How much is enough?

[Avatar4321]

We'll never see it. Not in our lifetime. Not unless there's another Civil War. The "vote" will never bring about that kind of change. We see this ACTING like they want to change things and TALKING like they want to change things EVERY ELECTION, and then they get elected, and they conveniently FORGET all those big, fancy things they said and promised. It happens every mother fucking time, and it ain't gonna change.

No, we wont ever see it if we dont start trying. If we dont put the arguments out there we cant shift the debate in the direction.

But I intend to live for a long time. I also intend to do whatever in my power to shift this nation in the right direction even if i fail to live to see it happen. Im not just thinking of myself, but im thinking of my fellow citizens, my children, and grand children.

Our society expects immediate results or for some reason we dont bother doing anything. Problem just from being in a culture where every problem can be resolved in 30 mins on television. But the real world isnt like that. And while it may not be something we can see happening now, we can do amazing things if we work hard for it.

Let's start working toward it and changing the discussion or we will never get there.

 

[RDD_1210]

There's no reason spending cannot be immediately cut to match revenue. None

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

Remember I said reform, not remove.

 

[Avatar4321]

It would help when it's paired up with my spending cut proposal.

Not to mention the substantial increase in economic activity that would occur if only 1/25 of our labor was taxed instead of 3/10 would more than make up revenues.

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Federal AND state governments should go through government agencies ONE BY ONE, and eliminate anything that isn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Think they'll ever do that?

Not just no, but FUCK NO. Once government grows, it never goes back.

We're fucked.

I could see Romney doing that. But thats only because that's exactly how he made his fortune.

 

[Oddball]

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Do-gooders like you spent decades taking food out of their mouths while they were productive, now you act like you're doing them a big fat favor?

Is there no end to the hubris of the socialist?

 

[Avatar4321]

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

Remember I said reform, not remove.

And why wont you consider removal? Are you that afraid of taking responsibility for your fellow man?

 

[RDD_1210]

I think a flat rate of 4% seems fair.

Aren't you the same person that also said the rate should be 10% across the board? Do you just pick numbers out of your head and pretend like they mean something?

I'd love to know how you decided on 4%. This should be a riveting analysis of our financial health.

No. I said it should be less than 10% across the board. 4% is less than 10%.

I figure it's better for the people to spend 1/25 of their labor on government costs than 1/10 or, as it is now 3/10.

Of course, Im not at all attached to the delusional idea that the Federal government needs to be spending Trillions of dollars we don't have either. I think letting the people be free will be much better.

You left out the part how you decided that 4% was the right number. Why not 3%? Why not 6.25%? Why 4%?

 

[Cowman]

What ought the tax rate be? Most Republicans seem to think that raising taxes should never occur. AND they are constantly trying to cut them.

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. Classic Ant and Grasshopper.
Idleness today at the expense of security tomorrow.

Simple solution: quit buying steak.

Why should the taxpayers have to eat chicken so a bunch of tics on the ass of society can have steak without working for it?

It's time for the tics to go on a diet.

Now now Junior. There's a complete difference between the words tic, and tick. And don't even pretend to claim you actually meant tic.

 

[Jarhead]

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

Remember I said reform, not remove.

And why wont you consider removal? Are you that afraid of taking responsibility for your fellow man?

that is the irony.

The left talk about how much they care for the well being of their fellow man yet are not sure they want to have to act on it.......so they prefer the government do it instead.

 

[RDD_1210]

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

Remember I said reform, not remove.

And why wont you consider removal? Are you that afraid of taking responsibility for your fellow man?

Sorry, I don't think the removing of healthcare for the poor or elderly is the way back to greatness for our country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure there is. It's called an overinflated military budget and multiple wars that some refuse to put on the chopping block.

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

You.

Want proof?

You pick how much you want to cut from defense spending, cut as you see fit
Whatever it is, I'll agree to it, so long as you agree to also cut $3.50 from entitlement spending for each $1.00 you cut from defense spending, cut as -I- see fit.

Deal?

 

[RDD_1210]

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

Remember I said reform, not remove.

And why wont you consider removal? Are you that afraid of taking responsibility for your fellow man?

that is the irony.

The left talk about how much they care for the well being of their fellow man yet are not sure they want to have to act on it.......so they prefer the government do it instead.

