should taxes be lowered or highered

[jreeves]

welfare fraud maybe was in the millions. gop defense fraud was in the billions. you r ok when rich ppl steal?

Which has more spending, social programs or defense?

 

[editec]

There was no real federal income tax until the early twentieth century. We survives for over 100 years with no personal income tax. So, when you ask "where will the government get revenue if not by taxation", you can get your answer from a history book, because we funded government without an income tax for a long time.

Yes, that is true... back when the Federal government did essantially nothing, it could survive on nothing but import TARIFFS.

So a few questions...

Do you want to reimpose tariffs on every good coming into this country to support the government?

And if you do, are you willing to make our military stand down because that pittance they'll get from those imports won't support 1/10th of the military we have in place now?

What I'm really asking you is have you crunched the numbers to determine whether or not your plan makes sense in the 21st century?

I don't like taxes, either.

So if you have a solution such that we can have viable government that doesn't cost any of us any money, I'd surely like to see your plan IN DETAIL.

 

[sealybobo]

I think we all know both parties spend too much. each rep wants to bring home the bacon. there are a few fiscally responsible reps like ron paul but they are rare. us dems know there is welfare fraud but that doesn't mean welfare isn't nessary. the gop spent too much on defense but we don't want to stop spending on defense.

I was glad the gop with clinton passed welfare reform. but I was mad when they took the money and blew it in other ways. they spent way too much on defense.

so we shouldn't be arguing. the gop needs to go. then in 2 yrs a few corrupt dems will expose themselves and we will vote them out too. I think the problem the gop ran into was the corruption was organized from the top. delay and rove. and if any good gop said anything, they were ostricized.

most of you gop will learn in yrs to come just how bad your party was and all the rumors were true. just like we can't defend the bad dems of the 80's.

I didn't like the 90's gop, but even they agree how bad their current leadership is. change will happen when the rest of you say enough is enough.

give obama a chance. congress won't let him be a king like the one we have now. and no secret philosophy on taking over the world like the gop had please! if u don't know what I mean, look up PNAC. the gop are trying to take over the middle east and despite what they say, its not going well.

 

[editec]

us dems know there is welfare fraud but that doesn't mean welfare isn't nessary. the gop spent too much on defense but we don't want to stop spending on defense.

SPOT ON!

This current crop of shepherds need to put down the shears.

It's time to give the other team of sheeple farmers to have their chance to fleece the flock.

Fair is fair, after all.

 

[editec]

Which has more spending, social programs or defense?

Depends.

Do you consider social security a social program, or an incredibly badly designed insurance/retirement program?

 

[Paul Itical]

Depends.

Do you consider social security a social program, or an incredibly badly designed insurance/retirement program?

It's both obviously.

 

[JeffWartman]

Yes, that is true... back when the Federal government did essantially nothing, it could survive on nothing but import TARIFFS.

So a few questions...

Do you want to reimpose tariffs on every good coming into this country to support the government?

And if you do, are you willing to make our military stand down because that pittance they'll get from those imports won't support 1/10th of the military we have in place now?

What I'm really asking you is have you crunched the numbers to determine whether or not your plan makes sense in the 21st century?

I don't like taxes, either.

So if you have a solution such that we can have viable government that doesn't cost any of us any money, I'd surely like to see your plan IN DETAIL.

The numbers have been crunched thousands of times. You seem to be ignoring (or not understanding) the central point. Income tax brings in 40% of receipts. Could we return to the 1997 budget, which was 40% lower? Of course.

 

[jreeves]

Depends.

Do you consider social security a social program, or an incredibly badly designed insurance/retirement program?

Well exclude social security which has more spending, social programs or defense?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Yes, that is true... back when the Federal government did essantially nothing, it could survive on nothing but import TARIFFS.

So a few questions...

Do you want to reimpose tariffs on every good coming into this country to support the government?

And if you do, are you willing to make our military stand down because that pittance they'll get from those imports won't support 1/10th of the military we have in place now?

What I'm really asking you is have you crunched the numbers to determine whether or not your plan makes sense in the 21st century?

I don't like taxes, either.

So if you have a solution such that we can have viable government that doesn't cost any of us any money, I'd surely like to see your plan IN DETAIL.

Absolutely could, or pretty close. The Federal government SHOULD do near NOTHING. Its only purpose is national defense and maintaining national level infrastructure and providing a central banking system. The founding fathers envisioned NO OTHER PURPOSE, all other issues of government religated to the states and local entities.