Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?

[Flopper]

We live in a system where hard working middle class people cannot afford to retire even if they work 100 hours per week and save every last dime. Something isn't working at all. Big business has it made in a shade at the expense of the little guy. The truth hurts.. The fog machine says otherwise. Liars they are. Dangers to this nation as well.

No it is big government that isn't working.

The government (combined Fed, State and local) takes over 40% of the GNP and that is really hurting our economy. In most households in America the combined cost of government is the single largest expense the family has regardless of income level. More than food or housing or transportation or anything.

Before I retire as an Engineer and my wife as a private school teacher almost every year her income went to pay our combined taxes and in a lot of those years that wasn't even enough.

With the tax burden being so high on all Americans it is no wonder we can't get ahead.

Businesses provide jobs. The government takes your money away and gives you very little in return.

The income tax burden is not high on all Americans. Nearly half the households in America pay no tax. The top 1% pays 23% in total taxes. Over 10,000 of the wealthiest households in America pay not tax.

Americans pay less in taxes than citizens in all other major developed countries.

 

[Dad2three]

DEMOLISHED

Only in your fucked up Libtard mind.

The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf




It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

If anyone is shirking personal accountability it is the banks that gave loans to people who could not afford it.


WHY?

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Flash]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

Instead of moderate cuts how about a substantial cut like was suggested in Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget that save a trillion dollars a year and still maintained defense, social security and Medicare? that would be a good start.

We absolutely need no more increases in taxes. This country already taxes far too much.

Fiscal responsibility is not that hard to do. We spend far too much money for useless things and this enormous welfare budget is out of control.

 

[Flash]

[

The income tax burden is not high on all Americans. Nearly half the households in America pay no tax. The top 1% pays 23% in total taxes. Over 10,000 of the wealthiest households in America pay not tax.

Americans pay less in taxes than citizens in all other major developed countries.

Income taxes are about a trillion a year and is paid by about half the income earners in America and it is a substantial burden on them. I know because I am one of them and I am doing my federal taxes and I am having to give up a lot of my money to the filthy government.

Some people get a free ride but they are not the productive people in this society.

The combined cost of government in this country is over 40% of the GNP and if you don't think that is substantial then you are delusional.

Raising taxes is a dumbass and greedy thing to do. The much more logical and responsible thing to do is simply cut out this enormous bloated spending on all levels but especially the federal level.

 

[Flash]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Flopper]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

There are 2 party's, only 1 has gone further from the center, and it isn't the Dems. Reagan couldn't be elected dog catcher with his REAL record today in the GOP

I agree, but from a practical standpoint, there needs to be some buy in from both sides. If not, the party not in power will make reversal of the legislation a rallying cry for their party and once they get in power it will be payback time. For example, it Republicans get full control of government they will rip the healthcare law apart with little regard for the problems it will cause and when Democrats get control they will respond in kind. That's no way to run the nation. Difference in opinion and ideology are good to a point but at the end of the day, the two sides need to make compromises for good the country.

I think this why so many Americans are discussed with Washington. They believe each side is putting party ahead of country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

Instead of moderate cuts how about a substantial cut like was suggested in Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget that save a trillion dollars a year and still maintained defense, social security and Medicare? that would be a good start.

We absolutely need no more increases in taxes. This country already taxes far too much.

Fiscal responsibility is not that hard to do. We spend far too much money for useless things and this enormous welfare budget is out of control.

You're a fool, meaning you've been fooled by the power elite. You really believe it is good for the cost of college to be beyond the means of ordinary Americans; that public schools need to be privatized; and that people are poor as a result of their moral weaknesses.

They are no more true than these:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[dblack]

Raising taxes is a dumbass and greedy thing to do. The much more logical and responsible thing to do is simply cut out this enormous bloated spending on all levels but especially the federal level.

I disagree. Raising taxes to balance the budget is the responsible thing to do. Then we can have a serious discussion about how much government we really want. How much government we want to pay for. As it is, no one gets the bill (except maybe our grandchildren), so no one cares.

 

[Flopper]

[

The income tax burden is not high on all Americans. Nearly half the households in America pay no tax. The top 1% pays 23% in total taxes. Over 10,000 of the wealthiest households in America pay not tax.

Americans pay less in taxes than citizens in all other major developed countries.

Income taxes are about a trillion a year and is paid by about half the income earners in America and it is a substantial burden on them. I know because I am one of them and I am doing my federal taxes and I am having to give up a lot of my money to the filthy government.

