Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

New taxes


Recommended Posts

Im wondering what sector of the population will be targeted to pay, will it be the top 2% wage earners, Business owners, which I doubt since the Government now owns 60% GM and Lord knows how many banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was true before Obama was elected, and now it's really true. We need more revenue to pay for all the things we want government to do, and all the benefits we want it to bestow.

 

I don't want it to bestow anything.

 

My vote says that those of you who get food satmps and supported housing can pay the taxes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im wondering what sector of the population will be targeted to pay, will it be the top 2% wage earners, Business owners, which I doubt since the Government now owns 60% GM and Lord knows how many banks.

 

 

It will be the people who work....the free loaders won't pay a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 56% of working Americans have had there pay reduced in the past year and that is as of April 17 2009. They will get the to pay another bill for a bunch of freeloaders.

 

Why work? we can just sit on your assses and have everthing given to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Microsoft is saying if they get hammered to pay for OBama's utopia stupidopia, that MS will relocate overseas.

 

NO, it was not true that taxes had to be raised before Obama.

 

Government needs to spend less.

 

Cali is going broke, Ohio is in trouble, etc etc etc etc...

 

A lot of folks SAID there is no way to afford Obama's utopia,

 

and now "the chickens are coming home to roost", screwing up

 

our finances.

 

Thanks, Obama voters. Obama's spending is so far out of common sense,

 

it's scary. LBJ's great societal program didn't work to elim poverty...

 

oh, but Obumbly will just try it more.

 

Will.....not.......work.......dammit.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, ballpeen. That's a small fraction of what the government spends money on. Don't be that guy.

 

Total food assistance spending is about 1.5% of the budget. A sliver. It's also the most direct and effective anti-poverty program we have - if you're poor or struggling and you qualify you get a stipend to spend on food.

 

The conservative base's insistence that what we spend tax money on is "freeloaders" is one of the more bizarre and anachronistic aspects of its current malaise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was true before Obama was elected, and now it's really true. We need more revenue to pay for all the things we want government to do, and all the benefits we want it to bestow.

 

 

That's true.

 

But:

 

"We" want lots of free shit but oddly enough "we" don't seem to want to pay the taxes. Maybe that's because somebody promised that "the rich" would be able to pay for it all....

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly. To make that claim you'd have to be arguing that this is an entirely new phenomenon. But it's not. Americans have wanted benefits and big defense budgets and social safety nets without paying for them for a long time.

 

Then you'd also have to have a problem with people who promised that when you cut taxes it always increases revenue, so it's a win-win, and then cut them.

 

We need more revenue. It's going to have to come from the rich. It's going to have to come from the middle class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly. To make that claim you'd have to be arguing that this is an entirely new phenomenon. But it's not. Americans have wanted benefits and big defense budgets and social safety nets without paying for them for a long time.

 

How is that different from what I said?

Of course.

 

 

Then you'd also have to have a problem with people who promised that when you cut taxes it always increases revenue, so it's a win-win, and then cut them.

 

Lets not play the always/never game. I may counter by askin why tjhe Dems don't eliminate the tax cuts immediately if higher taxes means a stronger economy?

 

We need more revenue. It's going to have to come from the rich. It's going to have to come from the middle class.

 

True enough.

The more you want the more it costs. I'm just repeating the campaign promises.

 

And IMO when the government provides the service it's often shoddier and more costly than the open market.

Yes Heck. Fire police, postal and armed forces too, though we've had little experience with those in the private sector.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your lower taxes = stronger economy formulation is what's wrong with the Republican view of the economy/taxes/government spending. It's overly simplistic, and ignores the reality of the policy choices we face.

 

As for your "gotcha" about why didn't the Democrats eliminate the tax cuts immediately if it's good for the economy, it's just nonsense. That's not the case the Democrats are making, and no conservative worth their salt would argue that the Bush tax cuts are the exact level of taxation we can accept and should not be touched.

 

Anyone who is serious is always arguing about the level of taxation/inefficiency we can accept in the economy, and balancing that with the primary goal of taxes in the first place - to fund government operations.

