Pelosi et al are shameless

[Harry Botter]

Raise taxes, decrease military spending 40-60 ish% (honestly till we completely crumble, we need to have a means to protect ourselves should several countries decide to invade, pre 9/11 spending would be ok ish, imo), increase pay for teachers, spend on infrastructure, cut out insurance companies and completely socialize medicine and give all citizens access to the same healthcare as politicians and their families , re-regulate banks and hold them accountable for mistakes, cut pay and benefits for politicians (no more lifetime benefits for a job you no longer perform), stream line the tax code, legalize drugs and treat addiction as a public health issue (like Portugal I believe it greatly reduced their addiction rates if what i read is true), reduce or eliminate the cost of college, regulate oil companies or tax them into submission, raise minimum wage to $10.....

All of these would help if not eliminate our debt. But the change would be so radical that people's heads would explode.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Also, the only true use of "Fair share" would be a flat tax. What we have now is by definition an unfair tax. The rich are already paying MORE than "their fair share," which borders on unconstitutional, but we've put up with it thus far since it started.

Uh.... seriously... what?

There's an amendment in the constitution that says the government is allowed to collect income taxes. I don't see any part of the constitution that says "The government isn't allowed to collect over XX% in income taxes." I think you need to relearn your political science and civics if you think it's unconstitutional to tax so high.

Majority of welfare spending goes to red states.

[Harry Botter]

Uh.... seriously... what?

There's an amendment in the constitution that says the government is allowed to collect income taxes. I don't see any part of the constitution that says "The government isn't allowed to collect over XX% in income taxes." I think you need to relearn your political science and civics if you think it's unconstitutional to tax so high.

Majority of welfare spending goes to red states.

You might find this an interesting read.

[Adam Jensen]

Flat taxes are only "fair" to rich people.

Take a tax of 10% income.

Someone who is making 2,000,000 can spend 200,000 and still have a comfortable income, a very comfortable income. I'd kill to make 1,800,000. But someone making 20,000 loses 2000, and that's a big chunk of change that might be needed to buy gas, food, pay rent. 18,000 is not easy to live off of.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Also, to support our current spending, a flat tax would be an unnecessary burden on the majority of the country.

Rome collapsed in on itself, not only because it had an overreaching military, but because of political corruption and the accumulation of wealth among those who ran the country, and extreme famine of the rest of the society.

OP, I'd seriously suggest you go do some research on your history, political science, and civics. I think you lost even most right wingers with "flat tax".

[Endus]

Flat taxes are only "fair" to rich people.

Take a tax of 10% income.

Someone who is making 2,000,000 can spend 200,000 and still have a comfortable income, a very comfortable income. I'd kill to make 1,800,000. But someone making 20,000 loses 2000, and that's a big chunk of change that might be needed to buy gas, food, pay rent. 18,000 is not easy to live off of.

And just to clarify why this is a big whopping deal, as it currently stands, more than 15% of American households go hungry at some point during the year, because they can't afford enough food.

Those are the people a flat "fair" tax punishes, because the current system is already progressive, precisely BECAUSE it's undue hardship on these people. The wealthy need to be paying a larger chunk. Because they're the ones with the money. If anything, the tax system needs to become MORE progressive, not LESS.


The fact is, the US is a big enough buyer that they should be using the weight of that market as a negotiating tool, and they currently aren't. Look at Canada; we pay way less than Americans for pharmaceuticals. Is it because the US has high taxes or something? No. It's because Canada has a nationalized health care system, so they negotiate a lower price, by buying in massive bulk. The pharmacorps are still making some profit, so they sell to us at the reduced price.

The US could do the same. It doesn't have to make itself business-friendly; the massive market of consumers it provides already does that. Rather than providing incentives, provide disincentives to behaviour that doesn't benefit Americans; if a company moves a plant overseas so they can reduce manufacturing costs by 50%, charge a tariff on their imports that's punitive enough to offset that entire gain and more. There's a host of ways to go about this, but the point is; the US doesn't have to make itself appealing to business. It's already a major target. It needs to use that heft, rather than ignoring it so it can help CEOs and shareholders max out their dividends.

[Ofmanv]

So San Francisco sends this Queen of Botoxy as their flag carrier to Washington to lecture us about how we need to stick it the 1%'ers? If she wants a posterchild of the people she describes as the problem, she should look in a mirror.

[Veyne]

If I don't respond to something you said to me, it's likely you said something at some point that displayed your lack of reasoning capability and are now on my ignore list.

Hah. Talk about irony. Do yourself a favor, kid, and learn how to engage in meaningful discussion with your supposed capability to reason before you trying and tell other people they display a lack of reasoning capability. Because that's ALL your posts in this thread have shown. A lack of capability to reason with others.

And to be frank, your threats of putting people in your ignore list come off as nothing but sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting at the top of your lungs. You've already shown that you can't be swayed, so why bother debating the subject?

