We're on the verge of a financial disaster of epic proportions w/the debt ceiling

[cutter]

Yeah...Katrina.

Gee...it almost makes one think that we should put something in the Constitution to remedy this problem...we seem to have it every year or several times a year...

How many years can we continue to spend 2.4trillion with an income of 1.5trillion and not have a problem. Some say the answer is increasing the debt limit. Will that solve any problems? WE have a serious spending problem. We have to quit spending more that we take in and even less than we take in if we are ever to pay off our debt. We need to take seriously our cuts in spending. Why ANY foreign aid, we can't afford it any longer. Why be the police force for the world? We can't afford it any longer. Everyone is talking about dooms day if we don't raise the debt limit. I think it's dooms day if we raise the limit and spend it on things we can no longer afford. Worst case, we let the rest of the world starve. We can no longer be the sugar daddy to the world. In the long run maybe it won't be us that end up starving. Our leaders need to start putting us first and screw the rest of the world. How much would we need to borrow if we cut out all aid to foreign countries or the U.N. It's a start. Don't tell me we don't need to cut anything. That's why we are in the mess we are in.

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

Generally I'm not for tax increases but I do think we should remove the cap in social security deductions. I usually pay the SS deduction on 100% of my income. How about everyone pay the same percentage of tax on 100% of their income. That would go a long way to making social security solvent. ALSO make those funds DEDICATED to social security. The way it is now any funds excess deducted for SS are used for as general funds. That's why the SS trust fund in empty, they spent it all on pork.

 

[JimH52]

If you are planning on buying a house, you better lock your rates in now. After August 2nd, rates will steadily climb. There is no way that they won't. But you guys keep on laughing. Ha Ha!

 

[skookerasbil]

Things are going to be just fine...............

For the next 18 months, its going to be a fcukking hoot around here........and after that............


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ya2fAsawE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪ITS PARTY TIME‬‏[/ame]

 

[cutter]

If you are planning on buying a house, you better lock your rates in now. After August 2nd, rates will steadily climb. There is no way that they won't. But you guys keep on laughing. Ha Ha!

Keeping rates artificially low has caused most of the problems we have. The housing bubble, the out of control spending, both government and private. Because the rates have not been able to adjust naturally and kept low artificially we will probably have to pay the price with extremely high rates because of the governments meddling. Normally rates will fluctuate with the availability of money and demand to borrow. By expanding the money supply the gov. has kept rates low. So now we're screwed, thanks to your federal government.

 

[candycorn]

How many years can we continue to spend 2.4trillion with an income of 1.5trillion and not have a problem. Some say the answer is increasing the debt limit. Will that solve any problems? WE have a serious spending problem. We have to quit spending more that we take in and even less than we take in if we are ever to pay off our debt. We need to take seriously our cuts in spending. Why ANY foreign aid, we can't afford it any longer. Why be the police force for the world? We can't afford it any longer. Everyone is talking about dooms day if we don't raise the debt limit. I think it's dooms day if we raise the limit and spend it on things we can no longer afford. Worst case, we let the rest of the world starve. We can no longer be the sugar daddy to the world. In the long run maybe it won't be us that end up starving. Our leaders need to start putting us first and screw the rest of the world. How much would we need to borrow if we cut out all aid to foreign countries or the U.N. It's a start. Don't tell me we don't need to cut anything. That's why we are in the mess we are in.

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

If you truly believe tax increases would help at this time, you have a static view of the economy, just like a lot of liberals seem to have. That we need spending cuts is obvious. It's where to make the cuts that the moochers and producers disagree. The bleeding heart liberals want to continue buying votes by giving taxpayer's money to all that might vote for them in the coming election.

A proven fact that our economy is dynamic rather than static is that reductions in tax RATES actually increase tax REVENUES (the pile of money we have to give away) because of increased dynamics (motion...activity...expansion) of the producers and investors operating under more favorable (to actually making a profit) conditions.

Increasing tax rates discourages sales, expansion, new hires, advertizing...everything that involves spending money (economic activity) at all levels. Jobs are lost because business drops. More people need financial help...and the liberal approach is to raise taxes.

