Why We Should Increase Taxes?

[boedicca]

Welcome to the peanut butter version of the 90's boom economy

Springtime for Peanut Butter and Fannie Mae!!!!!

 

[boedicca]

And there we go.... less the 30 posts into this new troll's career and we have the precedent for 'But, but, but, but Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosshhhhhhh'

Indeed, he jumped the shark before his first episode was over.

 

[Flopper]

Increasing taxes only encourages outlandish spending. When you spend your own money you have to live on a budget. If you could spend someone else's income, you'd spend like there's no tomorrow.

If you can't live within your budget and you "gotta have it NOW," you resort to credit cards or borrowing ... and unless you can responsibly use/pay your credit card or loan and still live within your budget ... you end up with a colossal debt problem.

That's how government works. It's "gotta have it NOW" - so they tax us again and again, and that's still not enough, so they borrow from other sources, raising more debt to pay - and the cycle keeps going. There is no government "budget."

We as Americans and taxpayers, need to take control of our government instead of our government taking control of us. Even if we have to use ballots to do it - WE should set Congressional salaries, WE should determine how their retirement plan is done - and it shouldn't be several hundreds of thousands per year for life when they only have a part-time job. WE should determine what "perks" they are allowed to have, whether they can accept "gifts," eliminate lobbyists' "buying" votes - period. It's just another form of bribery. Anything that can be lobbied should be argued on it's merits, perhaps in a format much different than it is now. WE should eliminate a whole lot of these asinine grants that don't mean crap - like determining why a piss ant moves backward. Serious stuff like medical research, no problem. In addition we need to eliminate the unnecessary and/or overlapping "bureaus," "commissions," "departments," "divisions," "programs," and so forth. There's a whole laundry list of governmental business WE need to control.

I certainly don't believe that raising taxes is the best way of controlling the deficit but facts are: Neither political party has been effective at reducing spendings. Government spending in absolute dollars has been rising for at least a hundred years and probably a lot longer and there is no sign that this is going to change. If the government does not provide the funding to cover the spending, then their will be serious financial problems. We need to concentrate on what can be done, not what we wish could be done.

Although I agree that our rising national debt is a problem, I do not believe it is as serious as some would have us believe. Many seem to ignore the fact that as our debt has grown, so has our economy. Over the last 20 years our economy has been growing faster than our debt and thus we are more able to handle a higher level of debt.

 

[boedicca]

I certainly don't believe that raising taxes is the best way of controlling the deficit but facts are: Neither political party has been effective at reducing spendings. Government spending in absolute dollars has been rising for at least a hundred years and probably a lot longer and there is no sign that this is going to change. If the government does not provide the funding to cover the spending, then their will be serious financial problems. We need to concentrate on what can be done, not what we wish could be done.

Although I agree that our rising national debt is a problem, I do not believe it is as serious as some would have us believe. Many seem to ignore the fact that as our debt has grown, so has our economy. Over the last 20 years our economy has been growing faster than our debt and thus we are more able to handle a higher level of debt.

If you think debt is not such a problem, take a look at what is happening in Greece. It's an object lesson in what our future will be like if we do not rein in deficits, debt, and entitlements.

You attitude is similar to a person who is drowning in credit card debt thinking the solution is more credit cards. We cannot spend and borrow our way out of a debt crisis - and it is a DEBT CRISIS.

 

[007]

Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes

Don't you just love this bit of reasoning?

Since government can't control spending, confiscate more of the peoples' money so it can keep spending.

That falls under the definition of insanity.

That's odd!

Republicans always referred-to-it as Fiscal Responsibility.​

Don't know where you got that piece of crap, but this is a little more appropriate for this thread...

 

[Flopper]

No, I disagree with you. Instead of paying more taxes, I think Americans should stop paying ALL taxes to the government until they get the message that the public is tired of their Congressional shopping trips. While it is true you can be put into jail for not paying taxes but I don't think they can put 10 million people in the iron bar hotel at the same time.

That's not working very well in Greece.

 

[manu1959]

why not just cut costs to match revenue...or better yet cut costs to create a surplus and pay down the debt.....

 

[boedicca]

What's not working well in Greece is tax rates that are so high that cheating is a way of life, the government spending money beyond tax receipts, and entitlement oriented government workers who expect to retire in their 50s with big pensions.

 

[Flopper]

Since neither political party has been successful at controlling spending, we should increase taxes

Don't you just love this bit of reasoning?

Since government can't control spending, confiscate more of the peoples' money so it can keep spending.

That falls under the definition of insanity.

The government can't control spending because as long as the politicians won't make the electorate PAY for that spending, the electorate will refuse to elect politicians who will stop spending. Force the politicians to force the electorate to pay for every bit of government spending they want, and the problem will be solved.

Actually, it is very sound reasoning. If you can't control your spending, then you have to increase your revenue.