[Cthulhu 2020]

It needs to use that heft, rather than ignoring it so it can help CEOs and shareholders max out their dividends.

Considering that, at this point, elections for the house and congress are more or less bought and not so much won on merit, lobbyists make up a very important part of a candidate's campaign. We have more career politicians these days that are concerned with making their pocket-stuffing-friends happy than they are with the people that actually vote for them (which is ironic unto itself, but when you have people listening loyally to Faux News and MSNBC, that tends to happen).

They COULD do what's best for the country and the people, but then they'd lose their primary campaign contributors, their seat, and be replaced by someone else in the pockets of special interests.

[smelltheglove]

1> "But they're job creators!" Except they aren't. If a wealthy person makes more money, he doesn't use that money to create more jobs. That's why wealth inequality has been growing steadily for decades; the wealthy are keeping their money, not reinvesting it in ways that will stimulate growth.

god that has to be one of the most nonsensical arguments out there (i realize that's more or less what you are saying, im agreeing). so we base tax principal on "well, i'll give this group tax breaks, and hope like hell they use it to create jobs!" if we want to reward job creation, im fine with that. but they should have to actually create jobs before receiving some kind of "reward" for it

[Grizzly Willy]

Yeah, I think I would rather put money in the hands of people who need it, rather than those that don't. I don't have much sympathy for the rich, especially when they position themselves as being in more need than those whom they would be nothing without.

[obdigore]

Yeah, I think I would rather put money in the hands of people who need it, rather than those that don't. I don't have much sympathy for the rich, especially when they position themselves as being in more need than those whom they would be nothing without.

Especially when putting that money in the hands of people who will spend it is going to just pump it right back into the economy. As Mr Pratchett said, Money likes to go out and make friends. It likes to get around. It has to keep flowing.

Another example is that most Western Governments like US Military Bases in their countries, because those soldiers get paid and those soldiers come into their towns and cities and spend that money.

[Rhaide]

That made me laugh a little, thanks!



Well, no. Bush's wars alone account for more spending than the entirety of the deficits incurred under Obama.

That's interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...very_year.html

Looks like you spelled 'Obama's wars' wrong.

[obdigore]

That's interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...very_year.html

Looks like you spelled 'Obama's wars' wrong.

Oh look a blog that blames all government spending on the current president and seems to assume that the president can just decide to make or unmake laws at a whim. It also ignores the state of the economy and the idiocy of congress. Hooray!

[Spectral]

That's interesting.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...very_year.html

Looks like you spelled 'Obama's wars' wrong.

So, the numbers I used were a comparison of the costs of the wars that Bush initiated (while I don't approve of Obama ramping up the Afghanistan war, that's really quite beside the point) against the accrual of debt under Obama. Let's have a look at the actual cost of the wars, shall we?

http://costsofwar.org/article/economic-cost-summary

Yeah, that's pretty steep. It's almost like fighting pointless wars is a pretty bad idea.

To be fair, I was wrong, that cost is slightly lower than the debt incurred under Obama.

[Rhaide]

Agreed we should cut military spending (and this is coming from a US soldier by the way).

That being said, anyone who says that Bush racked up even half the debt that Obama has in his shorter time in office is lying to themselves and others. I'm not going to argue the morality of social welfare programs, tax policy, or foreign policy, I'm just simply stating the numbers. It doesn't take long to googlesearch how much money has been spent in the last term and a half.

Stop being sheep, use facts not opinions.

[Spectral]

Stop being sheep, use facts not opinions.

Yes, lets.

[Magpai]

She is such an arrogant, haughty bitch. To me, she's the poster girl of liberals who want their politicians to tell them what to do, rather than the other way around.

WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS IN IT

[Rhaide]

Oh look a blog that blames all government spending on the current president and seems to assume that the president can just decide to make or unmake laws at a whim. It also ignores the state of the economy and the idiocy of congress. Hooray!

Didn't comment on the blog, linked directly to some numbers they got directly from an official source, but by all means, go ahead and pick apart a website for unrelated issues while ignoring a completely objective fact. Good sleuthing!

[obdigore]

Didn't comment on the blog, linked directly to some numbers they got directly from an official source, but by all means, go ahead and pick apart a website for unrelated issues while ignoring a completely objective fact. Good sleuthing!

You linked the blog, and ignored the fact that Presidents don't just start with a clean slate and are able to do whatever they want, whenever they want. If you are handed either a deficit or surplus from the previous administration (and congress), that effects what you can do. Or factors out of your control can help or hurt your budget. Lets talk about Clinton for a second, since I know that the conservatives get all bitchy if we talk about Bush Jr, but Clinton had that beautiful Internet bubble stimulate the US economy a ton, and it made him seem a better president in most peoples eyes. He didn't make, enable, push for, or get anything passed that caused it to happen, but people give it to him like it was his due.