And if my taxes fund those programs, doesn't that make me support those people who benefit from those programs? I'm not the one calling for a reduction in my taxes, so I'm not against "acting upon it", now am I?

 

[Meister]

What ought the tax rate be? Most Republicans seem to think that raising taxes should never occur. AND they are constantly trying to cut them.

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. Classic Ant and Grasshopper.
Idleness today at the expense of security tomorrow.

So, what should our top tax rates be?
One can see that working class people pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

And the the middle class has been expected to pick up the slack from corporations buying politicians lowering the the effective corporate tax rate though numerous loopholes and dodges.

That leaves the rich, who saw their tax rate drop by over HALF over the last 30 years or so. What benefits have we realized from all the economic activity that came from "letting people keep their own money"? Jobs? Higher wages for workers?

I would submit that we have passed the line on the Laffer curve that optimizes income by cutting taxes. Now, decreased tax revenues are actually HURTING us, as we cannot pay down our debt because we CHOOSE to not raise taxes.



The same goes for "limited" government. At what point do you "limit" government so much that it becomes impotent and ineffectual? What is the delineation ?


Until and unless we stake out some intellectual boundaries on the tax issue, we'll forever be caught in the fallacy that "If a little of something is good for you, then a LOT must be GREAT!"

Everyone knows that isn't true. Except for Republicans on taxes and limiting government.
And it makes us look like fools or uncompromising jerks.

Why can't I eat steak if I have no money? The government does it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What ought the tax rate be? Most Republicans seem to think that raising taxes should never occur. AND they are constantly trying to cut them.

Anyone who's balanced a household budget knows you have revenue and expenditures.

You can't afford steak if you don't go to work for 4 out of 5 days this week.
Yet we have been buying steak in spite of the fact that we don't have enough revenue coming in, because we've willfully LOWERED our revenues. Classic Ant and Grasshopper.
Idleness today at the expense of security tomorrow.

So, what should our top tax rates be?
One can see that working class people pay a higher tax rate than the rich.

And the the middle class has been expected to pick up the slack from corporations buying politicians lowering the the effective corporate tax rate though numerous loopholes and dodges.

That leaves the rich, who saw their tax rate drop by over HALF over the last 30 years or so. What benefits have we realized from all the economic activity that came from "letting people keep their own money"? Jobs? Higher wages for workers?

I would submit that we have passed the line on the Laffer curve that optimizes income by cutting taxes. Now, decreased tax revenues are actually HURTING us, as we cannot pay down our debt because we CHOOSE to not raise taxes.



The same goes for "limited" government. At what point do you "limit" government so much that it becomes impotent and ineffectual? What is the delineation ?


Until and unless we stake out some intellectual boundaries on the tax issue, we'll forever be caught in the fallacy that "If a little of something is good for you, then a LOT must be GREAT!"

Everyone knows that isn't true. Except for Republicans on taxes and limiting government.
And it makes us look like fools or uncompromising jerks.

But you fail to mention the massive government that we have....

California....highest taxes in the country.....13 billion plus in the red AND they want to raise taxes even more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why can't I eat steak if I have no money? The government does it.

Steak is a luxury.
Whem money is tight, luxuries are the first to go.

Public welfare spending is a luxury.

 

[Jarhead]

And why wont you consider removal? Are you that afraid of taking responsibility for your fellow man?

that is the irony.

The left talk about how much they care for the well being of their fellow man yet are not sure they want to have to act on it.......so they prefer the government do it instead.

And if my taxes fund those programs, doesn't that make me support those people who benefit from those programs? I'm not the one calling for a reduction in my taxes, so I'm not against "acting upon it", now am I?

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

 

[RDD_1210]

More likely, it's called out-of-control entitlement spending - spending that exceeds total military spending by almost 350% - that some people refuse to put on the chopping block.

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

You.

Want proof?

You pick how much you want to cut from defense spending, cut as you see fit
Whatever it is, I'll agree to it, so long as you agree to also cut $3.50 from entitlement spending, cut as -I- see fit.

Deal?

$3.50? Um Sure! Deal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

You.

Want proof?

