Doomsday Campaign Rhetoric

The republicans took control of congress in 94 and say what you will about Clinton he was fiscally conservative. What you have copied and pasted makes no sense.

Of course, JuanHunt, makes note of only part of the picture. Come 1 January 2011, the largest tax increase in the history of the US will take place.

The major taxes increase include:

For income taxes, the full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%.

The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.

For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax will ensnare 28.5 million families, up from 4 million last year.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

The research and experimentation tax credit will end.

http://community.tasteofhome.com/forums/t/791069.aspx

Add, that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and you have a recipe for further disaster.

Not a tax increase, but a measure voted on and passed by a Republican congress using "reconciliation" that they decried the Democrats for using for health insurance reform.
It was done because some Republicans back then had the good sense to realize that it could bankrupt the country and it was put into place as a stop against such.
Like I said, it is not a tax increase, but resending a tax break , mostly for the top 2% .

If you bought a suite on sale this week for 1/2 off, and next week it goes back to regular price, do you say the store doubled the price of the suit ?

The problem however seeweed, is if the store is able to sell the suit for half price and stay in business, then it should not be marked back up to the original price since it was over-inflated to begin with.
The income tax codes are not fair in any stretch of the imagination and anyone who actually pays taxes can attest to this. All I see here is wackos and liberals claiming that the "rcih" do not pay enough, and those making more than $250K should be paying more of their "fair" share. If you guys were actually interested in "fair" shares you would be supporting a fair tax plan instead of aprogressively escalting tax code that punishes self emplyed and small businesses.

Clinton raised taxes and the economy thrived. Tax revenues increased such that when Clinton left office, he had a balanced budget. BushII could have been a hero by actually paying down part of the national debt, but he chose to go right back to deficit spending. BushII's final report card demonstrates he was the worse President in modern times. Bush's only real and lasting legacy is OBama, a man elected simply because he was not a Rep.

The national debt has to be paid down. It will take painful, culture-altering cuts in spending and increases in fedgov tax revenues. Are we going to do it now, or make our kids do it?

You know what juan, you guys just don't get it. Go ahead and raise the taxes. The economy is on the fritz, the trade deficit is higher than it has been in 30 years. Heavy equipment orders are stagnant, because businesses do not know what the future holds. The unemployment rates are headed higher, and the economic news today shows that the stimulus is not helping and the effects of it are about to end, so look for another round of "we need another stimulus" coming from the WH. You cannot spend your way to prosperity, and you cannot tax a nation into prosperity either.
A fair tax solution for everyone, and maybe just declaring that we are not going to pay this debt off and start over. It may be rough for a while, but it may be the only solution.
There is some allegations that a bunch of rich elitists are controlling everyhting, but for me I fail to see it. When I ask myself what they have to gain by seeing everything fail, I cannot find a legitimate answer.
When I ask why the leftists however want this to fail, I can see an answer. They want power, the power of the vote coming from those who are dependent on the governmnet for everything.
Raising taxes is NOT the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:

A fair tax solution for everyone, and maybe just declaring that we are not going to pay this debt off and start over. It may be rough for a while, but it may be the only solution.

Universal default is certainly possible, and will make the process even more painful as it will less manageable.

There will never be a Fair Tax plan because it would interfere with the ability of certain citizens from getting beneficial tax breaks. The wealthy pay alot of taxes, but as a percentage of their income it is much less than moderate and low income citizens. Even in my family owned business, I take my pay in the form of stock so that I pay capital gains rate. Any small business can do that.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
The problem however seeweed, is if the store is able to sell the suit for half price and stay in business, then it should not be marked back up to the original price since it was over-inflated to begin with.
The income tax codes are not fair in any stretch of the imagination and anyone who actually pays taxes can attest to this. All I see here is wackos and liberals claiming that the "rcih" do not pay enough, and those making more than $250K should be paying more of their "fair" share. If you guys were actually interested in "fair" shares you would be supporting a fair tax plan instead of aprogressively escalting tax code that punishes self emplyed and small businesses.

Total horse manure. The top marginal rate in this country for nearly 40 years was 97%, during that time this country experienced it's greatest time of wealth production and distribution. The wealthy in this country have never had their taxes this low since the great depression.
Capital gains tax rate is 15% lousy percent. This all that most rich people pay, and they pay no Social Security.
Today, 10% of the population in America controls 93% of the wealth, while the other 90% fights over the remaining 7%. The gap between rich and poor in this country has never been greater. The great wealth inequality in this Nation is a sin of biblical proportions.

