- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes it is your responsibility. After all, you're an EMPLOYER.Do you think it is my responsibility to pay for your expenses? That seems to be what you are asking or you don't have a clue where the FEderal govt. gets its money. Social problems are state and local issues, not the Federal Taxpayer's responsibilities.
No **** Sherlock. It's kinda hard for, say, a single mom with three kids, and working three jobs, to contribute more money than, say, a multi-billionaire.
And yet you accuse her of greed...
Could someone please explain the logic in that?
then stop acting like you have class envy. How did any rich person hurt you or your family? You made a flat out lie, if you have capital gains you pay the same tax rate as Romney but no, you buy the liberal bull****. That makes you look foolish. You don't want fairness for if you did you would expect the 47% of income earning households to pay something in FIT, the 24 million unemployed/under employed Americans to be re-employed full time, and you wouldn't promote punishing producers because you don't think they pay enough when so many aren't paying anything
no, my effective income tax rate is high than romney's.
So you believe we could operate on a 250 billion dollar military budget? And what happens if you are wrong? But let's say you are right, 500 billion cut in military still has a budget deficit of 900 billion dollars. You have no concept of consequences for failure or making a mistake because in the liberal world mistakes are never made.
Notice he didn't say much if anything at all about doing things to encourage the building of more (and more efficient) refineries. You think he may actually not know what the main problem with gasoline prices is? Could he be that ignorant......or is this simply more political maneuvering? :shrug:So question....
Did we enact things to expand our oil production 10 years ago, under Bush, and that's what is coming to fruition now?
OR
Is it actually possible to expand oil production currently and it come into play sooner than 10 years?
Because one or the other has to be the case if Obama's statements about Oil production is true.
Well if our most wasteful spending means exactly jack **** to you then you are just another that wants his cake and wants to eat it too.
Great, then cut the spending first then we can talk about tax increases starting with those that earn income but pay nothing in FIT
A $500 billion cut in excess military spending would be 15 trillion dollars over 30 years
I don't believe its our most wasteful spending. Whether or not it is is entirely opinion based, which goes back to my point. You can't get out of your own hyper partisan way to accept the fact that just becuase YOU believe it to be so that doesn't make it some universal fact.
I've stated before, and I'll state again...you give me a proposal that cuts CURRENT expenditures on the Defense Spending and Entitlements by 1/3 over "X" amount of years and I'd agree with it immedietely.
By doing that, by cutting them both by 1/3, we would actually get more savings than if we eliminated every other piece of government spending including our debt payments. And they'd still, combined, make up 2/3rds of all government spending.
Entitlement spending makes up just over 1/2 of our total spending. National Defense makes up just under 1/4th roughly. If we cut Defense Spending by 3/4ths, we'd save somewhere around $500 billion. Cut Entitlements by 1/3rd and you save roughly $150 billion more than that, at nearly $650 billion. To put in perspective....a 9/12ths cut to Defense Spending saves about $150 billion less in spending than a 4/12th cut in Entitlements. Thinking you can just gut Defense with doing nothing but a magic show of "reform" with entitlement costs to have any kind of impact is foolishness, plain and simple.
Cutting them both by 1/3rd would save just under a TRILLION dollars a year in spending while leaving them both as still the majority of government spending.
Personally I'd also say do a 1% national sales tax too to be quite honest, with that money specifically earmarked in such a way that its not touchable by any government entity but rather that it goes directly to a fund that is used to pay down our debt on top of our normal debt payment. This would effectively allow us to pay double our debt payments each year, thus paying our debt off faster AND lowering the amount of payment we need to give the following year. Once we paid off our debt, whenever that would be, then the tax could either sunset or it could be set to act as a Rainy day fund. Though that is likely decades away.
The only way to fix the cost of health care is to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done. SS is not responsible for any of our debt.
We don't need another regressive tax that would even further the widest disparity of wealth in our history since the Great Depression.
A 1/3rd cut to Entitlement spending would be about $150 billion more per year than your 3/4ths cut to Military spending.
You save roughly $650 billion a year making a cut that's 5/12ths of a percent less (because as we all know, liberals care about the Percentage and not the raw number).
So cutting 1/3 from something that makes up just over 1/2 of the government saves you roughly $150 billion more a year than cutting 3/4ths out of something that makes up just under 1/4th of the government.
That's 19.5 Trillion over your same 30 year time period. That's 2.5 trillion more than your total when you combine your 3/4ths of a cut with the bush tax cut removal.
Ah my earlier proposal...the 1/3rd from both? That'd be 27 Trillion over 30 years...a full 10 trillion more than yours.
Yes it is your responsibility. After all, you're an EMPLOYER.
Cutting funding to medicare does nothing to address the highest health care cost in the world, and again SS is not responsible for any of our debt.
I found the President's State of the Union to be light on substance and heavy on rhetoric. Also, his advocacy of an economic "blueprint" speaks to his authoritarian inclination towards central planning and management. Economies don't need "blueprints", they need liberty and property rights.
Brian
...and again SS is not responsible for any of our debt.
Where does investment income come from? Seems that liberals want to ignore the reality that people get investment income from their earned income which is taxed at a higher rate than the ROI on investment revenue but that has to be ignored for the liberal agenda to be promoted. Personal income is taxed then investment income is taxed again, Anyone really believe that Buffet's secretary is paying a higher tax rate than all the Buffet revenue was taxed?
Can't really blame him for that. Most SotU's, especially in the modern age, are in this fashion. We no longer have one time a year that we know everyone will definitely hear from the President. There's news conferences constantly, we always see the white house spokes person talking, we've got operatives on every station you can imagine putting out a message...and on and on. The SotU is political theater, even more so then it used to be. That's not an Obama thing but rather now an American thing it seems.
Once again, lets all thank Catawba for providing the wonderful example of "MY sacred cow can't be touched because its good because I think my opinion is fact, but YOURS needs to be cut to extreme levels".
Give him a hand folks, you couldn't ask for a better example if I was paying someone.
In all seriousness, I'm not paying him...he's ACTUALLY does function this way.
Once again, lets all thank Catawba for providing the wonderful example of "MY sacred cow can't be touched because its good because I think my opinion is fact, but YOURS needs to be cut to extreme levels".
All spending is responsible for our debt, and each program's respective responsibility for the debt is directly proportional to its percentage of total expenditures. This is a simple matter of arithmetic and basic finance.
Brian
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?