AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 6, 2011 8:55:14 GMT -5
File under "No Sh** Sherlock" blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534 In fact, all the taxpayers combined do not have the money to pay for Barack Obama's massive spending binge: The math is in, the "debate" is OVER. We WILL cut.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Aug 6, 2011 8:58:28 GMT -5
The math is in, the "debate" is OVER. We WILL cut.
We will only get real and reasonable cuts when the people demand it in spite of the pain that will have to follow.
As long as we (collective) continue to allow Congress to keep the same faces with the same thoughts in office all we will do is continue to carry on as we always have.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 6, 2011 9:09:38 GMT -5
Ooooops, guess the piggy bank is dry for sure. Dang...No popcorn at the movies tonight! Thanks Paul for posting this. Heard it yesterday and have been chuckling over it since. Yeah- I heard it on Rush yesterday, and I'm pretty sure we've known it for years. I mean, I don't even think Obama himself thinks we can afford to borrow a trillion and a half dollars a year in perpetuity- but his aim is to destory America. This post, and these kinds of common sense discussions are for the sesnible patriots left in this country.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 6, 2011 9:09:46 GMT -5
But reversing the Bush tax cuts could solve all of our ills!!! Those greedy rich get to keep their billions of dollars which could TOTALLY finance our trillion dollar deficits!!! Don't you understand?? WITHOUT THOSE TAXES OUR WORLD IS DOOMED!!!!!!
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 9:13:29 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more. The impression of is also beneficial, and just going back to what was before, no more, before the Bush tax cuts..and as all the experts are saying , the cuts in spending were NOT deep enough to solve the problem as well as the need for more revenue, which means higher taxes on all segments of the population. Whether new taxes levied , or just tax loop holes closed and simplified tax codes, less special interest special exceptions..we need more revenue, as well as deeper cuts, on all parts of the budget, not just discretionary , a small part of the total budget , but the mandated too, but again, we need more revenue. It seems we are NOT going to get that , revenue, so quickly from increased payroll increases as workers go back to work so quickly by increased corporate taxes on earnings , empty or short order books right now, so a combination of both cuts and increased taxes , on all segments of the population, including the wealthier, at least they can afford it..it will be less painful for them, are needed. ALL the experts , both here and foreign are saying the same thing. When do we start listening to them and start believing , maybe they are on to something, it seems they are ALL saying the same thing, possible they are right? Or do we continue along the path of "No "..because of ideological clap trap.. By not doing so, more , deeper, spending cuts, raising more revenue, [means increased taxes] thats why we are getting a down grade that will cost us more as the interest rates now rise, by what ever the increase will be. It means we will be paying more to service our hugh debt..just added to, with no benefit, that could have been used to purchase things, pay off debt or what ever..but now, just a additional cost.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 9:15:17 GMT -5
IRS: Not Enough Rich to Cover
That is probably very true. However if you believe John Chambers who said that the S&P financial analysts reviewed the debt reduction plans to cut @$2 Trillion from our debt that @$4 Trillion is really needed for the next decade which has to include a mix of both tax revenue and spending cuts....so now we have to see how the Obama administration will react to this statement by Mr Chambers, I guess?? He has to get the repubs to go along with tax revenue increases which is going to be a tough road to hoe and could just lead to another debt downgrade by the end of this year.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 6, 2011 9:28:03 GMT -5
just cutting spending will not solve the problems we have....
who is gonna tell grandma, who is living on social security and medicare alone, that she is going to get less social security and have to pay more for medical costs.... and cost the of milk, rent, etc keep going up and up....
but, when it comes to asking profitable big corporate America to give back some of its special loopholes (that ones that regular folks and small business cannot take advantage of) well, those are job killers... what jobs, the ones that are being shipped to China, India and other ports of call....
we have one big mess, not created by Democrats, and not created Republicans (well the two extremist groups in charge are doing their best to make it worse)... but created by us for keep electing the same people year after year to Congress.... how many terms has your Senator/Congressperson served.... time for a change, if someone could come up with the resources challenge the status quo of both sides (and in my opinion, the Tea Party is not it...)