 

[007]

why not just cut costs to match revenue...or better yet cut costs to create a surplus and pay down the debt.....

Ya know something brother... it is JUST THAT SIMPLE. But try and get the government to do that, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW IT WOULD WORK! They won't do it. Stop spending... no way man. They're going to spend us into certain ruin come hell or high water.

Did you also know that America is holding 17.1% of the failing EU debt through the IMF? About ten times more than any other country. Who is the IMF? Who runs it? Where are their elected officials? Why are we giving them money?

 

[Gadawg73]

Raising taxes will increase spending once again and then you will come back and claim we need to once again raise taxes so they can again spend more.
Don't you folks GET IT?
We need to immediately CUT PROGRAMS.
What do you do at home when you do not have enough money to pay bills?
How many of you own a business and employ others?
Raise taxes AND JOBS ARE ELIMINATED.
How hard is that for you folks to understand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Don't you just love this bit of reasoning?

Since government can't control spending, confiscate more of the peoples' money so it can keep spending.

That falls under the definition of insanity.

The government can't control spending because as long as the politicians won't make the electorate PAY for that spending, the electorate will refuse to elect politicians who will stop spending. Force the politicians to force the electorate to pay for every bit of government spending they want, and the problem will be solved.

Actually, it is very sound reasoning. If you can't control your spending, then you have to increase your revenue.

But government revenue is our money or don't you know that?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If want to reduce the cost of social programs, you have to look at cutting Social Security and Medicare. These entitlement programs are most beneficial to the middle class. To think that middle class Americans would allow the programs to be cut is an even bigger fantasy than believing welfare cuts will put people to work.

Correction:

The Medicare that's co$ting us, so much, presently, is Lil' Dumbya's Medicare D; Medicare Modernization Act.

Presently, "conservatives" are crying & whining about how....if Obama wants additional-spending (specifically, health-care), "conservatives" are INSISTING on spending-cuts being made, to offset that (new) spending.

The problem is....George Bush never DID that, with Medicare D!!!!!!​

"Back in 2003, when the so-called Medicare Modernization Act was being debated in Congress, we warned that this latest round of Medicare privatization contained severe flaws that would hurt consumers and taxpayers while lining the pockets of special interests. With nearly two years of hindsight, we can safely say we were right: The MMA has been a major disappointment for consumers and taxpayers, but a windfall for private insurance and drug companies.

Among the key findings:​

*Under the MMA, Medicare has been significantly overpaying private plans under Medicare Advantage. In 2005, Medicare overpaid private plans by at least 7% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion. In 2006, overpayment reached 11% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $4.6 billion.

*Under the MMA, Congress set aside $10 billion for an unnecessary $ub$idy (or "stabilization fund") to regional PPOs. This year, however, 88% of beneficiaries have access to a regional PPO, before the so-called "stabilization fund" was even tapped--no subsidy was necessary.

*Medicare Part D drug prices are substantially higher than the prices obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which negotiates prices on behalf of consumers. For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. Yet Congress refused to let Medicare negotiate directly with the drug companies, as the VA does.

*Bottom line: this report shows that, unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the MMA has not even come close to meeting the high expectations set for it by Congress. Consumers are getting hurt and taxpayers fleeced, while insurance companies and drug manufacturers are raking in money faster than they can count it. Congress needs to move away from this deeply flawed privatization model, and instead focus on strengthening Medicare."

Problem SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​

 

[Avatar4321]

In my dream we didn't need a government because we all governed ourselves.

Ah, yes....just like the good ol' days o' States' Rights!!!!

​

Not my fault you can't govern yourself. It's not my fault you need a nanny.

But hey, I can dream of a day when you don't.

 

[boedicca]

Mr. Shaman = Idiot

There's no point addressing such nonsense.

 

[007]

If want to reduce the cost of social programs, you have to look at cutting Social Security and Medicare. These entitlement programs are most beneficial to the middle class. To think that middle class Americans would allow the programs to be cut is an even bigger fantasy than believing welfare cuts will put people to work.

Correction:

The Medicare that's co$ting us, so much, presently, is Lil' Dumbya's Medicare D; Medicare Modernization Act.

Presently, "conservatives" are crying & whining about how....if Obama wants additional-spending (specifically, health-care), "conservatives" are INSISTING on spending-cuts being made, to offset that (new) spending.

The problem is....George Bush never DID that, with Medicare D!!!!!!​

"Back in 2003, when the so-called Medicare Modernization Act was being debated in Congress, we warned that this latest round of Medicare privatization contained severe flaws that would hurt consumers and taxpayers while lining the pockets of special interests. With nearly two years of hindsight, we can safely say we were right: The MMA has been a major disappointment for consumers and taxpayers, but a windfall for private insurance and drug companies.

