The People Are Taxed To Much!

[ihopehefails]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

no, you guys have to pay for the Iraq war you supported, billions and billions

Plus the small states need to pay the Big States back all the money they got in extra federal funding while not paying as much in taxes. Per person.

And since most small states are Republican...

Just saying.

Lets break this down for one minute. What portion of federal funds are spent on things like interstate roads and things like that and what portion is paid to bribe state government officials to enact legislation that the federal government wants done?

The per person thing is garbage anyways because, as you said, red states have less people so if you spend the same amount per state then the amount per person would increase in states with less population.

 

[ihopehefails]

We can start by eliminating all income taxes.

How is that cutting spending?

And how would that help the deficit.

Of course, I actually think the idea of a flat tax that includes all taxes, like capital gains, payroll tax and sales tax is a fine idea, but I don't think it will necessarily help the deficit.

You got your priorities all wrong. Your focus should be on how is the people doing not how is the government doing. Whatever problems they have is there problems because they sure the hell don't care if you can't balance your budget.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think every Democrat should have their taxation raised, and pay for the big government they love so much. The rest of the nation get a 50% reduction in taxation.

no, you guys have to pay for the Iraq war you supported, billions and billions

You pay for all the spending programs that we oppose. I wonder what would cost more?

 

[ihopehefails]

You feel the military is a part of "Big Government"? I see it as necessary, unlike welfare or the post office.

Aside from the amount of the military needed to defend our borders?

Yes, any military that costs more than all the rest of the militaries of the world, COMBINED, is certainly part of "Big Government".

And though the post office was recently mostly made obsolete by the Internet, you seriously did not see the necessity of it over the last 2 centuries?

Most countries have the luxury of only having to worry about their borders but we do not. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and so on are continously threatoning us in some manor so we have to have a military that is strong enough to do these things.

The military is not 'big government' because you are using it as a way to say anything you do not like and if that was the case the taxes would be 'big government'. How about government that does not interfere with our lives? That would be a better thing to have and to achieve that you have to have a small and virtually powerless government.

This might seem strange to you but why do we have to have a federal government bigger than most government's combined? I'm pretty happy with my local government enforcing local crime laws so why do I need another government to come in and do the same thing?

 

[Vast LWC]

Lets break this down for one minute. What portion of federal funds are spent on things like interstate roads and things like that and what portion is paid to bribe state government officials to enact legislation that the federal government wants done?

The per person thing is garbage anyways because, as you said, red states have less people so if you spend the same amount per state then the amount per person would increase in states with less population.

That doesn't make any sense.

Why would people who live in a smaller population state deserve to live off the welfare of the larger population states?

Why aren't they paying their own way?

 

[Vast LWC]

You got your priorities all wrong. Your focus should be on how is the people doing not how is the government doing. Whatever problems they have is there problems because they sure the hell don't care if you can't balance your budget.

Again, this makes no sense.

 

[Vast LWC]

Most countries have the luxury of only having to worry about their borders but we do not. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and so on are continously threatoning us in some manor so we have to have a military that is strong enough to do these things.

The only reason this is true is because we try to police the world. If we didn't, none of these countries would be "threatening" us. There would be no reason for them to.

The military is not 'big government' because you are using it as a way to say anything you do not like and if that was the case the taxes would be 'big government'. How about government that does not interfere with our lives? That would be a better thing to have and to achieve that you have to have a small and virtually powerless government.

The military, and military spending is the responsibility of the Government. The Military is big, the military spending budget is big. Thus it is "Big Government".

You cannot just choose the government overspending you like, and say that it's not Big Government, but then turn around and call all the programs you don't like "Big Government". That's called "hypocrisy".

This might seem strange to you but why do we have to have a federal government bigger than most government's combined? I'm pretty happy with my local government enforcing local crime laws so why do I need another government to come in and do the same thing?

The US Spends more on the military than ALL OTHER NATIONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH COMBINED.

The federal budget is not anywhere near that ratio in relation to other governments' budgets.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

...but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

It isn't the taxes. Its the debt and cost of servicing the debt.

As this point it is financially all but impossible to cut taxes in any meaningful way as that would mean the Federal government, even if you could get meaningful spending cuts through, would have to default on the debt. Once that happens the US Dollar would be dumped overnight in the overseas markets which would crash not just our economy, but the world economy, for good.

At this point, we are stuck with our tax burden forever.

 

[Charles Stucker]

You feel the military is a part of "Big Government"? I see it as necessary, unlike welfare or the post office.

the Post Office is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution (wiki if you need verification). To get rid of it would require an amendment.

We could, and should, reduce the military and stop intervening in other countries. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, all were getting involved in foreign entanglements, all cost too much US money, and save for WWII (which was a result of our pointless participation in WWI) accomplished little of benefit to the average US citizen.

Get rid of most/all social spending - phase out OASI, Medicare etc, immediately eliminate federal welfare programs, eliminate pork (I would gladly support a president of either party who used a blanket veto on any bill with pork attached) shift the war on drugs to education/treatment programs to reduce costs; do whatever it takes to cut spending without cutting our own throats (we have to spend on highways or commerce stops, for example) pay off the debt and return control of many functions to the state/local level where they BELONG
While you're at it change the tax laws to favor US production rather than foreign production (as the codes do now)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You feel the military is a part of "Big Government"? I see it as necessary, unlike welfare or the post office.

It is part of Big Government. Read up sometime on just how far Congressmen will go to steer Defense Department contracts to their home district. Folks scoff at the term "Military Industrial Complex", but it exists and is a major player in how things work in Washington.

I'd submit that you probably could reasonably defend US interests with less money. However, if you try to cut a base or a DoD contract, you immediately experience a firestorm of epic proportions due to the $$$$ it costs a Congressional district.