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Aug 6, 2011 9:40:13 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more.
Why?
Why should they or anyone else have to give even more to the every growing malignancy that is government?
Because it's "needed?" Nonsense. Cut spending to the bone as long as we do not compromise our basic safety and security. If you see some group that needs money in your opinion, then use your money to succour them.
Otherwise, if we are all truly in this, then let's ALL get in. Raise taxes on EVERYONE, period. Can't afford it? You will find a way.
Why limit it to taxes, though? The most beautiful men and women (well excluding me!) are taken to the government brothels to turn tricks for Uncle Sam.
Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs.
The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!!
If not, then stop trying to force just some to pay with the excuse that they can give more because, in the end, we can ALL give more!
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 9:47:05 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more.Why? Why should they or anyone else have to give even more to the every growing malignancy that is government? Because it's "needed?" Nonsense. Cut spending to the bone as long as we do not compromise our basic safety and security. If you see some group that needs money in your opinion, then use your money to succour them. Otherwise, if we are all truly in this, then let's ALL get in. Raise taxes on EVERYONE, period. Can't afford it? You will find a way. Why limit it to taxes, though? The most beautiful men and women (well excluding me!) are taken to the government brothels to turn tricks for Uncle Sam. Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs. The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!! If not, then stop trying to force just some to pay with the excuse that they can give more because, in the end, we can ALL give more! Then if what you say is true, why did S&P look into the spending cuts proposed and downgrade our debt??? Was it because the cuts were not enough?? Or are the numbers off by $2 Trillion?? The current plan signed by Obama calls for two rounds of cuts (1) @$1 Trillion now and (2) @$1.5 Trillion next year. S&P says not only is that not enough but they doubt that can happen without further revenues..as I understand this financial mess I think?? So are you saying we need @4trillion in just spending cuts with no tax revenue increases or am I missing your point??
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 6, 2011 9:54:16 GMT -5
S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING. Congress ignored them. The President Ignored them.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 10:11:11 GMT -5
just cutting spending will not solve the problems we have.... who is gonna tell grandma, who is living on social security and medicare alone, that she is going to get less social security and have to pay more for medical costs.... and cost the of milk, rent, etc keep going up and up.... but, when it comes to asking profitable big corporate America to give back some of its special loopholes (that ones that regular folks and small business cannot take advantage of) well, those are job killers... what jobs, the ones that are being shipped to China, India and other ports of call.... we have one big mess, not created by Democrats, and not created Republicans (well the two extremist groups in charge are doing their best to make it worse)... but created by us for keep electing the same people year after year to Congress.... how many terms has your Senator/Congressperson served.... time for a change, if someone could come up with the resources challenge the status quo of both sides (and in my opinion, the Tea Party is not it...) I like your reasoned approach here, and also the lack of praise of any of the groups..as much as I support the POTUS, while not agreeing with all his endeavor, not happy with all the dissing just for dissing sake, non productive to me and just a wast of time and rhetoric, I wonder if he is able to move on these problems, not because he's unqualified but just because...what has gone down, if his influence is now diminished tot he point where a change is needed? So far I have NOT seen anyone who can do better or who I would have confidence in beyond a new face and stating all over again with the same problems.. The only one I care for and feel he hasn't any shot at the nomination is the former New Mexico Governor..I like his ideas..and no not just the legalizing of Pot ..a minor thing , though he has it right there but that's not the deal breaker..something to hang my hat on.. However if he did get in, just say it's so..he'll be faced with the same from his own side..as well as pay back from the other side.. [ shouldn't happen , but human nature being what it is..sigh] and the rest of the candidates..I would rather have in the chair one who has been there, and is experienced, and has felt the arrows of defeat and battle, possible less mistake in the future and possible American Business wants to get going and Congress more in tune to cooperate bipartisan in a way to compromise and actually face some of these problems and solve them. There is something to be said for experience and after four years he has that..and has done good things or attempted to..no matter what some here feel, lets face it, as I said before, many of those dissers have been dissing BEFORE he ever took office and have been yadding the same line , over and over again, gotten to old as most of the yadding has just been BS, to hear their voices heard with little substance. Of course that is IMHO of course. ;D PS : I have to add however, I have seen some changes here on this zone by some, still the criticism, which is fine, because they are criticizing constructivly, in my opinion, not just the same BS of "Obama sucks because they say so .." which really never helped any discussions here, IMHO of course. Possible they realize, we are in deep doo doo and it is time to get seriouse now and stop the BS, well tone it down a bit anyway, a bit of BS is fine on these sites, just when it gets to be 89 % of the posts, it gets old quickly, again , as said, IMHO .
