8% by 2014.

Do you happen to know when the last time was that we had unemployment at or around 2.8%?

It was immediately after the Korean War. 60 years ago. The only time Unemployment has ever been even CLOSE to that low. And Ryan's entire plan is predicated on us getting there again. Somehow. Through the works of Jesus, probably.

Revenue IS an issue. It has been an issue since Bush decided to start two wars AND cut taxes. That doesn't add up.

"Nobody said they were against paying taxes." Actually a lot of people are "against paying taxes." They want the IRS done away with and want no taxes. And Jesus will fix our roads and bridges, apparently.

Chris
04-07-2011, 04:48 PM
Apparently Jesus will fix the education system as well.

gunns
04-07-2011, 05:40 PM
I don't know anyone with three kids who are paying that. In reality, most of them adjusted their witholdings and are paying that evil word again - effective tax rates - comparable with the rest of the population.



Two of my children have 3 children each. The one got 7300 Federal and 700 State. The other one got 8200 Federal and 330 State. It's a fact that boggles my mind and this is the second year in a row. With the EIC, Qualified Child Tax Credit and the Additional Tax Credit it's very feasible.

Quite frankly, unless you are in the upper 50% of Americans, your marginal tax rate is laughably low - NPR yesterday was citing it as a 50 year low in terms of effective GDP.



I sincerely doubt I'm in the upper 50% but I am paying 5246 Fed and 752 State. This is why I'm doubting what you are saying because THIS is reality to me. Being single SUCKS when it comes to taxes.

Once again, no you are not. You are paying your taxes. Same as any one else.



Think about it. If those two kids didn't get 8,000 in refunds, say only 1/2 that and I still paid what I paid that would be a 4000 increase to what's paid to taxes. Those refunds have to come from some where and those kids did not pay that much in taxes during the year just to recoup them. Nope, it comes from us single people.

Archer81
04-07-2011, 06:58 PM
Have you read Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity"? For it to be viable, it requires an unemployment rate of no higher than 2.8% by 2014.

Do you happen to know when the last time was that we had unemployment at or around 2.8%?

It was immediately after the Korean War. 60 years ago. The only time Unemployment has ever been even CLOSE to that low. And Ryan's entire plan is predicated on us getting there again. Somehow. Through the works of Jesus, probably.

Revenue IS an issue. It has been an issue since Bush decided to start two wars AND cut taxes. That doesn't add up.

"Nobody said they were against paying taxes." Actually a lot of people are "against paying taxes." They want the IRS done away with and want no taxes. And Jesus will fix our roads and bridges, apparently.


Roads and bridges existed and were paid for before the advent of the personal income tax. Considering what Americans spend on consumer goods every year, even in down economic years removing the personal income tax and switching to either a flat tax or a national sales tax can generate enough revenue.

Of course if states were not employing as many people as they are, and paying out salaries that are higher than average then normal Americans in addition to full pensions and benefits, maybe the cash would be on hand to pay for simple things like roads and bridges.

The bolded is interesting as well. We had debt before Bush. People can point out "surplus" but not spending money you borrowed in the first place cannot logically be called a surplus. Its still money owed.

Just my .02.

:Broncos:

mhgaffney
04-07-2011, 07:07 PM
There is no fix without making deep cuts in the DoD budget. David Stockman recently estimated it at $800 billion/yr.

But the actual figure is probably over a trillion. Here's an oped by a writer who estimates the total national security budget at $1.2 trillion. This level of spending is an affront -- as Ike once said -- to future unborn generations.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hellman03012011.html

March 1, 2011

The Figure No One Wants You to See

The Real National Security Budget

By CHRISTOPHER HELLMAN

What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.

Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that's barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.

Take that in for a moment. It's true; you won't find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it's no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it's the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars. The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for "security" is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.

So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Fortunately for us, on February 14th the Obama administration officially released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request. Of course, it hasn't been passed by Congress -- even the 2011 budget hasn't made it through that august body yet -- but at least we have the most recent figures available for our calculations.

For 2012, the White House has requested $558 billion for the Pentagon's annual "base" budget, plus an additional $118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At $676 billion, that's already nothing to sneeze at, but it's just the barest of beginnings when it comes to what American taxpayers will actually spend on national security. Think of it as the gigantic tip of a humongous iceberg.

To get closer to a real figure, it's necessary to start peeking at other parts of the federal budget where so many other pots of security spending are squirreled away.

Missing from the Pentagon's budget request, for example, is an additional $19.3 billion for nuclear-weapons-related activities like making sure our current stockpile of warheads will work as expected and cleaning up the waste created by seven decades of developing and producing them. That money, however, officially falls in the province of the Department of Energy. And then, don't forget an additional $7.8 billion that the Pentagon lumps into a "miscellaneous" category -- a kind of department of chump change -- that is included in neither its base budget nor those war-fighting funds.

So, even though we're barely started, we've already hit a total official FY 2012 Pentagon budget request of:

$703.1 billion dollars.

Not usually included in national security spending are hundreds of billions of dollars that American taxpayers are asked to spend to pay for past wars, and to support our current and future national security strategy.

For starters, that $117.8 billion war-funding request for the Department of Defense doesn't include certain actual "war-related fighting" costs. Take, for instance, the counterterrorism activities of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. For the first time, just as with the Pentagon budget, the FY 2012 request divides what's called "International Affairs" in two: that is, into an annual "base" budget as well as funding for "Overseas Contingency Operations" related to Iraq and Afghanistan. (In the Bush years, these used to be called the Global War on Terror.) The State Department's contribution? $8.7 billion. That brings the grand but very partial total so far to:

$711.8 billion.

The White House has also requested $71.6 billion for a post-2001 category called "homeland security" -- of which $18.1 billion is funded through the Department of Defense. The remaining $53.5 billion goes through various other federal accounts, including the Department of Homeland Security ($37 billion), the Department of Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion), and the Department of Justice ($4.6 billion). All of it is, however, national security funding which brings our total to:

$765.3 billion.

The U.S. intelligence budget was technically classified prior to 2007, although at roughly $40 billion annually, it was considered one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. Since then, as a result of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, Congress has required that the government reveal the total amount spent on intelligence work related to the National Intelligence Program (NIP).

This work done by federal agencies like the CIA and the National Security Agency consists of keeping an eye on and trying to understand what other nations are doing and thinking, as well as a broad range of "covert operations" such as those being conducted in Pakistan. In this area, we won't have figures until FY 2012 ends. The latest NIP funding figure we do have is $53.1 billion for FY 2010. There's little question that the FY 2012 figure will be higher, but let's be safe and stick with what we know. (Keep in mind that the government spends plenty more on "intelligence." Additional funds for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), however, are already included in the Pentagon's 2012 base budget and war-fighting supplemental, though we don't know what they are. The FY 2010 funding for MIP, again the latest figure available, was $27 billion.) In any case, add that $53.1 billion and we're at:

$818.4 billion.

Veterans programs are an important part of the national security budget with the projected funding figure for 2012 being $129.3 billion. Of this, $59 billion is for veterans' hospital and medical care, $70.3 billion for disability pensions and education programs. This category of national security funding has been growing rapidly in recent years because of the soaring medical-care needs of veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 total funding for health-care services for veterans will have risen another 45%-75%. In the meantime, for 2012 we've reached:

$947.7 billion.

If you include the part of the foreign affairs budget not directly related to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other counterterrorism operations, you have an additional $18 billion in direct security spending. Of this, $6.6 billion is for military aid to foreign countries, while almost $2 billion goes for "international peacekeeping" operations. A further $709 million has been designated for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism, and clearing landmines planted in regional conflicts around the globe. This leaves us at:

$965.7 billion.