There's growing evidence that suggests that the top marginal rate doesn't matter. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has historically remained constant.

Link

So, you have to ask yourself; who do you trust to increase the GDP?

Also, when the top marginal rate was ranging from 70% to close to 100% for so long, very few were actually paying it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
The problem however seeweed, is if the store is able to sell the suit for half price and stay in business, then it should not be marked back up to the original price since it was over-inflated to begin with.
The income tax codes are not fair in any stretch of the imagination and anyone who actually pays taxes can attest to this. All I see here is wackos and liberals claiming that the "rcih" do not pay enough, and those making more than $250K should be paying more of their "fair" share. If you guys were actually interested in "fair" shares you would be supporting a fair tax plan instead of aprogressively escalting tax code that punishes self emplyed and small businesses.

Total horse manure. The top marginal rate in this country for nearly 40 years was 97%, during that time this country experienced it's greatest time of wealth production and distribution. The wealthy in this country have never had their taxes this low since the great depression.
Capital gains tax rate is 15% lousy percent. This all that most rich people pay, and they pay no Social Security.
Today, 10% of the population in America controls 93% of the wealth, while the other 90% fights over the remaining 7%. The gap between rich and poor in this country has never been greater. The great wealth inequality in this Nation is a sin of biblical proportions.

I have heard you spout that "manure" as you refer to it for years, and it still is not true. What you fail to realize is that the disparity between wealth is NOT going to go away as long as the government continues to hand feed those who are willing to sit by with their hands out, while others are expected to produce for the whole. According to most experts 10% of the population DO NOT control 93% of the wealth, and that appears to be a mistatement and urban myth. When Obama was running for office and the onset of this recession began, the rich were classified as anyone making over $250K. I will admit that I fall into this category, and I assure you that the taxes I pay are quite substantial, including self employment tax, and for sure my part of Social Security, which by all measures I will never be able to collect when Pelosi and her ilk decide to incorporate means testing in order to qualify for reeming my benefits. If I have ever saved a penny for retirment it will be held against me. This is not fair by any stretch. If the SS actually does represent money "we" gave the government to hold for us, I deserve to get it back irregardless of what I have saved otherwise.

The real problem I think you (and I as well) have is with the CEOs and large corporate managers who get ungodly sums of money for management, however most of that seems to be in the form of stock options and not cash, in an effort to thwart taxable income, but this came about during the Clinton years because of loops in the tax law. I did not like Clinton as far as moral issues, but I don't find too much fault in his governance with cooperation from Republican legislature. Obama however, and the loons he is listening too, think that increasing taxes is the answer, and it is obvious if you look at the history of businesses that this will not work. You refer back to the ealry years following the Great Depression as being prosperous, BUT the world was a different place back then. Access to other world markets was not there, and the abitlity to ship (import/export) and the ease of communication (internet) was not as good as it today. If you want to tax everyone who makes over a million dollars a year at 50%, so be it, but they will figure out a way around this. implement a fair tax plan and they cannot escape it if they spend their money here.
Redistribution of weath is a ridulous concept that will not work Jug, and you of all people should know this. Look at the upcoming tax rates and see that the lower 10% get a 5% increase in their total tax bill, and the middle and upper class a smaller percentage. Does that sound like a fair trade?
The real problem is greed. There is greed on both sides of the fence. The rich are greedy and the poor are greedy and envious of the rich. There is no innocent party here.
If this country is going to survive it must stop electing officials who think their duty to take fromone group and give to another. I heard a man one time say if you took all the money in the world and distributed evenly, within one year the same top 10% would have theirs back. This is an exagerration, but he is correct. There is no equality in life, but all will be judged equally in the end. This country cannot continue to elect either Democrats nor Republicans who lie, cheat, and steal from our pockets in order to serve a few terms and qualify for a government pension. People who are actually concerned for this nation should be running. Stop listening to slick speech writers and charlatans who use class warfare to gain the upper hand.

http://www.economicpopulist.or...trialization-america

http://www.google.com/search?s...alization+of+america

You also cannot discount the effects inflation has had in the rich/poor gap. Rich people own stuff, and that stuff has value that is independent from the value of dollars. So, when dollars become worth less, their stuff just becomes worth more. Those with all of their wealth tide up in cash and cash equivalents (primarily wage earners) only lose when the dollar is devalued. When we talk about changing the tax code, we're really just talking about the amount of dollars we're going to take from people, which only hurts people who rely on dollars. The rich can and will always usurp this.