Just how frickin' STUPID can people get?

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Abolish all public service UNIONS!

....ESPECIALLY the teacher's unions.

The military equipment should always be the best. What you static-minded liberals do not understand is that thousands of businesses are supported by the needs of production and the needs of the WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Kill the F22...you kill a lot a jobs...and you diminish the quality of weapons that our military personnel have to defend us with. But then, you'd likely not really care if this country was taken over by a Marxist dictator...as long as you got a government job or a free ride.

What we have now is the best in the world.

What we had last generation was the best in the world and still is today.

You're simply ignorant on the topic. You're also ignorant on what your remedy would be:

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Lets say that cutting 1/2 of every employee in these departments would cut the budgets by half. It won't but lets say it would just to give your argument the aura of actually saving some money (interestingly--we'd still have to pay the private sector people but thats an argument for another time)

So for example, cutting 1/2 of the employees at Interior will mean that we would only have to spend 6 billion instead of 12 billion.

Congratulations... You saved $330 Billion! Whoopee!

Which, of course, isn't the case at all since cutting 1/2 of the workers wouldn't cut 1/2 of the budget and you'd still have to pay for the services with tax monies.

Just how frickin's stupid can you get?

A balanced approach to the problem that effects all the same is the only approach worth studying.

I suggest you look at the pie chart and learn a few things.

 

[Susan45]

Yeah...Katrina.

Gee...it almost makes one think that we should put something in the Constitution to remedy this problem...we seem to have it every year or several times a year...

How many years can we continue to spend 2.4trillion with an income of 1.5trillion and not have a problem. Some say the answer is increasing the debt limit. Will that solve any problems? WE have a serious spending problem. We have to quit spending more that we take in and even less than we take in if we are ever to pay off our debt. We need to take seriously our cuts in spending. Why ANY foreign aid, we can't afford it any longer. Why be the police force for the world? We can't afford it any longer. Everyone is talking about dooms day if we don't raise the debt limit. I think it's dooms day if we raise the limit and spend it on things we can no longer afford. Worst case, we let the rest of the world starve. We can no longer be the sugar daddy to the world. In the long run maybe it won't be us that end up starving. Our leaders need to start putting us first and screw the rest of the world. How much would we need to borrow if we cut out all aid to foreign countries or the U.N. It's a start. Don't tell me we don't need to cut anything. That's why we are in the mess we are in.

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

You write some smart and powerful posts and actually this is the first one that I violently disagree with you.

No CC, we do not need to raise the retirement age, unless you just raise it for people who do not to physical labor. The body wears out. If they just raise the cap on higher incomes so they pay the same % as the rest of us that will take care of the problem.

Life Expectancy for Social Security

Andrew Sullivan wrote he favored raising the retirement age, so I sent him an email that said, "I can tell you have spent your entire working life sitting on your butt." For some reason he didn't answer me.

 

[Susan45]

How many years can we continue to spend 2.4trillion with an income of 1.5trillion and not have a problem. Some say the answer is increasing the debt limit. Will that solve any problems? WE have a serious spending problem. We have to quit spending more that we take in and even less than we take in if we are ever to pay off our debt. We need to take seriously our cuts in spending. Why ANY foreign aid, we can't afford it any longer. Why be the police force for the world? We can't afford it any longer. Everyone is talking about dooms day if we don't raise the debt limit. I think it's dooms day if we raise the limit and spend it on things we can no longer afford. Worst case, we let the rest of the world starve. We can no longer be the sugar daddy to the world. In the long run maybe it won't be us that end up starving. Our leaders need to start putting us first and screw the rest of the world. How much would we need to borrow if we cut out all aid to foreign countries or the U.N. It's a start. Don't tell me we don't need to cut anything. That's why we are in the mess we are in.

