Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[Deleted]

People keep claiming we spend on defense for the rest of the world.

Never quite sure how they figured that one.

Well either they mean that because the US has troops stationed in nations like Germany, that it provides safety for the germans with US taxpayer money.

Or that the US pays an disproportional amount of money in Nato?

[Dacien]

He's not defending me. He's defending his ideology's interests.

Well I know you're a proponent of giving government more of your money, and having other people give government more of their money, but a lot of people think the problem is spending, not revenue.

And I'll be frank with you, Wells. If I thought for a second that anyone in government gave one shit about us, just one single shit, I might be on board with you. As it is, government hijacks whatever cause is popular, but really doesn't care. Right now it's environmentalism.

[Sunseeker]

Well I know you're a proponent of giving government more of your money, and having other people give government more of their money, but a lot of people think the problem is spending, not revenue.

A lot of people think a lot of things. I think spending IS one of the problems, but we have a huge debt to get out of and cutting taxes is NOT helping with that. We need to raise revenue AND cut spending. We can do BOTH of these things and we'll get out of debt a lot easier and faster if we do rather than only doing one or the other.

[Wells]

Well either they mean that because the US has troops stationed in nations like Germany, that it provides safety for the germans with US taxpayer money.

Or that the US pays an disproportional amount of money in Nato?

yeah but does our base in Germany serve any purpose other than our interests?

And yeah, we pay more into NATO but let's be honest, its our pet project, just a hold over from the Cold War and the Warshaw Pact.

What has our military expenditures done for Europe though? I mean you could pretty easily argue our adventures have made things worse for them.

[Simca]

Well I know you're a proponent of giving government more of your money, and having other people give government more of their money, but a lot of people think the problem is spending, not revenue.

The problem is obviously both.

The fastest way to lower the national debt would be to significantly cut spending while moderately increasing taxes. That's a no-brainer. The fastest way to drain a bottle of water that has one hole in it is to make another hole.

Obviously though raising taxes could hurt the economy potentially, so I'd personally do something like:

Short-term: Stabilize economy through any means possible and prevent government shutdowns purely by cuts to all areas
Mid-term: Increase taxes moderately and cut spending significantly
Long-term: Lower taxes significantly (to below original levels even to match the reduced spending)

[Dacien]

The problem is obviously both.

The fastest way to lower the national debt would be to significantly cut spending while moderately increasing taxes. That's a no-brainer. The fastest way to drain a bottle of water that has one hole in it is to make another hole.

Then once we're afloat again, taxes will go back down to more reasonable levels? No, government will have acclimated to a higher revenue stream by that point.

[Wells]

Then once we're afloat again, taxes will go back down to more reasonable levels? No, government will have acclimated to a higher revenue stream by that point.

Taxes have been going down for 30 years....

[Deleted]

You know jack about the US economy. All you talk about is hypothetical extremist economic systems, you lack any sort of historical economic understanding and twist everything that doesn't agree with your personal interpretation to make you look right.

Why are you suddenly so aggressive?

I'm not talking about any hypothetical extreme's anymore than anyone else is. I mean, is a balanced budget something extreme? Well in today's world of Keynesian's and MMT's it probably is.

Extreme is what the US govt is doing, or the EU govts. Furthermore I actually have formal education in Economics unlike you.

I can't move to Finland because I live in a country where I'm over-worked, under-paid, and poorly educated. Why don't YOU move here and see how you like a system that provides you none of the amenities your armchair-economics rely on?

Lots of anger again. And if you're poorly educated maybe you should get educated on economics before you claim I'm wrong without backing up your claims.

[Quackie]

/facepalm @ politics on this site.

Oh and the Democrats have never been the party to support the Military.

[Deleted]

Taxes have been going down for 30 years....

Can you show me a graph on that please? Not the top marginal rates because they don't tell us much. Just curious.

[Sunseeker]

Then once we're afloat again, taxes will go back down to more reasonable levels? No, government will have acclimated to a higher revenue stream by that point.

That depends entirely on who you elect. You still get to vote for your representatives, just like I get to vote for mine(you and I actually vote on the same senators!).

Arguing that we shouldn't do X because of what MIGHT happen is a poor argument.

[Wells]

/facepalm @ politics on this site.

Oh and the Democrats have never been the party to support the Military.

Do go on.....

[Dacien]

Taxes have been going down for 30 years....

Sorry, I'm projecting California's "temporary tax hikes" to the Federal Level.

[FearXI]

Yes we do spend too much on military and it needs to be trimmed.
Also I am a Republican. Just because we want bigger military budget doesn't mean we'd over look the country.
What good is a country that has a great military but a poor and broken population?

[Wells]

Can you show me a graph on that please? Not the top marginal rates because they don't tell us much. Just curious.

There's ups and downs, but the trend is downward. Its important to note the start date as well, as that was a major turning point in american politics.

[Sunseeker]

Why are you suddenly so aggressive?

Because I'm not one of those sit-back-and-take-it democrats. And I'm tired of listening to your same crap on every single political topic in this forum.

I'm not talking about any hypothetical extreme's anymore than anyone else is. I mean, is a balanced budget something extreme? Well in today's world of Keynesian's and MMT's it probably is.

Except that's not what you talk about. You talk about gutting the government and entirealy redoing our system of governance.

Extreme is what the US govt is doing, or the EU govts. Furthermore I actually have formal education in Economics unlike you.

And I have a formal education in politics so you can bite me, but here's the shocker: being educated on a subject does NOT give you the right answers!

Lots of anger again. And if you're poorly educated maybe you should get educated on economics before you claim I'm wrong without backing up your claims.

Your wrong because your perspective is wrong. Because you have "all the comforts" while demanding that people shouldn't have them.

[Deleted]

There's ups and downs, but the trend is downward. Its important to note the start date as well, as that was a major turning point in american politics.

This is income tax though? Anyway nice graph, thx.

[Quackie]

Actually, the rhetoric of Republicans on economics doesn't match anything that has ever worked, and flies in the face of all available evidence. Once upon a time, Republicans believed in things like "expertise". But when Milton Friedman is considered way too left-wing for your party, you have abandoned all pretense of rational thought.

Actually, the Democrats have been nothing short of a train wreck when it comes to economics. Just look at the California budget for a great example.

Or you could take a look at the one-sided belief that Clinton left us with a 'stockpile of cash' when in reality all he did was reduce the military by 30% and fail to deal with Al Qaeda as they blew up things like the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole. Not to mention the two US Embassies in Africa.

Then Clinton leaves office with Bush coming in to face a war on terror with a reduced military.

Yeah, the Democrats have done a great job. /facepalm

[Collegeguy]

Ironic... Also seems that when its US bashing going around the Mods are quick to lable, delete,
and "police", but "China today has a hard time building one carrier"(which can only be read as: cant figure out how to make one) gets to slide...

I will say this as a european Ive long wanted the US to stop acting/being the World Police,
what you do with your own country I dont really care about, but your enegy is better spent dealing with that.

That wasn't me nation bashing at all. That was me countering the idiotic idea made in the article to justify ramping up United States defense because of China. There is no "country" that is close to a threat to the United States.

[Wells]

This is income tax though? Anyway nice graph, thx.

Overall tax rate, income, payroll etc.

What's important to note is how much more the top tax rate has dropped as compared to everyone else. This is the kind of thing that pisses off liberals and contributes to the current wealth disparity.

Most american's taxes have gone down by 3-5% since 1985. The top 1%'s has gone down 10%.