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.
We spend four times as much on defense as the next country, so I think we cut 75% from there before we take food from hungry people, agreed?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indeed.
The US spends a much as the next 26 countries combined - 24 of whom are your allies.
But guess what - those campaigning for lower taxes and less government don't want to touch the military budget. It is very, very silly.
We spend four times as much on defense as the next country, so I think we cut 75% from there before we take food from hungry people, agreed?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And we do about a 1000 times more than anyone,its expensive to be the worlds police force/rescue unit.
Not really, that's largely mythical.
The UN goes into war for it own purposes, but if you look at the make-uo of UN peacekeeping forces around the world, a lot of countries from Nigeria to India, Finland to New Zealand and Belgium to Canada do more than their fair share.
It is just not big news on your TV screens.
The last EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was 12%. NOT ENOUGH!
Include ALL taxes and fees, and the poorest pay more than that, as much as the richest %wise.
I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.
Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.
But what party has the balls to say so?
Corporate taxes...
Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent
The plan would lower the nations corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.
The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The presidents plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.
And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.
Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.
Washington Post - February 22, 2012
I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.
Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.
But what party has the balls to say so?
Corporate taxes...
Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent
The plan would lower the nations corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.
The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The presidents plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.
And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.
Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.
Washington Post - February 22, 2012
When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.
The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation
Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554
Without a doubt, streamlining of many of these programs could save a lot of money. I don't think you will find many who deny government has gotten too big, but the fact remains that we also have a revenue problem. Since WWII, the federal government has run with revenues of just over 18% of GDP. During Reagan's first term, even with a horrible economy, revenues were over 19% of GDP, yet the last few years we have been running with around 15% of GDP. Over half of our yearly deficits are due to having such low revenue. What is shocking is that Republicans are trying to sell us on the idea that we should be running with even less. Pawlenty tried to sell us on cutting spending to 13% of GDP, and many cons think this is a great idea. It's really laughable.
This is not that difficult, peeps.:
Long term yes, but that can easily be resolved by raising the retirement age. All those spending increases are due to people living longer and drawing on SS and Medicare for a much longer period of time than ever was intended.
The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation
Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554
Sarcasm aside, other than cut, cut and cut some more what solution would you support?
My reading of comments posted on this message board have lead me to believe some who post here often are Callous Conservatives; yes, people who are "heartless and cruel" and some who are idiots in the colloquial sense of the word.
Government can be inefficient, those of us who worked in government know this to be true. The problems is systemic, and not endemic to government as we saw when those institutions to big to fail were exposed to the light.
The solution is not a simple one; the fix is not as simple as the simple minded believe.
I believe personal tax rates in the US are too low.
Corporate taxes are probably too high, and I think a VAT is inevitable.
But what party has the balls to say so?
I just realized you are posting from Finland.
You understand this then.
In Canada we have the GST. It's a straight tax across the board.
ETA normally I can peg off shit like this but I'm in the midst of making jalapeno jelly and home made salsa. I can't see shit. Forgive me.
I suppose it might seem counter intuitive, but I believe radically raising taxes across the board - to a point that actually approached a balanced budget - would be the single most important step toward returning to sensibly limited government.
The reason government has grown into such a bloated, pervasive mess is that we're not actually paying for it; we're pushing it off on future generations. We won't be able to have a genuine national discussion on how much government we want and need until we're actually paying for the government we vote for.
A graph from the Heritage Foundation...just so you can't fall back on attacking the source.
Take a look...take a GOOD look at the last 32 years. Look for the HIGHEST spending peaks, and the LOWEST revenue valleys. Now plant these names in your little right wing minds...Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Did Heritage screw up the spending as a percent of GDP numbers?
Or perhaps you haven't a clue and should just sit this one out.
LOL
Does it matter when you are comparing spending vs. revenues? Do you agree or disagree that the desired balance is to take in at least as much as you spend?
We spend four times as much on defense as the next country, so I think we cut 75% from there before we take food from hungry people, agreed?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indeed.
The US spends a much as the next 26 countries combined - 24 of whom are your allies.
But guess what - those campaigning for lower taxes and less government don't want to touch the military budget. It is very, very silly.
If you look at what the cons support the government in doing, and consider things that would be important for a Monarch, large army, lots of prison cells, plenty of rules for the peasants to follow, with few for the "Royals" so you can pick and choose winners. It all makes sense, things are often not that complicated to understand. Then look at what they say about the death tax, it is all about protecting the interest of the great families.
I agree. A flat tax for anyone above the poverty line works for me.
I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.
Seems reasonable enough to simply exempt the first 10 grand or so, for everyone. If we're going on pure principle, I'd have to object to income tax altogether as a fundamental intrusion on privacy.
I'm not even sure I would take the poverty line into account.
Just a simple tax code.
Multiply how much you made by X% and send that in. No deductions.
Seems reasonable enough to simply exempt the first 10 grand or so, for everyone. If we're going on pure principle, I'd have to object to income tax altogether as a fundamental intrusion on privacy.
Not to mention the fact that declaring that part of a person's labor belongs to the government should be abhorrent to everyone on Earth.
The GAO recently released a report describing the 160 separate programs the federal government has that offer assistance with housing. HUD has 91 separate programs, the Department of Agriculture has 18, the IRS has 14, the Treasury has 8, well, you get the idea by now. (By the way, who would go to the IRS to get help with housing?) If we cannot afford to fund 160 programs across multiple federal agencies we obviously need to raise taxes.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Increase Collaboration and Consider Consolidation
Here is a complete list of the various federal programs devoted to keeping people off the streets. Only a heartless and cruel idiot could possibly object to raising taxes to keep families from sleeping under bridges.
U.S. GAO - Housing Assistance: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Programs, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities (GAO-12-555SP, August 16, 2012), an E-supplement to GAO-12-554
How woefully ignorant.
I suppose it might seem counter intuitive, but I believe radically raising taxes across the board - to a point that actually approached a balanced budget - would be the single most important step toward returning to sensibly limited government.
The reason government has grown into such a bloated, pervasive mess is that we're not actually paying for it; we're pushing it off on future generations. We won't be able to have a genuine national discussion on how much government we want and need until we're actually paying for the government we vote for.
Simply raising taxes will not work unless we also make sure they can't borrow more money. We need to require the government to only spend the money it has and only borrow if it can pass both houses and the signature of the president. We also have to make sure they have to pass any resolution to borrow money as a separate bill, not tack it onto something that no one would vote against. That would require a constitutional amendment.
Corporate taxes...
Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent
The plan would lower the nations corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.
The current U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but the abundance of loopholes and deductions enable many businesses to pay far less than that or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes that companies in other rich countries pay, compared with the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The presidents plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.
And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.
Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.
Washington Post - February 22, 2012
When are you libtards going to understand that corporations don't pay taxes? Taxes for a corporation are an expense and passed along to their customers, so if you want to pay more tax indirectly through the corporations in higher prices, just keep crying, you may get what you wish for.
That's not true, but don't let facts stop you from ranting.
Seems reasonable enough to simply exempt the first 10 grand or so, for everyone. If we're going on pure principle, I'd have to object to income tax altogether as a fundamental intrusion on privacy.
Not to mention the fact that declaring that part of a person's labor belongs to the government should be abhorrent to everyone on Earth.
What would you replace income tax with?
