Whose economic debt plan do you favor?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lakecat

Wellendowed, you said that you think the figures of the top 1% paying 40% of the income taxes and the top 10% of wage earners paying 90% of the income taxes are a big lie. What percentage do you accept that they're paying and what source are you using? I believe the numbers Boehner cited come from the IRS, but I could be wrong. Also, please tell me what you think the bottom 50% are paying as a percent of the total income taxes paid.

If those numbers are indeed correct, do you think they're paying their fair share then? If not, what would be an equitable percentage?

lakecat with all due respect i will have to do a little research because it sounds like a littly "fuzzy" math. What I do know is that since the Reagan days and many of the GOP policies the rich have become richer and that's factual and the poor have become poorer and the middle class have become stagnant and if not poorer as well. It is factual that the "theory" or "philosophy" of trickle down economic no longer works. Why in 2011 would some politician even dream of giving corporations a tax break when they are not the ones hurting.
John Gait you mention the over 250k who are not getting a tax break- give me a break-do you really think that someone making 250k or more is really struggling? I myself make roughly 130k a year- I am a Pharmacist and I will honestly tell you that when I fill up my gas tank I am shocked that it's $4 a gallon, but I have no issues filling my tank up several times a week- on the other hand- my technicians who make between $10 and 18 hour they feel the impact of $4 a gas- see the difference? So don't feed me this line of how the Super Rich need tax breaks.

[CuteOldGuy]

This is a distraction from the real issue, which is spending. Tax the rich all you want, it still won't solve the problem, because the rich don't have enough money to cure the deficit, even if you confiscated all income over $250K per year. So we argue about irrelevant tax hikes, and are diverted from the real problem. You want to raise taxes on the rich? Go ahead, if it will make you shut up (not directed at anyone) and eventually address the real issue. Besides, if you tax the rich more, they will find a way around it. They always do.

If I were a Republican in Congress (fat chance) I would say, OK, whatever you want for the tax rates, we'll pass. Now can we address spending?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is a distraction from the real issue, which is spending. Tax the rich all you want, it still won't solve the problem, because the rich don't have enough money to cure the deficit, even if you confiscated all income over $250K per year. So we argue about irrelevant tax hikes, and are diverted from the real problem. You want to raise taxes on the rich? Go ahead, if it will make you shut up (not directed at anyone) and eventually address the real issue. Besides, if you tax the rich more, they will find a way around it. They always do.

If I were a Republican in Congress (fat chance) I would say, OK, whatever you want for the tax rates, we'll pass. Now can we address spending?

How come the Rich didn't find any loopholes around throughout history when their tax rates were significantly higher- they merely paid it. Did they find loopholes around it during the Clinton years?
Now back to spending- the GOP wants to reduce spending, but yet they don't want to touch military spending- how absurd is that notion? One of the largest chunks is military spending which the Republicans don't want to cut. It's factual that the U.S spends more money on military spending than ALL OTHER Countries combined- now that's a helluva a lot of money. However, the GOP is quick to cut or "reform" medicare and cut education, but they won't touch military spending. Oh yeah let's kill grandma/grandpa with those so called vouchers and let's cut education so we can have another generation of children who can't afford school and become street thugs or high school drop outs, but heck we will have the strongest and most advanced military - seems like that's the GOP's philosophy.
So when the GOP start talking abut cuts in military spending than I will take them seriously.

[Starry69]

The U.S. supposedly has between 700 and 800 military bases around the world.

Do we really need bases in Germany, Japan, Okinawa, etc?

We simply cannot afford to support this global empire. And nobody is talking about reducing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=5564

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

How come the Rich didn't find any loopholes around throughout history when their tax rates were significantly higher- they merely paid it. Did they find loopholes around it during the Clinton years?

LOL! Of course they found loopholes during the Clinton administration, and every other administration.

And as bad as the Republicans are, they love their Grandmas as much as Democrats do.

But you are right, military spending has to be on the table. ALL spending has to be on the table.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Starry69

The U.S. supposedly has between 700 and 800 military bases around the world.