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by teyates:
The problem however seeweed, is if the store is able to sell the suit for half price and stay in business, then it should not be marked back up to the original price since it was over-inflated to begin with.
The income tax codes are not fair in any stretch of the imagination and anyone who actually pays taxes can attest to this. All I see here is wackos and liberals claiming that the "rcih" do not pay enough, and those making more than $250K should be paying more of their "fair" share. If you guys were actually interested in "fair" shares you would be supporting a fair tax plan instead of aprogressively escalting tax code that punishes self emplyed and small businesses.

Total horse manure. The top marginal rate in this country for nearly 40 years was 97%, during that time this country experienced it's greatest time of wealth production and distribution. The wealthy in this country have never had their taxes this low since the great depression.
Capital gains tax rate is 15% lousy percent. This all that most rich people pay, and they pay no Social Security.
Today, 10% of the population in America controls 93% of the wealth, while the other 90% fights over the remaining 7%. The gap between rich and poor in this country has never been greater. The great wealth inequality in this Nation is a sin of biblical proportions.

I have heard you spout that "manure" as you refer to it for years, and it still is not true. What you fail to realize is that the disparity between wealth is NOT going to go away as long as the government continues to hand feed those who are willing to sit by with their hands out, while others are expected to produce for the whole. According to most experts 10% of the population DO NOT control 93% of the wealth, and that appears to be a mistatement and urban myth. When Obama was running for office and the onset of this recession began, the rich were classified as anyone making over $250K. I will admit that I fall into this category, and I assure you that the taxes I pay are quite substantial, including self employment tax, and for sure my part of Social Security, which by all measures I will never be able to collect when Pelosi and her ilk decide to incorporate means testing in order to qualify for reeming my benefits. If I have ever saved a penny for retirment it will be held against me. This is not fair by any stretch. If the SS actually does represent money "we" gave the government to hold for us, I deserve to get it back irregardless of what I have saved otherwise.

The real problem I think you (and I as well) have is with the CEOs and large corporate managers who get ungodly sums of money for management, however most of that seems to be in the form of stock options and not cash, in an effort to thwart taxable income, but this came about during the Clinton years because of loops in the tax law. I did not like Clinton as far as moral issues, but I don't find too much fault in his governance with cooperation from Republican legislature. Obama however, and the loons he is listening too, think that increasing taxes is the answer, and it is obvious if you look at the history of businesses that this will not work. You refer back to the ealry years following the Great Depression as being prosperous, BUT the world was a different place back then. Access to other world markets was not there, and the abitlity to ship (import/export) and the ease of communication (internet) was not as good as it today. If you want to tax everyone who makes over a million dollars a year at 50%, so be it, but they will figure out a way around this. implement a fair tax plan and they cannot escape it if they spend their money here.
Redistribution of weath is a ridulous concept that will not work Jug, and you of all people should know this. Look at the upcoming tax rates and see that the lower 10% get a 5% increase in their total tax bill, and the middle and upper class a smaller percentage. Does that sound like a fair trade?
The real problem is greed. There is greed on both sides of the fence. The rich are greedy and the poor are greedy and envious of the rich. There is no innocent party here.
If this country is going to survive it must stop electing officials who think their duty to take fromone group and give to another. I heard a man one time say if you took all the money in the world and distributed evenly, within one year the same top 10% would have theirs back. This is an exagerration, but he is correct. There is no equality in life, but all will be judged equally in the end. This country cannot continue to elect either Democrats nor Republicans who lie, cheat, and steal from our pockets in order to serve a few terms and qualify for a government pension. People who are actually concerned for this nation should be running. Stop listening to slick speech writers and charlatans who use class warfare to gain the upper hand.