 

The "lower taxes = stronger economy" or "higher taxes = weaker economy" trope ignores a whole host of issues, the main ones being that it doesn't even mention the point of taxation, or what taxes you're talking about.

 

Yes, the economy is going to function more efficiently under lower taxes. So what? We know that already.

 

How are you going to fund your entitlement obligations, your defense budget, social safety net programs, education, environment protection, transportation, public health programs, homeland security, and all the other things government does?

 

Your solution - outsource the military, postal service, and the police departments to private companies. Um ...okay. Let's say we don't live in reality for a second, you're still back to the same question - where are you going to get the money to pay all these private companies? (We'll skip the other 187 problems with your idea for now.)

 

We have to figure out what we want government to do, and then we have to fund the government through taxes to pay for those things we want government to do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you going to fund your entitlement obligations, your defense budget, social safety net programs, education, environment protection, transportation, public health programs, homeland security, and all the other things government does?

 

entitlement: you dont....your not entitled to crap unless you pay in.

 

defense: no one will bitch about funding to defend ourselves.

 

social safety net: see entitlement

 

education: home schooling...least they'd learn something.

 

environment protection: what?

 

transportation: we all use it, we all pay.

 

public health programs: again, what?

 

homeland security: redundant buearocratic entity thats not needed....

 

other things: how about lets get to the original list in the constitution that DICTATES the powers of the FED.....everything else is a states rights issue....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your lower taxes = stronger economy formulation is what's wrong with the Republican view of the economy/taxes/government spending. It's overly simplistic, and ignores the reality of the policy choices we face.

 

And the "Higher taxes=Stronger economy is as simplistic isn't it?

As for your "gotcha" about why didn't the Democrats eliminate the tax cuts immediately if it's good for the economy, it's just nonsense. That's not the case the Democrats are making, and no conservative worth their salt would argue that the Bush tax cuts are the exact level of taxation we can accept and should not be touched.

 

So bluster aside why not do it now?

 

Anyone who is serious is always arguing about the level of taxation/inefficiency we can accept in the economy, and balancing that with the primary goal of taxes in the first place - to fund government operations.

 

The "lower taxes = stronger economy" or "higher taxes = weaker economy" trope ignores a whole host of issues, the main ones being that it doesn't even mention the point of taxation, or what taxes you're talking about.

 

Yes, the economy is going to function more efficiently under lower taxes. So what? We know that already.

 

So what? It speaks for itself.

 

How are you going to fund your entitlement obligations, your defense budget, social safety net programs, education, environment protection, transportation, public health programs, homeland security, and all the other things government does?

 

Take more from people who earn.

I never disagreed oo that.

You get what you pay for.

Just spare me the bullshit that "the rich" are gonna do it for you as the campaign promised.

See if you tell everyone there's a bonanza on the way that 95% of Americans get but don't pay for it gives unrealistic expectations.

 

Your solution - outsource the military, postal service,We have and the police departments to private companies. Um ...okay. Let's say we don't live in reality for a second, you're still back to the same question - where are you going to get the money to pay all these private companies? (We'll skip the other 187 problems with your idea for now.)

 

So those entities are as efficient as possible. OK.

 

But no Heck. I'm sure Obama will do a lot better running the haelth system and GM; just like the rest of government controlled businesses.[/b]

 

We have to figure out what we want government to do, and then we have to fund the government through taxes to pay for those things we want government to do.

 

 

Uh yeah? That's ttrue.

Pretty easy to figure out what you want if you don't think you have to pay for it.

Check out the Medicaid patients who use the ER for office visits.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the current situation, i think the biggest No 1 issue in my list is fixing the economy and getting meaningful and worthwhile jobs, not fixing the healthcare.

 

We need 10000 doctors, engineers, architectural, mechanical jobs to open up ... not 10000 openings in walmart for menial jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taxesgowhere.jpgConsider the following pie chart:

 

http://www.whitcam.com/research/wp-content...axesgowhere.jpg

 

Now, with Obama's outrageous bailout/spend crap in only 5 months,

 

he quadrupled the debt.