Do we really need bases in Germany, Japan, Okinawa, etc?

We simply cannot afford to support this global empire. And nobody is talking about reducing it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=5564

I promise you when and "IF" we ever leave Afghanitan and Ira- they will leave permanent military bases in those countries.

[Guest080613]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

How come the Rich didn't find any loopholes around throughout history when their tax rates were significantly higher- they merely paid it. Did they find loopholes around it during the Clinton years?
Now back to spending- the GOP wants to reduce spending, but yet they don't want to touch military spending- how absurd is that notion? One of the largest chunks is military spending which the Republicans don't want to cut. It's factual that the U.S spends more money on military spending than ALL OTHER Countries combined- now that's a helluva a lot of money.

Except it's neither factual or true. In 2010 the US spent $698 Billion on Defense. The rest of the world spent $932 Billion, or 34% more than the US. In addition the US spent 4.8% of it's GDP on defense ranking it 7th in the world. Considering our presence militarily around the world this ranking is remarkable. Not saying good or bad, but remarkable nonetheless.

http://www.sipri.org/research/armame...5majorspenders

However, the GOP is quick to cut or "reform" medicare and cut education, but they won't touch military spending. Oh yeah let's kill grandma/grandpa with those so called vouchers and let's cut education so we can have another generation of children who can't afford school and become street thugs or high school drop outs, but heck we will have the strongest and most advanced military - seems like that's the GOP's philosophy.
So when the GOP start talking abut cuts in military spending than I will take them seriously.

I agree. Let's do away with the military completely. Those damn warmongers can just go pound sand. We'll rely on Canada and Mexico to defend our borders. Beat all our swords into plow-shears and all that.

Oops, wait a minute. I just looked at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart and it seems that "Houston, we have a problem."

Defense takes up 16% of the 2011 budget. Great, we just eliminated 16% of the government expense. Only problem is, we have income of $2.1 Trillion, expenses of $4 trillion, if we remove the defense budget that still leaves us with expenses of $3.1 Trillion so we're still about a Trillion dollars short. Now what? Without defense in there, the budget is composed of Pensions, Health Care, Education, Welfare, & Protection that costs $2.36 Trillion, or 77% of the budget. But we can't cut them so we have to cut somewhere else. OK, let's cut EVERYTHING else. That means we cut another $1.03 Trillion.

Whew, that was close. Now the budget is balanced. Oh, wait, no it's not because we can't cut out the interest on the debt of $206 Billion. Oh, well, we'll just tax the rich for it. Wait, there are no more rich? Why not? Probably because they moved to other countries where the insanity is less prevalent.

The real fact is that the cuts are going to have to be made across the board and yes, there are going to have to be tax increases on everyone if we ever hope to work our way out of this mess. That includes social security and medicare/medicaid and welfare. It will have to happen or our house of cards will collapse under its own weight. (Personally I think it's too late and the entire system is doomed, but that's just me)

And that's not partisan politics my friend, that's the cold, hard numbers.

Jack

PS: Pop Quiz time. Out of Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and Education, which is the only one authorized by the Constitution for the US Government to fund? That's right, Defense.

[CuteOldGuy]

Wanting a lean, cost effective, efficient and powerful Military is not the same as wanting to eliminate the Defense Department. Need to take the politics out of the Defense Department, let the generals decide what arms systems we need (instead of politicians voting for whatever will be built in their district), and close unnecessary bases, even if they are in districts where the Democrats (or Republicans) are in trouble. And, oh yeah, let's keep out of stupid, unnecessary wars.

[Guest080613]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wanting a lean, cost effective, efficient and powerful Military is not the same as wanting to eliminate the Defense Department. Need to take the politics out of the Defense Department, let the generals decide what arms systems we need (instead of politicians voting for whatever will be built in their district), and close unnecessary bases, even if they are in districts where the Democrats (or Republicans) are in trouble. And, oh yeah, let's keep out of stupid, unnecessary wars.

