Taxes will have to be increased on us all, if U.S. Government wants to survive.

[52ndStreet]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable governemt into the future. With the price of
everything on the rise, a policy of Tax cuts,may come back to hurt the economy of the United States, at some point in the future.

 

[dilloduck]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable governemt into the future. With the price of
everything on the rise, a policy of Tax cuts,may come back to hurt the economy of the United States, at some point in the future.

How about they just quit blowing tax revenues on idiotic things ?

 

[Toro]

Since the government doesn't want to decrease spending, this is absolutely correct.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Since the government doesn't want to decrease spending, this is absolutely correct.

What do you cut? Defense? SS doesn't go bankrupt for 30 more years yet, Medicare has got about 10 or so left? Gotta pay interest on the debt. Have to have highways and the FAA...? FEMA?

Don't say make it more efficient. Unless you fire the entire civil service and privitize it you won't change that culture of ineptitude.

So what do you cut?

 

[Toro]

What do you cut? Defense? SS doesn't go bankrupt for 30 more years yet, Medicare has got about 10 or so left? Gotta pay interest on the debt. Have to have highways and the FAA...? FEMA?

Don't say make it more efficient. Unless you fire the entire civil service and privitize it you won't change that culture of ineptitude.

So what do you cut?

If we can't cut anything, then we have to raise taxes.

Otherwise our children are going to have one hell of a tax bill.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What do you cut? Defense? SS doesn't go bankrupt for 30 more years yet, Medicare has got about 10 or so left? Gotta pay interest on the debt. Have to have highways and the FAA...? FEMA?

Don't say make it more efficient. Unless you fire the entire civil service and privitize it you won't change that culture of ineptitude.

So what do you cut?

Citizens Against Government Waste:

how about over 250 billion in pork since 1995?

 

[jreeves]

What do you cut? Defense? SS doesn't go bankrupt for 30 more years yet, Medicare has got about 10 or so left? Gotta pay interest on the debt. Have to have highways and the FAA...? FEMA?

Don't say make it more efficient. Unless you fire the entire civil service and privitize it you won't change that culture of ineptitude.

So what do you cut?

Do we really need nearly half of the federal budget going to social programs?

 

[Paulie]

Do we really need nearly half of the federal budget going to social programs?

Do we really need a military presence in over 100 countries?

 

[editec]

Do we really need nearly half of the federal budget going to social programs?

Mostof those "social programs" are social security and medicade.

We, the taxpayers are actually PAYING for those.

In fact the boomer generation and Z generation have paid so much extra to keep them stable that complaining about them is silly.

It's not the PEOPLE'S faults that the government spends money it doesn't have.

Look at the budget, remove Social security (which is paid for as I already said) and see where the lions share of the money is going...

to pork and the military.

 

[Paulie]

It's not the PEOPLE'S faults that the government spends money it doesn't have.

But it IS. You can't put the spenders in office, and then say it's not your fault they spent too much. Especially when you're re-electing those over-spenders every cycle.

How many incumbents are career politicians, who have endorsed the fiscal irresponsibility during that career? Both parties of course, are at fault.

I say we vote the entire legislature out and start fresh.

THAT'S "change". And I personally BELIEVE in it.

 

[jreeves]

Do we really need a military presence in over 100 countries?

I think you are smart enough to know that defense spending pales in comparison to social spending, right?

 

[jreeves]

Mostof those "social programs" are social security and medicade.

We, the taxpayers are actually PAYING for those.

In fact the boomer generation and Z generation have paid so much extra to keep them stable that complaining about them is silly.

It's not the PEOPLE'S faults that the government spends money it doesn't have.

Look at the budget, remove Social security (which is paid for as I already said) and see where the lions share of the money is going...

to pork and the military.

The Social Security trust fund has been robbed for general programs by both sides. 434 billion dollars goes to means tested welfare, that's excluding Medicare and Social Security. Even though general tax revenue is used to fund Medicare.

Also the government spends a quarter of its revenue collecting taxes. So the more money we put into the system, the more money government wastes.

 

[Gunny]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable governemt into the future. With the price of
everything on the rise, a policy of Tax cuts,may come back to hurt the economy of the United States, at some point in the future.

Here's a thought .... let the government die. It certainly isn't what it's supposed to be, nor does it represent "we, the people" anymore. It's a cross between a hydra and a vampire. It keeps popping up with new heads and sucking the blood out of us.

 

[editec]

The Social Security trust fund has been robbed for general programs by both sides. 434 billion dollars goes to means tested welfare, that's excluding Medicare and Social Security. Even though general tax revenue is used to fund Medicare.

Also the government spends a quarter of its revenue collecting taxes. So the more money we put into the system, the more money government wastes.

Yes.

Remember when Reagan gave us all tax breaks?

Remember what else he did?

Remember the enormous tax increases for Social Security and Medicade?

those should have stabilized Social Security because those increases more than paid for future payments.