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

Generally I'm not for tax increases but I do think we should remove the cap in social security deductions. I usually pay the SS deduction on 100% of my income. How about everyone pay the same percentage of tax on 100% of their income. That would go a long way to making social security solvent. ALSO make those funds DEDICATED to social security. The way it is now any funds excess deducted for SS are used for as general funds. That's why the SS trust fund in empty, they spent it all on pork.

Absolutely! And just why doesn't everyone pay the same percentage? That's what I don't get. I've been paying all my life, so why isn't everyone?

The SS monies are dedicated funds. There is a law that the gov't can't just take the money, they "borrow" it, using T-bonds as colateral and the interest goes back to SS.

Social Security Trust Funds

 

[Susan45]

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

If you truly believe tax increases would help at this time, you have a static view of the economy, just like a lot of liberals seem to have. That we need spending cuts is obvious. It's where to make the cuts that the moochers and producers disagree. The bleeding heart liberals want to continue buying votes by giving taxpayer's money to all that might vote for them in the coming election.

A proven fact that our economy is dynamic rather than static is that reductions in tax RATES actually increase tax REVENUES (the pile of money we have to give away) because of increased dynamics (motion...activity...expansion) of the producers and investors operating under more favorable (to actually making a profit) conditions.

Increasing tax rates discourages sales, expansion, new hires, advertizing...everything that involves spending money (economic activity) at all levels. Jobs are lost because business drops. More people need financial help...and the liberal approach is to raise taxes.

Just how frickin' STUPID can people get?

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Abolish all public service UNIONS!

....ESPECIALLY the teacher's unions.

The military equipment should always be the best. What you static-minded liberals do not understand is that thousands of businesses are supported by the needs of production and the needs of the WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Kill the F22...you kill a lot a jobs...and you diminish the quality of weapons that our military personnel have to defend us with. But then, you'd likely not really care if this country was taken over by a Marxist dictator...as long as you got a government job or a free ride.

What we have now is the best in the world.

What we had last generation was the best in the world and still is today.

You're simply ignorant on the topic. You're also ignorant on what your remedy would be:

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Lets say that cutting 1/2 of every employee in these departments would cut the budgets by half. It won't but lets say it would just to give your argument the aura of actually saving some money (interestingly--we'd still have to pay the private sector people but thats an argument for another time)

So for example, cutting 1/2 of the employees at Interior will mean that we would only have to spend 6 billion instead of 12 billion.

Congratulations... You saved $330 Billion! Whoopee!

Which, of course, isn't the case at all since cutting 1/2 of the workers wouldn't cut 1/2 of the budget and you'd still have to pay for the services with tax monies.

Just how frickin's stupid can you get?

A balanced approach to the problem that effects all the same is the only approach worth studying.

I suggest you look at the pie chart and learn a few things.

Thank you for another great post. But I have something that has been nagging me. I just wonder how some people think we can get things done in the private sector and still save money? I just can't wrap my mind around that. Because the way I see it, there really isn't any private company that is so efficient that they can do the job and still make a profit. So we would be paying more for the service, wouldn't we?

 

[candycorn]

If you truly believe tax increases would help at this time, you have a static view of the economy, just like a lot of liberals seem to have. That we need spending cuts is obvious. It's where to make the cuts that the moochers and producers disagree. The bleeding heart liberals want to continue buying votes by giving taxpayer's money to all that might vote for them in the coming election.

A proven fact that our economy is dynamic rather than static is that reductions in tax RATES actually increase tax REVENUES (the pile of money we have to give away) because of increased dynamics (motion...activity...expansion) of the producers and investors operating under more favorable (to actually making a profit) conditions.

Increasing tax rates discourages sales, expansion, new hires, advertizing...everything that involves spending money (economic activity) at all levels. Jobs are lost because business drops. More people need financial help...and the liberal approach is to raise taxes.

Just how frickin' STUPID can people get?

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Abolish all public service UNIONS!

....ESPECIALLY the teacher's unions.

The military equipment should always be the best. What you static-minded liberals do not understand is that thousands of businesses are supported by the needs of production and the needs of the WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Kill the F22...you kill a lot a jobs...and you diminish the quality of weapons that our military personnel have to defend us with. But then, you'd likely not really care if this country was taken over by a Marxist dictator...as long as you got a government job or a free ride.

