Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.
One Example of which I am most familiar:
In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.
Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?
A flat tax is regressive.
You ask why that would impact income inequality?
Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
A flat tax is regressive.
Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
One Example of which I am most familiar:
In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?
A flat tax is regressive.
You ask why that would impact income inequality?
Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
A flat tax is regressive.
Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Before going all captious, try reading my post above.
I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
Your ideology is not defensible,
What ideology is that? Be specific.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.
Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
You ask why that would impact income inequality?
Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
A flat tax is regressive.
Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Before going all captious, try reading my post above.
I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
Your ideology is not defensible,
What ideology is that? Be specific.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.
Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
Your use of a straw man is tedious. Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke. Or, do you claim a different flag? A black flag of anarchy? Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
Then we'll look at tax hikes.
They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
I hear that threat all the time. Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Before going all captious, try reading my post above.
I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
Your ideology is not defensible,
What ideology is that? Be specific.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.
Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
Your use of a straw man is tedious. Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke. Or, do you claim a different flag? A black flag of anarchy? Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.
Pointing out your faulty definition means I'm libertarian? Oookay.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Before going all captious, try reading my post above.
I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
Your ideology is not defensible,
What ideology is that? Be specific.
The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.
Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
Your use of a straw man is tedious. Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke. Or, do you claim a different flag? A black flag of anarchy? Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.
Pointing out your faulty definition means I'm libertarian? Oookay.
That leaves curmudgeon, also a subset of Libertarians and those on the idiot fringe.
Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
I hear that threat all the time. Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
I hear that threat all the time. Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
Do most millionaires and billionaires really own businesses? Some people say they create jobs, reading the link below I've found this meme to be unbelievable.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf
Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
I hear that threat all the time. Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
Do most millionaires and billionaires really own businesses? Some people say they create jobs, reading the link below I've found this meme to be unbelievable.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf
They might create jobs but that doesn't mean they leave the United States when taxes get too high.
Iraq was stable? You're insane.
Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.
I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS. Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.
I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.
I've posted this at least 6 times
"Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]
In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]
In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]
Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]
One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."
Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province." Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists
History:
U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
History revised:
No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online
Bullshit, Freddo. The troops could have stayed in place, but Obama switched sides
Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
Ah. Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.Q. Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
Ah. Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.
Ah. Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.Q. Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
Then we can talk about raising taxes. But not until the spending cuts are REAL
Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
Then we can talk about raising taxes. But not until the spending cuts are REAL
Whines he who has no intention or capability to have an honest discussion.Can't answer a fair question...Ah. Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.Q. Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
