How do you feel the standoff in Washington would best resolved?

[saveliberty]

So you support letting the fiscal cliff when? That will cut across the board on spending and raise taxes on the rich.

 

[Oldstyle]

I agree completely that Obama is not doing well either and maybe Romney would have done better and would continue to do better. You are also right in that we need to make actual cuts, not just prevent an increase in spending. I still think that 87 billion is enough to make taxes increase a little.

In a simple sense, my opinion states the following: increase taxes on the rich as Dems want, cut entitlements and actual spending not projected spending, etc. DO BOTH I don't see why the top 2% can't be hit with a little more taxation! And I never quoted Obama i don't know what that was, but in all honesty everyone gets a break in life. Whether anyone likes it, everyone does.

Would you still be in favor of that proposed tax increase if you thought it might slow the economy and put even more people out of work...actually slowing the rate of revenue collection and costing us billions more in additional money for things like unemployment and food stamps?

How would you feel about this proposed strategy of tax increases if you were one of the millions of Americans who has been out of work for over a year and desperately need to find a job?

 

[cpcreativity]

Let's boil all this down.

Most of you if not all are saying that raising taxes would cripple the economy right?

Besides one of you I have not heard what programs and funding would be cut. I have only heard, "increase tax bad... spending cuts good."



An idea I had a while ago was to have a flat rate percentage for all brackets. I do not know the details of what this would mean, but I see it as somewhat fair. Say the rate was 30% or 35%, I would vote for the upper paying 35% or 40%. I guess I am a little liberal, but I am also a little a lot of other things.

 

[Sallow]

"Barely" making it on over 250K a year?

What world do you live in?

Okay..that's a little low in in Monaco..but sheesh.

First, I know you don't really like reading the discussion. But we were discussing a tax increase on all rates.

Second, yes, there are people making over 250K a year who are bareley making ends meet. Small business owners, for example, who end up claiming profits on their personal statements. And there are also stupid people who make lots of money. Some members of Congress, for example.

 

[saveliberty]

Perhaps you're more comfortable with the term progressive...

You need to look up what a flat tax is by the way.

 

[percysunshine]

I agree completely that Obama is not doing well either and maybe Romney would have done better and would continue to do better. You are also right in that we need to make actual cuts, not just prevent an increase in spending. I still think that 87 billion is enough to make taxes increase a little.

In a simple sense, my opinion states the following: increase taxes on the rich as Dems want, cut entitlements and actual spending not projected spending, etc. DO BOTH I don't see why the top 2% can't be hit with a little more taxation! And I never quoted Obama i don't know what that was, but in all honesty everyone gets a break in life. Whether anyone likes it, everyone does.

"Quote: Originally Posted by percysunshine

To be honest with you, CP? I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope of the deficit we're facing..."

I certainly hope that was an accident crediting me with a post I never posted. If it wasn't, you are a slime bag moron if you thought you would not be caught.

.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm sure it was a quote function learning curve Percy. Sort of like your missing "h" in hope above. lol

 

[DiamondDave]

Let's boil all this down.

Most of you if not all are saying that raising taxes would cripple the economy right?

Besides one of you I have not heard what programs and funding would be cut. I have only heard, "increase tax bad... spending cuts good."



An idea I had a while ago was to have a flat rate percentage for all brackets. I do not know the details of what this would mean, but I see it as somewhat fair. Say the rate was 30% or 35%, I would vote for the upper paying 35% or 40%. I guess I am a little liberal, but I am also a little a lot of other things.

1) Not only is increasing spending an economy slower... it is also hypocritical of certain people when they scream for equality in treatment for things they like, while calling for unequal treatment of others when it benefits their cause or stance
2) EVERY department/agency can be cut... INCLUDING DEFENSE... plenty of waste there that could be found with an audit... BUT, I fully believe we start with spending that is not listed in the enumerated powers before you cut spending for things that are listed in the enumerated powers... I'm kinda funny that way
3) It is not a 'flat tax' when you call for differing rates... just as it is still a progressive tax in disguise when someone calls for a 'flat tax with a salary floor'
4) Fair is subjective... which is why it is a common tool for pandering... and why it should have no place in our government.. strive for equality in treatment, not 'fairness'

 

[DiamondDave]

"Barely" making it on over 250K a year?

What world do you live in?

Okay..that's a little low in in Monaco..but sheesh.

First, I know you don't really like reading the discussion. But we were discussing a tax increase on all rates.

Second, yes, there are people making over 250K a year who are bareley making ends meet. Small business owners, for example, who end up claiming profits on their personal statements. And there are also stupid people who make lots of money. Some members of Congress, for example.

250K for a family of 5 in NYC is not like 250K for a family of 5 in Bald Knob Arkansas....

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's boil all this down.

Most of you if not all are saying that raising taxes would cripple the economy right?

Besides one of you I have not heard what programs and funding would be cut. I have only heard, "increase tax bad... spending cuts good."



An idea I had a while ago was to have a flat rate percentage for all brackets. I do not know the details of what this would mean, but I see it as somewhat fair. Say the rate was 30% or 35%, I would vote for the upper paying 35% or 40%. I guess I am a little liberal, but I am also a little a lot of other things.

Then start listening and learning. If you have less money in your pocket because the government is taking more money from you. Will you be spending more money in the economy, yes or no? And if you are spending less money in the economy, is the economy, growing or shrinking?

It's not rocket science here.

