The public message is pretty clear, cut defense, save medicare and social security, and raise taxes on the wealthy (Clinton, how much)
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.
Government where the few rule the many - Oligarchy
You want to live there, move there. I live in what is supposed to be a representative democracy.
The same people who scream constitution, and "the people say" when the TEA party is on the march suddenly turn polar opposite when it is contradictory to their position.
Like I asked you in another thread. If the public demanded the gvmt supply them with a boat , should the gvmt do so?
Sure, in a vacuum, cut defense. But, do you really know what happens when we cut defense dramatically? It's not what you think should happen. The only ones that suffer when defense spending is cut are our military members and families. Having been in the military going through one of these huge defense cut initiatives, it's always the law of unintended consequences.
I've so had it with the class warfare. All of it, from both sides but Obama does seem to be the worst of the worst in this rhetoric. Until we eliminate lobbyists and create a flatter, simpler tax code, all of the rest is noise. As a fairly right person, I am not looking for more of the same from my next President. I want someone who genuinely believes in small government and this means that everything is on the table. Ultimately though, neither cutting spending nor raising taxes will be a solution until and unless we reform the tax code and get the financial incentives (e.g. lobbyists) out of our government.
Like I asked you in another thread. If the public demanded the gvmt supply them with a boat , should the gvmt do so?
And like I said in the other tread.
Yeah.
They wanted Prohibition, then they wanted it repealed. If the people want to add to the bill of rights with "Every American has the right to a 18 foot boat", then by God, its their right to do so.
Thats what the majority of Americans demand. Now can we say "if we lower the rate but end this subsidy, end this loophole, and end this give away, and still have a revenue increase to make up and save the programs you want," I think most people would go along with this.
These polls are worded in a very simple way to get a simple response. Now if you asked those polled "what do you mean by taxing the rich", you'd probably get a very different answer from each person.
But the guide rails are there, and there are ways for the GOP and those like you (me to actually) who think that enough money is taxed at the current rate, its the loopholes and write offs that lowers the rates to a level where they aren't enough to pay for the programs we demand.
This is where the citizens need to push this through, because Congress, being rich themselves, put these loopholes in for their benefit. And of course, those who are wealthy outside of government can lobby for the loopholes to stay in place.
The problem is that the focus is on taxing the rich - which is part of the title of this thread. The narrative needs to change.
Taxing the rich will hit honest rich people. The rich people who are connected and the politicians will simply invent more loopholes into place to avoid new taxes. If they can call pizza a vegetable with a straight face, then anything can be expected out of this group.
Sure, in a vacuum, cut defense. But, do you really know what happens when we cut defense dramatically? It's not what you think should happen. The only ones that suffer when defense spending is cut are our military members and families. Having been in the military going through one of these huge defense cut initiatives, it's always the law of unintended consequences.
I've so had it with the class warfare. All of it, from both sides but Obama does seem to be the worst of the worst in this rhetoric. Until we eliminate lobbyists and create a flatter, simpler tax code, all of the rest is noise. As a fairly right person, I am not looking for more of the same from my next President. I want someone who genuinely believes in small government and this means that everything is on the table. Ultimately though, neither cutting spending nor raising taxes will be a solution until and unless we reform the tax code and get the financial incentives (e.g. lobbyists) out of our government.
When did the war in Germany and Japan end?
A chart of world wide military spending by country shows that Europe and our allies have decreased their military spending year over year, since the end of the cold war.
We account for 43% of all world wide military spending, the next highest contributor is China, at 7%.
We give 1 billion dollars a year to the Egyptian military to keep them from invading Israel. Congress can't even agree on 1.2 billion in cuts.
People aren't stupid, they know where we are bloated. Spend that money at home, on roads if you want to create jobs. But on foreign aid, which is essentially what our military spending is, foreign aid, and bring that money home.
Close all over seas bases, they are our allies right? Shouldn't they be able to keep bases up to date so we can borrow them when needed?
The people have spoken, and if congress doesn't listen they are in trouble. End defense spending that is useless and foreign aid, keep social security and medicare untouched, and raise taxes on the wealthy.
By Donna Smith
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 9, 2011 2:47pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed.
The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program.
So why all the fuss? It looks like the voters are pretty clear to me.
Cut defense, don't change medicare, don't cut social security, and tax the rich more to pay for everything else.
Why can't congress agree?
To the last sentence - our members of congress and the president swore to defend and uphold the US Constitution, and the main function of government is to defend the nation, and the people to protect their rights and liberties. They did not swear to tax us to death, while borrowing and spending the nation into bankruptcy, in order to give away more and more free stuff to the selfish, greedy masses. Too bad, what they swore to do, and they chose to do instead, are in direct opposition to each other.
No they are buying it because they can afford it without it cutting into their other expenses, desires.
Right along the lines of my previous post, you assume that luxury buyers are like you with a little chump change laying around that they won't have if their top marginal tax rates were raised back to Clinton era (3-4%).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Then I do not understand your thinking that's it's extreme thinking. What's the extreme?
Look at your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
To the last sentence - our members of congress and the president swore to defend and uphold the US Constitution, and the main function of government is to defend the nation, and the people to protect their rights and liberties.
From who?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This is where the citizens need to push this through, because Congress, being rich themselves, put these loopholes in for their benefit. And of course, those who are wealthy outside of government can lobby for the loopholes to stay in place.
The problem is that the focus is on taxing the rich - which is part of the title of this thread. The narrative needs to change.
Taxing the rich will hit honest rich people. The rich people who are connected and the politicians will simply invent more loopholes into place to avoid new taxes. If they can call pizza a vegetable with a straight face, then anything can be expected out of this group.
I prefer a flatter tax. But when a majority of Americans aren't paying income tax already, we can't very well expect them to vote to increase their taxes when rich people are getting away scott free.
I agree, the pain will have to be spread, but the guidelines are there. Save social security and medicare, cut defense, and raise taxes on the wealthy.
If you did three of the four, and said "look everyone will have to pitch in, the rich will pitch in more, but everyone will have to give some", then I think most Americans would accept that. But Republicans refuse to even mention the word tax increase, even a net tax increase by closing loopholes. They want it all through cuts, but not defense. Democrats don't want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class, but that seems like its going to have to be done at least some.
Both parties are in the wrong here, and the sooner people realize that, the better.
The message is clear.
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.