What we have now is the best in the world.

What we had last generation was the best in the world and still is today.

You're simply ignorant on the topic. You're also ignorant on what your remedy would be:

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Lets say that cutting 1/2 of every employee in these departments would cut the budgets by half. It won't but lets say it would just to give your argument the aura of actually saving some money (interestingly--we'd still have to pay the private sector people but thats an argument for another time)

So for example, cutting 1/2 of the employees at Interior will mean that we would only have to spend 6 billion instead of 12 billion.

Congratulations... You saved $330 Billion! Whoopee!

Which, of course, isn't the case at all since cutting 1/2 of the workers wouldn't cut 1/2 of the budget and you'd still have to pay for the services with tax monies.

Just how frickin's stupid can you get?

A balanced approach to the problem that effects all the same is the only approach worth studying.

I suggest you look at the pie chart and learn a few things.

Thank you for another great post. But I have something that has been nagging me. I just wonder how some people think we can get things done in the private sector and still save money? I just can't wrap my mind around that. Because the way I see it, there really isn't any private company that is so efficient that they can do the job and still make a profit. So we would be paying more for the service, wouldn't we?

Benefits and pensions. The only reason the government jobs are so advantageous are the group rates for insurance--very cheap. And the pensions. The wages are tiny compared to the private sector. Administaff and Kelly services will not pay any benefits or pensions. So service will actually get worse at the government offices.

Its a terrible idea that the $8/hr data processor will have access to my social security data. People who sponsor such ideas are not thinking it through.

 

[candycorn]

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

Generally I'm not for tax increases but I do think we should remove the cap in social security deductions. I usually pay the SS deduction on 100% of my income. How about everyone pay the same percentage of tax on 100% of their income. That would go a long way to making social security solvent. ALSO make those funds DEDICATED to social security. The way it is now any funds excess deducted for SS are used for as general funds. That's why the SS trust fund in empty, they spent it all on pork.

Absolutely! And just why doesn't everyone pay the same percentage? That's what I don't get. I've been paying all my life, so why isn't everyone?

The SS monies are dedicated funds. There is a law that the gov't can't just take the money, they "borrow" it, using T-bonds as colateral and the interest goes back to SS.

Social Security Trust Funds

I don't see a downside as long as you close the loopholes before you do it. It sounds like the best way for income tax to be figured out. We just have to all agree on what is income.

 

[cutter]

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

Generally I'm not for tax increases but I do think we should remove the cap in social security deductions. I usually pay the SS deduction on 100% of my income. How about everyone pay the same percentage of tax on 100% of their income. That would go a long way to making social security solvent. ALSO make those funds DEDICATED to social security. The way it is now any funds excess deducted for SS are used for as general funds. That's why the SS trust fund in empty, they spent it all on pork.

Absolutely! And just why doesn't everyone pay the same percentage? That's what I don't get. I've been paying all my life, so why isn't everyone?

The SS monies are dedicated funds. There is a law that the gov't can't just take the money, they "borrow" it, using T-bonds as colateral and the interest goes back to SS.

Social Security Trust Funds

The fact that SS is now going to have to cash in some of those bonds is the reason SS is called an unfunded liability. It has billions of $$ in bonds in the trust fund that the government never intended to pay back, all spent on pork and gone never to be seen again.

 

[Susan45]

Generally I'm not for tax increases but I do think we should remove the cap in social security deductions. I usually pay the SS deduction on 100% of my income. How about everyone pay the same percentage of tax on 100% of their income. That would go a long way to making social security solvent. ALSO make those funds DEDICATED to social security. The way it is now any funds excess deducted for SS are used for as general funds. That's why the SS trust fund in empty, they spent it all on pork.

Absolutely! And just why doesn't everyone pay the same percentage? That's what I don't get. I've been paying all my life, so why isn't everyone?