Some people get a free ride but they are not the productive people in this society.

The combined cost of government in this country is over 40% of the GNP and if you don't think that is substantial then you are delusional.

Raising taxes is a dumbass and greedy thing to do. The much more logical and responsible thing to do is simply cut out this enormous bloated spending on all levels but especially the federal level.

Most governments that spend little relative to GDP don't offer a very good environment to live and work. If you think lowering the government spending to GDP ratio would be an improvement then take a look at all the nations with a ratio lower than the US (60)? How many would you like to live in?

Equatorial Guinea, Cambodia, Nigeria,Bangladesh, Lao PDR, Central African Republic, Guatemala, Madagascar, Burkina Faso, Congo, Dem. Rep., West Bank and Gaza, Ethiopia, Mali, Togo, Macao SAR, China, Benin,, Qatar, Rwanda, Paraguay, Singapore, Nicaragua, Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Switzerland, Sierra Leone, Japan, Bahrain, Congo, Rep. Bahamas, The Philippines, Kyrgyz Republic, Zambia, India,Gambia, Canada, Peru, Pakistan, Kenya, Thailand Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Hong Kong SAR, China, Grenada, Chile, El Salvador, Korea, Rep.Sari Lanka, Malaysia, St.Lucia, Suriname, Ghana, Cabo Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Sao Tome and Principe, Armenia, Iran, Islamic Rep.,Liberia,
Russian Federation, Honduras, Costa Rica

Expense of GDP Data Table

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[Dad2three]

Raising taxes is a dumbass and greedy thing to do. The much more logical and responsible thing to do is simply cut out this enormous bloated spending on all levels but especially the federal level.

I disagree. Raising taxes to balance the budget is the responsible thing to do. Then we can have a serious discussion about how much government we really want. How much government we want to pay for. As it is, no one gets the bill (except maybe our grandchildren), so no one cares.

ONCE MORE:

We already know what economic policies work best for our country. Clinton knew that we had to cut spending and increase revenues. We had revenues of 20.6% of GDP and a surplus in 2000. Then something terrible happened, the Republicans gained complete control in 2001 and instead of sticking with what was working they decided that their ideology was more important, AND TOOK REVENUES TO BELOW 15% OF GDP, KOREAN WAR (PRE MEDICARE) LEVELS.... The debt has gone up $12+ trillion since then.

 

[Dad2three]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

Instead of moderate cuts how about a substantial cut like was suggested in Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget that save a trillion dollars a year and still maintained defense, social security and Medicare? that would be a good start.

We absolutely need no more increases in taxes. This country already taxes far too much.

Fiscal responsibility is not that hard to do. We spend far too much money for useless things and this enormous welfare budget is out of control.

"Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget"


Ron Paul’s Budget Proposals: Fiscally Irresponsible


According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Ron Paul’s proposals would – even under the most optimistic scenario – leave federal debt roughly where it is now, i.e., at an elevated and dangerous level relative to the size of our economy (see pp. 19-24 of the CRFB report). More realistically, however, we should use the CRFB’s high-debt scenario to evaluate all politicians – reflecting the fact that not everything in the world economy will prove smooth sailing over the next decade.

Under this scenario, Mr. Paul’s proposals would increase debt to over 90 percent of GDP – roughly the same level currently seen in Italy and other troubled European countries.

Ron Paul s Budget Proposals Fiscally Irresponsible The Baseline Scenario


Many of the ideas in Paul’s 11-page Plan to Restore America are familiar from his staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites, like eliminating the Education and Energy Departments. But Paul goes further, proposing an immediate freeze on spending by numerous government agencies at levels from 2006, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastic reductions in spending elsewhere. The Environmental Protection Agency would see a 30 percent cut; the Food and Drug Administration would see a 40 percent cut; and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.

Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush would be extended.


Read more: Ron Paul proposes 1T in specific budget cuts - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com



Ron Paul proposes 1T in specific budget cuts - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com


WELCOME TO THE NEXT CONSERVATIVE DEPRESSION 3.0!!!

 

[Flopper]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

Instead of moderate cuts how about a substantial cut like was suggested in Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget that save a trillion dollars a year and still maintained defense, social security and Medicare? that would be a good start.

We absolutely need no more increases in taxes. This country already taxes far too much.

Fiscal responsibility is not that hard to do. We spend far too much money for useless things and this enormous welfare budget is out of control.

