Masterchief. No doubt, there is plenty of trouble in Swedish paradise. I did not bring up Sweden as an example of a model society, but in the context of a discussion about the relationship between higher tax rates and "poverty problems".
Vote today... Mitt Romney or Barack Obama
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
- Status
Masterchief. No doubt, there is plenty of trouble in Swedish paradise. I did not bring up Sweden as an example of a model society, but in the context of a discussion about the relationship between higher tax rates and "poverty problems".
Hi
That doesn't seem to take into account the Iraq war, euphemism for Iraq Invasion, but that is the subject for another debate. One case of a graph skirting around the issue... Still in this graph ( I haven't yet read the CBO report/article), the Bush tax cuts amount for quarter of this and I really like the all encompassing "spending" item? What were those spending for? Besides don't they have to be paid for? How?
Frantz -
I'll be interested if you agree, but my reading of the CBO report is that spending includes the wars, stimulus, etc. Absolutely the Bush era tax cuts contributed to the change from baseline projection, but according to the CBO, the claim that it was the biggest contributor is not correct.
I do think you make a good point regarding paying for the spending...and in large measure we're borrowing to pay for it.
I have a friend who is a full colonel in the army. West Point. Damn smart guy and a great soldier. He tells me that he thinks every war and every escalation of war should be accompanied by very publicly-announced tax increases to pay for them. Not only because it is the fiscally sound thing to do, but because with the end of the draft and the advent of the professional army (which he considers a good thing, essential against this enemy) the electoate hasn't nearly enough skin in the game to keep the politicians from being reckless and stupid, by which he is referring to a long line of the reckless and stupid, not just Bush his neocons.
I think he's got a pretty good point.
And Andre, man, you got to stop holding back.
Tim
I think he's got a pretty good point.
And Andre, man, you got to stop holding back.
Tim
The conservatives in the crowd might find these videos amusing. I would guess that there are liberal, er progressive counterparts to be found on the web.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ZvQsP48pQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ZvQsP48pQ
Saludos Masterchief ,
I can hear the liberal minds popping by the second after writing such, strange their acceptance and wantings, ready to apply past failed policies (i remind you, policies they themselves have actually had to run from ) By comparing Sweden's Oil rich cash economy, small population, low population growth and very limited immigration policies to our 330 million open border , run what your brung populus...
I guess they are out of their libby medication ....
The Bulk of our spending is not on wars, but on medicare/medicade/ social security. The war on Iraq, was not paid for out of our treasury, same as Obama's war on Libya, you should do some research, dig deep, the real oil man is on his second term and for the record, CLinton was the one who recieved the mandate to Invade Iraq, if not for his incompetence , they would have been in a year earlier, in contrast it took the Ohhhbama admin 1 yr to act on their Libyan Mandate..
You should read up on how invading Iraq saved the dollar.....
regards,
Last edited:
I have a friend who is a full colonel in the army. West Point. Damn smart guy and a great soldier. He tells me that he thinks every war and every escalation of war should be accompanied by very publicly-announced tax increases to pay for them. Not only because it is the fiscally sound thing to do, but because with the end of the draft and the advent of the professional army (which he considers a good thing, essential against this enemy) the electoate hasn't nearly enough skin in the game to keep the politicians from being reckless and stupid, by which he is referring to a long line of the reckless and stupid, not just Bush his neocons.
I think he's got a pretty good point.
And Andre, man, you got to stop holding back.
Tim
Ahhh Bushy, yeah the bad guy , take a look at how many wars and conflicts Ohhbama has taken us in, our Noble peace Prize prez has done his fair share, look at the de-stabilization currently going on in the ME, the death toll from Afghanistan, I guess Cindy Shehaan and the anti-war Neoliberals will be in full demonstration mode ..
Yeah right ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CDT14ICE4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugpaq1kw9W4&feature=related
CHANGE ..?
Last edited:
Great point Andre, blah, blah , blah ... Err, I must have missed the point where you stressed reduced spending , Yes , it must have slipped by, I wait patiently for your spending cut solutions...
Unless you enjoy feeding our wasteful corrupt Washington machine ...
Take a look , if you dare ....
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
Last edited:
Even if they tax the millionaires at 100%, it will have very little impact on the debt. Wiki reports that there are about 300,000 families with $1 million dollar incomes, or 0.1% of the US population. If they're paying an average of 15% in income tax, they pay $150,000 each in tax for a total of $45 billion. The additional 85% of their combined income totals $255 billion. Compare that to the national debt of $16 trillion. That's only 1.5% of the debt covered by their additional 85% contribution. And, you leave the owners of many businesses, etc. penniless.
Now, since 49% of the population pays no taxes, let's work those numbers. Take 150 million people and tax them $1700 per year and you equal the 85% of millionaires income ($255 billion). So, the millionaire, who typically works quite hard, pays 100 times the tax as we could ask of the bottom 49% (to achieve equal total contributions). Understanding that there will be a group of folks who'll pay no tax, perhaps we would raise the $1700 to $2500 or so. Since most families earning $40,000 or less can pay no taxes, would 5-6% tax rate be too steep? If only half of those 49% (25% of 300 million citizens at $40,000 income) pay taxes at a rate of 15%, you end up with $450 billion in tax revenue. Unfortunately, the entitlement culture has not approached this issue for obvious reasons.
Even with better distribution of taxation, it will be almost impossible to balance the budget without significant spending cuts by the federal government. The numbers speak for themselves. But, as long as we're popping $100,000 and more to study the pouring speed of ketchup, etc., it's unlikely that spending will get under control. IMO.
Lee
Liberals don't care about debt until the house crumbles...Of course even the very rich can't bail out an entitlement rich society. They just leave...another shock to the tax revenue. Look at Cali...2000 taxpayers leave the state every week.
Great point Andre, blah, blah , blah ... Err, I must have missed the point where you stressed reduced spending , Yes , it must have slipped by, I wait patiently for your spending cut solutions...
Unless you enjoy feeding our wasteful corrupt Washington machine ...
You mean like the reduced spending of the Bush Admin? For the two wars..and the biggest EXPANSION of the Federal government ever under ANY administration?
You mean those those spending cuts?
Of course I am for sensible spending cuts.
Great point Andre, blah, blah , blah ... Err, I must have missed the point where you stressed reduced spending , Yes , it must have slipped by, I wait patiently for your spending cut solutions...
Unless you enjoy feeding our wasteful corrupt Washington machine ...
While were at it..I looked real hard for Dubya...thought he might help O'l Mutt out on the campaign trail...hmmm I musta missed him.
- Status
