Tax and spend, or borrow and spend.......

[TRNDRVR]

discuss! :patriot:

[TunaSoda]

Downsize the government

[TRNDRVR]

I'm a 'pay as I go' type of guy.

I have no frivolous (sp) debt. NONE!

[Bent]

Downsize the government
X2

I won't be drawn in by a biased poll.
:roflmao:

[TRNDRVR]

X2

I won't be drawn in by a biased poll.
:roflmao:Biased?

It's one or the other. :huh:

Wuss!!! :D

Or are you afraid.......?

[Bent]

I'm a 'pay as I go' type of guy.

I have no frivolous (sp) debt. NONE!
:rolleyes:
That is the mentality that neither the left nor the right seems to be able to adhere to.

[TRNDRVR]

:rolleyes:
That is the mentality that neither the left nor the right seems to be able to adhere to.Drop the "left nor the right", and put in "probably 95% of the people" seems to be able to adhere to.

Carry on! http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1974_eating_popcorn.gif

(someone should do a 'debt' poll)

[JNickel101]

Because Americans are lazy (as a whole) and expect the Fed government to provide them with everything. Therefore, government gets elected on those principles and believes its their job to provide us with everything - whether we need/want it or not.

I'm sick of paying for Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security - which I will never use OR need. Yet I'm forced to pay into it.

[Bent]

Drop the "left nor the right", and put in "probably 95% of the people" seems to be able to adhere to.


Too True!

Wanna buy/refi a house?
:D

[TRNDRVR]

Wanna buy/refi a house?
:DTrying to buy my 3rd right now. Not trying too hard though. Just looking. Weighing my options.

[Ray H]

I'm sick of paying for Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security - which I will never use OR need. Yet I'm forced to pay into it.

Im ok with paying into it. The idea behind those programs is a good one and well worth funding, the problem with them is in how they are administered. Id like to see these programs continued, but they need to be revamped so they work. They are like nearly everything the government does. Someone starts out with a worthwhile idea but by the time its put into motion, its so diluted and everyone has their grubby hands in it, that its not the same program it started out to be.

[JNickel101]

I must not understand the idea behind the programs then....

EDIT: I should clarify - I know who they go to. What I don't understand is why socialistic programs like this are allowed to exist. I'm paying someone else's medical bills for no reason what-so-ever. What am I being punished for?

[Ray H]

Those programs you listed are all basically designed to help our elderly and those who cant take care of themselves. In principal, Im good with that. I pay some in today so that tomorrow, when I need SS or Medicare, someone else is paying in for me. The alternative is to ship them away, let them die or kill them. considering that one day, you and I will be one of them, I think Im glad to have those programs around.

[scottmcneal]

Social Security, the government took all that money... Just like they always do... TAKE TAKE.. WE want more, just like a cookie monster

[Ray H]

Social Security, the government took all that money... Just like they always do... TAKE TAKE.. WE want more, just like a cookie monster

Im not saying the current system works, Im saying that the principal is good.

[JNickel101]

Those programs you listed are all basically designed to help our elderly and those who cant take care of themselves. In principal, Im good with that. I pay some in today so that tomorrow, when I need SS or Medicare, someone else is paying in for me. The alternative is to ship them away, let them die or kill them. considering that one day, you and I will be one of them, I think Im glad to have those programs around.

Thats just the thing - military retirement provides me with a pension, and with medical care for the rest of my life....I have no use for SS/Med - yet I'm still forced to pay for it.

I just believe that you shouldn't be FORCED to pay for it. If you don't pay in, then you can't claim you want it later. Plain and simple.

[JNickel101]

Im not saying the current system works, Im saying that the principal is good.

In principal, its things like this that made America what it is today - a society completely reliant on the government to take care of their every need.

[scottmcneal]

True, they just keep taking.... They need to look at what they are doing to this country... We pay alot in taxes, they want more....DEM & REP..

[8Mud]

Im not saying the current system works, Im saying that the principal is good.

Something to think about, in fifty years the cost of living has gone up around 300% or more. So in effect you have to save three dollars today to have one at retirement. You can invest your money, sounds good, except the vast majority of investments actually fall points behind inflation. You are still loosing, just loosing less. For every investment that makes money, many loose money (actually most) in real dollars.
The way the social security system works now, is the more you pay in the more you get out. Sounds reasonable, but thinking about it for a minute tells you the people that are lucky enough to succeed, get the most out of the program. In other words, those that may need it the least get the most.
The social security system is a joke, the government has loaned the money to themselves on numerous occasions and then out right spent it on other occasions. They've actually spent the same social security fund several times over.

