Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.
No.
I am willing to cut spending but not all the way down to Clinton levels. The last budget Clinton submitted was for $1.9 trillion dollars. Under our current tax rates we took in approximately $2.3 trillion last year.
Furthermore, any cutting of spending should be done incrementally over a period of time.
We weren't engaged in a war either so if you don't want to cut spending you are in favor of higher deficits and more debt.
As i said you can't have one without the other and expect to make any headway in cleaning up the financial fuck fest that out lackadaisical leaders and reprehensible representatives got us into.
There is an UNGODLY amount of revenue.... It is a goddamn spending problem...
Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?
While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?
Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?
Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.
Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?
Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.
Fuck you you little socialist.. you only pick and choose things that don't contribute to your socialist agenda... fuck you and your wealth redistribution entitlement programs.... THOSE should be the first things cut
If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.
If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.
Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.
Of course they don't....No matter how much you get, it's never ever enough, izzit?If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.I didn't say I don't want to cut spending. I said I didn't want to cut spending down to Clinton levels like you suggested and I explained why. You don't need to cut spending down to Clinton levels to get it done.
Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.
Sorry, Dude, they don't.
Of course they don't....No matter how much you get, it's never ever enough, izzit?If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.
Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.
Sorry, Dude, they don't.
What is their fair share?
The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.
Of course the top 1% pay more in taxes, but given their income, they aren't paying enough. Their tax rates are at an all time low.
Check out the graphs on pages 9-11 in my signature.
Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?
If you include all taxes and fees, everyone pays about the same to the gov't %wise- FACT-, but the richest 1% have doubled to quadruped their wealth in the last 30 years while everyone else is squeezed, and the country falls apart..
EVEN IT UP!! Adding 4% for the rich is not communism or looting, ya brainwashed dupes, fer chrissake. Change the channel!
Tell you what. Let's start on the spending side, and let's start with the Defense Department. As was suggested above, close down most of our foreign bases, end our entangling alliances, bring our troops home, redefine the military's mission as defense of the United States rather than projecting American power abroad, and cut it to a size appropriate for that mission. Can we agree on that?
While we're at it, let's cut out the corporate subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry and other examples of corporate welfare. Can we agree there, too?
Oh, and foreign aid, especially in the form of military hardware. Can we agree to deep-six most of that spending?
Those are the only parts of the federal budget that I would agree need to be cut. Oh, wait -- legalize drugs and release nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison (and in state prisons, too). That would save money on law enforcement and the penal system.
Most other parts of the federal budget I would not agree to cut, and some I would want to actually expand, most notably spending on infrastructure repair and education. But the above are cuts I would like to see happen. The military cut alone would represent a huge savings. But would it be enough to balance the budget?
Frankly, I'm skeptical. I'm especially skeptical that it would be enough to balance the budget if we're also to expand spending in certain areas where it's really badly needed. I suspect we're eventually going to need to raise taxes, at least by putting them back to Clinton-era levels.
Fuck you you little socialist.. you only pick and choose things that don't contribute to your socialist agenda... fuck you and your wealth redistribution entitlement programs.... THOSE should be the first things cut
You're such a jackass.
Ain't nobody gonna take a anything you say seriously, dude.
If Clintoon era tax levels are good enough for you, then those spending levels should do as well.
Better yet, let's go back to Coolidge's spending levels.
Sorry, Dude, they don't.
But it takes 2 jobs per household to do it. People in the so-called working class on working class wages aren't buying homes and raising families, etc., on 1 paycheck,
like my father, and most fathers, did years ago. Years ago as in before someone decided that cutting taxes for the Rich would make everyone's lives better.
Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?
Its the consequence of the myth of class warfare, a tedious and inane contrivance by the right designed to deflect criticism from the republicans propensity to be more concerned about the welfare of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
The most idiotic aspect of the myth is the fact that a significant number of liberals are indeed themselves wealthy.
Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.
What is big enough?...What's too big?
Oh, so bureaucrats shouldn't be exposed to the same negative effects of artificially pumped up bubble economies, as have those participating out in the real world.I'm all for cutting spending but I also believe that cutting spending too much and too quickly would seriously hurt the economy and possibly could lead to another recession.
In the UK spending was cut too deeply which in turn slowed growth and led to a good sized drop in their GNP projections and realization. Many economist are predicting a recession in the UK as soon as 2012 as the result of slowing the economy too much.
What is their fair share?
The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.
On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.
Of course you don't have an answer to that...That's the point.Funny how you claim not to play that game, yet can still say that a bloated socialistic welfare state of the size that existed a scant dozen years ago isn't big enough.
What is big enough?...What's too big?
I don't have an answer to that. I'm looking to balance a budget not get government to a size that is acceptable to me. Like I said, go play that game with somebody else.