As with all federal retirees, U.S. military retirees and former civilian Department of Defense employees receive pension benefits from the government. The 2012 figure is $48.5 billion for military personnel, $20 billion for those civilian employees, which means we've now hit:

$1,034.2 billion. (Yes, that's $1.03 trillion!)

When the federal government lacks sufficient funds to pay all of its obligations, it borrows. Each year, it must pay the interest on this debt which, for FY 2012, is projected at $474.1 billion. The National Priorities Project calculates that 39% of that, or $185 billion, comes from borrowing related to past Pentagon spending.

Add it all together and the grand total for the known national security budget of the United States is:

$1,219.2 billion. (That's more than $1.2 trillion.)

A country with a gross domestic product of $1.2 trillion would have the 15th largest economy in the world, ranking between Canada and Indonesia, and ahead of Australia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Saudi Arabia. Still, don't for a second think that $1.2 trillion is the actual grand total for what the U.S. government spends on national security. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once famously spoke of the world's "known unknowns." Explaining the phrase this way: "That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know." It's a concept that couldn't apply better to the budget he once oversaw. When it comes to U.S. national security spending, there are some relevant numbers we know are out there, even if we simply can't calculate them.

To take one example, how much of NASA's proposed $18.7 billion budget falls under national security spending? We know that the agency works closely with the Pentagon. NASA satellite launches often occur from the Air Force's facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The Air Force has its own satellite launch capability, but how much of that comes as a result of NASA technology and support? In dollars terms, we just don't know.

Other "known unknowns" would include portions of the State Department budget. One assumes that at least some of its diplomatic initiatives promote our security interests. Similarly, we have no figure for the pensions of non-Pentagon federal retirees who worked on security issues for the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, or the Departments of Justice and Treasury. Nor do we have figures for the interest on moneys borrowed to fund veterans' benefits, among other national security-related matters. The bill for such known unknowns could easily run into the tens of billions of dollars annually, putting the full national security budget over the $1.3 trillion mark or even higher.

There's a simple principle here. American taxpayers should know just what they are paying for. In a restaurant, a customer would be outraged to receive a check almost twice as high as the menu promised. We have no idea whether the same would be true in the world of national security spending, because Americans are never told what national security actually means at the cash register.

Christopher Hellman is communications liaison at the National Priorities Project in Northampton, Massachusetts. He was previously a military policy analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Senior Research Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, and spent 10 years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer working on national security and foreign policy issues.

This article was originally published by TomDispatch.

pricejj
04-07-2011, 10:37 PM
Have you read Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity"?

Revenue IS an issue. It has been an issue since Bush decided to start two wars AND cut taxes. That doesn't add up..

Yes, I have read it. I find it to be an intellectually sound document.

TAX REVENUE HAS REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS AT APPROXIMATELY $2T PER YEAR.

FEDERAL SPENDING HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY.

I'm not trying to be mean, but why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Yes, Bush spent more than the tax revenues, and Obama has increased spending waaaayyy beyond that. Blame Bush, or Reagan, or the "rich" or whoever you want. I blame EVERY politician who ever voted to spend beyond tax revenues. But the fact remains, federal govt spending is OUT OF CONTROL

The base federal tax revenue has averaged 18% to 19% of GDP for the past 40 years. The President's budget dramatically increases federal spending and tax revenue as a % of GDP to levels beyond any historical level.

You keep claiming that the "rich" need to pay more taxes. Anyone, who itemizes their taxes are in the top two tax brackets (25% and 35%). Ryan's plan will get rid of many deductions and corporate loopholes, but lower the top bracket to 25%, thus creating a wash. Tax revenues will remain the same. Don't you think 25% is enough?

ant1999e
04-07-2011, 10:52 PM
I found it easy as well.

Tackle entitlements, size of government, defense spending, and keep taxes low for everyone. Return government to its originally delegated responsibilities and you can get there.

This.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 01:36 AM
Have you read Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity"? For it to be viable, it requires an unemployment rate of no higher than 2.8% by 2014.

LOL Where exactly did you get that figure? Link please...

I read the entire budget, nowhere was that in the document.

"Path to Prosperity" actually has a lot of good information on exactly how federal entitlement spending is contributing to spiraling Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare costs, which are driving up prices for everyone. Open-ended entitlements and bail-outs are bankrupting this country financially and morally, if you haven't noticed.

The current corporate tax rate is at 35%, but large companies can afford to find the loopholes (i.e. move overseas) and effectively pay zero taxes, while small companies cannot. "Path to Prosperity" proposes getting rid of loopholes, and lowering the corporate tax rate to 25%, which would make the U.S. tax rate more competitive globally and broaden the tax base. It is a good first step in bringing jobs back, while increasing tax revenues.

I also like the 10% reduction in federal employees (through four years of hiring only 1 new employee for 3 retirees), and pension reform.

I would propose an amendment to reduce Defense spending to 20% of actual tax revenues ($400B) and not 20% of the proposed budget ($650B).

chadta
04-08-2011, 03:21 AM
you guys are making a big mistake if you model healthcare after our system up here, we are constantly cutting things, and the service gets worse and worse, yet it keeps costing more and more.

dont do it, its not to late

Play2win
04-08-2011, 05:59 AM
you guys are making a big mistake if you model healthcare after our system up here, we are constantly cutting things, and the service gets worse and worse, yet it keeps costing more and more.

dont do it, its not to late

And the difference between that and private-sector healthcare and insurance premiums, is exactly WHAT?!?

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-08-2011, 06:00 AM
Yes, I have read it. I find it to be an intellectually sound document.

TAX REVENUE HAS REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS AT APPROXIMATELY $2T PER YEAR.

FEDERAL SPENDING HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY.

I'm not trying to be mean, but why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Yes, Bush spent more than the tax revenues, and Obama has increased spending waaaayyy beyond that. Blame Bush, or Reagan, or the "rich" or whoever you want. I blame EVERY politician who ever voted to spend beyond tax revenues. But the fact remains, federal govt spending is OUT OF CONTROL

The base federal tax revenue has averaged 18% to 19% of GDP for the past 40 years. The President's budget dramatically increases federal spending and tax revenue as a % of GDP to levels beyond any historical level.

You keep claiming that the "rich" need to pay more taxes. Anyone, who itemizes their taxes are in the top two tax brackets (25% and 35%). Ryan's plan will get rid of many deductions and corporate loopholes, but lower the top bracket to 25%, thus creating a wash. Tax revenues will remain the same. Don't you think 25% is enough?

It's not difficult to comprehend. In fact, I AGREED with your point that spending must be cut.

What don't you understand about cutting spending being a half measure?

Cut spending and start with the MOTHER****ING PENTAGON. Raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the country by 3%.

The cuts on the table right now, by the way, from the Republicans? Expected to cost 700k people their jobs. 700,000. How does that help the recovery, exactly?

Play2win
04-08-2011, 06:06 AM
It's not difficult to comprehend. In fact, I AGREED with your point that spending must be cut.

What don't you understand about cutting spending being a half measure?

Cut spending and start with the MOTHER****ING PENTAGON. Raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of the country by 3%.

The cuts on the table right now, by the way, from the Republicans? Expected to cost 700k people their jobs. 700,000. How does that help the recovery, exactly?

Hear, Hear!!

pricejj
04-08-2011, 07:19 AM
And the difference between that and private-sector healthcare and insurance premiums, is exactly WHAT?!?

The U.S. does not currently have a "private-sector" healthcare system. 50 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare in the U.S. is federal spending. Medicare and Medicaid are open-ended entitlements, which is why healthcare costs keep spiraling up.

Medicare and Medicaid cut premiums paid to doctors, and doctors increase the cost or amount of services they perform.

Pell grants are a good example. Currently maximum yearly Pell grants are $5350. If you increase the maximum yearly Pell grant to $5975, average college tuition will increase by that much to absorb the profit.