Only the "money" the government put into the social security accounts went there in what form?

Government IOUs.

Ronald Reagan actually imposed the greatest tax increases (and debts in relation to the GDP, too, I think) on the American people in history.

When you're going to lie to the American people, lie BIG.

The sheer audacity of the lie is mind boggling.

 

[jreeves]

Yes.

Remember when Reagan gave us all tax breaks?

Remember what else he did?

Remember the enormous tax increases for Social Security and Medicade?

those should have stabilized Social Security because those increases more than paid for future payments.

Only the "money" the government put into the social security accounts went there in what form?

Government IOUs.

Ronald Reagan actually imposed the greatest tax increases (and debts in relation to the GDP, too, I think) on the American people in history.

When you're going to lie to the American people, lie BIG.

The sheer audacity of the lie is mind boggling.

Republicans and Democrats have stolen from Social Security. If needs be I will provide links? We need to operate a bare minimum government, by doing so, we would keep governmental waste to a minimum and leave money in the hands of people who can actually improve our country.

 

[manu1959]

The United States Government will eventually have to increase Taxes, if it really wants to have a stable governemt into the future. With the price of
everything on the rise, a policy of Tax cuts,may come back to hurt the economy of the United States, at some point in the future.

cut all foreign aid.....close all foreign military bases......no more state projects paid for by the feds......

presto......surplus.....

 

[Paulie]

I think you are smart enough to know that defense spending pales in comparison to social spending, right?

Of course, but the question still remains the same. Do we really need a military presence in over 100 countries?

I agree the social programs need to reduce big time, or be cancelled altogether. But that doesn't mean cutting that spending should be considered freeing up revenue to police the entire world. We don't need presence in MOST of those bases. We could cut the deficit down to nothing RIGHT NOW with spending cuts in either entitlements OR defense. Each one contains at least 400 billion dollars worth of waste. So I say we cut some from EACH, and start building a surplus again.

I understand defense spending is not without its requirements, but we simply intervene in entirely too many countries. It's time to cut back on that as well.

 

[jreeves]

Of course, but the question still remains the same. Do we really need a military presence in over 100 countries?

I agree the social programs need to reduce big time, or be cancelled altogether. But that doesn't mean cutting that spending should be considered freeing up revenue to police the entire world. We don't need presence in MOST of those bases. We could cut the deficit down to nothing RIGHT NOW with spending cuts in either entitlements OR defense. Each one contains at least 400 billion dollars worth of waste. So I say we cut some from EACH, and start building a surplus again.

I understand defense spending is not without its requirements, but we simply intervene in entirely too many countries. It's time to cut back on that as well.

I agree with you we need to shrink our presence in the world. But there isn't 400 billion dollars of waste in defense spending, when the Dept. of Defense budget is 580 billion dollars. Social spending is well over 680 billion dollars, excluding Social Security.

 

[jreeves]

I agree with you we need to shrink our presence in the world. But there isn't 400 billion dollars of waste in defense spending, when the Dept. of Defense budget is 580 billion dollars. Social spending is well over 680 billion dollars, excluding Social Security.

Also, if we get spending under control we could shrink the third largest expenditure, payments on the national debt which totals over 400 billion dollars.

 

[Paulie]

I agree with you we need to shrink our presence in the world. But there isn't 400 billion dollars of waste in defense spending, when the Dept. of Defense budget is 580 billion dollars. Social spending is well over 680 billion dollars, excluding Social Security.

You're only totalling the DoD's budget, which actually you were high on. I think Bush's DoD budget for 2008 is in the high 400's. But there is a total of over 600 billion for all of the military's expenditures, some coming from different dept's.

I may be wrong about 400 billion of waste there, but I have no doubt that 200 billion worth of wasteful worldwide military presence could be cut. I'm sure 300-400 could at least be cut from entitlements, giving us a surplus.

This doesn't include cuts in the bureaucracy as well, as there are a few cabinet dept's that could stand to go.

We should be surplussing every fucking year. I'm ecstatic to see you admit that our worldwide military presence could be toned down, btw.

Also, if we get spending under control we could shrink the third largest expenditure, payments on the national debt which totals over 400 billion dollars.

I simply can't endorse such an idea. Do you stop paying some of your bills?

Paying off debt is being responsible. The point is to stop INCURRING it any further. It needs to be paid down. But then, that's what inflation is for, and we can see that inflation is certainly a sought after occurance these days.

Maybe you can't comprehend what almost 10 trillion dollars of debt really is, but that simply needs to stop NOW, or we're going to pay a dear price for it, whether you're willing to accept that idea or not.

We can't change that we were too stupid to keep it from happening, but we certainly can't ignore it and let it fester. It needs to be paid down, just like YOUR bills need to be paid down.

If there's ANYTHING worth using a surplus from spending cuts on, it's our debt. It's the fiscally responsible thing to do.