A different view:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...oor/?hpt=hp_c1
Printable View
A different view:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...oor/?hpt=hp_c1
Hard to think of Fortune as an objective source. The top 1% have gotten more of the pie since the GWB tax cuts. Me included.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
You're such a dumbass. The tax cuts haven't given you or anyone else a single thing. They allowed you to keep more of what you rightfully earned. If you really feel so damned bad about it, write Uncle Sam a check and quit bitching on a message board.
I never said that I felt bad about it, dumbass. I just answered a question why the 1% have gotten more of the pie over the past 10 years. The only thing the tax cuts did was create a huge national debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mildawg
I'm going to keep on saying it until you understand it. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Revenue is still at Clinton-era levels. But they keep spending more and more and they don't have that kind of money. Spending should also be at Clinton-era levels... but we don't even make budgets anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/w...nt-Revenue.jpg
Wow, it took you an hour to think up that response!?! Impressive. And even after all that, you still look like a moron. First, the 1% have gotten whatever "pie" they've gotten because they've earned it. Period. You and the other hippie "99%ers" are undoubtedly jealous, petty people who hate those more successful than themselves (i.e. liberals). And spending caused the debt -- spending by W. and Hussein. Everyone is at fault for the debt, not just Bush and the 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
And I will say it again: We have a spending and a revenue problem. The gover-mint needs to cut spending and raise more revenue. For every $4 of spending cuts increase revenue by $1.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Won
I haven't studied the federal budget in minute detail, but, I'm gonna express an opinion about it anyway. IT's BLOATED!
However, and I hate to do this, I have to say salty and some of the other libtards have a point. Depending on how fast you want to get the US heading toward some fiscal sanity, some combination of spending cuts/revenue increase is needed. YES! spending needs to be cut. Not just reductions in increases (base line budgeting) but REAL cuts. And, revenues need to increase. Never mind about the debt....just yet.....have to stop the bleeding and get rid of the annual deficit. Have to at least stop digging the hole deeper. That is step 1.
Once we have control of the annual spending/revenue matter. It's time to start chipping away at the debt. That means, the fed gov-mint has to run an annual surplus, i.e. revenues > spending. Yeah, right! With the democraps in charge? Won't happen. And, let's assume we do have an annual surplus. Still have to pay down the debt with it, NOT create new ways to spend (waste) it. Won't happen.
On the revenue side of the equation, seems to me everyone needs to contribute. For the 49% currently paying zero income tax....sorry, have to buck up and chip in too. No more free rides for anyone. And yes, at least in the short-term, the more you make the more you need to contribute. In the longer haul, we need to get back to creating REAL incentives for economic growth. Stop punishing achievers! The tax code, while evil, is necessary, and should encourage economic activity, not hamstring it.
I think the world (yes, the world because people want to invest in the good ole USA) will regain confidence if we simply eliminated the annual deficit, and started edging down the national debt. Even if it were projected to take decades to eliminate the debt, simply moving in the right direction would inspire confidence and create a new momentum for economic growth.
As your dictator (not prez, nope!) I would get this country back on sound economic footing. I would cut wasteful spending by the $billions, and reward those that stimulate REAL economic growth. In the short term, everyone will contribute, some more than others, and I would generate a new patriotic fervor whereby Americans will embrace the idea of fiscal sanity.
Then, after about 7-10 years as dictator, our house in order, and new Consitutional laws in place to prevent libtards from wrecking our beloved nation again, I would restore national elections, and retire to that tropical island (with naked native girls) that you fine people insisted on buying for me. Thanks, by the way.
Thanks for posting this. I need to take some time (when I have some) to read that carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Won
In a nutshell:Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
- Reduce spending to 2008 levels.
- Medicare reform for people not approaching retirement yet. (Gives citizens the same health care that Congress has).
- Social Security reform.
- Enforceable caps on spending. (Can't go over 20% of GDP).
- Top Individual and Corporate tax rate of 25% (down from 35%). Eliminates loopholes.
Q&A for the tax proposal: http://budget.house.gov/SettingTheRe...raight/Tax.htm
This is the only way you can get these folks to stop voting for people that want to hand them money out of the public funds. The real issue is the voting habits of the so-called 99%, not the accumulation of wealth by the so-called 1%. If the politicians were wasting THEIR money too, you'd probably never see the likes of Pelosi and Reid in leadership positions again, and the democrat party would be closer to the one that existed in the days of JFK instead of the one resembling the teachings of communist dictators today.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
IF they did as you said above, I would agree that tax rates need to be raised on the wealthy (and across the board). As it now stands, a tax increase would just encourage more spending on vote buying and stupidity.
Is it wise to raise taxes (on anyone) during an economic recession (borderline depression)? What good can come of that? The government "might" get more revenue, but that is no guarantee because more people would likely be laid off. I don't see the upside of that. It seems much wiser for the government to spend an amount equal to or lesser than the revenue it generates.