Throwing tax dollars at something is a guaranteed way to increase the prices for everyone.

Play2win
04-08-2011, 07:22 AM
The U.S. does not currently have a "private-sector" healthcare system. 50 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare in the U.S. is federal spending. Medicare and Medicaid are open-ended entitlements, which is why healthcare costs keep spiraling up.

Medicare and Medicaid cut premiums paid to doctors, and doctors increase the cost or amount of services they perform.

Pell grants are a good example. Currently maximum yearly Pell grants are $5350. If you increase the maximum yearly Pell grant to $5975, average college tuition will increase by that much to absorb the profit.

Throwing tax dollars at something is a guaranteed way to increase the prices for everyone.

What an absolutely great system! I don't see why anyone would want to change a thing!!

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-08-2011, 07:24 AM
Now the holdup is Planned Parenthood.

Sorry, righties... this little ploy at social engineering is pretty transparent.

Let's put this funding into perspective. The GOP is willing to shut down the government over $300 million for an organizati­on that provides cervical pap smears, cancer testing, counseling and contracept­ive services for millions of women. If $300 million is such an issue, let's see where else we could recover it.

$300 million is just 0.1% of the amount of corporate tax breaks enjoyed by Fortune 100 companies every year.

$300 million would cover the costs for just ONE DAY of the wars in Iraq and Afghanista<wbr>­n

$300 million covers just TWO DAYS of the cost of the failed War on Drugs

$300 million covers just ONE DAY of federal subsidies to Big Agricultur<wbr>­e

$300 million represents barely 10% of what the taxpayer gives to "faith based" organizati<wbr>­ons every year (question for conservati<wbr>­ves who don't want their tax dollars going to women's health organizati<wbr>­ons they disagree with----wh<wbr>­y should MY tax dollars go to churches that I disagree with?)

Just a few examples for anybody who thinks this has anything to do with the budget. This is simply one more instance of the GOP using its power to wage war on Americans it doesn't like.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 07:31 AM
America has failed. Time to hold a constitutional congress. Either that, or just break up into regions or states (like the USSR did) and let each region create it's own government and start over.

orinjkrush
04-08-2011, 07:50 AM
One aspect to all of this economic/political/legal/philosophical fix the economy diatribe that hasn't been mentioned directly is: FRAUD. corporate fraud. banking fraud. health care fraud. immigration fraud. defense fraud. Intelligence fraud. Economic fraud. No wonder Galbraith says that economists should move into the background, and “criminologists to the forefront”

Failing to Prosecute Wall Street Fraud Is Extending Our Economic Problems
Posted By Guest Author On December 15, 2010 @ 8:30 am In Think Tank | Comments Disabled