No argument from me, COG. What I hate are those that say/think we can balance the budget by cutting defense (and maybe ag subsidies or "welfare for farmers", something I have no problem cutting) and we won't have to touch SS or Medicare/Medicaid. That's simply living in a fantasyland. It's also interesting to note (at least to me) that the Obama Administration has increased military spending nearly $200 Billion in 3 years. It took Bush Lite 5 years to accomplish the same goal and for the most part, Pres. Obama had a Dem. Congress appropriating the money, yet people still say it's all the Rep. fault that military spending is what it is.

Wake up folks, it's not about R or D, it's about an out of control federal government consisting of both parties!! I still think we're beyond the point of no return. I don't see anything changing in DC and the course we're on is heading for a disaster.


Jack

[kcmark]

Ksjack....typical you only read the part of the constitution you like...it does say in the preamble the general welfare also(which is vague for a reason)....also the little myth about President Obama raising military spending more than Fmr Pres. Bush...Pres. Obama adding the wars to the budget which the previous administration failed to do...also by eliminating the Bush tax cuts would add approx 1.35 trillion dollars back to the budget...

[Guest080613]

Originally Posted by kcmark

Ksjack....typical you only read the part of the constitution you like...it does say in the preamble the general welfare also(which is vague for a reason)....also the little myth about President Obama raising military spending more than Fmr Pres. Bush...Pres. Obama adding the wars to the budget which the previous administration failed to do...also by eliminating the Bush tax cuts would add approx 1.35 trillion dollars back to the budget...

Nice try. The Preamble is a statement of purpose, a mission statement if you will, and not the legal guidelines the federal government was to be restrained under.

You do know that the Constitution was created to 1) set forth the structure of the government and 2) to restrain the government from meddling in things it had no business being involved in, right? Don't believe me? Read The Federalist Papers and see what the men that wrote it had to say.

Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of the laborer the bread he has earned. This is the sum of good government and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

Can you honestly say that the government we have in place to day comes close to those words? Not a chance. We're so far removed from that it would be funny if it weren't so serious.

As far as President Obama's military budget is concerned, I really don't care one way or the other, I was just pointing out that he hadn't dropped the budget from previous years. The military budget isn't breaking us and our military expenses as a % of GDP are not outrageous. Of course I want it trimmed and lean with only the necessary expenses. Of course I want our soldiers to have what they need to do their jobs without all the kickbacks and waste. But if we cut the military budget in half there would be little significant change in our budget difficulties and it's going to be nearly impossible to cut it more than 20% under the best of circumstances.

Jack

[Starry69]

Let's do away with the military completely.

Who, besides you, said anything remotely close to this?

[catnipdipper]

Ron Paul?

[Guest080613]

Originally Posted by Starry69

Who, besides you, said anything remotely close to this?

It's called "exaggeration for effect". I was only trying to point out that if we completely eliminated the military our budget issues would not be solved.

Jack

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is a distraction from the real issue, which is spending. Tax the rich all you want, it still won't solve the problem, because the rich don't have enough money to cure the deficit, even if you confiscated all income over $250K per year. So we argue about irrelevant tax hikes, and are diverted from the real problem. You want to raise taxes on the rich? Go ahead, if it will make you shut up (not directed at anyone) and eventually address the real issue. Besides, if you tax the rich more, they will find a way around it. They always do.

If I were a Republican in Congress (fat chance) I would say, OK, whatever you want for the tax rates, we'll pass. Now can we address spending?

Raising the tax rates on the rich is the same as reducing spending when it comes to dollars. Reducing their tax rates is the same as increasing spending. They tell you that cutting their taxes will be a huge BOOST to America. Then they tell you that raising their taxes will DOOM America. Then they say that taxing the rich ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO MATTER. (contradict much?) They convince you that higher taxes will just be passed on to consumers and that the rich will just find loopholes or move out of the country. BULLSHIT! Don't believe these lies.

The truth is that the rich are good at paying who they need to pay to say what they need to say to get what they want. Nothing more. Stop buying their bullshit.

Hike their taxes and put the screws to them before they ruin this country. Cut spending and raise taxes...BOTH, not one or the other.