Among the key findings:​

*Under the MMA, Medicare has been significantly overpaying private plans under Medicare Advantage. In 2005, Medicare overpaid private plans by at least 7% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion. In 2006, overpayment reached 11% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $4.6 billion.

*Under the MMA, Congress set aside $10 billion for an unnecessary $ub$idy (or "stabilization fund") to regional PPOs. This year, however, 88% of beneficiaries have access to a regional PPO, before the so-called "stabilization fund" was even tapped--no subsidy was necessary.

*Medicare Part D drug prices are substantially higher than the prices obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which negotiates prices on behalf of consumers. For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. Yet Congress refused to let Medicare negotiate directly with the drug companies, as the VA does.

*Bottom line: this report shows that, unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the MMA has not even come close to meeting the high expectations set for it by Congress. Consumers are getting hurt and taxpayers fleeced, while insurance companies and drug manufacturers are raking in money faster than they can count it. Congress needs to move away from this deeply flawed privatization model, and instead focus on strengthening Medicare."

Problem SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​

What's with all the pretty little rainbow type? You a fucking homo?

 

[DiamondDave]

If want to reduce the cost of social programs, you have to look at cutting Social Security and Medicare. These entitlement programs are most beneficial to the middle class. To think that middle class Americans would allow the programs to be cut is an even bigger fantasy than believing welfare cuts will put people to work.

Correction:

The Medicare that's co$ting us, so much, presently, is Lil' Dumbya's Medicare D; Medicare Modernization Act.

Presently, "conservatives" are crying & whining about how....if Obama wants additional-spending (specifically, health-care), "conservatives" are INSISTING on spending-cuts being made, to offset that (new) spending.

The problem is....George Bush never DID that, with Medicare D!!!!!!​

"Back in 2003, when the so-called Medicare Modernization Act was being debated in Congress, we warned that this latest round of Medicare privatization contained severe flaws that would hurt consumers and taxpayers while lining the pockets of special interests. With nearly two years of hindsight, we can safely say we were right: The MMA has been a major disappointment for consumers and taxpayers, but a windfall for private insurance and drug companies.

Among the key findings:​

*Under the MMA, Medicare has been significantly overpaying private plans under Medicare Advantage. In 2005, Medicare overpaid private plans by at least 7% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion. In 2006, overpayment reached 11% per beneficiary, costing taxpayers $4.6 billion.

*Under the MMA, Congress set aside $10 billion for an unnecessary $ub$idy (or "stabilization fund") to regional PPOs. This year, however, 88% of beneficiaries have access to a regional PPO, before the so-called "stabilization fund" was even tapped--no subsidy was necessary.

*Medicare Part D drug prices are substantially higher than the prices obtained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which negotiates prices on behalf of consumers. For all of the top 20 drugs prescribed to seniors, the lowest price charged by any Part D plan was higher than the lowest price secured by the VA. Yet Congress refused to let Medicare negotiate directly with the drug companies, as the VA does.

*Bottom line: this report shows that, unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the MMA has not even come close to meeting the high expectations set for it by Congress. Consumers are getting hurt and taxpayers fleeced, while insurance companies and drug manufacturers are raking in money faster than they can count it. Congress needs to move away from this deeply flawed privatization model, and instead focus on strengthening Medicare."

Problem SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​

2nd time using the 'But but but but Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhh" tactic because you have no argument... just a hyper-partisan agenda and a faulty logic thought process

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And ol' Slick Willy signed a bill that removed the once sharp legal divisions between banks, insurance companies and investment firms which allowed companies like AIG and Citi to become too big to fail.

Oh and don't forget setting us up for 9/11

That's what you heard, huh?

​

"For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of mi$$ile defen$e. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team—including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell—whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about [al-Qaeda] and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy.' But doing so meant delay.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

Bush BLEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, it is very sound reasoning. If you can't control your spending, then you have to increase your revenue.

You do realize that the only way government increases revenues is by taking it from people who are producing goods and services in the community and hurting their revenues, right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And ol' Slick Willy signed a bill that removed the once sharp legal divisions between banks, insurance companies and investment firms which allowed companies like AIG and Citi to become too big to fail.

Oh and don't forget setting us up for 9/11

That's what you heard, huh?

​

"For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of mi$$ile defen$e. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was absorbed by a long review of the military's force structure. Attorney General John Ashcroft had come into office as a dedicated crime buster. Rice was desperately trying to keep in line a national-security team—including Rumsfeld, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell—whose members had wildly different agendas and styles. "Terrorism," says a former Clinton White House official, speaking of the new Administration, "wasn't on their plate of key issues." Al-Qaeda had not been a feature of the landscape when the Republicans left office in 1993. The Bush team, says an official, "had to learn about [al-Qaeda] and figure out where it fit into their broader foreign policy.' But doing so meant delay.

Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal." Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death."

Bush BLEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​

You have earned the distinct honor of being added to my ignore list.