Washington’s Blog [1] strives to provide real-time, well-researched and actionable information. George – the head writer at Washington’s Blog [1] – is a busy professional and a former adjunct professor.

~~~

Bill Gross, Nouriel Roubini, Laurence Kotlikoff, Steve Keen, Michel Chossudovsky and the Wall Street Journal all say [2] that the U.S. economy is a giant Ponzi scheme.

Virtually all independent economists and financial experts say that rampant fraud was largely responsible for the financial crisis. See this [3] and this [4].

But many on Wall Street and in D.C. – and many investors – believe that we should just “go with the flow”. They hope that we can restart our economy and make some more money if we just let things continue the way they are.

But the assumption that a system built on fraud can continue without crashing is false.

In fact, top economists and financial experts agree that – unless fraud is prosecuted – the economy cannot recover.

Fraud Leads to a Break Down in Trust and Instability in the Markets

As Alan Greenspan said recently:

Fraud creates very considerable instability in competitive markets. If you cannot trust your counterparties, it would not work

Similarly, leading economist Anna Schwartz – co-author of the leading book on the Great Depression with Milton Friedman – told [5] the Wall Street journal in 2008:

“The Fed … has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible.”

So even though the Fed has flooded the credit markets with cash, spreads haven’t budged because banks don’t know who is still solvent and who is not. This uncertainty, says Ms. Schwartz, is “the basic problem in the credit market. Lending freezes up when lenders are uncertain that would-be borrowers have the resources to repay them. So to assume that the whole problem is inadequate liquidity bypasses the real issue.”

***

Today, the banks have a problem on the asset side of their ledgers — “all these exotic securities that the market does not know how to value.”

“Why are they ‘toxic’?” Ms. Schwartz asks. “They’re toxic because you cannot sell them, you don’t know what they’re worth, your balance sheet is not credible and the whole market freezes up. We don’t know whom to lend to because we don’t know who is sound. So if you could get rid of them, that would be an improvement.”

And economics professor and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote [5] in 2008:

The underlying problem isn’t a liquidity problem. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the problem is that lenders and investors don’t trust they’ll get their money back because no one trusts that the numbers that purport to value securities are anything but wishful thinking. The trouble, in a nutshell, is that the financial entrepreneurship of recent years — the derivatives, credit default swaps, collateralized debt instruments, and so on — has undermined all notion of true value.

Robert Shiller – one of the top housing experts in the United States – said [6] recently that failing to address the legal issues will cause Americans to lose faith in business and the government:

Shiller said the danger of foreclosuregate — the scandal in which it has come to light that the biggest banks have routinely mishandled homeownership documents, putting the legality of foreclosures and related sales in doubt — is a replay of the 1930s, when Americans lost faith that institutions such as business and government were dealing fairly.

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says [7] about the failure to prosecute Wall Street fraud:

The legal system is supposed to be the codification of our norms and beliefs, things that we need to make our system work. If the legal system is seen as exploitative, then confidence in our whole system starts eroding. And that’s really the problem that’s going on.

***

I think we ought to go do what we did in the S&L [crisis] and actually put many of these guys in prison. Absolutely. These are not just white-collar crimes or little accidents. There were victims. That’s the point. There were victims all over the world.

***

Economists focus on the whole notion of incentives. People have an incentive sometimes to behave badly, because they can make more money if they can cheat. If our economic system is going to work then we have to make sure that what they gain when they cheat is offset by a system of penalties.

Wall Street insider and New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin writes [8]:

“They will pick on minor misdemeanors by individual market participants,” said David Einhorn, the hedge fund manager who was among the Cassandras before the financial crisis. To Mr. Einhorn, the government is “not willing to take on significant misbehavior by sizable” firms. “But since there have been almost no big prosecutions, there’s very little evidence that it has stopped bad actors from behaving badly.”***

Fraud at big corporations surely dwarfs by orders of magnitude the shareholders’ losses of $8 billion that Mr. Holder highlighted. If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least we’d have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.

Economics professor James Galbraith says [9]:

There will have to be full-scale investigation and cleaning up of the residue of that, before you can have, I think, a return of confidence in the financial sector. And that’s a process which needs to get underway.

No wonder Galbraith says [10] that economists should move into the background, and “criminologists to the forefront”.

Failure to Stop Fraud and Prosecute Criminals Causes a Loss of Trust in Government, Which Makes Government Less Effective

As Shiller stated in the quote above, the failure of government officials to stop fraud and prosecute the financial fraudsters has caused a lack of trust in government itself.

Indeed, polls show that people no longer trust our economic “leaders”. See this [11] and this [12]

.

A psychologist wrote an essay published by the Wharton School of Business arguing [13] that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:

According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. “Abusive financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard] Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG.” The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11. “Normal expectations of what is safe and dependable were abruptly shattered,” Sachs noted. “As is typical of post-traumatic states, planning for the future could not be based on old assumptions about what is safe and what is dangerous. A radical reversal of how to be gratified occurred.”

People now feel more gratified saving money than spending it, Sachs suggested. They have trouble trusting promises from the government because they feel the government has let them down.

He framed his argument with a fictional patient named Betty Q. Public, a librarian with two teenage children and a husband, John, who had recently lost his job. “She felt betrayed because she and her husband had invested conservatively and were double-crossed by dishonest, greedy businessmen, and now she distrusted the government that had failed to protect them from corporate dishonesty. Not only that, but she had little trust in things turning around soon enough to enable her and her husband to accomplish their previous goals.

“By no means a sophisticated economist, she knew … that some people had become fantastically wealthy by misusing other people’s money — hers included,” Sachs said. “In short, John and Betty had done everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished.”

Helping an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides a useful analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from its own traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to “hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again.” In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.

Government regulators know this – or at least pay lip service to it – as well. For example, as the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division told [14] Congress:

Recovery from the fallout of the financial crisis requires important efforts on various fronts, and vigorous enforcement is an essential component, as aggressive and even-handed enforcement will meet the public’s fair expectation that those whose violations of the law caused severe loss and hardship will be held accountable. And vigorous law enforcement efforts will help vindicate the principles that are fundamental to the fair and proper functioning of our markets: that no one should have an unjust advantage in our markets; that investors have a right to disclosure that complies with the federal securities laws; and that there is a level playing field for all investors.

If people don’t trust their government to enforce the law, government will become more and more impotent in addressing our economic problems. If government leaders take action, the market will not necessarily respond as expected. When government leaders make optimistic statements about the economy, people will no longer believe them.

Trying to Cover Up the Truth Extends Financial Crises

Elizabeth Warren, William Black and others say [15] that attempting to cover up the truth extended Japan’s financial problems into an entire “Lost Decade”.

As Joseph Stiglitz said [7] about Wall Street fraud:

So the whole strategy of the banks has been to hide the losses, muddle through and get the government to keep interest rates really low.

***
As long as we keep up this strategy, it’s going to be a long time before the economy recovers ….

Pam Martens – who worked on Wall Street for 21 years – writes [16]:

The massive losses by big Wall Street firms, now topping those of the Great Depression in relative terms, have yet to be adequately explained. Wall Street power players are obfuscating and Congress is too embarrassed or frightened to ask, preferring to just throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. But as job losses and foreclosures mount and pensions and 401(k)s shrink, public policy measures to address the economic stresses require a full set of unembellished facts…

It was four years after the crash of 1929 before the major titans of Wall Street were forced to give testimony under oath to Congress and the full magnitude of the fraud emerged. That delay may well have contributed to the depth and duration of the Great Depression. The modern-day Wall Street corruption hearings in Congress … must now resume in earnest and with sworn testimony if we are to escape a similar fate.

To the extent that the government tries to cover up – instead of openly discuss – financial fraud, it will only extend America’s economic malaise.

Failing to Prosecute Fraud Encourages Financial Players to Take Bigger and More Blatantly Illegal Actions