[Ray H]

In principal, its things like this that made America what it is today - a society completely reliant on the government to take care of their every need.
You say it like its a bad thing. I think a government that takes care of its people is what we were shooting for a couple hundred years ago.
The only purpose of the fed government is to take care of its people. The problem now is that it has become too large and it feeds off itself.
I have no problem paying into the government if later down the road, it takes care of my every need. Thats the point of it.

[Ray H]

Something to think about, in fifty years the cost of living has gone up around 300% or more. So in effect you have to save three dollars today to have one at retirement. You can invest your money, sounds good, except the vast majority of investments actually fall points behind inflation. You are still loosing, just loosing less. For every investment that makes money, many loose money (actually most) in real dollars.
The way the social security system works now, is the more you pay in the more you get out. Sounds reasonable, but thinking about it for a minute tells you the people that are lucky enough to succeed, get the most out of the program. In other words, those that may need it the least get the most.
The social security system is a joke, the government has loaned the money to themselves on numerous occasions and then out right spent it on other occasions. They've actually spent the same social security fund several times over.

No argument from me.

[JNickel101]

I'll say it again....we need to take care of our own country first. We spend far too much money assisting the rest of the world. We should be sending the Gov of Iraq a bill every month. They are keeping every dime of the oil they sell, from the infrastructure WE rebuilt for them. I'm all for sending aid to other countries, as long as there is a bill attached. I have considered asking the gov't for an itemized report every year of what each of my tax dollars gets spent for - but they'd probably just give me a smartass reply and say "your own salary".

[JNickel101]

You say it like its a bad thing. I think a government that takes care of its people is what we were shooting for a couple hundred years ago.
The only purpose of the fed government is to take care of its people. The problem now is that it has become too large and it feeds off itself.
I have no problem paying into the government if later down the road, it takes care of my every need. Thats the point of it.

That is Socialism. The Fed gov't should be protecting us (military) and dealing with foreign relations. People have become too reliant on government to take care of their every need. What happened to saving for your own retirement? Be responsible on your own - don't force the gov't to be responsible for you - because you know they will just F with your money (see "social security and why my generation will never get it"). I trust one person with my money - me.

[WrenchMonkey]

You say it like its a bad thing. I think a government that takes care of its people is what we were shooting for a couple hundred years ago.
The only purpose of the fed government is to take care of its people. The problem now is that it has become too large and it feeds off itself.
I have no problem paying into the government if later down the road, it takes care of my every need. Thats the point of it.

Are you serious? You think that's what the founders wanted, to cater to your "every need?"

As for the original question:

"I" would cut spending. Since that's not an option (either in your poll or in washington), I say borrow.

Cutting taxes stimulates the economy, a better economy generates more taxes, and gov't revenues increase.

So yes, cutting taxes brings in more money

I know you won't believe me, but look up the budget numbers, the revenues from '01 to '06 (I don't have time right now). Bush cut taxes on '01, and revenues went up.

So your poll is flawed: It should read "Borrow and spend, reduce the deficit, and help the economy."

Robert

[KingOfTheHill]

QUIT SENDING COMPANYS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!!!!!

and Trim the Fat in government.. too many overpaid idiots that do NOTHING...

JOe

[Ray H]

Are you serious? You think that's what the founders wanted, to cater to your "every need?"



Not MY every need right now. Im fine right now. But down the road I would like them to take care of me. Thats the point. You pay now so down the road, when you may need help, its there. Things happen to people, they have illnesses, they live through depressions, their companies shut down, ect. Any one of a number of things can kill ones life savings. I think its a good idea to have programs which can help
The only reason we have a federal govenment is to take care of us. Thats the reason the states banded together to form a federal government. Thats the ONLY reason for a federal government in my opinion. Individual states have laws to govern themselves, they always have. They originally banded together to form a stronger unit for the purpose of defense and to have a stronger political position in the world(ie: taking care of us).