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 6, 2011 10:11:43 GMT -5
"without the rich and the jobs they provide" I disagree.... most jobs created are in small businesses.... and most small business owners are not rich any measure of the definition... it's not the rich or super rich who create jobs... it's small business...once we get off that band wagon rally cry of the extreme right maybe then we can focus and get back to the middle www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420"How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy? Small firms: •Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. •Employ just over half of all private sector employees. •Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. •Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. •Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). •Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). •Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. •Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. •Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited." "S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING" S&P really said the focus should be on spending and revenues... the problem cannot be solved by side of the P&L.... as a small business owner, I focus on keeping my costs as low as possible, but there comes a point when if you cut too much you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face.... sometimes "prices" have to go up.... and prices for the government are user fees and taxes....
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 10:14:17 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more.Why? Why should they or anyone else have to give even more to the every growing malignancy that is government? Because it's "needed?" Nonsense. Cut spending to the bone as long as we do not compromise our basic safety and security. If you see some group that needs money in your opinion, then use your money to succour them. Otherwise, if we are all truly in this, then let's ALL get in. Raise taxes on EVERYONE, period. Can't afford it? You will find a way. Why limit it to taxes, though? The most beautiful men and women (well excluding me!) are taken to the government brothels to turn tricks for Uncle Sam. Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs. The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!! If not, then stop trying to force just some to pay with the excuse that they can give more because, in the end, we can ALL give more! "Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs. The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!!
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 10:14:28 GMT -5
S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING. Congress ignored them. The President Ignored them. What about the news today that government officials reviewed the S&P Rating statements and came to the conclusion that their numbers are flawed and that the initial report contained math errors and the S&P has overstated the US deficit over ten years by @$2 Trillion
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 15:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 10:15:14 GMT -5
Aren't most small business owners considered "the rich"? A lot of them pass through their business income to their individual income tax returns so it looks like they make more than 200k a year . . .
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 6, 2011 10:19:10 GMT -5
"I like your reasoned approach here"
Thank you.... it's often hard to join in here and have a rational debate given some of the extremists on both sides that post here and give me a good chuckle from time to time....only if Congress could have a reasoned approach... they remind me of myself as a teeager... when fighting with my brothers the winner got all and the loser got none... and no one gave an inch until the other was bloodied.... they all need to go.... but that won't happen (because my Senator is good and yours is bad... my Congressperson is good and yours is bad, heck, they are all bad), which is a real shame....