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated [17] that failure to punish white collar criminals – and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future. Joseph Stiglitz, Professor Black, and many others agree. See this [18], this [19] and this [20].

It was largely fraud which brought down the financial system in 2008. Unless we prosecute the fraudsters, they will do even bigger, stupider and more blatantly illegal things in the future which will lead to even bigger crises.

more at: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/failing-to-prosecute-wall-street-fraud-is-extending-our-economic-problems/print/

Archer81
04-08-2011, 07:57 AM
.


So...any response as to why the democrats did not pass a budget for this past year? It couldnt be to play politics after they lost the midterms, could it?

No. Much easier to blame republicans.

:Broncos:

Hercules Rockefeller
04-08-2011, 08:01 AM
So...any response as to why the democrats did not pass a budget for this past year? It couldnt be to play politics after they lost the midterms, could it?

No. Much easier to blame republicans.

:Broncos:

The budget should have been passed last summer, even before the midterms. That's real leadership from the party that had huge majorities at the time.

Jetmeck
04-08-2011, 08:09 AM
Paul Ryan's "path to prosperity" is on the table, and is aimed to save $6T over the next 10 years. A good start, but more is needed.

Revenue is NOT an issue. Federal Tax revenues have basically stayed the same over the past 10 years, ~$2T (a little more some years). Federal spending has almost doubled. The culprits: defense, healthcare, welfare, and pensions (all have went up at least $400B). Reduce all four to 2001 levels. I have no problem with paying taxes. 10% flat tax for all would be enough for all necessary governmental expenditures.

Nobody said they were against paying taxes.

Thats BS, cutting the top taxbracket by 10% while cutting medicare and medicade is a freakin joke. Anyone supporting this BS is delusional. Some cutting is necessary but the top tax bracket should go up and the loopholes closed.

Corporations have went from paying 30% of the taxes in this country to paying a mere 6% now. It don't balance out folks.

If the rich and corporations think they are too good to pay their fair share get the **** out.............

pricejj
04-08-2011, 08:10 AM
What an absolutely great system! I don't see why anyone would want to change a thing!!

Medicare and Medicaid have the inherent flaw of injecting unlimited federal tax revenues into a private sector industry. Hence the spiralling healtchcare costs.

"Path to Prosperity" addresses the Medicare flaw by putting purchasing power into the hands of individuals rather than bureaucrats.

If a good or service is $50 and the government steps in and says "I want an unlimited supply of that good or service", the price will go up to maybe $75. If the government steps in and continues to buy that good or service no matter what the price is, the price will spiral upward.

Jetmeck
04-08-2011, 08:13 AM
The budget should have been passed last summer, even before the midterms. That's real leadership from the party that had huge majorities at the time.

I'll agree with this. The democrats are pussies. They should have rammed a budget down the throat of republicans that had the rich taking a freakin tax increase ALONG WITH cuts to defense,etc.....

How about just take away tax breaks to big oil. They obviously do not need it. How about oil companies pay the US government all the royalties they owe for taking oil from OUR OWN COUNTRY AND MAKING THEMSELVES FILTHY RICH.

How about they pay up ?

pricejj
04-08-2011, 08:18 AM
Thats BS, cutting the top taxbracket by 10% while cutting medicare and medicade is a freakin joke. Anyone supporting this BS is delusional. Some cutting is necessary but the top tax bracket should go up and the loopholes closed.

Corporations have went from paying 30% of the taxes in this country to paying a mere 6% now. It don't balance out folks.

If the rich and corporations think they are too good to pay their fair share get the **** out.............


You know why corporations only pay 6% now? All the loopholes. "Path to Prosperity" closes the loopholes.

The corporations have already "got the **** out". That's why unemployment is so high. Loopholes allow corporations to not pay any taxes at all by operating overseas, instead of paying the highest corporate tax rate (35%) in the developed world.

"Path to Prosperity" would also eliminate loopholes for the wealthiest of individuals.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 08:19 AM
Medicare and Medicaid have the inherent flaw of injecting unlimited federal tax revenues into a private sector industry. Hence the spiralling healtchcare costs.

"Path to Prosperity" addresses the Medicare flaw by putting purchasing power into the hands of individuals rather than bureaucrats.

If a good or service is $50 and the government steps in and says "I want an unlimited supply of that good or service." The price will go up to maybe $75. If the government steps in and continues to buy that good or service no matter what the price is, the price will spiral upward.

So, lock the prices. That's what Nixon did when he shifted us off the gold standard.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-08-2011, 08:34 AM
So...any response as to why the democrats did not pass a budget for this past year? It couldnt be to play politics after they lost the midterms, could it?

No. Much easier to blame republicans.

:Broncos:

Uh, what?

Did you ask me that previously and I just missed it? If so, I apologize.

I'm not happy that the Dems didn't pass a budget, though it was due largely to the grandstanding, obstructing Republicans keeping things from getting done, as they have done since Obama was inaugurated. Obama - Bad, Opposite of Obama -- regardless of what it is - Good. That's not getting old.

Yes, they probably should have "rammed the budget down the throats" of the R's and didn't because of the flak they got from the media and constituents about doing so with healthcare. Dems are historically pussies. Doesn't mean I agree with tax cuts for the rich, or a completely ludicrous budget for the pentagon, which is apparently off limits. Nor do I agree with cutting funding for NPR and PP. Those are drops in the bucket and won't do a damn thing.

You have no comment on my lengthy information about the cost being cut for PP and the correlation to what we spend in other sectors?

Hercules Rockefeller
04-08-2011, 08:53 AM
I'm not happy that the Dems didn't pass a budget, though it was due largely to the grandstanding, obstructing Republicans keeping things from getting done, as they have done since Obama was inaugurated. Obama - Bad, Opposite of Obama -- regardless of what it is - Good. That's not getting old.


That's embarrassing that you guys continue to cling to the Republican obstructionism meme.

You had 59 Senators and a massive majority in the House.

If you can't accomplish anything with those numbers, that's your own damn fault.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-08-2011, 09:02 AM
That's embarrassing that you guys continue to cling to the Republican obstructionism meme.

You had 59 Senators and a massive majority in the House.

If you can't accomplish anything with those numbers, that's your own damn fault.

Well, for one thing, it's not like I approve of not pushing through the budget, as I posted in the post you quoted. did you even read the whole post?

And for another, it's not like it's untrue. It's completely true. The Republicans in congress have done nothing but try to obstruct things from getting done. And then they campaigned on the "they didn't try to get anything done/didn't even attempt to pass a budget" BS, which is the new meme coming from the right.

Both sides are culpable in this situation.

Hercules Rockefeller
04-08-2011, 09:09 AM
Well, for one thing, it's not like I approve of not pushing through the budget, as I posted in the post you quoted. did you even read the whole post?

And for another, it's not like it's untrue. It's completely true. The Republicans in congress have done nothing but try to obstruct things from getting done. And then they campaigned on the "they didn't try to get anything done/didn't even attempt to pass a budget" BS, which is the new meme coming from the right.

Both sides are culpable in this situation.

You realize your entire quote also said that they'd done this since Obama had taken office, correct? Hence the post. The Left has claimed obstructionism for 2 years. Also, the Dems didn't even try to put forth a budget last summer, so your obstructionism claim with regards to that would be incorrect.

Jetmeck
04-08-2011, 09:45 AM
You know why corporations only pay 6% now? All the loopholes. "Path to Prosperity" closes the loopholes.

The corporations have already "got the **** out". That's why unemployment is so high. Loopholes allow corporations to not pay any taxes at all by operating overseas, instead of paying the highest corporate tax rate (35%) in the developed world.

"Path to Prosperity" would also eliminate loopholes for the wealthiest of individuals.

Corps have gotten the **** out to access cheap labor which maximizes their profits at the American workforce's expense and the very people they sell their products to. Then they have a P O BOX
in Switzerland as their corporate HEADQUARTERS to not make pay their taxes on these ill gotten gains.

Your path to prosperity would not have a 10% reduction in taxes if it were not the republican intention to lower tax rates. If they wanted to just close loop holes....do it....no need to change tax rates.

We are not naive. We see it and so do you. They are lowering the tax burden on the rich while going after the middle class and poor. How dare you defend this.................!

Archer81
04-08-2011, 10:09 AM
Uh, what?

Did you ask me that previously and I just missed it? If so, I apologize.

I'm not happy that the Dems didn't pass a budget, though it was due largely to the grandstanding, obstructing Republicans keeping things from getting done, as they have done since Obama was inaugurated. Obama - Bad, Opposite of Obama -- regardless of what it is - Good. That's not getting old.



59 democrat senators in a 100 seat senate. Then you have the "independent" senator who sided with dems more often then not and you have a supermajority.

The second bolded is a joke. Do you not remember 2001-to Jan 2009? Or is it only worth something when the president is republican?

:Broncos:

OABB
04-08-2011, 10:24 AM
59 democrat senators in a 100 seat senate. Then you have the "independent" senator who sided with dems more often then not and you have a supermajority.

The second bolded is a joke. Do you not remember 2001-to Jan 2009? Or is it only worth something when the president is republican?