 

[saveliberty]

Come on Dave! Your giving out final exam answers.

 

[uscitizen]

Can we at least agree that we're spending way too much and need to make cuts?


Can we also agree that the Federal Government by it's very nature is incredibly wasteful and will remain so unless it is forced to change?

Can we also agree that for the millions of Americans who are out of work right now that the number one priority should be growing the economy and creating jobs?

Yep but in the military as well.

Yep change is needed so why most of us keep electing the career politicians?

Growing the economy by offshoring is no way to create jobs.

 

[percysunshine]

I'm sure it was a quote function learning curve Percy. Sort of like your missing "h" in hope above. lol

I guess the topic of 'base line' budgeting will need a bit more time...

 

[uscitizen]

First, I know you don't really like reading the discussion. But we were discussing a tax increase on all rates.

Second, yes, there are people making over 250K a year who are bareley making ends meet. Small business owners, for example, who end up claiming profits on their personal statements. And there are also stupid people who make lots of money. Some members of Congress, for example.

250K for a family of 5 in NYC is not like 250K for a family of 5 in Bald Knob Arkansas....

Well they need to move to Bald Knob Arkansas.

We should not subsidize expensive city life by giving tax breaks.

 

[cpcreativity]

"Quote: Originally Posted by percysunshine

To be honest with you, CP? I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope of the deficit we're facing..."

I certainly hope that was an accident crediting me with a post I never posted. If it wasn't, you are a slime bag moron if you thought you would not be caught.

.

You need to calm the **** down. The original post was from Old. Sorry I deleted the wrong section of the quoter thing. Why would I even fake crediting you on a forum that still has the previous post up. Look before you get amped fool.

 

[saveliberty]

You need to calm the **** down. The original post was from Old. Sorry I deleted the wrong section of the quoter thing. Why would I even fake crediting you on a forum that still has the previous post up. Look before you get amped fool.

You wanted respect, so you insulted a long standing member of the board over an error you made? Now we have to question your intelligence as well. I'm not your mom, cleaning up your crap is solely your job here.

 

[DiamondDave]

250K for a family of 5 in NYC is not like 250K for a family of 5 in Bald Knob Arkansas....

Well they need to move to Bald Knob Arkansas.

We should not subsidize expensive city life by giving tax breaks.

I do not disagree with that... just as I do not believe anyone should be given a tax break for them barely getting by on 15K or 20K.. nobody should be exempt from taxes and nobody should be paying a different rate on any dollar earned

 

[cpcreativity]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

 

[saveliberty]

Diamond Dave's post describing the 5 bullets and the idea of fair treatment was very insightful.

There is a point to be had that every program can be cut and that defense definitely has some waste. The idea that this discussion is painting me liberal I find laughable. I am merely suggesting ideas and options for a fix of the situation we face. If the cuts to spending could cover it all I would love that.

Now a question I've had for a while is why limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes on the wealthy. Don't they pay more either way?

You wanted more equal treatment right? Here's your chance.

 

[MisterBeale]

Post fourty-three kind of negates your theory Avatar.

I have read this whole thread through with interest. . . and am in agreement with Avatar. Though not in the same context. After having studied political science at two State Universities, and alternative studies and the counter culture under a tenured Beat professor that would make Ward Churchill look like and establishment shill, I can tell you, there really is hope for all such young minds. But not in State run institutions. He is under the impression that the goal of government is to improve the lot of the people, not the lot of the interest groups that pay for access, and so, he actually knows very little about how things actually work, or why they run they way they do. This whole conversation has been a laugh and a sham.

Even here on this particular forum, danger lurks in every corner. Posters that are influenced by the Luciferian Masons, the so called "Illuminated" atheists with no soul, giving the Scottish Free Rites a terrible name, and the Jesuits are posting with abandon, dividing man against women, black against white, straight against gay, jew against goyim, etc. To them, the constitution is just some damn nuisance. Watch them carefully, they will take away your right to free speech, to worship your creator as you please, and to bear your arms with out restrictions.

Without this government in place throughout the years, I believe our way of life would be entirely different at this point and we have the government at least philosophically to thank for it. Without our government a lot could have gone wrong in the past that didn't. Some that did, but most that didn't.

You are correct though, this attitude, conditioned since birth by government schools, in social science classes and history classes in our compulsory education, the education which parents have no choice to send their children to, what part of the constitution gives government the right to force the children into these indoctrination camps where they get such convoluted asinine ideas? I for one am sure I had similar notions by the time I was ready to go to my first college. I was excited by the time Bill Clinton came to speak on my campus, echoing such ideals. . .

Did Obama or Romney believe any different? What about Kennedy or Reagan?

Over time, with the help of a few really knowledgeable people and friends, a "woke up" as it were. There is no "left" and there is no "right." There is only free sovereign individuals, and an elite political class the wishes to make people ignorant of their birthrights.

Sometimes I wonder how many tragedies might have been avoided had it not been for the government. . .

Here's an idea, let's cut spending and departments back to pre WWII levels, and just use the tax code of 1954. It was only 14,000 pages as opposed to 72,536 pages. And at one point, obviously both parties both agreed on it, it was used to fund most of the vital programs of the post depression era. Certainly we don't have any enemies that are more dangerous or threatening to us than we had right before WWII, so we are good to go. . .

Wow, the economy will really be up and humming with this plan! Businesses, your 401k, and tax day will be a breeze.