Maybe instead of a balanced budget amendment (that will handcuff the government if another Katrina happens, or another 9-11 event, they probably could not fund it) we need to push for a term limit amendment, for all elected officials at the federal level.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 6, 2011 10:20:18 GMT -5
Of course we also need to raise revenue, but not by raising tax rates, but by increasing the base. And I think the best way right now to grow our economy is in energy, we need to release the hounds and get government out of the way.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Aug 6, 2011 10:20:41 GMT -5
"Aren't most small business owners considered "the rich"? " No... unless you are uninformed like Joe the plumber who thinks "gross receipts" is what gets taxed by the federal government...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 10:27:49 GMT -5
"without the rich and the jobs they provide" I disagree.... most jobs created are in small businesses.... and most small business owners are not rich any measure of the definition... it's not the rich or super rich who create jobs... it's small business...once we get off that band wagon rally cry of the extreme right maybe then we can focus and get back to the middle www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420I have been using more and more of these..going out less.. "How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy? Small firms: •Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. •Employ just over half of all private sector employees. •Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. •Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. •Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). •Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). •Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. •Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. •Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited." "S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING" S&P really said the focus should be on spending and revenues... the problem cannot be solved by side of the P&L.... as a small business owner, I focus on keeping my costs as low as possible, but there comes a point when if you cut too much you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face.... sometimes "prices" have to go up.... and prices for the government are user fees and taxes.... A little thing I just noticed in the paper today.. There is a local Italian restaurant in a strip up the street..been there if one can believe, or in business actually , 60 years..very senior area here so prices and value here very important, food there very good and a soup to nuts type menu.. Say Spaghetti/ Meatball, Veal Francaise[real veal cutlets..Soup, salad, entree , garlic rolls, drink..[user to get dessert too but they dropped that] Say a bit less then two years ago $8.95..[remember, senior ville here, South Florida, very competitive for dinner business}..today in the food/restaurant section a ad..$11.95...just a little thing, but he was forced to..rents went sky high, yadda yadda, ..hopefully won't affect him much but I know it will with some customers..hopefully he makes it up with the higher prices but still..there comes a time, can't keep raising.. Personally , I live alone..am a very good cook, don't mind doing so..however, lately, been trying these prepared dishes at the market, House brands..Hormel brands..say beef tips In gravy, real Turkey and Gravy, Pot roast and..when on sale, 4.95 or at Wal Mart all the time price..add some vegetables, stove top stuffing, mashed potatoes, get two or three meals from..when I figure the buying and making with ingredients, the waste..and they are very good meals by the way, I am fussy, only problem is the damn salt content, to high..I have been using them more and more for meals, less going out.. Restaurants not getting as much from me..
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 10:35:49 GMT -5
S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING. Congress ignored them. The President Ignored them. What about the news today that government officials reviewed the S&P Rating statements and came to the conclusion that their numbers are flawed and that the initial report contained math errors and the S&P has overstated the US deficit over ten years by @$2 Trillion saw that one, LOL, little itty bitty mistake . 2 TRILLION.. if it wasn't such a shame , ludercrouse..be a great one for the late night ones for their monologues..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 15:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 10:40:42 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more.
Deziloooooo your right....no one in their right mind says they could....Yet every time we (the collective we) talk welfare & new social programs & the how do we pay for it subject comes up all I hear from democrats is: 1. repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy (which equals a 3% discount) 2. raise taxes (which will stagnate our economy or 3. cut the military. So let's look at them. 1. 3% is NOTHING compared to congressional spending. The theory is that if you repeal them the rich (who spend) will stop spending. Ok lets cut that tax break out, it does nothing anyway (no proof that it does) but then we already know that it's not enough to do anything. 2. Sure we can raise taxes but to actually do anything we HAVE TO RAISE taxes on the middle class. That hurts the economy in the long run but how about a limited (say for 3 years) tax increase? It may hurt the economy but I'm for it if it improving our countries financial stability. (But we have to do a REAL cut in spending which I haven't seen even pushed yet). 3. I would be for either a 20% cut in spending at most right now. If we agree to more than that we also need to draw up the limitations for using our military. People wise we don't really have enough now for our current commitments. Technology is where a lot of that budget goes & all that does is cut down on losses (of people). If we are going to cut below 20% I say cut everything & just keep a few skilled people to retrain people in 5 (or longer) years. Just don't plan on using the military without a years warning.
Then there's spending. Nothing is done without cutting spending. I would point out that nobody is interested in cutting spending. NOBODY. Democrats aren't & Republicans signing that sham spending cut deal proves that they aren't either. That is the starting place & without that IN PLACE the country is doomed.
We need to cut the size of government & we need to cut red tape so that our companies can operate more competitively.
BTW: I've been saying for well over a year now that the rich paying whatever they pay isn't the problem. Nor were they the solution. Like usually in the U.S. the general population wants a bad guy & they want a scape goat that they can blame. The political parties gave them both in one bold stroke...The Rich. If you believe the numbers about the rich then all of you should be mad as hell for being lied to all this time. It's spending that's killing this country, not one group. If you still "kind of" believe your political parties & "kind of" feel the rich are to blame then well I won't even say it cause I'd be banned. The closest that I can come is restating an old saying. There's a sucker born every minute. If you believe the rich are the problem (or business, same thing) then all over the world people born the same minute as you should be having a party to celebrate that they aren't the sucker.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 15:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2011 10:53:22 GMT -5
"it's not the rich or super rich who create jobs... it's small business...