:Broncos:

no, it only works when the president is actually really really bad and literally everything he does is bad. like from 2001-2009.

Peoples Champ
04-08-2011, 10:25 AM
Corps have gotten the **** out to access cheap labor which maximizes their profits at the American workforce's expense and the very people they sell their products to. Then they have a P O BOX
in Switzerland as their corporate HEADQUARTERS to not make pay their taxes on these ill gotten gains.

Your path to prosperity would not have a 10% reduction in taxes if it were not the republican intention to lower tax rates. If they wanted to just close loop holes....do it....no need to change tax rates.

We are not naive. We see it and so do you. They are lowering the tax burden on the rich while going after the middle class and poor. How dare you defend this.................!


all you need to do is FIX IT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3uxqwTxk0

pricejj
04-08-2011, 11:01 AM
We are not naive. We see it and so do you. They are lowering the tax burden on the rich while going after the middle class and poor. How dare you defend this.................!

Do you realize that the U.S. has the highest (35%) corporate tax in the developed world? Do you realize that many large companies don't pay any taxes at all, by using current tax code loopholes?

Lowering the corporate tax rate to 25% and closing the loopholes would make the U.S. market more competitive on a global level, therefore bringing jobs back to the U.S. and broadening the tax base. This is a bad thing to you?

How is bringing jobs back to the U.S. "going after the poor"?

Hilarious!
You make no sense.

lostknight
04-08-2011, 11:13 AM
Now the holdup is Planned Parenthood.


Actually, according to NPR 5 minutes ago, the hold up is 8.6 billion dollars.

Let's put this funding into perspective. The GOP is willing to shut down the government over $300 million for an organizati­on that provides cervical pap smears, cancer testing, counseling and contracept­ive services for millions of women. If $300 million is such an issue, let's see where else we could recover it.

And that murders children for perspective. That's their view. You may not agree with it, but you do have to admit that government backed corporations have a very poor track record the last few years.

$300 million represents barely 10% of what the taxpayer gives to "faith based" organizati<wbr>­ons every year (question for conservati<wbr>­ves who don't want their tax dollars going to women's health organizati<wbr>­ons they disagree with----wh<wbr>­y should MY tax dollars go to churches that I disagree with?)

Why should this money go to organizations they disagree with? You can try and get Salvation Army defunded if you want.

Bronco Yoda
04-08-2011, 12:00 PM
Taxing "the rich" at 100 percent still wouldn't begin to tackle the problem. Until we seriously tackle defense spending health spending (medicare, medicaid, VA, CHiP, and Obamacare) it matters little. It's not the money coming in that's the problem; ITS THE SPENDING.

I agree with the spending. But revenue is also part of the equation. It's silly to ignore half of the problem simply because it does not fit your narrative. This 'problem' is best solved by attacking it from ALL sides.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2011, 12:04 PM
I agree with the spending. But revenue is also part of the equation. It's silly to ignore half of the problem simply because it does not fit your narrative. This 'problem' is best solved by attacking it from ALL sides.

If we were spending on only the necessities(and yes I realize this is subjective) then all you who have said revenue is the problem would have a point, but we are not. And don't try and rationalize "The General Welfare" because we could make that mean anything.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 12:16 PM
This economy is fine. Look! The CEO of Chase just got a 1,500% raise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42493231/ns/business-us_business/

Jetmeck
04-08-2011, 12:20 PM
This economy is fine. Look! The CEO of Chase just got a 1,500% raise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42493231/ns/business-us_business/

Holy chit...what have we got to worry about. If the repubs get their way he'll pay 10% less on that 1500% raise also. What a deal.
Go Tea Party. ROFL!

Bronco Yoda
04-08-2011, 12:36 PM
The budget should have been passed last summer, even before the midterms. That's real leadership from the party that had huge majorities at the time.

Yep. That's what you get when your offense consists of punting the ball. Nice going Demo's.

Chris
04-08-2011, 12:52 PM
**** a trickle down like some triple clowns.

Bronco Yoda
04-08-2011, 12:54 PM
Oh, and nice going Tea Party. Way to pick your battles. Planned Parenthood? Really? You ****ing selfish retards. Independents wont forget this!

pricejj
04-08-2011, 01:09 PM
Oh, and nice going Tea Party. Way to pick your battles. Planned Parenthood? Really? You ****ing selfish retards. Independents wont forget this!
LOL

I am independent, and I can see exactly what Harry Reid is trying to do. It's all about women's healthcare huh? What a clown. Nice try though.

The Federal Government is running a $1.6T deficit this year...

... if you haven't noticed.

CUT SPENDING NOW

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 01:18 PM
Planned Parenthood saves more money than it costs.

It also prevents more abortions than it carries out.

tsiguy96
04-08-2011, 01:26 PM
And that murders children for perspective. That's their view. You may not agree with it, but you do have to admit that government backed corporations have a very poor track record the last few years.



no, they dont. good try though.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 01:26 PM
You can go to ANY health clinic for a birth control prescription, or for a papsmear, for the same cost as going to planned parenthood. Plan-B is available over the counter without a prescription.

Planned Parenthood was once necessary for emergency contraception, but now it is just a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2011, 01:29 PM
LOL

I am independent, and I can see exactly what Harry Reid is trying to do. It's all about women's healthcare huh? What a clown. Nice try though.

The Federal Government is running a $1.6T deficit this year...

... if you haven't noticed.

CUT SPENDING NOW

And that deficit doesn't even address the debt.

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 01:30 PM
Planned Parenthood is 1/12,000th of the budget...

You'd need to find 12,000 other similar programs to cut.

Meanwhile, between infrastructure, military, entitlement programs and social security - you get something like 90 percent of the budget.

Garcia Bronco
04-08-2011, 01:34 PM
Planned Parenthood is 1/12,000th of the budget...

You'd need to find 12,000 other similar programs to cut.

Meanwhile, between infrastructure, military, entitlement programs and social security - you get something like 90 percent of the budget.

This

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2011, 01:47 PM
Planned Parenthood is 1/12,000th of the budget...

You'd need to find 12,000 other similar programs to cut.

Meanwhile, between infrastructure, military, entitlement programs and social security - you get something like 90 percent of the budget.

No. That would mean cutting the WHOLE BUDGET!

chadta
04-08-2011, 01:54 PM
And the difference between that and private-sector healthcare and insurance premiums, is exactly WHAT?!?

you can choose a different company, i cant choose a different taxation or level of service

gyldenlove
04-08-2011, 02:01 PM
you can choose a different company, i cant choose a different taxation or level of service

That assumes the free market is in effect, for health insurance I don't think that is the case.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 02:09 PM
Planned Parenthood is 1/12,000th of the budget...

You'd need to find 12,000 other similar programs to cut.

Meanwhile, between infrastructure, military, entitlement programs and social security - you get something like 90 percent of the budget.

"Path to Prosperity", a framework for the fy2012 federal budget, is on the table, with $6T in savings over the next 10 years.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 02:17 PM
LOL

I am independent, and I can see exactly what Harry Reid is trying to do. It's all about women's healthcare huh? What a clown. Nice try though.

The Federal Government is running a $1.6T deficit this year...

... if you haven't noticed.

CUT SPENDING NOW

Had somebody not declared an unfunded war on the wrong country after 911 that figure would be a trillion less.

Let's make pregnant women pay for it.

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 02:21 PM
Had somebody not declared an unfunded war on the wrong country after 911 that figure would be a trillion less.

Let's make pregnant women pay for it.

Not even pregnant woman.... let's make low-income women pay for it by getting them pregnant!

Rigs11
04-08-2011, 02:27 PM
"Path to Prosperity", a framework for the fy2012 federal budget, is on the table, with $6T in savings over the next 10 years.

yeah and is heavily dependent on unemployment being 4%. keep drinking the tea.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 02:28 PM
Had somebody not declared an unfunded war on the wrong country after 911 that figure would be a trillion less.

Let's make pregnant women pay for it.

I have always been against the wars. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama... Building 7

Obama and his democratic super-majority escalated the wars.

Ron Paul would END them.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 02:31 PM
yeah and is heavily dependent on unemployment being 4%. keep drinking the tea.

That is untrue.

But you didn't read it, did you? Where do you get your information from? Link please...

pricejj
04-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Not even pregnant woman.... let's make low-income women pay for it by getting them pregnant!

LOL Fear Mongering

Rigs11
04-08-2011, 02:41 PM
That is untrue.

But you didn't read it, did you? Where do you get your information from? Link please...

http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-no-path-to-prosperity-preposterous-unemployment-estimate.aspx?article=3425222508G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Mish

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2011, 03:01 PM
Planned Parenthood is 1/12,000th of the budget...

You'd need to find 12,000 other similar programs to cut.

Meanwhile, between infrastructure, military, entitlement programs and social security - you get something like 90 percent of the budget.

Here's some 3rd grade math for you. 1/4 is 25%, so 4/4 is what %? 100%. Moron.