 

[ihopehefails]

Most countries have the luxury of only having to worry about their borders but we do not. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and so on are continously threatoning us in some manor so we have to have a military that is strong enough to do these things.

The only reason this is true is because we try to police the world. If we didn't, none of these countries would be "threatening" us. There would be no reason for them to.

The military is not 'big government' because you are using it as a way to say anything you do not like and if that was the case the taxes would be 'big government'. How about government that does not interfere with our lives? That would be a better thing to have and to achieve that you have to have a small and virtually powerless government.

The military, and military spending is the responsibility of the Government. The Military is big, the military spending budget is big. Thus it is "Big Government".

You cannot just choose the government overspending you like, and say that it's not Big Government, but then turn around and call all the programs you don't like "Big Government". That's called "hypocrisy".

This might seem strange to you but why do we have to have a federal government bigger than most government's combined? I'm pretty happy with my local government enforcing local crime laws so why do I need another government to come in and do the same thing?

The US Spends more on the military than ALL OTHER NATIONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH COMBINED.

The federal budget is not anywhere near that ratio in relation to other governments' budgets.

I view the military as an asset to my life because it is needed to protect us because who would go out there and kill off those who threaten our security? I don't have to worry about the military coming in and tellling me what to do like most of what the government now days does.

 

[Xenophon]

...but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

It isn't the taxes. Its the debt and cost of servicing the debt.

As this point it is financially all but impossible to cut taxes in any meaningful way as that would mean the Federal government, even if you could get meaningful spending cuts through, would have to default on the debt. Once that happens the US Dollar would be dumped overnight in the overseas markets which would crash not just our economy, but the world economy, for good.

At this point, we are stuck with our tax burden forever.

I was going to say something similar to this.

The problem remains the same, a federal gov that keeps voting for MORE spending rather then paying what we owe.

 

[Darkwind]

This is the first generation that I can think of that actually faces the possibility of living a lower living standard than their parents. The reasons for this are many but has anyone ever thought that the cost of government is so large that the taxes we pay for it are consuming everything we earn?

Add up the cost of all taxes and you will see that the percent of the average person's income is substantial and ask yourself is all the social programs that those pay for and the benefits that they might give balance out the net affect of taking almost (i'm guessing here) 30% of our income. Wouldn't there be a greater positive effect on poverty if we reduced our total tax burden to 10% (or less)?

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

 

[ihopehefails]

Fair enough. Where do we cut first? And how much?

That usually is the rub, isn't it?

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

Shared sacrifice to them means from the people to the government.

 

[Vast LWC]

I view the military as an asset to my life because it is needed to protect us because who would go out there and kill off those who threaten our security? I don't have to worry about the military coming in and tellling me what to do like most of what the government now days does.

Look, I'm no pacifist, I'm a veteran for God's sake. But the amount of money we spend on our military is absurd.

There is no possible reason for us to have such a huge military presence in the world, except, frankly, a desire for world domination.

Now I'm glad that having a military that's larger than the militaries of the rest of the world COMBINED makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

But making you feel warm and fuzzy is certainly no reason to devote 20% of our federal budget to military spending, when our deficit is at such a ludicrous level.

Welfare makes a bunch of other people feel warm and fuzzy inside, but folks like you and the OP sure want to do away with most of that.

So, I'll tell you what. We'll make a 25% cut to Welfare if you make a 25% cut to the military. (One of those will save us a HELL of a lot more than the other.)

Sound good?

 

[Vast LWC]

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

"Defense" however, is a misnomer.

Military spending stops being "defense spending" once you go beyond what is needed to defend your country.

 

[Darkwind]

Not really.

We cut everything but defense. Defense is the only mandated spending in the Constitution.

If we cut everything, everyone shares in the pain. Isn't that what the left keeps saying? Where is the shared sacrifice?

"Defense" however, is a misnomer.

Military spending stops being "defense spending" once you go beyond what is needed to defend your country.

Not true at all. Defense is what is needed to remain at the current level above your closest adversary.

However, with judicious cuts in excess and clamping down on real waste, abuse and fraud, keeping defense spending at current levels would not be a problem.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not true at all. Defense is what is needed to remain at the current level above your closest adversary.

However, with judicious cuts in excess and clamping down on real waste, abuse and fraud, keeping defense spending at current levels would not be a problem.

Our closest adversary in strength at the moment is China, who spends 1/6 the amount we do on our military budget.

If we eliminated 50% of our spending, we would still be more powerful than the combined military of China, Iran and North Korea.

 

[Darkwind]

Not true at all. Defense is what is needed to remain at the current level above your closest adversary.

However, with judicious cuts in excess and clamping down on real waste, abuse and fraud, keeping defense spending at current levels would not be a problem.

Our closest adversary in strength at the moment is China, who spends 1/6 the amount we do on our military budget.

If we eliminated 50% of our spending, we would still be more powerful than the combined military of China, Iran and North Korea.

That is how it should be. None of any of this means anything if someone can come take it way.

I think we can keep the current spending for the next four years.

Enough time to seriously reduce government spending everywhere else and start to bring down our debt. We face a bigger threat from China in our debt to them then we do from all the military we will spend over the next 50 years.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is how it should be. None of any of this means anything if someone can come take it way.

I think we can keep the current spending for the next four years.

Enough time to seriously reduce government spending everywhere else and start to bring down our debt. We face a bigger threat from China in our debt to them then we do from all the military we will spend over the next 50 years.

If Medicare spent 6 times as much as was necessary per patient, right-wing deficit hawks would be screaming their heads off.

But when we spend the same outrageous amount on the military, there's not a peep.

Interesting.