[Darky]

The big government nanny-state is based on the assumption that free markets can't provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government's forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge, and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system, and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs.
"(1) The common defense (national security);
(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;
(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

[JNickel101]

Thanks Darky :) I couldn't have said it better.

At first, I thought Ron Paul was a loon. But the more I read about him and his beliefs about "small government", the more I started to like it. While I don't agree that we can just pull out of Iraq overnight, I do like most of his ideas....

[scottmcneal]

They tell you what you want to hear, then they get in office an chit on you.. MY 2 CENTS :twak: :conceited

[TunaSoda]

"The fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business" - LP.org

[Ecomike]

It is not as simple as just cutting taxes or raising taxes. It is possible to raise taxes, or to do both, in such a way that it stimulates the economy to grow faster and to create jobs faster, thus lowering the deficit (all other things being equal) . Here is how it works. You raise taxes on businesses that do not reinvest their profits in ways that either create new jobs, or that develop new products or scientific advances that create new products that lead to new jobs, and you lower taxes by giving tax deductions to those businesses that reinvest in these job growth producing areas.......

Businesses that just buy other businesses so that they rape the bought company of any remianing value, and then rape the retirement accounts of life long employees, finally leaving stockholders and employees with a bankrupt shell, no retirement, and the government with a big problem, should be taxed out of existence.

Also in case no one noticed, the way the US Federal Reserve monetary system is set up here, the money that we all use day to day to pay bills are Federal Reserve Notes, meaning promissory notes of the Federal Reserve system. Those notes are back up by US Treasury Notes (US Government Debt ) that is owned by the Federal Reserve Bank System, and is used as the bank systems working capital. The economy can not expand with out an adequit money supply, that money supply is created by adding to the federal debt. The trick is to do so in such a way that infation is held in check, deflation is held in check and the economy is stimulated just enough so that it can grow at a sustainable pace, with out creating too much debt.

"Money is the evidence of some elses debt!"

When people and businesses start cutting back during a recession or depression, the government is left with the task of restarting or kick starting the economy by spending some money, borrowed money if need be.

[PuddinHead]

That is Socialism. The Fed gov't should be protecting us (military) and dealing with foreign relations. People have become too reliant on government to take care of their every need. What happened to saving for your own retirement? Be responsible on your own - don't force the gov't to be responsible for you - because you know they will just F with your money (see "social security and why my generation will never get it"). I trust one person with my money - me.

We DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, but some kind of hybrid democracy/plutocracy where wealthy interests use various means to get what they want. They don't care about anything but the bottom line with NO RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMMON GOOD. Think of the corporate scandals and the people who have lost their retirements. Look at the kind of people surrounding the presidency during the last seven years. Their agenda has been crystal clear even to the point of waging an unnecessary war. The reason?

Our social programs are a necessary evil because most all of us would be fubar without them. I know the Fed is inefficient and wastefull, that's why they should be held accountable for the money they spend. We should try to elect responsible leaders. I'm fairly certain they still exist.

We find ourselves here because of selfish oil companies, greedy manufacturers sending jobs overseas, stupid govt (spending billions on an unneeded war instead of developing alternative energy sources) and ourselves (personal debt through the roof etc.)

Stop spending and start saving, and like Teddy Roosevelt said, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick."

[Bent]

:rolleyes:
Sounds like an aptly named naive brainwashed college student to me.

[scat]

Thats just the thing - military retirement provides me with a pension, and with medical care for the rest of my life....I have no use for SS/Med - yet I'm still forced to pay for it.

I just believe that you shouldn't be FORCED to pay for it. If you don't pay in, then you can't claim you want it later. Plain and simple.

Err, so who is paying for your military retirement

[Darky]

Err, so who is paying for your military retirement
He is with his commitment to go anywhere and do whatever he is (lawfully) ordered to do for 20-30 yrs of his life. That's why he doesn't want to pay into SS and Medicare. And I agree, if I had stayed in, I wouldn't want to lse money to those programs that I likely would never need.

[Bent]

He is with his commitment to go anywhere and do whatever he is (lawfully) ordered to do for 20-30 yrs of his life.

FTW

[JNickel101]

FTW?

[Darky]

FTW?
For The Win

[JNickel101]

Err, so who is paying for your military retirement

You and lots others. Thank you.

Military is one of the few services that the gov't should provide the people. Again, as was stated earlier:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton regarding the purpose of our Federal Gov't
"(1) The common defense (national security);
(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;
(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

[Ironmen77]

I must not understand the idea behind the programs then....

EDIT: I should clarify - I know who they go to. What I don't understand is why socialistic programs like this are allowed to exist. I'm paying someone else's medical bills for no reason what-so-ever. What am I being punished for?

x2

This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

[PuddinHead]

:rolleyes:
Sounds like an aptly named naive brainwashed college student to me.

I am a college graduate. I have worked as an Electrical Engineer for 25 years. Oh and before that I spent few years in the Navy. (Just for the hell of it.) The framework of our system of govt. has remained essentially the same for two hundred years. What has changed is the growth of special interest groups. They're not all bad, but most of them are. Social programs level the playing field. Believe me I know all about these Welfare types who are 100% useless. They consume and return nothing to our society. Other folks have worked all their live and have little but Social Security to show for it. Want to put them on the street?? And believe it or not there really are people who become disabled in this country. Put them on the street, deny them medical coverage?

I know what it feels like to fall out of the rack at 5:30 am to make an hour drive each way to work, to be on call at night after a full day on the job. It sucks. But I still believe we must have compassion for each other--even the drug addicted slugs.

No more cute remarks. Post something intelligent or shut the F'n up.

[Bent]

No more cute remarks. Post something intelligent or shut the F'n up.
OK, no more cute remarks. Fair enough. I'll recant the "aptly named" part of the comment; that could be construed as a personal attack. As for the rest of it, cute or not, my statement was an accurate assessment of your post.

Hugs and kisses!

[RichP]

Better take a closer at that military retirement, they only cover your medical till you reach medicare age then guess where you go next. It's not like the old days when you as a retired military could go to ANY military hospital, Army, Navy or air force and get treatment or even go to a nearby base and show up for 0800 sick call. The medical coverage in the military now flat out sucks.
As for social security, it was a flat out blatant tax by the democrats disguised as a benefit, when it was first started the median age for a US male to survive to was 50, a very few ever lived to collect it at 65. None of the male members of my family EVER collected a dime from SS or Medicare, they paid into it their whole lives.

As far as I'm concerned the government has had a steady program of raping and pillaging of the American citizen since the end of WWI, and it has continued and continues to this day. We really need to get politicians out of government and get people with true goals, honesty, integrity and a sense of duty, we don't have ANY of them in DC now.

[PuddinHead]

OK, no more cute remarks. Fair enough. I'll recant the "aptly named" part of the comment; that could be construed as a personal attack. As for the rest of it, cute or not, my statement was an accurate assessment of your post.

Hugs and kisses!

Nothing intelligent or constructive here. If you disagree, then offer specific reasons/arguments as to why and offer your counter opinions. You have done none of that on this thread so far.

[PuddinHead]

Better take a closer at that military retirement, they only cover your medical till you reach medicare age then guess where you go next. It's not like the old days when you as a retired military could go to ANY military hospital, Army, Navy or air force and get treatment or even go to a nearby base and show up for 0800 sick call. The medical coverage in the military now flat out sucks.
As for social security, it was a flat out blatant tax by the democrats disguised as a benefit, when it was first started the median age for a US male to survive to was 50, a very few ever lived to collect it at 65. None of the male members of my family EVER collected a dime from SS or Medicare, they paid into it their whole lives.

As far as I'm concerned the government has had a steady program of raping and pillaging of the American citizen since the end of WWI, and it has continued and continues to this day. We really need to get politicians out of government and get people with true goals, honesty, integrity and a sense of duty, we don't have ANY of them in DC now.


Well said! I would add one more virtue--Bravery!
,

[Ben H]

The situation that our economy is in right now does not warrant taxes to be raised. A cyclical recession commands that consumers be prodded. I concur that our government is out of control and that some of the pig fat needs to be trimmed back, and get it to the point of servicing Americans again. So why would I want to keep feeding that pig with taxes? When taxes start going up, there has been a major war or government is getting out of control.