As I recall, Ron Paul won about 8% of the vote among delegates at the Republican Convention. The only reason the House passed his budget was they knew it would never pass the Senate. It would be virtually impossible to pass such a budget because of public backlash. You can make moderate cuts and small tax increase and reduce the deficits or you can shoot for the moon and get nothing.

 

[Dad2three]

Now as it has always been, the two sides must support moderate cuts and tax increase if we are to make any real changes. Even if there could be a landslide victory for republicans followed by massive cuts, the backlash would put Democrats back in office restoring what republicans cut.

The polarization such as you see on the this board has enveloped much of American sending conservatives further and further to right and liberals further and further to Left guaranteeing the status quo.

Instead of moderate cuts how about a substantial cut like was suggested in Ron Paul's 2012 proposed budget that save a trillion dollars a year and still maintained defense, social security and Medicare? that would be a good start.

We absolutely need no more increases in taxes. This country already taxes far too much.

Fiscal responsibility is not that hard to do. We spend far too much money for useless things and this enormous welfare budget is out of control.

As I recall, Ron Paul won about 8% of the vote among delegates at the Republican Convention. The only reason the House passed his budget was they knew it would never pass the Senate. It would be virtually impossible to pass such a budget because of public backlash. You can make moderate cuts and small tax increase and reduce the deficits or you can shoot for the moon and get nothing.

I don't think the House voted on that nutjobs bill at all. Paul Ryan's passed, of course it has about as much chance of EVER becoming near law as I do of being Prez

 

[AntiParty]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Your question shows you are smarter than most of the bias small brains in politics. The only obvious answer is (or should be) cut unnecessary spending first. The problem is politicians try to cut the most important spending first, sometimes with help of the opposing PARTY.

Case in point. Should we cut welfare to the blind? Most Americans say NO, in the majority of parties. Yet we just did cut their food supply because we are unable (don't have the time to) distinguish the difference between welfare and welfare fraud.

I've often made posts about terrible government spending such as "America's Army the video game", yes, we fund video games. But Republicans always attack me with, that doesn't cost much, we are looking at the big picture.

So what we have is a mountain of poor spending and a society that only fixates on the spending to help people eat and have shelter.

Our War spending is more critical than our Welfare spending if you do the math on "UNNECESSARY".
Cost of National Security Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour
^Lockheed Martin and Halliburton love this though. They are swimming in green.

 

[Avorysuds]

We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....

I agree, wars like Iraq that Bush ended But Obama re-started....

There is no answer as there are to many stupid low lives voting and in charge. Like the poster I just quoted. Iraq was promised by Obama to end as the first thing he will do once elected back in 2008.... He kept that war goin strong for years.... then on Bush's timetable the war ended, Obama took credit but then along came Isis and it seemed popular to go back into Iraq... So Obama despite taking credit for ending Iraq blamed Bush for ending it, then went back in....

The Democrat party is currently the leading big war party. But their voter base are mentally retarded and hyper partisan.

How can we fix things? Oh I know, lets go back in time and blame Bush (Republicans) for what Democrats are doing on a larger scale today.....

Who spent more money:

Bush wars < Obama wars
Bush deficits < Obama deficits
Bush stimulus < Obama stimulus
Bush medicare part D < Obama's Obamacare

So I agree, lets stop the chit Bush was doing now under Obama and Democrat rule.... Oh wait, Republicans just won over congress..... The last 6 years are Republicans fault!!

 

[Dad2three]

We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....

I agree, wars like Iraq that Bush ended But Obama re-started....

There is no answer as there are to many stupid low lives voting and in charge. Like the poster I just quoted. Iraq was promised by Obama to end as the first thing he will do once elected back in 2008.... He kept that war goin strong for years.... then on Bush's timetable the war ended, Obama took credit but then along came Isis and it seemed popular to go back into Iraq... So Obama despite taking credit for ending Iraq blamed Bush for ending it, then went back in....

The Democrat party is currently the leading big war party. But their voter base are mentally retarded and hyper partisan.

How can we fix things? Oh I know, lets go back in time and blame Bush (Republicans) for what Democrats are doing on a larger scale today.....

Who spent more money:

Bush wars < Obama wars
Bush deficits < Obama deficits
Bush stimulus < Obama stimulus
Bush medicare part D < Obama's Obamacare

So I agree, lets stop the chit Bush was doing now under Obama and Democrat rule.... Oh wait, Republicans just won over congress..... The last 6 years are Republicans fault!!