 

Safety Net programs? A hell of a lot bigger.

 

Add a gigantic health care percentage to the pie, say,

 

double or triple the Medicare/Medicaid/and SCHIP.

 

Even if you took 100% of the money from that

 

top 5% made, you don't come close to

 

funding this budget.

 

Apparently, double or triple the "Everything Else" under Obama.

 

Redraw the budget.

 

Socialism doesn't work, never works.

 

Heck's 1960's moveonupOtrauma'sleg.org slamming defense

as the problem with the big budget is ridiculous.

 

The deficit is already quadrupled in Otrauma's first 5 MONTHS.

 

So, look at the pie chart, and make it 36% instead of 9%.

 

Then, you libs think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was true before Obama was elected, and now it's really true. We need more revenue to pay for all the things we want government to do, and all the benefits we want it to bestow.

 

Is there a frog in your pocket, Heck? What's with the 'we'?

 

Why do 'we' need more money? How about efficiency, etc.

 

How about individual effort.

 

People who look to government for their existence arent' much value to anybody, I am afraid to say.

 

Speak all you want in the third person, Heck, but don't make this sound like there is a groundswell of support for milking the workingman - at least from the workingman.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to figure out what we want government to do, and then we have to fund the government through taxes to pay for those things we want government to do.

 

"But until we figure it out, keep sending us half of your paycheck."

 

 

 

I've seen better value at a strip club. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, come on. Are you serious?

 

"Efficiency" isn't going to balance the budget. I don't know what "individual effort" has to do with this either. We're talking about "we" as in the people, and the people who we elected to represent us. The federal budget - that's what "we" voted for. "We" are on the hook for that spending.

 

How are "we" going to pay for it? That's the question we're asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, come on. Are you serious?

 

"Efficiency" isn't going to balance the budget. I don't know what "individual effort" has to do with this either. We're talking about "we" as in the people, and the people who we elected to represent us. The federal budget - that's what "we" voted for. "We" are on the hook for that spending.

 

How are "we" going to pay for it? That's the question we're asking.

 

Fair enough, Heck, but how far can this pendulum swing?

 

This is a serious question.

 

It is undeniable that the fastest growing demographic - in terms of both adult numbers and their propensity to reproduce disproportuatley - are also those that are under-educated, under-skilled, and, arguably, under-motivated to achieve.

 

 

Honestly, can you envision a time when our entire system collapses under the weight of the Federal Government? If so, is this a proper course of action - milking the 2% of the population that pay about 50% of Federal Income taxes as it is?

 

I hate to say this but, if this 'big squeeze' continues for long, we will be talking about US Civil Wars, not THE Civil War.

 

Not that I want this to happen, but it seems like a possible, if not probably, occurence.

 

If painted into a corner, I can honestly say that I would support the 'rogue' army.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell that, once again, I've come to the wrong place to have this discussion.

 

Why not join the 'Outsourcing' discussion / thread, Heck. I welcome your input and perspective on this phenomenom.

 

 

Tell me that you cannot understand why subjects like these create a visceral response from certain segments of the population - mostly from the contributing faction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell that, once again, I've come to the wrong place to have this discussion.

 

 

Really?

 

You don't find it slightly perplexing that we can't fire the DOT, or FICA, or your local/regional power company - yet our current hero can fire the CEO of GM?

 

then

 

allow the company to shit the bed then take a honeymoon to Cairo & Paris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the Lyin Otrauma said they'll only tax the top 5 percent, and everybody else's

 

taxes would be lower.

 

Now, "well, how can we support the ourtrageous spending if we don't put big taxes on everybody"

 

Some of us told ya, but some of you didn't listen.

 

It is NOT sustainable to make a socialist utopia for the masses.

 

"doi"

 

I am concerned that economic EXPERTS are predicting severe hyper-inflation if the Congress

 

and Obama don't stop.

 

And yes, food riots, and at the worst, violence by the rioters, and mini-wars by

 

those who are angry their undeserved and/or unneeded entitlements end...

 

or, a lot of folks who can't afford the food bills.

 

I belief we are headed for disaster, but we aren't there yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...