Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay. You just mentioned it, didn't want to discuss.
Reading comprehension may not be your strong suit, but if you go back to the OP, you will see that the topic was his concerns about a particular strategy that's often raised. I stuck to the topic of the OP. You attempted to twist the conversation by pointing out that my post didn't address something that wasn't the topic. I chose to stay on topic; sorry if that's hard for you. I assume you have nothing to say about the topic at hand since you've repeatedly tried to make the subject something it was not. Sorry if discussing one topic is hard for you, but no, when I'm discussing one, I don't want to to defend a post as a response to another. Your pull to do so tells me that you must not have much to say about the topic or else you would either agree or argue that the government is responsible and would use any additional funds to pay off debt. Outside of those positions, you're avoiding the subject.
Reading comprehension may not be your strong suit, but if you go back to the OP, you will see that the topic was his concerns about a particular strategy that's often raised. I stuck to the topic of the OP. You attempted to twist the conversation by pointing out that my post didn't address something that wasn't the topic. I chose to stay on topic; sorry if that's hard for you. I assume you have nothing to say about the topic at hand since you've repeatedly tried to make the subject something it was not. Sorry if discussing one topic is hard for you, but no, when I'm discussing one, I don't want to to defend a post as a response to another. Your pull to do so tells me that you must not have much to say about the topic or else you would either agree or argue that the government is responsible and would use any additional funds to pay off debt. Outside of those positions, you're avoiding the subject.
I believe the government should learn how to responsibly spend the people's money it steals from our incomes first. So far it's shown no evidence of being able to responsibly spend the 2.2 trillion in revenues it already receives. Where are these extra taxes going to go? The Israeli Army, starving pottery makers in Argentina, Brazilian oil exploration, subsidies to manure manufacturers in Kygyzstan? I could list more. These people can't even make a budget for themselves, yet you want to give them more money.
Most cries for tax increases typically come from jealous human beings envious of others' success. I say this because no one (generally on the left) can tell me WHY. Why should we raise them on the rich? So the government has more money to spend irresponsibly?
Maybe it would be better if these tax increases were used to reduce the debt, rather than more handouts to spread the wealth to jealous wannabes. Maybe then I'd listen.
That would never happen, as the Govt. would find some other way they wanted to spend money. THey can't even use the money put aside for Retirement as Social Security without spending it. Do you really believe they would use any new revenue to pay down the debt....they say they would, but would shuffle money elsewhere to run a deficit and then cry how they needed the new revenue to support Govt. Operations, pensions, healthcare, etc. We lack adults in both parties to run our Govt. like a business instead of listening to thsoe who pander and cry the loudest....
YESSSSSSSSS. What is with you people? They have the money, and can afford to give up more. The rich know what they are doing, they don't need some working class lackey running up behind them. Unless, of course, they are using you to do the defending.
So, those with more money should be taxed more? It doesn't matter what they are paying for with their tax contributions, their money should be used to subsidize "needed" programs for others. Assume this is partly how our Debt increased so much? Guess there is no reason to either eliminate the "needed" services or ask those using the services to pay for what they use?
Maybe that works for you, but you can be accountable - if it lines up with truth.
What Obama and his administration believes is governing how he is attacking the financial problems of the country - and it ain't working.
The Obama administration ineffective overall? Senate Republicans: Filibuster everything to win in November? | McClatchy
And this is just a small sample from over a year ago.
Here's the tactic: destroy every Democratic initiative that the public might like, then using the corporate media at election time blame Democrats for not producing.
Here's a question for you - what is the Republican jobs program? What is the Republican plan for prosperity? Don't say pay down the debt - they increased it. Dick Cheney on Budget & Economy
So, those with more money should be taxed more? It doesn't matter what they are paying for with their tax contributions, their money should be used to subsidize "needed" programs for others.
It depends on perspective. Some, like me, subscribe to the Adam Smith school of thought...
"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Others, like you, I'm sure, couldn't disagree with it more.
Quote:
Assume this is partly how our Debt increased so much? Guess there is no reason to either eliminate the "needed" services or ask those using the services to pay for what they use?
The only way to reduce deficit and take the first step towards paying off debt would be to implement policies to stop distribution of the wealth to the top and promote a society that has a stronger middle class. But I wouldn't hold my breath for it in a society where a substantial number dance to the whims of plutocrats and oligarchs.
America is the only place on earth where low income citizens are worrying how to protect the rich.
Disclosure: by nature the rich do not need others defense. They care for themselves quite successfully.
So, would you like to tax the rich at 100% of everything over $1 million????
1. Tax revenues as a % of GDP is the lowest on record so no, 2.2T isnt enough
2. We can't be a imperial power and have low taxes. We need to get out of the middle east.
3. We need to tax the rich because they are the ones with the money
Or as an alternative, we need to cut government spending because they are the ones with the money ----- $2.5 trillion income every year.
So lets start at the top. The richest entity in the world is the US government. They have more revenue than anyone in the world by a wide margin. Let's take 50% of their money and give it back to the hard working taxpayers who gave it to the government.
Problem solved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