MORE right wing BULLSHIT.


Weird, WHICH one STARTED the war on false premises again?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.



One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:


WHILE THE US ECONOMY WAS LOSING 4+ MILLION JOBS AND HAD DUMPED 9%+ THE LAST QUARTER OF DUBYA
Democrats only had a veto proof majority for 24 working days Fact Left

HONESTY. TRY IT

BTW 60% OF DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST DUBYA'S WAR OF CHOICE, OBAMA NEVER PROMISED A TIMELINE ON IRAQ, HE SAID FOCUS ON THE 'GOOD WAR', AND MEDICARE PART D IS LAW, LIKE OBAMACARES, UNLIKE OBAMACARES WHICH IS 100% FUNDED, THE GOP GAVE NOT A SINGLE PENNY OF NEW REVENUES TO FUND IT!


AND THE GOP TOOK US FROM 20%+ OF GDP TO LESS THAN 15% IN REVENUES, THAT'S A REDUCTION OF 25% OF REVENUES. Debt? WHILE they fought two wars!

 

[AntiParty]

We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....

I agree, wars like Iraq that Bush ended But Obama re-started....

There is no answer as there are to many stupid low lives voting and in charge. Like the poster I just quoted. Iraq was promised by Obama to end as the first thing he will do once elected back in 2008.... He kept that war goin strong for years.... then on Bush's timetable the war ended, Obama took credit but then along came Isis and it seemed popular to go back into Iraq... So Obama despite taking credit for ending Iraq blamed Bush for ending it, then went back in....

The Democrat party is currently the leading big war party. But their voter base are mentally retarded and hyper partisan.

How can we fix things? Oh I know, lets go back in time and blame Bush (Republicans) for what Democrats are doing on a larger scale today.....

Who spent more money:

Bush wars < Obama wars
Bush deficits < Obama deficits
Bush stimulus < Obama stimulus
Bush medicare part D < Obama's Obamacare

So I agree, lets stop the chit Bush was doing now under Obama and Democrat rule.... Oh wait, Republicans just won over congress..... The last 6 years are Republicans fault!!

I see you are learning. Here is advanced

We should not be funding wasteful unnecessary wars like that ass wipe Bush got us into ...what a waste of trillions eh conservatives ....way to go ....

I agree, wars like Iraq that Bush ended But Obama re-started....

There is no answer as there are to many stupid low lives voting and in charge. Like the poster I just quoted. Iraq was promised by Obama to end as the first thing he will do once elected back in 2008.... He kept that war goin strong for years.... then on Bush's timetable the war ended, Obama took credit but then along came Isis and it seemed popular to go back into Iraq... So Obama despite taking credit for ending Iraq blamed Bush for ending it, then went back in....

The Democrat party is currently the leading big war party. But their voter base are mentally retarded and hyper partisan.

How can we fix things? Oh I know, lets go back in time and blame Bush (Republicans) for what Democrats are doing on a larger scale today.....

Who spent more money:

Bush wars < Obama wars
Bush deficits < Obama deficits
Bush stimulus < Obama stimulus
Bush medicare part D < Obama's Obamacare

So I agree, lets stop the chit Bush was doing now under Obama and Democrat rule.... Oh wait, Republicans just won over congress..... The last 6 years are Republicans fault!!

"I agree, wars like Iraq that Bush ended But Obama re-started...." <--Holy crap is that what he just said, is that what they are running on......

America made a huge mistake and what was Obama to do? Step in and say, "Sorry, that last guy was an idiot" The outcome may have went better...

 

[Sonny Clark]

[

The income tax burden is not high on all Americans. Nearly half the households in America pay no tax. The top 1% pays 23% in total taxes. Over 10,000 of the wealthiest households in America pay not tax.

Americans pay less in taxes than citizens in all other major developed countries.

Income taxes are about a trillion a year and is paid by about half the income earners in America and it is a substantial burden on them. I know because I am one of them and I am doing my federal taxes and I am having to give up a lot of my money to the filthy government.

Some people get a free ride but they are not the productive people in this society.

The combined cost of government in this country is over 40% of the GNP and if you don't think that is substantial then you are delusional.

Raising taxes is a dumbass and greedy thing to do. The much more logical and responsible thing to do is simply cut out this enormous bloated spending on all levels but especially the federal level.

CORRECT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sonny Clark]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree