Government Spending
mikepegg44
Posts: 3,353
Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I'm with you 100%. I can't see giving the Federal Government another dollar until they prove that they can spend it prudently-- and I don't see how anyone else can, either. Their track record is public, everyone in the world knows how much the federal government over-spends, and how it spends so much more than it can even possibly take in. Each time they borrow more money they piss off more of their creditors as it becomes blatantly obvious that none of their prior creditors' debt will be paid back anytime soon, or when it is paid back, it will be with increasingly worthless money.
he fact that every dollar created IS debt with interest attached doesn't help at all, as it makes all of the debt IMPOSSIBLE to pay back.
The best solution would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, or at least take away any powers they have to print money out of thin air. At that rate, the people would not be subject to taxation by inflation. There WOULD have to be direct taxation to pay for all of the services that government provides, and it would become infinitely more obvious to everyone how much the federal government actually costs them. At that point, people would have to demand that the size and scope of the federal government change if they want to have anything left in their paychecks at all.
you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...
I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....
Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...
I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...
I understand what you are saying, but those people are the ones who forced us into a situation where we have bills to pay and they continue to spend like they don't care about paying them. That is what I don't understand...shared sacrifice sounds noble, and the government isn't about nobility. They cannot get it right...
and I didn't say no taxes, jesus, it is like if you are against taxes being RAISED you are against all taxes ever...I understand the need for taxes and I pay mine on time, my question is more about why don't we make them use the billions they already get to solve the problem instead of taking more from the people?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Mine just shut down in Minnesota, and surprisingly, the sun still rose in the east.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
When the day comes we don't outspend the rest of the world combined in military and pull our bases all over the world then maybe we could reduce taxes and concentrate on the people and being better world citizens.
Often, Americans aren't about shared sacrifice, either. What are the odds of re-election for the congress person who raises taxes/cuts programs that cover a lot of people? You can make the argument that they are responding to constituents, too.
I mentioned on another thread that having an outside source do investigations on all government spending..
why not they do it to us (IRS)
Godfather.
Under normal cirmcumstances, this would work.
However, these are not normal circumstances we are currently facing. Because we have refused to increase taxes (revenue) on past debt, the debt has grown to monsterous proportions. In order to rectify the current situation, we have to BOTH, increase revenues (taxes) and cut spending in order to reduce our debt. Doing only one thing or the other will do nothing to resolve the problem except extend the date of the inevitable.
We SHOULD be looking for a long term solution that will reduce the debt.
After that, we can work on a mangable budget.
...
But, as long as we play political slap and tickle by letting our representatives use taxes and spending cuts as campaign slogans (ever notice how they criticise one or the other, but NEVER offer up a solution plan... I'm looking at you Ms. Palin and Bachmann), we will continue our decline as the economic super power.
Hail, Hail!!!
thanks for proving my point...
I'm pretty sure "essential" employees are working...
oh well... :eh:
how much will this cost...? who's going to pay for it...? who will do it...? who will oversee this action...?
serious questions...
so you would agree to a raise in taxes...? for who...?
you say "They cannot get it right"...that's such a broad statement it's almost meaningless....
a combined effort thru all states, state elections and ...state tax's :? sorry but it will be worth it.
Godfather.
how much...? will you be raising state sales taxes to pay for this effort...?
what do you mean by "state elections"...?
who will oversee this "combined effort thru all states"....?
actually it proves mine...the government "essential services" are working...what does that say about the others?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
they being the house, senate, and executive branch of the government. By get it right I mean, keep the federal government from causing more trouble than they solve by simply managing their spending properly.
You think this is a typical GOP rant and it isn't. It is like you are deliberately answering a different question...what is 2+2? your answer... orange... Orange is a great answer to a different question...your question would be something like what are a citizens responsibilities, and coupling with that, what are the essential services a government must provide its people? Mine is...why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?
And no, I wouldn't agree to a raise in taxes. I would say first why don't we remove the 18,000 pages of tax loop holes that are created to allow individuals the ability to get out of paying their "fair" share if they have a good enough accountant. That raises revenue, without raising taxes. If you must give them more, why not simply enforce what is on the books rather than creating new tax brackets for people to get out of paying.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you can increase revenue without changing the tax bracket. namely by getting rid of the ability to get out of paying taxes through creative accounting.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?...."
this is your opinion in the form of a question...anyway, my answer is blue...no seriously...I think you're framing the question based on your own bias...which is fine, but the only right answer is the one you already have in your head...
as for part of your answer that I put in bold...I fully agree....
however, I do still believe taxes need to go back to Clinton era levels...
lol, sorry, from now on 2+2 is blue
I am framing a question as the one that is in my head...that is the one I ask myself...so I guess there is bias in the question, how should I have framed it so it wasn't showing a bias?
