Amazon 7 #26 November 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteno one is going to voluntarily send in their money - that is why we need government to oversee the country and provide for (and fund) the programs that the people need and want. This country cannot even sustain the military at this point, yet we continue to spend it and want to cut taxes. Not even possible and it is simple math. Do the math The math has been done The problem has nothing to do with taxation Spending is the issue And military spending is very little if any of the problem Not very good at math, are you? I am AMAZED there are so many here in SC from the right wing that are so successful and are making in excess of $250K a year that they worry about all this over the top taxation they are are so jacked off about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 November 22, 2010 QuoteDid you write and send your check yet? inqueries like that usually result in one of 4 responses: 1 - incredulity that you don't understand it's all about the 'principle' of it - they won't pay more until everybody else is forced to also 2 - they quote all the VOLUNTARY charity donations they made and call that the same as more taxes (showing a complete inability to understand the difference in choosing how to give your dollars and how that's different than letting congress do it for you) 3 - they say they gave what the law required and pretend they don't understand the whole point of your question - they may not be pretending and actually lack an understanding of private property and personal rights and truly do think that everything is just on loan from congressmen 4 - they complain about how taxes are spent on things they don't like - again showing a lack in comprehension on how taxes work Let's see what happens in this case - shall we? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #28 November 22, 2010 Quote they won't pay more until everybody else is forced to also. we're talking about warren buffett and the super rich - not 'everybody' - duh.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #29 November 23, 2010 In 2010 the Dep of Defense accounted for 19% of all federal budget expenditures, and 28% of all tax revenues. Add the non DOD expenditures and it goes to 28-38% and 42-57% respectively. To top it all off defense spending grew on average 9% annually from 2000-2009. How can you say that the military is not a huge drain for us. I'm sure there is a lot of fat that can be cut, but heaven forbid anyway ever mentions that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #30 November 23, 2010 QuoteIn 2010 the Dep of Defense accounted for 19% of all federal budget expenditures, and 28% of all tax revenues. Add the non DOD expenditures and it goes to 28-38% and 42-57% respectively. To top it all off defense spending grew on average 9% annually from 2000-2009. How can you say that the military is not a huge drain for us. I'm sure there is a lot of fat that can be cut, but heaven forbid anyway ever mentions that. Am I for cutting fat in any and all programs I also never said that military spending was not big"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #31 November 23, 2010 I am not obliged to compensate for the dereliction of greedy rich bastards.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #32 November 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn 2010 the Dep of Defense accounted for 19% of all federal budget expenditures, and 28% of all tax revenues. Add the non DOD expenditures and it goes to 28-38% and 42-57% respectively. To top it all off defense spending grew on average 9% annually from 2000-2009. How can you say that the military is not a huge drain for us. I'm sure there is a lot of fat that can be cut, but heaven forbid anyway ever mentions that. Am I for cutting fat in any and all programs I also never said that military spending was not big "military spending is very little if any of the problem" rushmc, 11/22/2010 "Military spending is NOT the issue " rushmc, 11/22/2010... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #33 November 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn 2010 the Dep of Defense accounted for 19% of all federal budget expenditures, and 28% of all tax revenues. Add the non DOD expenditures and it goes to 28-38% and 42-57% respectively. To top it all off defense spending grew on average 9% annually from 2000-2009. How can you say that the military is not a huge drain for us. I'm sure there is a lot of fat that can be cut, but heaven forbid anyway ever mentions that. Am I for cutting fat in any and all programs I also never said that military spending was not big "military spending is very little if any of the problem" rushmc, 11/22/2010 "Military spending is NOT the issue " rushmc, 11/22/2010 Exactly We are talking what the problem is but, I know that is hard for you to understand Oh' did you sent in your check yet? The one with the extra taxes you should pay?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 78 #34 November 23, 2010 QuoteWe are talking what the problem is but, I know that is hard for you to understand No actually, YOU are talking about what YOU THINK the problem is. In all the posts of yours that I have ever read you have never given me any reason whatsoever to believe that what you THINK has anything to do with reality so many of us choose to look at the actual numbers and not our fears and emotions.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 November 23, 2010 QuoteI am not obliged to compensate for the dereliction of greedy rich bastards. #3 and #1 - nice But, the rich bastards are showing "dereliction" by not already paying more than the law allows - talented - a huge contradiction in just one sentence. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 November 23, 2010 QuoteQuote "military spending is very little if any of the problem" rushmc, 11/22/2010 "Military spending is NOT the issue " rushmc, 11/22/2010 Exactly We are talking what the problem is but, I know that is hard for you to understand You might want to clarify your point. 1 - All spending is currently over the top and it all needs to be curtailed. 2 - When people ONLY focus on the military budget they are missing that point. Military needs huge cuts, obviously, but focusing on only that one point is a clear miss of what's really needed. They are pushing a social agenda, not really being genuine about overall spending. I believe that's your point - being obtusely ignored just for argument sake...... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #37 November 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote "military spending is very little if any of the problem" rushmc, 11/22/2010 "Military spending is NOT the issue " rushmc, 11/22/2010 Exactly We are talking what the problem is but, I know that is hard for you to understand You might want to clarify your point. 1 - All spending is currently over the top and it all needs to be curtailed. 2 - When people ONLY focus on the military budget they are missing that point. Military needs huge cuts, obviously, but focusing on only that one point is a clear miss of what's really needed. They are pushing a social agenda, not really being genuine about overall spending. I believe that's your point - being obtusely ignored just for argument sake...... I mostly agree with your points"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #38 November 25, 2010 Buffet is right, but we can't stop there. 1.Slash Defense Spending-If you want us to fight your wars for you, you have to pay for it. 2. Phase out Social Security completely and immediately eliminate public and corporate Wellfare-The G should not be sending checks to those who do not/have not worked there. 3. Establish Public Health Care-It can work and we can afford it. 4. Raise Taxes if needed. 5. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Oh yea...kill all the lobbyists._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #39 November 27, 2010 QuoteWhen I was in Denmark in 2008 doing my radio show for a week from the Danish Radio studios and interviewing many of that nation’s leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my eyes. We’d been discussing taxes on the air and the fact that Denmark has an average 52 percent income-tax rate. I asked him why people didn’t revolt at such high taxes, and he smiled and pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid, with a minimum wage that equals roughly $18 per hour. Moreover, what Danes get for their taxes (that we don’t) is a free college education and free health care, not to mention four weeks of paid vacation each year and notoriety as the happiest nation on earth, according to a major study done by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom. But it was once we were off the air that he made the comment that I found so enlightening. “You Americans are such suckers,” he said. “You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people, but they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way -- look at any country in Europe. And that rule on taxes is the opposite of how it works for rich people!” http://www.alternet.org/economy/148987/thom_hartmann%3A_why_tax_increases_would_boost_our_wages/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #40 November 27, 2010 QuoteThe solution is to cut spending (in all areas, not just the programs you hate) AND raise taxes. Both have to happen to balance the budget in the short term. Agreed. This is why I'm against any tax hikes UNLESS they are coupled with spending cuts. The last thing we need is a tax hike to create an extra $x in revenue that is then used to justify a new or expanded social program costing $1.5x.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 November 27, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe solution is to cut spending (in all areas, not just the programs you hate) AND raise taxes. Both have to happen to balance the budget in the short term. Agreed. This is why I'm against any tax hikes UNLESS they are coupled with spending cuts. The last thing we need is a tax hike to create an extra $x in revenue that is then used to justify a new or expanded social program costing $1.5x. Ummm we need the extra revenue now to pay for programs already in existence and which have such strong constituencies that cutting them is next to impossible (Defense, Social Security and Medicare).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #42 November 27, 2010 Buffett (and his buddy Gates) are in the process of giving billions of dollars away, much of it to eliminate deadly diseases in third world countries. This is very commedable. My question is why Warren, feeling as he does) doesn't give the money to the government for similar programs? I think it is likely that he does not think giving it to the government is anywhere near as efficient of a way to accomplish the same goal. Also, for better or worse, he avoids paying taxes on his capital gains by transferring them to this trust. I'll put more stock in what Warren says when he starts walking the walk."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #43 November 27, 2010 Quote I'll put more stock in what Warren says when he starts walking the walk. which will be when taxes are increased on the super rich stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #44 November 27, 2010 I wish the quoted source had been right for me. In my 42 years, working 29+ of them, it has never worked out, the way he said, for me, higher taxes never coincided with higher income, unless you count a promotion! but that was not what he was talking about was it? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #45 November 27, 2010 QuoteBuffett (and his buddy Gates) are in the process of giving billions of dollars away, much of it to eliminate deadly diseases in third world countries. This is very commedable. My question is why Warren, feeling as he does) doesn't give the money to the government for similar programs? I think it is likely that he does not think giving it to the government is anywhere near as efficient of a way to accomplish the same goal. Also, for better or worse, he avoids paying taxes on his capital gains by transferring them to this trust. I'll put more stock in what Warren says when he starts walking the walk. So which of the big three (defense, socsec, medicare) do you think realistically can be cut? All the other "welfare" programs that the tea party idiots talk whine about amount to peanuts by comparison.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #46 November 28, 2010 All three have to be cut but until "we the people" actually suppor tthe idea.......it isn't going to happen.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #47 November 28, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe solution is to cut spending (in all areas, not just the programs you hate) AND raise taxes. Both have to happen to balance the budget in the short term. Agreed. This is why I'm against any tax hikes UNLESS they are coupled with spending cuts. The last thing we need is a tax hike to create an extra $x in revenue that is then used to justify a new or expanded social program costing $1.5x. Ummm we need the extra revenue now to pay for programs already in existence and which have such strong constituencies that cutting them is next to impossible (Defense, Social Security and Medicare). Agreed, but if the tax hike is used to justify new programs we can actually be worse off. Ex: A tax hike creates $500 million in additional revenue. Some congressional bozos use that increase as reason to push through a few expansions of existing programs and/or new programs which total $750 million. We're now $250 million more in the hole just in the first year. Until the attitude changes, tax hikes could actually hurt us worse.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 November 28, 2010 QuoteBuffett (and his buddy Gates) are in the process of giving billions of dollars away, much of it to eliminate deadly diseases in third world countries. This is very commedable. My question is why Warren, feeling as he does) doesn't give the money to the government for similar programs? Buffet and Gates are clearly not commendable - they are selfish assholes using this money as they see fit rather than just handing it over. As for the Blue part - Buffet should NOT get to choose which programs the money goes to if he hands it over like a good little drone. He has to give it to the government - no strings attached - for the congress to use as they see fit. If not, he's a hypocrit - how dare he puts it in a fund of HIS CHOICE instead of just handing it over to the government for whatever use they see fit. His true actions make him a horrible liberal - but an effective conservative at this point. and a genuine hypocrit for acting like one but trying sound like he's the other. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 November 28, 2010 Quote A tax hike creates $500 million in additional revenue. Some congressional bozos use that increase as reason to push through a few expansions of existing programs and/or new programs which total $750 million. What? this NEVER happens we need to follow the professor's philosophy of "don't try, what's the point" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #50 November 28, 2010 QuoteSo which of the big three (defense, socsec, medicare) do you think realistically can be cut? All the other "welfare" programs that the tea party idiots talk whine about amount to peanuts by comparison. "Defense" is not a program. I would not mock the use the term "welfare" and refer to "defense" in a monolithic sense in the same breath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