It think that's to general of a statement & a little to simplistic. First off 80% of small businesses fold within the first 2 years so I wouldn't pin any hopes of them turning around the economy except long term
I think what creates jobs is the right business environment. Less regulations are needed as is a simplification of regulations.
We are Americans & given the chance we can start businesses & we can make money but regulations stifle business. Of course it's an over simplification but the 2 main type people that I see start businesses are the 1. Dreamers who jump into them without enough cash or a good business plan. Regulations kill them. 2. The type that studies all the aspects of a business, makes a business plan & quickly sees that he's got a better chance of making money by putting it in a savings account because of all the "extras" that go into having a business. Again, an over simplification but still true.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 11:06:55 GMT -5
S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING. Congress ignored them. The President Ignored them. S&P made it clear that the deal needed to be bipartisan, and that the amount needed to be $4T or greater. the President endorsed one plan to do that, and it was rejected by the House.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 11:08:32 GMT -5
We really need to seperate the income of those who gain money by speculation and special privalege. Close loopholes in our revenue system, and create a transaction tax for every trade that does not take possesion for more than x time frame.
The idea that the rich can not pay off our debt is simply silly - we finance our debt over time. The proposition would be the same as saying person Y cannot pay off their debt load immediatly (today) because they don't have the money - they are financing and paying principle and interest (risk premium) over time -duh.
Regarding speculators - they are the ones who raise the cost of commodities, land, rent etc. beyond the equlibrium point. Owning their homes at the same cost they would have had to pay in rent – the economic definition of equilibrium in property prices.
In spite of the ingenious methods devised by statesmen and financiers to get more revenue from large fortunes, and regardless of whether the maximum sur tax remains at 25% or is raised or lowered, it is still true that it would be better to stop the speculative incomes at the source, rather than attempt to recover them after they have passed into the hands of profiteers. If a man earns his income by producing wealth, nothing should be done to hamper him. For has he not given employment to labor, and has he not produced goods for our consumption? To cripple or burden such a man means that he is necessarily forced to employ fewer men, and to make less goods, which tends to decrease wages, unemployment, and increased cost of living. If, however, a man’s income is not made in producing wealth and employing labor, but is due to speculation, the case is altogether different. The speculator as a speculator, whether his holdings be mineral lands, forests, power sites, agricultural lands, or city lots, employs no labor and produces no wealth. He adds nothing to the riches of the country, but merely takes toll from those who do employ labor and produce wealth. If part of the speculator’s income – no matter how large a part – be taken in taxation, it will not decrease employment or lessen the production of wealth. Whereas, if the producer’s income be taxed it will tend to limit employment and stop the production of wealth. Our lawmakers will do well, therefore, to pay less attention to the rate on incomes, and more to the source from whence they are drawn.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 11:11:34 GMT -5
File under "No Sh** Sherlock" blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/39534 In fact, all the taxpayers combined do not have the money to pay for Barack Obama's massive spending binge: The math is in, the "debate" is OVER. We WILL cut. where did this $10M come from? i thought Obama was targeting folks making over $250k. there are 1.7 MILLION households that meet that criteria today, not 8k.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Aug 6, 2011 11:12:54 GMT -5
Of course the wealthy can't cover the deficit, no one in their right mind says they could, but it is also the idea of , allowing those who really can afford it to pay a bit more.Why? Why should they or anyone else have to give even more to the every growing malignancy that is government? Because it's "needed?" Nonsense. Cut spending to the bone as long as we do not compromise our basic safety and security. If you see some group that needs money in your opinion, then use your money to succour them. Otherwise, if we are all truly in this, then let's ALL get in. Raise taxes on EVERYONE, period. Can't afford it? You will find a way. Why limit it to taxes, though? The most beautiful men and women (well excluding me!) are taken to the government brothels to turn tricks for Uncle Sam. Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs. The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!! If not, then stop trying to force just some to pay with the excuse that they can give more because, in the end, we can ALL give more! "Our strongest and toughest? Let's force them into the military and lease them out as mercs. The completely useless? Solvent Green time!!!! Hey man, it's all about that SHARED sacrifice that you and others love to mouth yet it's ONLY on the producers that you extract the pain. If we are all in this together as AMERICANS then ALL AMERICANS should be doing their all! Yes, clearly I am being over the top but the point I make is how foolish the idea that some should pay more is just stupid because we can all pay more, even if it's not in dollars. We can all make sacrifices and make this nation stronger. But, instead, people like you just want to steal more and more from the producers while not addressing all that weakens us. As Lincoln said, "you can not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Similarly, you can not make wealthy the poor by impoverishing the wealthy. Right now we have trillions in unreperated wealth because businesses do not want to bring that money into the nation and be double taxed. Instead, they invest it in other nations. Imagine if we let them bring it in to invest HERE, especially if we stopped nonense like the Boeing incident in South Carolina where the federal government thinks it can tell a business where it can build its factories. That would bring in far, far more revenues , create far, far more jobs, and be far, far better for our economy that what you and others propose by increasing taxes! Simple, really. So simple even a liberal understand it. Business does and that is why they are fleeing and taking jobs and wealth with them!
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Aug 6, 2011 11:21:42 GMT -5
just cutting spending will not solve the problems we have.... who is gonna tell grandma, who is living on social security and medicare alone, that she is going to get less social security and have to pay more for medical costs.... and cost the of milk, rent, etc keep going up and up.... but, when it comes to asking profitable big corporate America to give back some of its special loopholes (that ones that regular folks and small business cannot take advantage of) well, those are job killers... what jobs, the ones that are being shipped to China, India and other ports of call.... we have one big mess, not created by Democrats, and not created Republicans (well the two extremist groups in charge are doing their best to make it worse)... but created by us for keep electing the same people year after year to Congress.... how many terms has your Senator/Congressperson served.... time for a change, if someone could come up with the resources challenge the status quo of both sides (and in my opinion, the Tea Party is not it...) Despite Dezil's comments to the contrary, I fail to see reason here. Yes, prices are going up and that sucks but whose fault is that? Yeah, it's a government who is de-valuing the dollar in order to avoid getting its house in order. The solution is NOT to steal more money from the "rich" or the corporations but instead to keep the government within certain limits. As I have stated numerous times, tax rates have remained about the same since 2007 when Bush and a GOP Congress delivered a deficit of 160 billion or 1/10 of Obama's 1.6 trillion. To somehow infer that it's the TAX RATES that must go up is just foolish. Regarding SS and Medicare, well maybe Grandma should have not been voting to support those programs in the first place, not voted in politicians whose pro-choice policies lead to a loss of 40 million potential workers, or vote for politicians who made promises that could never be kept. SS and Medicare have their own special taxes. If these taxes can not support them, then cuts need to be made whether that be increases in age or smaller checks. WHY did you trust a government to care for you in the first place? It is NOT the responsibility of the rich to take care of you. Are you a simpleton, unable to make plans? We need to get back to basics, and fast. Among those basics is that it is NOT the responsibility of government to confiscate wealth from one group to supprt you. You are a free person, well as free as one can be in this overly government regulated nation, capable of much; start acting like one!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,516
|
Post by billisonboard on Aug 6, 2011 11:25:25 GMT -5
S&P made it clear the focus had to be on SPENDING. Congress ignored them. The President Ignored them. What about the news today that government officials reviewed the S&P Rating statements and came to the conclusion that their numbers are flawed and that the initial report contained math errors and the S&P has overstated the US deficit over ten years by @$2 Trillion Just another example of the incompetence of government.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Aug 6, 2011 11:27:25 GMT -5
I will still post that the problems in bussiness, employment and the revenue system are the same as they have always been - we have history to learn from but, we don't (for unknown reasons) wish to learn from our past.