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 03:13 PM
Thank you, Capt. Obvious.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2011, 03:32 PM
Thank you, Capt. Obvious.

Not to you.

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 03:36 PM
Not to you.

No, you were just illustrating my point. Good job.

I'm an economist.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 03:36 PM
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-no-path-to-prosperity-preposterous-unemployment-estimate.aspx?article=3425222508G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Mish

Path to Prosperity is not predicated on "4% unemployment". It is an estimation put out by the Heritage Institute (a data analysis company) of the effect on job creation that the budget framework may bring.

Congressmen Ryan developed the plan with a baseline federal tax revenue number (18% to 19% of GDP annually) for income tax revenues, and subtracted a number for yearly federal expenditures, reflecting spending cuts and increasing efficiencies, in discretionary and non-discretionary government programs.

The plan would eliminate federal spending deficits by 2015, cutting spending on Defense as a percentage of federal tax revenues from 36% (what it is today), to 20% by 2015.

It also raises the total federal tax revenues from 15% of GDP (which exists today), to 19% of GDP by 2015.

What is there not to like about this? Other than the fact that it doesn't call an immediate end to the wars (which a budget framework could never do).

It is actually very simple and elegant.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
04-08-2011, 03:46 PM
No, you were just illustrating my point. Good job.

I'm an economist.

You must be learnin' that knew math. So you sayin' 4/4 doesn't equal %100. I see?

OABB
04-08-2011, 03:47 PM
You must be learnin' that knew math. So you sayin' 4/4 doesn't equal %100. I see?

what did I miss?

Swedish Extrovert
04-08-2011, 04:14 PM
what did I miss?

You tell me, hahaha... I use calculus and statistics on a daily basis.

OABB
04-08-2011, 06:15 PM
I'm sure he sees something, just not sure what it is.

gunns
04-08-2011, 06:43 PM
Its pretty awesome that the a-holes that tell us what to destroy/protect/feed have let it be known that we (the military folks here) are only getting paid until the 8th, yet they continue to recieve their payroll, whilst we are fighting in multiple serious conflicts and in harms way in places that most havent even heard of. Oh and as of tomorrow we are doing it for free. Guess all the folks down in Africa that I've committed to helping, feeding or blowing up arent gonna get their daily dose of smiles from the Military...we may be a tad more salty in the coming days, now that we are off the clock.

Could not agree more. Have said it my own state legislature. Not even so much their payroll but their benefits while they cut ours. My son has saved up for this but with 3 kids hopefully if it happens it does not last long. If anyone in this country should continue to get paid it's the military personnel.

If as stated Planned Parenthood is the last point of contention I find this ridiculous. I'm pro-choice but have never been for tax payer funded abortions or birth control. Pro choice is just that, about choice. I don't know when we became like animals who cannot control ourselves but it's ridiculous for us to pay for someone else's decision that they suddenly don't like or don't want. The fact the birth rate went down as the economy floundered told me we can control ourselves. As far as the teeny boppers "choices" also eliminate welfare for those choices and things will look differently. It's becoming a lifestyle.

Bronco Yoda
04-08-2011, 06:47 PM
LOL

I am independent, and I can see exactly what Harry Reid is trying to do. It's all about women's healthcare huh? What a clown. Nice try though.

The Federal Government is running a $1.6T deficit this year...

... if you haven't noticed.

CUT SPENDING NOW

Independent my ass. You're a tea bagger.

Who are you anyway? Smells like someones second account to troll.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 06:55 PM
Path to Prosperity is not predicated on "4% unemployment". It is an estimation put out by the Heritage Institute (a data analysis company) of the effect on job creation that the budget framework may bring.

Congressmen Ryan developed the plan with a baseline federal tax revenue number (18% to 19% of GDP annually) for income tax revenues, and subtracted a number for yearly federal expenditures, reflecting spending cuts and increasing efficiencies, in discretionary and non-discretionary government programs.

The plan would eliminate federal spending deficits by 2015, cutting spending on Defense as a percentage of federal tax revenues from 36% (what it is today), to 20% by 2015.

It also raises the total federal tax revenues from 15% of GDP (which exists today), to 19% of GDP by 2015.

What is there not to like about this? Other than the fact that it doesn't call an immediate end to the wars (which a budget framework could never do).

It is actually very simple and elegant.

Elegant? It's as old as the hills. Kick the poor to the curb and give the rich more tax breaks. New package, same ole ****. ;D

~Crash~
04-08-2011, 08:09 PM
not vague at all.


TAX. THE. RICH.

then they lay you off . and make one person do ten peoples job. try again ass wipe.

~Crash~
04-08-2011, 08:13 PM
the rich will still hit the Riviera , you cannot soak the rich but you can stop them from hiring your stupid ass

~Crash~
04-08-2011, 08:22 PM
it is safe to say you ass hats will make plenty excuses! ... winy ass pussys

I pay my bills seems you think I need to pay for your brats to watched I say pay your own bills!

~Crash~
04-08-2011, 08:23 PM
why is it no one can do a ****ing thing for them selfs?

~Crash~
04-08-2011, 08:24 PM
asta I am out of here..

TailgateNut
04-08-2011, 08:45 PM
it is safe to say you ass hats will make plenty excuses! ... winy ass p***Ys

I pay my bills seems you think I need to pay for your brats to watched I say pay your own bills!


:rofl:

TailgateNut
04-08-2011, 08:46 PM
why is it no one can do a ****ing thing for them selfs?

:rofl:

Missouribronc
04-08-2011, 08:52 PM
then they lay you off . and make one person do ten peoples job. try again ass wipe.

Poor people don't employ people.

Remember that.

wandlc
04-08-2011, 09:23 PM
I agree that the tax code needs to be redone, but if you let the bush tax cuts expire for the just the top percent (which is what the plan was), it'll create some revenue without touching the middle class tax rate (which is essentially what the ryan budget would do...though i think that budget was really just made for confrontation rather than implementation).

Um, I was making less than 30,000 at the time and when the tax cuts went into effect I started paying no federal taxes. I guess supporting a family of 4 on less than 30k makes me one of the rich.

pricejj
04-08-2011, 09:29 PM
Elegant? It's as old as the hills. Kick the poor to the curb and give the rich more tax breaks. New package, same ole ****. ;D

Standard Democrat responses to questioning about government overreach and overspending.

1. Get hysterical and call out racism when discussing economics.
2. Attempt to compare sound fiscal policies to "something from the 1700's".
3. Job creation is all of a sudden "destroying the poor".
4. Spending cuts are "a war against women's healthcare" (a la Harry Reid).
5. Tell someone how "ashamed" they should be to balance the budget.
6. Resort to name calling (i.e. teabaggers, etc.).
7. Think that all economic problems can be solved by "taxing the rich".
8. Blame it all on Reagan or Bush.

If any of you has anything thoughtful, or intelligent to add to this conversation, I'm still waiting.

Rohirrim
04-08-2011, 10:27 PM
Standard Democrat responses to questioning about government overreach and overspending.

1. Get hysterical and call out racism when discussing economics.
2. Attempt to compare sound fiscal policies to "something from the 1700's".
3. Job creation is all of a sudden "destroying the poor".
4. Spending cuts are "a war against women's healthcare" (a la Harry Reid).
5. Tell someone how "ashamed" they should be to balance the budget.
6. Resort to name calling (i.e. teabaggers, etc.).
7. Think that all economic problems can be solved by "taxing the rich".
8. Blame it all on Reagan or Bush.

If any of you has anything thoughtful, or intelligent to add to this conversation, I'm still waiting.

Empty spin. That's pretty much all the Right has come out with for thirty years. Try to remember - your guys are the ones who said, "Deficits don't matter." But now, the Tea Party has put the fear of God in you. Ha!

Your guys are the ones who started an unnecessary war in Iraq that flushed one trillion dollars of our wealth down the ****hole while at the same time throwing money around like drunken sailors and giving huge tax cuts to the rich. And suddenly, two years later, you're fiscally responsible? What, did you get religion? Hilarious!

You guys are the ones who launched this country on the path of deregulation and supply-side economics. Now, you look around at the smoking wreckage and want to blame it on somebody else. Who can blame you?

Jetmeck
04-08-2011, 10:35 PM
Elegant? It's as old as the hills. Kick the poor to the curb and give the rich more tax breaks. New package, same ole ****. ;D

Exactly, conveniently ignore the tax burden has been shifted to the middle class while corporations shift their workforce out of the country increasing profits then claiming they are an out of country
corporation who has their corporate headquarters in A MAIL BOX SOMEWHERE OVERSEAS.

Any POS defending this type of business and telling the middle class we have to make up the difference is just that a POS..............

pricejj
04-08-2011, 10:46 PM
Empty spin. That's pretty much all the Right has come out with for thirty years. Try to remember - your guys are the ones who said, "Deficits don't matter." But now, the Tea Party has put the fear of God in you. Ha!

Your guys are the ones who started an unnecessary war in Iraq that flushed one trillion dollars of our wealth down the ****hole while at the same time throwing money around like drunken sailors and giving huge tax cuts to the rich. And suddenly, two years later, you're fiscally responsible? What, did you get religion? Hilarious!

You guys are the ones who launched this country on the path of deregulation and supply-side economics. Now, you look around at the smoking wreckage and want to blame it on somebody else. Who can blame you?
:rofl:
What are you talking about empty party tool?

I didn't vote for Bush or Obama. Never been a Republican or a Democrat. From what I've seen the past few years, Democrats like you will turn your head at the killing of innocent people (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.), and promote enslavement and oppression of your fellow Americans out of greed. Tells me all I need to know.
