Let's debate raising tax on the rich

[timmyfritz 0]

On second thought why bother?

They bring this up every now and again in Congress but it is just a charade.

It will never happen.

Congress will never raise taxes on the rich as the members of Congress are the rich!!!

Ain't no Wal-Mart greeter in Congress.
Ain't no school bus driver in Congress.
Ain't no brick masons in Congress, etc.

Maybe there should be!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Isn't 27,348 threads on taxing the rich enough?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[timmyfritz 0]

Quote

Isn't 27,348 threads on taxing the rich enough?

Are you wanting to debate?

[nanook 1]

Quote

Maybe there should be

Counterintuitive. How can they get into Congress? Their greatest accomplishment was getting liscensed to drive children around.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Isn't 27,348 threads on taxing the rich enough?

Are you wanting to debate?

Nope.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[DiverMike 5]

Why should anyone rich or poor give more money to the government if the government is not correctly handling the money it is currently receiving? Fix that problem and quit enabling the broken process by giving it more funds.

You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Why should anyone rich or poor give more money to the government if the government is not correctly handling the money it is currently receiving? Fix that problem and quit enabling the broken process by giving it more funds.

You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nice sound bite but as usual in a rant it lacks specifics. Please identify the waste and corruption and the % of the total that it represents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DiverMike 5]

Just to prove my ability to cut and paste:

#1 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft. The goal of this "video game research" is reportedly to study how "emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace."

#2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

#3 $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

#4 A professor at Stanford University received $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love. So far one of the key findings of this "research" is that the Internet is a safer and more discreet way to find same-sex partners.

#5 The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions."

#6 The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

#7 Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos. The goal of the "poetry" is to help raise awareness on environmental issues.

#8 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spent $175 million during 2010 to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use. This includes a pink, octagonal monkey house in the city of Dayton, Ohio.

#9 $1.8 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars went for a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.

#10 $35 million was reportedly paid out by Medicare to 118 "phantom" medical clinics that never even existed. Apparently these "phantom" medical clinics were established by a network of criminal gangs as a way to defraud the U.S. government.

#11 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont got $150,000 from the federal government to construct a "critter crossing". Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of "thousands" of migrating salamanders are now being saved.

#12 In California, one park received $440,000 in federal funds to perform "green energy upgrades" on a building that has not been used for a decade.

#13 $440,955 was spent this past year on an office for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he rarely even visits.

#14 One Tennessee library was given $5,000 in federal funds to host a series of video game parties.

#15 The U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on a television commercial during the Super Bowl that was so poorly produced that virtually nobody understood what is was trying to say.

#16 A professor at Dartmouth University received $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".

#17 The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo over $600,000 so that they could develop an online video game called "Wolfquest".

#18 A pizzeria in Iowa was given $60,000 to renovate the pizzeria's facade and give it a more "inviting feel".

#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave one enterprising group of farmers $30,000 to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations". This one sounds like something that Dwight Schrute would have dreamed up.

#20 Almost unbelievably, the National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[frequentfaller 0]

i always see these kind of posts. how do these programs or studies get approved?

is it bureaucracy that causes this?

is it buried in paperwork?

or is some of it false, exagerated?

seems like these kind of programs would be eay to cut funds to.

Born ok 1st time.

[charlie5 0]

Quote

Quote

Why should anyone rich or poor give more money to the government if the government is not correctly handling the money it is currently receiving? Fix that problem and quit enabling the broken process by giving it more funds.

You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nice sound bite but as usual in a rant it lacks specifics. Please identify the waste and corruption and the % of the total that it represents.

SOLYNDRA

That's just a tiny drop in an ocean of waste.

Or how about the fact that we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt?! You don't go into that much debt through sound fiscal policy.

Are you really going to be that obtuse about this?

*that's all I'm posting on this, anybody that really even attempts to defend current government spending is delusional.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Just to prove my ability to cut and paste:

#1 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft. The goal of this "video game research" is reportedly to study how "emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace."

#2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave the University of New Hampshire $700,000 this year to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

#3 $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

#4 A professor at Stanford University received $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love. So far one of the key findings of this "research" is that the Internet is a safer and more discreet way to find same-sex partners.

#5 The National Science Foundation spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions."

#6 The National Institutes of Health spent approximately $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

#7 Approximately $1 million of U.S. taxpayer money was used to create poetry for the Little Rock, New Orleans, Milwaukee and Chicago zoos. The goal of the "poetry" is to help raise awareness on environmental issues.

#8 The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spent $175 million during 2010 to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use. This includes a pink, octagonal monkey house in the city of Dayton, Ohio.

#9 $1.8 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars went for a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.

#10 $35 million was reportedly paid out by Medicare to 118 "phantom" medical clinics that never even existed. Apparently these "phantom" medical clinics were established by a network of criminal gangs as a way to defraud the U.S. government.

#11 The Conservation Commission of Monkton, Vermont got $150,000 from the federal government to construct a "critter crossing". Thanks to U.S. government money, the lives of "thousands" of migrating salamanders are now being saved.

#12 In California, one park received $440,000 in federal funds to perform "green energy upgrades" on a building that has not been used for a decade.

#13 $440,955 was spent this past year on an office for former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert that he rarely even visits.

#14 One Tennessee library was given $5,000 in federal funds to host a series of video game parties.

#15 The U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on a television commercial during the Super Bowl that was so poorly produced that virtually nobody understood what is was trying to say.

#16 A professor at Dartmouth University received $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".