You pick how much you want to cut from defense spending, cut as you see fit
Whatever it is, I'll agree to it, so long as you agree to also cut $3.50 from entitlement spending for each $1.00 you cut from defense spending, cut as -I- see fit.

Deal?

$3.50? Um Sure! Deal.

Fixed, in bold.

Deal?

 

[Jarhead]

Who isn't willing to reform entitlements?

You.

Want proof?

You pick how much you want to cut from defense spending, cut as you see fit
Whatever it is, I'll agree to it, so long as you agree to also cut $3.50 from entitlement spending, cut as -I- see fit.

Deal?

$3.50? Um Sure! Deal.

question...

for every dollar of YOUR taxes that are earmarked for entitlements, how much do you think actually gets to the needy?

I dont know the answer...but I would bet my house it is less than a dollar....and if there is a loss of money...which we know there is...why are you OK with it?

Perhaps you are concerned you will not help your fellow man in need onyour own?

 

[RDD_1210]

that is the irony.

The left talk about how much they care for the well being of their fellow man yet are not sure they want to have to act on it.......so they prefer the government do it instead.

And if my taxes fund those programs, doesn't that make me support those people who benefit from those programs? I'm not the one calling for a reduction in my taxes, so I'm not against "acting upon it", now am I?

Actually, if you feel the only way to help your fellow man is through government programs, then yes, you are concerned you will fail to act on it on your own.

If you were sure you would act on it on your own, you would prefer taking the middle man out of the formula....and less money would go to the "cost of dcollecting and distributing" and more would go to the one who needs it.

Curious....do you feel the need to get a middle man to do your food shopping? Or do yopu feel that would be a complete waste of money?

If the governemnt wanted to run a program at the cost of the taxpayer to have all peoples food shopping done by a government employee....and the end result was the same food but at a price of 15% more than you would spend on your own.....would you lay back and say "works for me"?

Hey, I'm all about cutting out the middle man to make things more efficient. Look at my views on health insurance.

But I'll be honest, I don't have enough faith in the American people to all contribute as much as would be needed to help the sick, elderly, poor and crippled in this country. That's just not realistic to expect donations at the scale. Is the government doing it efficiently? Hell no, we all know that. But if my choices are the government mandating everyone pitch in to help through taxation, or leaving it up to "the kindness of peoples hearts", I just don't have the faith that my fellow Americans will come through. Reading the opinions of people on this site are enough to tell me that.

 

[007]

What spending cuts do you propose? Defense? Or do you favor taking food medicine and shelter away from the poor and elderly?

Federal AND state governments should go through government agencies ONE BY ONE, and eliminate anything that isn't ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Think they'll ever do that?

Not just no, but FUCK NO. Once government grows, it never goes back.

We're fucked.

National Parks. Absolutely necessary or lease the mineral rights to the highest bidder and clear the roads for the strip mines and oil derricks?

Aid to Dependant Children. Absolutely necessary, or let them starve because America's poor isn't poor enough. They have no flies on their lips and their bellies aren't bloated.

Social Security. Absolutely necessary or it's just too bad that you had to give back those pay raises so your company could afford to move to Singapore. I guess you should have saved more instead of putting your children through college!

Medicare. Absolutely necessary, or should senior citizens take their chances on the "free market" whebn buying medical coverage? Too bad Pop! That heart condition means no insurance for you! That's how freedom works!

What's trivial to some means the world to others. I guess it all comes down to how brutal you want the citizens of the world's richest country to be treated.

You're not trying to advocate those are the only government agencies that could possibly be on the chopping block are you?

There are literally THOUSANDS of government agencies that are good for what? NOTHING! Some little office of something, somewhere, staffed with three people sucking off government money, and it wouldn't make a rats ass bit of difference if that office of whatever was there or not, and there's THOUSANDS of these kinds of offices all over America! Sure the half a million dollar annual budget of theirs isn't going to matter ALL BY ITSELF, but put THOUSANDS of these little irrelevant offices and agencies together and you've got MAJOR MONEY, enough to keep the necessary agencies like SS, Medicare and Medicaid going.

As I said... government offices and agencies need to be gone through ONE BY ONE, and anything, ANYTHING not ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY needs to be SHUT DOWN. And if we don't, it'll happen when we run out of money ANYWAY, which could be right around the corner.