I WILL stand up for those who fear god and do not use oppression to rule the land.

OABB
04-08-2011, 10:56 PM
How drunk is crash right now?

cutthemdown
04-08-2011, 11:15 PM
The rich already pay the bulk of the tax. Using % of income is a joke. The rich pay for almost everything already. We need economy to pick up, more people working, and cuts in spending.

I can go along with some defense cuts though but looks like neither side wants to. Fact is that spending spiders into every state and means jobs for dems and repubs alike. Things like missile defense at Raytheon etc etc employ a ton of people. Also builidng things like subs is a good job.

TailgateNut
04-09-2011, 02:03 AM
The rich already pay the bulk of the tax. Using % of income is a joke. The rich pay for almost everything already. We need economy to pick up, more people working, and cuts in spending.

I can go along with some defense cuts though but looks like neither side wants to. Fact is that spending spiders into every state and means jobs for dems and repubs alike. Things like missile defense at Raytheon etc etc employ a ton of people. Also builidng things like subs is a good job.


If we didn't have the military complex you couldn't continue beating your war drums while neglecting to volunteer your own worthless hide.

brother love
04-09-2011, 05:58 AM
Stop spending money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hard cuts need to be made everywhere. More taxing of everybody is just dropping pennies in a bucket unless they reel in spending. I feel the government is like Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber" after they discover there is money in the briefcase. Cut everything!!!!!!!!!

BroncoInferno
04-09-2011, 06:14 AM
The rich already pay the bulk of the tax. Using % of income is a joke.

NOT using percentage of income is the joke. WTF are you talking about?

Rohirrim
04-09-2011, 07:05 AM
:rofl:
What are you talking about empty party tool?

I didn't vote for Bush or Obama. Never been a Republican or a Democrat. From what I've seen the past few years, Democrats like you will turn your head at the killing of innocent people (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.), and promote enslavement and oppression of your fellow Americans out of greed. Tells me all I need to know.
I WILL stand up for those who fear god and do not use oppression to rule the land.

Oppression? Ha!

I don't know God personally, but I'm going to imagine that He probably likes the idea of setting up an economy that doesn't kick the poor and the meek into the gutter.

I guess you're another libertarian, given your Ryan love. To me, that's just another religion among many to choose from. It gives you the added bonus, as most do, that you get to rise above the petty squabbles of politics and position yourself (in your own mind at least) as a pristine devotee of the "true" religion.

Oh, if only we would embrace the clarity and purity of libertarianism and then butterflies would fill our skies and we would all **** gold.

BTW, Saddam was our good buddy for many years, committing all sorts of atrocities (with weapons supplied by us) before he got a little too snarky and decided to invade Kuwait. Had he not done that, he'd still be our "friend" no doubt.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 07:10 AM
I'll agree with this. The democrats are pussies. They should have rammed a budget down the throat of republicans that had the rich taking a freakin tax increase ALONG WITH cuts to defense,etc.....

How about just take away tax breaks to big oil. They obviously do not need it. How about oil companies pay the US government all the royalties they owe for taking oil from OUR OWN COUNTRY AND MAKING THEMSELVES FILTHY RICH.

How about they pay up ?

All Obama had to do was do nothing and let the tax cuts expire. Instead, he came swooping in and saved them. So not only did they not ram anything down anyone's throats, they eventually decided to actively do the opposite and continue supporting the wealthy.

Bush tax cuts became the Obama tax cuts. Don't blame stuff like that on the republicans. Same with the wars. They could've been drawn down a lot faster if that were his intent. It hasn't been. He even found himself a mini-war to add on top of it.

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 09:40 AM
I can see the conservative point of view that income disparity serves as a reward mechanism for harder and smarter work. Progressive taxes blunt that mechanism.

I also understand resentment at having to pay for entitlements for people who have not necessarily earned them.

I don't accept the argument that taxing the rich more would make them hire less. I mean, I understand that if you don't have enough money to hire somebody, you will not hire them. But, corporate profits are climbing over the past year while unemployment hasn't changed much. So the situation is more complicated than that.

The liberal point of view is easier to emotionally understand. It is natural to sympathize with people who are legitimately dependent on society to survive rather than sympathize with people complaining they deserve to keep more, even if it means the basic needs of others are not met.

I think if both sides acknowledged the fundamental truths in the other sides' argument it would go a long way.

Myself, I would be OK with not increasing taxes for the rich and making more cuts to entitlements, even if it meant some people would would suffer unjustly...and perhaps cruelly. But I think there are somethings that should not be cut from the budget and even increased, because they benefit society as a whole: Education spending and Infrastructure spending.

Jay3
04-09-2011, 09:59 AM
The "rich" already pay most of the tax burden, and increasing that burden will put a greater drag on economic growth. Economic growth is the key to raising real standards of living and self-sufficiency.

So, the correct answer was control the growth of spending, grow the economy, and watch the spending outlays line intersect with the revenue growth line at the federal level.

Everybody tends to want the same thing -- to accumulate enough property and wealth to have some control over their destiny, to be able to help their friends and family with tuition, housing, everything. To have enough property nest egg to be a sustainer of whatever they think is important (family, land, organizations, etc.)

So taxing the rich isn't the answer. The answer is how to keep growing to where everybody is "rich." We would almost be there now if the Social Security program was run like an honest 401(k) instead of big commie fund that takes 12% of everything you earn for life and then flushes it when you die.

That One Guy
04-09-2011, 10:01 AM
I can see the conservative point of view that income disparity serves as a reward mechanism for harder and smarter work. Progressive taxes blunt that mechanism.

I also understand resentment at having to pay for entitlements for people who have not necessarily earned them.

I don't accept the argument that taxing the rich more would make them hire less. I mean, I understand that if you don't have enough money to hire somebody, you will not hire them. But, corporate profits are climbing over the past year while unemployment hasn't changed much. So the situation is more complicated than that.

The liberal point of view is easier to emotionally understand. It is natural to sympathize with people who are legitimately dependent on society to survive rather than sympathize with people complaining they deserve to keep more, even if it means the basic needs of others are not met.

I think if both sides acknowledged the fundamental truths in the other sides' argument it would go a long way.

Myself, I would be OK with not increasing taxes for the rich and making more cuts to entitlements, even if it meant some people would would suffer unjustly...and perhaps cruelly. But I think there are somethings that should not be cut from the budget and even increased, because they benefit society as a whole: Education spending and Infrastructure spending.

It doesn't affect anything because all the major industries are running overseas. When a Chinese hot dog vendor opens up a new shop, of course America doesn't benefit. The only difference in the Chinese hot dog vendor and all our industries is that we USED to have those jobs and we STILL buy the products our industry used to make.

As for the second bolded part, people should be a part of society but nobody should be entirely dependent ON society. A society is necessary to protect the interests of everyone involved. There is no benefit to society as a whole to support those simply milking from the society. These bums working our society contribute as much to it as the owner of that Chinese hot dog stand I mentioned above. We don't give him a vote, why should they get one?

Start making the American Dream about contributing to society rather than maximizing what you can take from it and let's talk.

Obushma
04-09-2011, 10:02 AM
I guess you're another libertarian, given your Ryan love. To me, that's just another religion among many to choose from. It gives you the added bonus, as most do, that you get to rise above the petty squabbles of politics and position yourself (in your own mind at least) as a pristine devotee of the "true" religion.


How does a Neo-Con like Paul Ryan, even come close to equating to a Libertarian? Like i've told you before, you've got your politics mixed up pal.

Paul Ryan on Bailouts and Government Stimuli
-Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
-Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
-Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
-Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

Paul Ryan on Education
Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

-Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties
-Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
-Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad
-Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
-Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
-Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
-Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3152211&postcount=58

shaunroach
04-09-2011, 10:06 AM
The "rich" already pay most of the tax burden, and increasing that burden will put a greater drag on economic growth.


I don't know this is true, that taxing rich people more would mean less economic growth.

If they hoard their money instead of spending it, that is a drag on economic growth. For instance many large corporations are sitting on huge cash reserves, and not reinvesting the money.

In cases like this, you can argue it is a drag on economic growth not to tax them.