"why raise taxes?" that is rather broad and doesn't get to the idea that I am wondering about. If we all disagree with large portions of the budget...and the legislature(all, not red or blue alone) is continually irresponsible with the funds they are given, why is the solution to give them more of people's money?
I understand the unique nature of the situation, but I look at it like a drug addict...the government is a wicked crack addict who spends money like a middle of the road salesmen at a strip club...eventually the public needs to say enough, you have enough...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Any guesses who benefits most from 'creative accounting'?
Here's a hint: It isn't all of us a-holes in the 'Income below the $250,000.00 a year' crowd.
Hail, Hail!!!
I feel like were doing the Abbot and Costello bit "who's on first"...(for the uninformed, google it, I bet it's on the youtube)
my answer to "why raise taxes" is because we have bills to pay....it's that simple...
sorry...but it's true...
you keep saying the gov't is "irresponsible with the funds they are given"...sure, fine...that's your opinion...fact of business, that gov't structure has been in place for a couple years now, maybe a couple hundred...
Is it perfect...nope...nothing is...but it's what we have and for me, I think it works fairly well...
simply because it has been doesn't mean it should be...I am sure you have read the lottery
who may be on first but what is on second?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I would say that the general public is the crack addict, only they want their crack for free!
nicely done.
I would agree, but I will always like my crack like my chicken sandwiches and waffle fries...for free!!!
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I thought about this a little more... then, came up with this question:
How?
The way to increase taxes without changing the tax brackets by getting out of paying taxes through creative accounting... is... by...
...
doing what?
Elimination on the Schedule A? Elimination of the business expenditure exemptions?
By just saying, 'This is what you earned... this is what you pay?
...
And I am for a 15% accross the board income taxe with no exemptions. If you make $10,000.00 a year you owe $1,500.00 If you make $1,000,000,000.00, you owe $15,000,000.00. Guy who works at the Taco Bell to Joe Union worker in Michigan to 6 term Congressman to Wall Strret douchebag to CEO of Exxon... 15%.
Hail, Hail!!!
I've heard the %15 number thrown out ever since that goober Forbes got camera time. Does anyone know what the revenue total would be if that was in place? My guess is significantly less just due to the fact that said goober proposed it.
Okay... 17.5% or 21.1%... whatever. As long as it is applied across the board equally. From the guy I buy tacos from to that douchebag, Donald Trump. Same percentage for everyone... no write-off for Summer homes in The Hamptons.
Hail, Hail!!!
I actually have a problem with the 15% across the board as i believe it would affect the already very poor people more. if a person makes $10,000 a year taking $1500 off would make this person have only $8500 which is not enough to live off. if you have a person making 1 million a year and you take 150,000 a year they still have 850,000 a year to live a year. doesn't make sense to me.
also would this included people on social assistance or anyone on a fix income such as seniors?
very simply, and it is just as you said. All tax incentives removed...no deductions for anything...you could theoretically have a lower tax rate for everyone but increase the amount of money you actually take in. I still think that a fair tax has some issues, but it is a far better solution than the present system...which again allows for creative accounting.
Removing the ability to find a loophole to change a simple dinner to a qualifying tax exemption is necessary...for more necessary than again raising taxes. I don't necessarily think we HAVE to go to a fair tax system, but a simplification of the system is a necessity...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
in canada we have an auditor general ... the current one is retiring soon ... she was good ... for the most part, they have the autonomy to report objectively ...
as for the topic ... i would agree with the OP in that gov't spending is highly inefficient ... part of that is just the bureaucracy but a lot of it is intentional ... like i keep preaching - the corporatization of gov't is the problem ... having said that - you can be sure that the programs to be cut when there is no money will be things like education and other social programs but the corporations will still get their money ...
Mike I agree with 95% of what you post here, but you're going down a strange path there. Most "creative accounting" comes from average folks with small-businesses and rich folks with tons of "paper wealth" and good accountants. Those of us with standard W-2 salaries don't have alot of wiggle room. We have our mortgage interest writeoff and that's about it. (One could certainly argue that that needs to go away, since it artificially inflates the housing market.)