I get kinda tired of hearing this whining about taking money from the rich to give to the poor. "People with their hands out" etc.
Look at the national budget, just actually look at it. http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q...zzbOyHfmultr2uUKXFk= It ain't poor people with their "hand out" causing the problem, it is the Pentagon with it's hand out, endless wars, and our attempt to control the rest of the world.
There are a lot of things I disagree with Ron Paul about , but on this I totally agree.

seeweed,
According to some figures I saw recently the Pentagon war budget, as high and mighty as it be, still does not come close to the cost of government. Government employees have grown to record number, and BTW your diagram is almost 10 years old. California is going bankrupt trying to fund pensions whcih they know they will never be able to fund without federal help. Many more states are on the hook for this as well. There are those in California which will draw a 6 figure retirement check, and thoogh I do not fault them, that money WILL come from mine and your taxes and we are not residents of that state.
The federal government is too big and is costing us too much. You may get tired of hearing the "handout" routine, but the fact is that we are handing out money, more money than we take in, every month. Alabama alone is responsible for taking back $1.66 for every dollar it pays into the federal government. As Medicare continues to whittle the reimbursemnet done for medical services, watch your access to healthcare dwindle as well. You may not feel as generous when it takes you 6 months to get into to see your primary care doctor. That may be OK, unless you have a lump in your breast or lung.
If you look at the Clinton years the decrease in the middle class was because lots more people moved to the upper class, not vise versa. Unfortunately now that we have become a nation that makes NOTHING for a price that ANYONE ELSE in the world wants to pay, we have no power to put people back to work.
I am not advocating a total tax decrease but implementing a tax increase, and that is what it is despite your logic, at this time is like putting wet wood on a fire. You are wasting your time and only going to make it worse.

Ok Ty, let's try this.
you tell us which federal program you would cut, and by how much , if you could do so tomorrow, that would make a meaningful difference.
I keep asking people to do that, nobody yet has given a decent answer to debate. Only general - government is too big, etc. WHAT ! ?

quote:

I keep asking people to do that, nobody yet has given a decent answer to debate. Only general - government is too big, etc. WHAT ! ?

I suspect that the military will have to consolidate bases again like they did in the "90's. The closed bases could be used for communes for those on Welfare and would substitute for section 8 housing. Because the parade grounds could be used to grow crops and gardens, we could cut the stipend to Welfare recipients dramatically. Also the motor pools and maintenance shops could be used to teach people trades and with classes in remedial language and math classes can teach those who want to get ahead how to work and prosper in the real world. Those who rely upon the guv'ment for drug money or are too good to sweat should be booted out to fend for themselves.

It's easy to complain about the welfare state. When I graduated from High school in the early 80's, there were jobs a plenty for an 18 year old. The first two years out of high school I worked in alumber yard. It's closed now along with most other industry. Dixie heat treating used to be a good place to get a job. TeeJays, what else needs to be said.

There used to be small plants all over, now they are empty building or completely gone. The first place I put an application in at was Burns Craft, who remembers that one?

The jobs left with the free trade enterprise that created a boom for Wall Street and the money managers who invested in China, mexico, and other emerging countries. We were told a service economy would make us rich..... It hasn't. The increase of the welfare state is in direct contrast to the astounding growth in the wealth of the uppper class.

Until you tie the two together, you haven't a clear picture of what we face.

Well said Jug. If you could get that condensed down to fit on a bumper sticker, you may be able to communicate to these people who think each one thing happens in a vacuum, cause 1 liners is the most they can understand.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:
Ok Ty, let's try this.
you tell us which federal program you would cut, and by how much , if you could do so tomorrow, that would make a meaningful difference.
I keep asking people to do that, nobody yet has given a decent answer to debate. Only general - government is too big, etc. WHAT ! ?

I'd start with the Department of Education, shrink the Department of Energy down to the old Atomic Energy Commission, and the NEA. Then, fire the additional 240,000 federal employees hired by the present administration -- that's a 12 percent increase.

quote:

There used to be small plants all over, now they are empty building or completely gone. The first place I put an application in at was Burns Craft, who remembers that one?

You gents should read real world articles. Right now with the present Federal, State, and Local taxes, employment laws, and mandates; new business costs from proposed energy taxes and higher employee medical insurance will send manufacturers to other countries or many employees will be replaced by technology (robots). In the real world it's either adapt or die because customers don't care about a business's employees, they only care about price and quality. You might look at this article:

quote:

We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.

When the American automobile industry was the world's leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions.

Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers' market share, leading to huge job losses in Detroit, proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.

Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red tape work rules that added costs.

State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes -- again, without considering repercussions.

In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...g_the_rust_belt.html

seeweed,
The government programs are too big because they allow those who can afford it to cheat the system.
If you cannot see that in itself you are blind to the way government programs work.
Sections of the Department of the Interiorcould be closed, and managed much better by private industry and volunteers.
Government backing of the Arts can certainly be scaled back as well. Go thru a book of available government grants and subsidies available to individuals who apply and see the waste we offer to those who are willing to dive into it.
Farm subsidies could be scaled back, along with the tremendous amount of pork barrell spending that is instigated by legislators to get back into office.
If you cannot see a wasteful government you are blind to what is going on around you and there is no need to try and convince you otherwise.
The ability to tax people and to continue to pay for this is soon coming to an end. There will be a call for it to stop before too much longer. The middle and upper middle classes are almost to the breaking point with taxation. The Tea Party, as much as you dislike them, is really based on that principle. Depsite your dislike of them, they grow in numbers everyday and it may not be the next election cycle or the next, but soon the blinds are going to be lifted from the voters eyes and they are going to say no more. At that point there are only two ways to solve the problem, and neither one of them is painless.

Ty,
I actually agree with you on a lot of your points. There are 2 philosophizes on government waste; the pig philosophy, and the steak philosophy.
The pig philosophy was the one touted by Reagan, and by extension a lot of the Republicans. They seem to think that government waste is like giant slabs of fat hanging over the lean meat and could be cut off easily.
The steak philosophy was the one touted by Clinton and especially Al Gore. Their thinking is that government waste is not like unto big slabs of fat, but like a good steak is intertwined within the good meat. Al Gore, when VP, eleminated a good portion of federal jobs which were waste in his project "National Performance Review". This is a c&P from a very good article, although lengthy) A good example of this on-going effort was Vice-President Al Gore’s project, called the National Performance Review, which sought to reduce excess federal workers. Between 1993 and 2000, the number of civilian employees in the executive branch was reduced by 193,000. The entire long article is at http://www.governmentisgood.co...icles.php?aid=20&p=8 . A pretty good read if you have time.
The reason I keep asking in the forum "what would you cut" is I believe a lot of people think there is a simple solution - just cut off welfare, or some handouts to the poor, etc. I'm not all for these people who abuse the system,(that is under the label "fraud and abuse"- not waste) but on the other hand if you cut out welfare altogether, it would make very little difference in the total expenditure. The big gorilla in the room is the military budget. When you add to the actual Pentagon budget the cost of veterans care afterwards (and surely that should be there), it is almost 60% of the discretionary budget. If you want to make cuts that will actually make a difference, that seems a good place to start.
I can agree that farm subs. should be seriously scaled back , IMHO by eliminating them entirely for the mega industrial farms. I do not oppose them for small family owned farms, as I think we will all be better off if we don't loose them.
One may not like the "Arts" but by comparison, it is fly doo-doo out of pepper, and overall the arts provide something useful.
As to privatizing the Dep of Interior, (or for that fact other things that are the valid responsibility of government), my experience has shown that it cost more, and poorer quality is the end result.
Pork Barrel Spending-- I have tried to find something that I heard Gerald Ford say either when he was appointed VP, or shortly after he was president, but I have been unable to find it, so I will make an attempt to give an example of what he said using our current bunch of senators : ' A bridge that Roger Wicker wants for Miss is just plain wasteful pork-barrel spending, However, this much needed bridge in Alabama should be supported for the sake of all the people.'
I don't know what the answer is to bringing home the pork for our senators and reps. That is what we send them there for. The perfect example is the "bridge to nowhere" that Sen Stevens (R-Ak) defended so several years ago. - you kno the one that Palin wanted/didn't want/wanted/who-knows.
Until we get representatives who work together for the good of our country, and not for the "bridges to nowhere" money for their own states, this is something we will have to live with.
Finally, as to the TEA party-
You are correct, I do not like them, and following are some of the reasons:
1 They are mostly funded by the Koch brothers who are opposed to any government oversite over anything- especially oil. Their daddy was the founder of the John Birch society. They, and their lobbyist Dick Army , if left to their vices would completely dismantle virtually all of government, end Social Security, and do anything else that would help their billions to grow to more billions , even if the country went down the tubes. THESE BROTHERS ARE DANGEROUS- BE CAREFUL, BE VERY CAREFUL OF THEIR POWER.
2 Their darlings, Angle, Palin, Bachman, etc- it seems the more outrageous things they say, the more these people love them. They squawk their rhetoric, but if you listen to them, they have no real-life workable solutions, just complaining. (dosen't it seem strange that Taxed Enough Already movement comes about during the period that their taxes are the lowest in their lives ?)
3 Their spokesperson is Glen Beck who I believe is a real snake oil salesman. I believe this man cares nothing about our country, and will say anything to further his own wallet. Just listen to the man sometime- the stuff he says is just crazy and mostly made-up lies, leaving me to believe that all his followers are bobble-headed sheeple.

You know, our country is in trouble. We need serious people with serious solutions . What we don't need is a bunch of sheeple with no real life workable solutions, and only screeching complaining about how things are.

If you end farm subsidies, most food and other farming produce will be imported. On a level playing field, it just costs too much to produce most everything here in the US. Farm subsidies are a form of national security in the guarantee of food products.

FWIW, over half of entitlement/welfare dollars goes to medical care for uninsured. 75% of those medical expenses are for dhildren, elderly, and handicapped.

A recent poll asked Americans which government spending programs they would choose to cut: “If government spending is reduced in order to balance the budget, which of the following government programs should receive lower federal funding than they currently do?” The most expendable programs, according to poll takers, were mass transit, housing, agriculture, environment and foreign aid, the runaway winner at 71 percent(only foreign aid got more than 30%). The problem? These programs together barely comprise 3 percent of the federal budget.

Poll data

The big guerrilla in the room is entitlements not the military.

Here is a good read on the subject.

http://villainouscompany.com/v...why_america_mus.html

quote:

The big gorilla in the room is the military budget. When you add to the actual Pentagon budget the cost of veterans care afterwards (and surely that should be there), it is almost 60% of the discretionary budget. If you want to make cuts that will actually make a difference, that seems a good place to start.

To quote myself: The big gorilla in the room is the military budget. When you add to the actual Pentagon budget the cost of veterans care afterwards (and surely that should be there), it is almost 60% of the discretionary budget. If you want to make cuts that will actually make a difference, that seems a good place to start.

Note I specifically said the discretionary budget of which entitlements is not in.

Entitlements are called that because it is something we pay into and are therefore "entitled" to get. For poorer people , it is the majority of taxes they pay. If you go to Booksamillion and pay for a book, you would feel "entitled" to walk out the store with that book.

While I agree that there has been a management problem in how the funds were "saved", fixing the system is by far better than doing away with it, and privatizing them is certainty not the correct response to fixing them, only if you want to eliminate them completely as that is what would probably happen.
This Snopes article is pretty good for understanding the "who, what, where, why, and when" of SS. http://www.snopes.com/politics...security/changes.asp

The impending doom of SS has been around for most of my life, and will probably be around for the rest of it, but it's doom has not yet come, and can be prevented. Actually , it has been very successful as has it's counterpart Medicare. In fact Medicare is so successful, that during last summer's disruptions of town meetings, the TEA party bunch were yelling "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Just think on that statement for a while.

quote:

Farm subsidies could be scaled back, along with the tremendous amount of pork barrell spending that is instigated by legislators to get back into office.

Have any of you on this forum actually researched the millions of $$ farmers just in this area receive in subsidies?!!

The cost of VA benefits should drop considerably in the next decade. As the last of the WWII vets and their widows pass from the scene. About 14.2 million served.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

The big gorilla in the room is the military budget. When you add to the actual Pentagon budget the cost of veterans care afterwards (and surely that should be there), it is almost 60% of the discretionary budget. If you want to make cuts that will actually make a difference, that seems a good place to start.

To quote myself: The big gorilla in the room is the military budget. When you add to the actual Pentagon budget the cost of veterans care afterwards (and surely that should be there), it is almost 60% of the discretionary budget. If you want to make cuts that will actually make a difference, that seems a good place to start.

Note I specifically said the discretionary budget of which entitlements is not in.

Entitlements are called that because it is something we pay into and are therefore "entitled" to get. For poorer people , it is the majority of taxes they pay. If you go to Booksamillion and pay for a book, you would feel "entitled" to walk out the store with that book.

While I agree that there has been a management problem in how the funds were "saved", fixing the system is by far better than doing away with it, and privatizing them is certainty not the correct response to fixing them, only if you want to eliminate them completely as that is what would probably happen.
This Snopes article is pretty good for understanding the "who, what, where, why, and when" of SS. http://www.snopes.com/politics...security/changes.asp

The impending doom of SS has been around for most of my life, and will probably be around for the rest of it, but it's doom has not yet come, and can be prevented. Actually , it has been very successful as has it's counterpart Medicare. In fact Medicare is so successful, that during last summer's disruptions of town meetings, the TEA party bunch were yelling "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Just think on that statement for a while.

If entitlements were only for those who TRULY deserve them, I and most would not have a problem with them. i.e. United States Citizens who have paid into the system during their lifetime and the TRULY disabled. Someone who is here illegally and has a baby should not be able for welfare nor should the child.

Also, if we get rid of the military are you going to protect the Country?

quote:

Originally posted by JuanHunt:
If you end farm subsidies, most food and other farming produce will be imported. On a level playing field, it just costs too much to produce most everything here in the US. Farm subsidies are a form of national security in the guarantee of food products.

FWIW, over half of entitlement/welfare dollars goes to medical care for uninsured. 75% of those medical expenses are for dhildren, elderly, and handicapped.

A recent poll asked Americans which government spending programs they would choose to cut: “If government spending is reduced in order to balance the budget, which of the following government programs should receive lower federal funding than they currently do?” The most expendable programs, according to poll takers, were mass transit, housing, agriculture, environment and foreign aid, the runaway winner at 71 percent(only foreign aid got more than 30%). The problem? These programs together barely comprise 3 percent of the federal budget.

Poll data

I disagree with your statement on farm subsidies. Few nations produce agriculture products cheaper than the US. Most funds go to the mega farms. The EU could sell some products in the US cheaper, because of their government subsidies. In that case, a tariff would be in order and is allowed. Stoop labor truck farm produce harvesting should have been mechanized years ago.

As to military costs savings, I would suggest reducing the aircraft carriers from eleven to ten. They are fast becoming the battleships of the 1940's -- too big and too easy a target. That would reduce the number of support ships and air squadrons needed. Reduce the over head in DoD and the three service by two levels. Bring the two combat brigades in Germany home.

Tobacco subsidies should have ended decades ago, and there should be tariff's on each acre of tobacco farmed. Instead, we pay tobacco farmers thousands per acre NOT to grow tobacco, and the farmers lease the land for production of other cash crops.

What would be produced in the USA without subsidies? I would bet that almost every cash crop in the USA is subsidized. My family left the corn farms of the Midwest a generation ago, but still owns the land which is now leased to a large corp that grows corn. The subsidy is the only thing that makes the enterprise financially viable.

Agreed, no subsidies for tobacco. However, export tariffs are forbidden in the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by HIFLYER:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

If entitlements were only for those who TRULY deserve them, I and most would not have a problem with them. i.e. United States Citizens who have paid into the system during their lifetime and the TRULY disabled. Someone who is here illegally and has a baby should not be able for welfare nor should the child.

Also, if we get rid of the military are you going to protect the Country?

To your first statement, I fully agree. I have no idea how to implement such a policy, but with the premise , I agree. The only thing I disagree with is that I don't think it would make any appreciable difference in the budget. As I have stated before, it is like picking fly doo doo out of pepper.

Never said get rid of the military.
However, check this out - http://costofwar.com/

If we were to cut our military spending by 70% we would still be spending almost twice as much as the next biggest spender China.

Think on this site for a spell ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ilitary_expenditures

Do we really need to outspend the rest of the world combined in order for our country to be defended ? How come other countries do not spend that much and yet they are safe ?
We are fools ! We have let the "military industrial complex" control our budget. Maybe it is time to quit our of endless wars.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Agreed, no subsidies for tobacco. However, export tariffs are forbidden in the constitution.

Agreed ! Tobacco should be taxed out of existance.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Agreed, no subsidies for tobacco. However, export tariffs are forbidden in the constitution.

Agreed ! Tobacco should be taxed out of existance.

As marijuana has much the same cancer incidence as tobacco, you've introduced a problem. Left wing do gooders tried to ban booze with the 18th amendment. Results were a growth of the mafia from a small organization to a nationwide one, a breakdown in respect for the law and funding for the drug trade from illegal hooch profits, when the 21st amendment was passed. The law of unintended consequences writ, large! In NY state, half of the cigarettes sold are either smuggled in, or sold on Indian reservations. I have no wish to read of police killed because of tobacco smugglers, or young people jailed for decades because of an illegal tobacco trade. End the subsidies, yes! Make tobacco illegal, NO! What are you smoking?

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Agreed, no subsidies for tobacco. However, export tariffs are forbidden in the constitution.

Agreed ! Tobacco should be taxed out of existance.

As marijuana has much the same cancer incidence as tobacco, you've introduced a problem. Left wing do gooders tried to ban booze with the 18th amendment. Results were a growth of the mafia from a small organization to a nationwide one, a breakdown in respect for the law and funding for the drug trade from illegal hooch profits, when the 21st amendment was passed. The law of unintended consequences writ, large! In NY state, half of the cigarettes sold are either smuggled in, or sold on Indian reservations. I have no wish to read of police killed because of tobacco smugglers, or young people jailed for decades because of an illegal tobacco trade. End the subsidies, yes! Make tobacco illegal, NO! What are you smoking?

Certainly not tobacco
I agree that marijuana is just about as unhealthy to smoke as tobacco on a joint by joint basis , but marijuana is not addictive like cigarettes and therefore is not likely to have a daily intake of "a pack or 2 a day" as cigarettes. Back in my smoking days it was more of a week-end thing. I smoked far more tobacco than pot because I smoked it all day, every day.
As far as the "Nobel Experiment" it took a progressive , our greatest president, to end it.
My grandmother was once in the WCTU, but later on saw the error of her ways and during my lifetime seemed to have very little problem with drinking in moderation. Even had wine with meals as did the rest of my family when I was growing up.

The ONLY difference between socialists, liberals, and thieves is that the thief puts the gun to your head directly, rather than using the power of government to do it for them.

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:
The ONLY difference between socialists, liberals, and thieves is that the thief puts the gun to your head directly, rather than using the power of government to do it for them.

What do you call rich wall street execs who use intimidation to steal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...qhCs&feature=related

quote:

Originally posted by Jugflier:

quote:

Originally posted by marksw59:
The ONLY difference between socialists, liberals, and thieves is that the thief puts the gun to your head directly, rather than using the power of government to do it for them.

What do you call rich wall street execs who use intimidation to steal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...qhCs&feature=related

Thieves - in collusion the much of the government, and governments, moochers on a high level.

Spending is spending whether it's "discretionary" or "mandatory", those are just terms used by politicians to allay blame or support an agenda. If you look at the budget, this years "mandatory" spending (i.e. things that are "mandated" by law to be funded, such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans benefits, plus a myriad of welfare programs) plus the "interest" on the debt are more than revenues (i.e. all taxes). In plain English...we've promised all our money to win votes and we haven't even funded education, police, military, or several other things that need to be funded. So you could say that all "discretionary" spending (i.e. spending approved by Congress) is on credit. But we can't just cut "discretionary" spending, it will have to be a combination of cuts of both "types" of spending and an increase of revenues to achieve the goal of living within our means. We've been living on credit for so long people expect it. We need to wean ourselves off the credit card, but as the old saying goes...everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

There is a mass misconception, perpetuated by the liberal media, that if we cut military spending we'd be alright. This is far from true. While the statements " military spending accounts for 60% of the discretionary budget" and "we could cut military spending by 70% and still spend twice as much as China" may be true, they are both extremely misleading. The military budget takes much of the "discretionary" budget because hardly anything military is mandated. Contrary to popular belief, the large military budget is not mainly for new weapons systems. While I don't know the exact figures, I'm guessing the starting pay for enlisted men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces is around 15k per year. I'm betting that's a lot more than enlisted people make in the PLA (Chinese army). Not to mention the fact we must feed, clothe, house, and equip those 1.4 million people, and I'm sure that's a lot better also.

Could the military budget be trimmed? Sure, it will have to be. But I think you'd be lucky to cut it 25% without harming the country. The three main expenses are Seniors (i.e. SS, Medicare, disability), Welfare (i.e. government checks, food stamps, public housing, medical services, etc.), and Defense (i.e. Armed forces, foreign military aid, veterans benefits, etc.). Even if you cut defense spending by 50%, welfare by 40% and senior spending by 20%, you'd still need to make up 500 billion dollars just to break even. So, the other thing to do is raise revenues. Notice I said revenues, not taxes. Raising taxes is a very detrimental and short-sighted solution. The government needs to make companies want to come here and stay, not look to leave. The myth is that there is a boatload of money out there, and we need to give the government a bigger gun so they can take more of it. We'd have to double our income taxes across the board to break even. That might work for one or two years, but eventually people are going to tire of giving most of there money to the government. What happens when no one wants to work anymore? 25% of 250k per year is more than 70% of nothing.