The SS monies are dedicated funds. There is a law that the gov't can't just take the money, they "borrow" it, using T-bonds as colateral and the interest goes back to SS.

Social Security Trust Funds

I don't see a downside as long as you close the loopholes before you do it. It sounds like the best way for income tax to be figured out. We just have to all agree on what is income.

Thanks for your answer.

I couldn't agree more with you about figuring out what income is. At one time I was just furious that the tax rate on capital gains is so low. I'm over being mad but still would like to see capital gains considered income.

I noticed you sidestepped my rant about retirement age. To tell someone who has worked in a factory or as a waitress or nurse that 65 isn't old enough is just heartless. The very people that really can use the money are told they haven't worked long enough. Getting old isn't for the faint of heart and it isn't as if they would be getting a fortune, so I think that every other option should be checked out first. (excuse me while I have another mini-rant. LOL)

 

[asaratis]

I support the Presidential view that we need tax increases AND budget cuts.

The F22 and Virginia class would save us billions. Cutting foreign aid is a good idea; I think we should not have ambassadors to half the places we have them in fact. I support us leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres little need to keep defending Japan, Korea, Germany, etc...

Domestically, we have to look at moving the retirement age higher to defer paying some of the benefits. On the income side, We have to look at short-term taxes that expire after 4, 8, 12, or 16 years to help pay off the debt.

If you truly believe tax increases would help at this time, you have a static view of the economy, just like a lot of liberals seem to have. That we need spending cuts is obvious. It's where to make the cuts that the moochers and producers disagree. The bleeding heart liberals want to continue buying votes by giving taxpayer's money to all that might vote for them in the coming election.

A proven fact that our economy is dynamic rather than static is that reductions in tax RATES actually increase tax REVENUES (the pile of money we have to give away) because of increased dynamics (motion...activity...expansion) of the producers and investors operating under more favorable (to actually making a profit) conditions.

Increasing tax rates discourages sales, expansion, new hires, advertizing...everything that involves spending money (economic activity) at all levels. Jobs are lost because business drops. More people need financial help...and the liberal approach is to raise taxes.

Just how frickin' STUPID can people get?

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Abolish all public service UNIONS!

....ESPECIALLY the teacher's unions.

The military equipment should always be the best. What you static-minded liberals do not understand is that thousands of businesses are supported by the needs of production and the needs of the WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Kill the F22...you kill a lot a jobs...and you diminish the quality of weapons that our military personnel have to defend us with. But then, you'd likely not really care if this country was taken over by a Marxist dictator...as long as you got a government job or a free ride.

What we have now is the best in the world.

What we had last generation was the best in the world and still is today.

You're simply ignorant on the topic. You're also ignorant on what your remedy would be:

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Lets say that cutting 1/2 of every employee in these departments would cut the budgets by half. It won't but lets say it would just to give your argument the aura of actually saving some money (interestingly--we'd still have to pay the private sector people but thats an argument for another time)

So for example, cutting 1/2 of the employees at Interior will mean that we would only have to spend 6 billion instead of 12 billion.

Congratulations... You saved $330 Billion! Whoopee!

Which, of course, isn't the case at all since cutting 1/2 of the workers wouldn't cut 1/2 of the budget and you'd still have to pay for the services with tax monies.

Just how frickin's stupid can you get?

A balanced approach to the problem that effects all the same is the only approach worth studying.

I suggest you look at the pie chart and learn a few things.

All the same! What a fair way to distribute things! But that's a topic for another time. What you fail to understand is that the thought of cutting the government list of employees in half was not meant as a definitive reduction but only to express that government is entirely too heavy with employees. There are likely departments that could be completely eliminated. 100% FIRED. Likely others need less than 50% reduction.

Depending on government to efficiently provide services appears insane. History shows it to be. Yet liberals want little more than they do to grow the size of government by hiring warm bodies, friends, political cronies and others of like mind to control the lives of all others under their jurisdiction. It's a control thing.

My estimate of "half" is certainly subject to review and was not intended to argued as a hard and fast goal. One third would suit me also. All I want the liberals to realize is that big government sucks!

