your right there are still many more problems too deal with, but by your logic we should just ignore them all unless we can solve all of them at the same time!
No, I am saying address the cause of the debt over the last 30 years rather than throwing seniors under the bus.
They made a deal, I think the trigger should be binding.
Defense cuts are necessary, but we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that our entitlement programs did not need serious cuts and reform.
how is making congress do their job throwing seniors under the bus?
The Republicans have addressed none of the causes of our debt over the last 30 years - tax cuts, too much military spending and lack of US jobs creation. What they have proposed instead is more trickle down economics that has failed the middle class over the last 30 years. And to pay for the additional tax breaks for the rich they want, they have suggested to cut health and safety regulations, funding for education, Department of Energy and in Ryan's budget plan to cut retirement benefits to seniors.
Cutting spending and increasing revenues does not require throwing our seniors under the bus as the Republicans claim it does, we just have to go after the sources of our debt over the last 30 years - unfunded tax cuts and and too much military spending, then raise the cap on SS and switch to a single payer health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
That is what Congress should be doing.
The Republicans have addressed none of the causes of our debt over the last 30 years - tax cuts, too much military spending and lack of US jobs creation. What they have proposed instead is more trickle down economics that has failed the middle class over the last 30 years. And to pay for the additional tax breaks for the rich they want, they have suggested to cut health and safety regulations, funding for education, Department of Energy and in Ryan's budget plan to cut retirement benefits to seniors.J
Cutting spending and increasing revenues does not require throwing our seniors under the bus as the Republicans claim it does, we just have to go after the sources of our debt over the last 30 years - unfunded tax cuts and and too much military spending, then raise the cap on SS and switch to a single payer health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
That is what Congress should be doing.
They made a deal, I think the trigger should be binding.
They made a deal, I think the trigger should be binding.
Defense cuts are necessary, but we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that our entitlement programs did not need serious cuts and reform.
The teatards need not piss off the babyboomers, they are still the largest voting block and they are not stupid...they are paying attention....they could easily give this election to either side if you piss them off enough..
I get it, we can not stop our downhill trajectory without a lot more socialism and entitlements that have been growing exponentially since the libtards began the war on poverty. Do you know the definition of insanity?
How progressive should the rates be......50%, 60%, 70% marginal rates while 50% of the wage earners don't pay squat? Do we want the top 1% to pay 50%, 60%, 70% of the taxes? Look at the numbers before you answer. The top 1%'s share of total domestic income dropped from 20% to 16% in one year .... do you think relying on a very select few to pay most of the bills is a smart thing to do? I don't, I think that kind of tax policy would be idiotic. The "tax the rich" mantra is a chant that impresses bone headed, class envious, self loathing failures.No, we don't need to go that far at all, we just need to get our tax rates a little more progressive, and cut wasteful spending on the military/industrial complex. Closer to the way we did in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. Was that socialism back then that our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents supported for half a century?
I honestly don't give a flying **** anymore, to be honest.
How progressive should the rates be......50%, 60%, 70% marginal rates while 50% of the wage earners don't pay squat? Do we want the top 1% to pay 50%, 60%, 70% of the taxes? Look at the numbers before you answer. The top 1%'s share of total domestic income dropped from 20% to 16% in one year .... do you think relying on a very select few to pay most of the bills is a smart thing to do? I don't, I think that kind of tax policy would be idiotic. The "tax the rich" mantra is a chant that impresses bone headed, class envious, self loathing failures.
No one is suggesting effective tax rates anywhere near as progressive as under Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. I haven't seen any proposals for more than a 5% increase on effective tax rates on income and capital gains.
The middle class has decided that being shat upon for the last 30 years is quite enough. Viva la election 2012!!!!
I see. So soaking the top 1% with a 5% added tax, on top of the new taxes they will have to pay thanks to BOCare, is supposed to help the middle class. LMFAO.....this is nothing but a class envy publicity stunt made to impress the econtards that vote for BO. The top 1%'s combined AGI was $1.3 trillion in 2009. Tacking another 5% tax on that would yield a whopping $64 billion per year. Now lets compare that paltry sum to the $1.4 trillion deficits. Are you really going to sit there and claim this 4.6% reduction in the epic irresponsible annual deficits is anything but a publicity stunt for morons?
You didn't answer my other question......how much of the federal budget do you want to be funded by only 1% of the wage earners? 50%, 60%?
What happens to the federal budget when this tiny group of earners, 1.3 m people, have a bad year like they just had in 2009 when their share of the total AGI dropped from 20% to 16.9%?
Entitlements don't need cuts, but they definitely need reform, no doubt about that. Social Security reform is easy. Raising the FICA cap for SS fixes that for the forseeable future.
Medicare/Medicaid reform will require our eventually going to a single payer system to address the underlying cause of the cost to the government, the most expensive health care system in the world. Otherwise, the most expensive health care cost in the world will just get passed on to consumers, who cannot afford their share of costs already.
The Republican alternative of an insurance mandate is just a bandaid for our current health care cost crisis.
And what happens the population continues to age, and we have more and more people depending on the aid of the young? The problem is going to continue to grow, and the equal growth of our tax base is far from guaranteed.
The correct answer is to incentivize people people to control their own health care costs. We had a very distorted healthcare for some time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?