#17 The National Science Foundation gave the Minnesota Zoo over $600,000 so that they could develop an online video game called "Wolfquest".

#18 A pizzeria in Iowa was given $60,000 to renovate the pizzeria's facade and give it a more "inviting feel".

#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave one enterprising group of farmers $30,000 to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations". This one sounds like something that Dwight Schrute would have dreamed up.

#20 Almost unbelievably, the National Institutes of Health was given $800,000 in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.

As I thought, you can't find anything other than a tiny drop in a large bucket. Adding up everything you listed, with the exception of the Veteran's Affairs building maintenance which may well be justifiable, amounts to less than 0.001% of federal spending.

If you want to save real money you have to go after DEFENSE and RETIREES.

DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International defense $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, defense satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM Classified
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Defense Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion + Classified budget

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why should anyone rich or poor give more money to the government if the government is not correctly handling the money it is currently receiving? Fix that problem and quit enabling the broken process by giving it more funds.

You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nice sound bite but as usual in a rant it lacks specifics. Please identify the waste and corruption and the % of the total that it represents.

SOLYNDRA

That's just a tiny drop in an ocean of waste.

Or how about the fact that we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt?! You don't go into that much debt through sound fiscal policy.

Are you really going to be that obtuse about this?

*that's all I'm posting on this, anybody that really even attempts to defend current government spending is delusional.

Someone else who is clueless about the magnitude of the spending problem.

Which will you attack, the military, or elderly Americans? Because that's where the bulk of the federal spending goes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

i always see these kind of posts. how do these programs or studies get approved?

is it bureaucracy that causes this?

is it buried in paperwork?

or is some of it false, exagerated?

seems like these kind of programs would be eay to cut funds to.

If EVERYTHING except Defense, Social Security and Medicare were eliminated completely we STILL would have a deficit. And SocSec and Medicare have their own funding source.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Far too many people do not know the difference between debt and deficit. The US Government has had an extremely large debt going back many decades and it only gets worse with it's annual deficits. Clinton briefly ran a few surpluses near the end of his 8 years as prez (good on him) but that was not enough to put a real dent in the US government's debt. Then GWB came along running massive deficits with his massive spending and the shit the fan in 2008. A new sheriff then came into town in 2009 to clean up the mess GWB left behind and what did this new sheriff do? He has only increased government spending exponentially to the point where now GWB looks like a fiscal conservatives (and we all know GWB was NOT a fiscal conservative).

The US Government has a massive spending problem. Until this massive spending problem is addressed with massive cuts (this includes cuts to military spending), nothing will change. Obummer and the rest of the jokers who earn their living in Washington DC need to come up with a plan to implement massive spending cuts to get the deficit under control. Once the deficit is under control then new taxes can be looked at to address the US government's debt. But raising new taxes now will only result in more spending. Everywhere you look (it's not just the US) there are politicians who are looking for new ways to increase their spending. It's out of control and there are simply not enough rich people in this world to tax to pay for all the out of control government spending.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 1,683]

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html



The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of $2.3 trillion cumulative surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt in 2011. The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to two recessions, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
The Bush Tax cuts (EGTRRA-2001 and JGTRRA-2003): 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nor are you going to solve your debt problem by making less money.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I am on record slamming both sides when I see corruption and waste. But I see you are still blaming GWB for everything. Too funny. There are many problems in this world, many problems on both sides of the fence. Too bad you are too partisan to see the corruption and the waste on your side of the fence and only focus on the problems on your opponents side.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

I am on record slamming both sides when I see corruption and waste. But I see you are still blaming GWB for everything.

Lame and incorrect. I provided a variety of links to factual DATA and quoted a non partisan source that included the Obama stimulus. You interpreted the data as blaming Bush. While that is a very reasonable interpretation of the data, blaming me for your conclusion is dishonest.

By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nor are you going to solve your debt problem by making less money.

If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making money part that is the problem.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

>You aren't going to solve waste and corruption by adding money to it.

Nor are you going to solve your debt problem by making less money.

If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making money part that is the problem.

Really? When I wanted to buy a Mooney, my solution was to make more money, not to settle for a Cessna 152.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Yippee for you.

Buy a Mooney every year and you'll have a point that's germane to the conversation at hand.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Yippee for you.

Buy a Mooney every year and you'll have a point that's germane to the conversation at hand.

I spend money every year, not necessarily always on the same things. And I ensure that I make enough money to pay for it.

The point is, your comment was absurd since it assumes the problem is one dimensional when it's not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yippee for you.

Buy a Mooney every year and you'll have a point that's germane to the conversation at hand.

I spend money every year, not necessarily always on the same things. And I ensure that I make enough money to pay for it.

The gov't isn't - which is the point of the conversation.

Quote

The point is, your comment was absurd since it assumes the problem is one dimensional when it's not.

So was yours, and Bill's.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,476]

>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making
>money part that is the problem.

Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc?

We have an income and a spending problem. Until both sides stop pretending the "other" problem doesn't exist we will get nowhere. Sticking your head in the sand works for ostriches, but doesn't work so well for macroeconomics.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>If you make a billion dollars a year and you spend 1.5 billion, it's not the making
>money part that is the problem.

Really? So companies that make a billion a year should not try to make any more money; they should just lay people off, reduce production etc?

Didn't claim that, no.

Quote

We have an income and a spending problem. Until both sides stop pretending the "other" problem doesn't exist we will get nowhere. Sticking your head in the sand works for ostriches, but doesn't work so well for macroeconomics.

Say that you can just 'make more money' doesn't work so well, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706