I am ignorant of a lot of things. Ignorance does not imply stupidity. Adherence to policies that have failed repeatedly in the past implies stupidity.

 

[candycorn]

If you truly believe tax increases would help at this time, you have a static view of the economy, just like a lot of liberals seem to have. That we need spending cuts is obvious. It's where to make the cuts that the moochers and producers disagree. The bleeding heart liberals want to continue buying votes by giving taxpayer's money to all that might vote for them in the coming election.

A proven fact that our economy is dynamic rather than static is that reductions in tax RATES actually increase tax REVENUES (the pile of money we have to give away) because of increased dynamics (motion...activity...expansion) of the producers and investors operating under more favorable (to actually making a profit) conditions.

Increasing tax rates discourages sales, expansion, new hires, advertizing...everything that involves spending money (economic activity) at all levels. Jobs are lost because business drops. More people need financial help...and the liberal approach is to raise taxes.

Just how frickin' STUPID can people get?

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Abolish all public service UNIONS!

....ESPECIALLY the teacher's unions.

The military equipment should always be the best. What you static-minded liberals do not understand is that thousands of businesses are supported by the needs of production and the needs of the WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS. Kill the F22...you kill a lot a jobs...and you diminish the quality of weapons that our military personnel have to defend us with. But then, you'd likely not really care if this country was taken over by a Marxist dictator...as long as you got a government job or a free ride.

What we have now is the best in the world.

What we had last generation was the best in the world and still is today.

You're simply ignorant on the topic. You're also ignorant on what your remedy would be:

Reduce the size of government. Fire about half of the government employees we now support. Let the private sector run ALL service departments associated with the government, with people's job security depending on the PERFORMANCE and not the fact that they are employed.

Lets say that cutting 1/2 of every employee in these departments would cut the budgets by half. It won't but lets say it would just to give your argument the aura of actually saving some money (interestingly--we'd still have to pay the private sector people but thats an argument for another time)

So for example, cutting 1/2 of the employees at Interior will mean that we would only have to spend 6 billion instead of 12 billion.

Congratulations... You saved $330 Billion! Whoopee!

Which, of course, isn't the case at all since cutting 1/2 of the workers wouldn't cut 1/2 of the budget and you'd still have to pay for the services with tax monies.

Just how frickin's stupid can you get?

A balanced approach to the problem that effects all the same is the only approach worth studying.

I suggest you look at the pie chart and learn a few things.

All the same! What a fair way to distribute things! But that's a topic for another time. What you fail to understand is that the thought of cutting the government list of employees in half was not meant as a definitive reduction but only to express that government is entirely too heavy with employees. There are likely departments that could be completely eliminated. 100% FIRED. Likely others need less than 50% reduction.

Depending on government to efficiently provide services appears insane. History shows it to be. Yet liberals want little more than they do to grow the size of government by hiring warm bodies, friends, political cronies and others of like mind to control the lives of all others under their jurisdiction. It's a control thing.

My estimate of "half" is certainly subject to review and was not intended to argued as a hard and fast goal. One third would suit me also. All I want the liberals to realize is that big government sucks!

I am ignorant of a lot of things. Ignorance does not imply stupidity. Adherence to policies that have failed repeatedly in the past implies stupidity.

Proposing new ones that are idiotic guarantees it.

I stopped caring when you got into "mind control". Kind of like the full court press Bush and company did about WMDs...right? No mind control there.

Big government does suck but what sucks more is big government that doesn't work. An SEC that allows credit default swaps sucks. A $600B military that can't keep us safe from 4 commercial airliners being used as cruise missiles sucks. A farm policy that subsidizes tobacco farmers on one hand and fights tobacco's effects on the other really sucks. Spending almost more on defense than the rest of the world combined sucks supremely.

One thing that doesn't really suck is spending $0.44 to mail a letter coast to coast. Not sucky at all.

I would urge you to watch this video and tell me what you think but I'm sure you already know it all and need not learn anything.

Serious Fun: TrueMajorityACTION.org