As normal, sane human beings, where should we lay the heavier taxes, on industry or speculation?.
It is not the wickedness of predatory wealth, but the weakness of progressive economics which keeps special privilege in the saddle in the United States.
No financial wizard would look so much like a wizard if all the suckers didn’t look so much like suckers.
All the struggles that have been made for human liberties since the world began, have been made “against the protests of vested interests,” and old man vested interests is a mean boy.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.” Election eve speech at Madison Square Garden (October 31, 1936) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
The great sore spot in our modern commercial life is found on the speculative side. Under present laws, which foster and encourage speculation, business life is largely a gamble, and to “get something for nothing” is too often considered the keynote to “success”. The great fortunes of today are nearly all speculative fortunes; and the ambitious young man just starting out in life thinks far less of producing or rendering service than he does of “putting it over” on the other fellow. This may seem a broad statement to some: but thirty years of business life in the heart of American commercial activity convinces me that it is absolutely true. If, however, the speculative incentive in modern commercial life were eliminated, and no man could become rich or successful unless he gave “value received” and rendered service for service, then indeed a profound change would have been brought in our whole commercial system, and it would be a change which no honest man would regret.- John Moody, Wall Street Publisher, and President of Moody’s Investors’ Service. Dated 1924
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 6, 2011 11:30:02 GMT -5
Hey man, it's all about that SHARED sacrifice that you and others love to mouth yet it's ONLY on the producers that you extract the pain. If we are all in this together as AMERICANS then ALL AMERICANS should be doing their all! Yes, clearly I am being over the top but the point I make is how foolish the idea that some should pay more is just stupid because we can all pay more, even if it's not in dollars. We can all make sacrifices and make this nation stronger. But, instead, people like you just want to steal more and more from the producers while not addressing all that weakens us. As Lincoln said, "you can not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Similarly, you can not make wealthy the poor by impoverishing the wealthy. Right now we have trillions in unreperated wealth because businesses do not want to bring that money into the nation and be double taxed. Instead, they invest it in other nations. Imagine if we let them bring it in to invest HERE, especially if we stopped nonense like the Boeing incident in South Carolina where the federal government thinks it can tell a business where it can build its factories. That would bring in far, far more revenues , create far, far more jobs, and be far, far better for our economy that what you and others propose by increasing taxes! Simple, really. So simple even a liberal understand it. Business does and that is why they are fleeing and taking jobs and wealth with them! "Yes, clearly I am being over the top" Phew, glad to hear the admission, I can live with a occasional over the top...it's when the over the top folks are seriouse , I have a problem. "If we are all in this together as AMERICANS then ALL AMERICANS should be doing their all!" I agree, and thus said, expect we have to increase revenues and in the short term, a few years at least, increased employment, thus more taxes, increase in business fortunes, more received in taxes, not going to happen or be big enough , any increases, and not sure on capital gains from the markets either, so expect increase in taxes , have to increase income, revenue as well as CUT spending.. "But, instead, people like you just want to steal more and more from the producers while not addressing all that weakens us." not true , scroll up , read my post..all have to chip in.. " Similarly, you can not make wealthy the poor by impoverishing the wealthy." methink you are doing a "over the top " again, very good. If seriouse, please , give me a break already A income of a million per, increase tax to what it was, impoverish the poor darlings...?? Poor babies..I will take that chance, and I thought we were having a real dialogue here..revenues have to go up..do you really feel having all these wars with no way to pay for them is good financial responsibility..not saying it's all the problem but a biggie contributor..you betcha, estimated real true costs when ALL costs figured in, just under $4 Trillion, interest on, aid, replacement, carrying for the troops , for LIFE, and on and on .. I am not going to lose sleep over the more well off having to pay a bit more, also the rest of us too..whether by loop holes closed or just increase in normal taxes, needed ..as well as cuts. Regarding Boeing..I wonder if the federal doesn't sunsidize boeing on some of their endeavors..especially the military front, tax breaks, loop holes, really don't know but wouldn't be surprised there are special incentives given to a company like that..just a thought, thought I would throw it in.
|
|