But if you we all were really interested in reducing the deficit the government should start drilling the shit out of every piece of land it controls. Call it the "National Oil company", and it is to be owned by all tax paying (aka. If you get a tax refund, you dont get a slice) citizens. Now you have me interested in jacking up taxes. Start competing for a little slice of Exxon's daily $1.1bil profits. We'll hire an oil CEO to run it, to ensure it makes lots of money. In a few years we should be able to take care of all the bitch ass social programs we have, and maybe stick a little money back into the stock holders pockets. Get that to pencil out and I'll cut the govt. a check every month. It might even entice some the freeloaders to start taking a little more pride the US. Remember that the sooner we burn through the oil and N.G., we have to go green anyways; right? How about that for some change.

[JoesXJ]

The situation that our economy is in right now does not warrant taxes to be raised. A cyclical recession commands that consumers be prodded. I concur that our government is out of control and that some of the pig fat needs to be trimmed back, and get it to the point of servicing Americans again. So why would I want to keep feeding that pig with taxes? When taxes start going up, there has been a major war or government is getting out of control.

But if you we all were really interested in reducing the deficit the government should start drilling the shit out of every piece of land it controls. Call it the "National Oil company", and it is to be owned by all tax paying (aka. If you get a tax refund, you dont get a slice) citizens. Now you have me interested in jacking up taxes. Start competing for a little slice of Exxon's daily $1.1bil profits. We'll hire an oil CEO to run it, to ensure it makes lots of money. In a few years we should be able to take care of all the bitch ass social programs we have, and maybe stick a little money back into the stock holders pockets. Get that to pencil out and I'll cut the govt. a check every month. It might even entice some the freeloaders to start taking a little more pride the US. Remember that the sooner we burn through the oil and N.G., we have to go green anyways; right? How about that for some change.

x2 :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap: :yelclap:

[PuddinHead]

The situation that our economy is in right now does not warrant taxes to be raised. A cyclical recession commands that consumers be prodded. I concur that our government is out of control and that some of the pig fat needs to be trimmed back, and get it to the point of servicing Americans again. So why would I want to keep feeding that pig with taxes? When taxes start going up, there has been a major war or government is getting out of control.

But if you we all were really interested in reducing the deficit the government should start drilling the shit out of every piece of land it controls. Call it the "National Oil company", and it is to be owned by all tax paying (aka. If you get a tax refund, you dont get a slice) citizens. Now you have me interested in jacking up taxes. Start competing for a little slice of Exxon's daily $1.1bil profits. We'll hire an oil CEO to run it, to ensure it makes lots of money. In a few years we should be able to take care of all the bitch ass social programs we have, and maybe stick a little money back into the stock holders pockets. Get that to pencil out and I'll cut the govt. a check every month. It might even entice some the freeloaders to start taking a little more pride the US. Remember that the sooner we burn through the oil and N.G., we have to go green anyways; right? How about that for some change.



This makes too much sense because it would probably work. Personally I think we should nationalize all the oil companys and include their assets into a "National Oil Company". Fat chance of any of this happening. We don't pull their strings. They pull ours.:cheers:

[Ben H]

This makes too much sense because it would probably work. Personally I think we should nationalize all the oil companys and include their assets into a "National Oil Company". Fat chance of any of this happening. We don't pull their strings. They pull ours.:cheers:

Cant nationalize the oil companies. That goes against free market rules. However if a National Oil Company was formed, it would increase competition, supply would increase, prices would drop and we would all be happy; unitil of course, we really do run out of oil.

[RichP]

Cant nationalize the oil companies. That goes against free market rules. However if a National Oil Company was formed, it would increase competition, supply would increase, prices would drop and we would all be happy; unitil of course, we really do run out of oil.

All the real oil companies, the ones that actually SUPPLY oil from the ground, are national oil companies, from the saudi's to the Iranians to the Russians who basically threw the CEO of their oil company into a gulag for a few years [he musta not been paying the right people off in the politburo or whatever they have now], in every country in the world the oil in the ground belongs to the COUNTRY not the corporation. Ya gotta remember, Exxon, Shell, BP are all really small potatoes in the oil business, they don't actually own their own oil fields or their own oil until they buy it.
They are all also making up for getting kicked by chevez where they lost major investments in the wells they drilled, pipelines they built and the whole infrastructure thing, as I remember it was a 70/30 deal down there, the oil companies got 70% but they paid for all the work, did the work the govt just sat back and got 30% for doing nothing, Chavez reversed it to 30/70 and made it non-negotiable...

[Ben H]

All the real oil companies, the ones that actually SUPPLY oil from the ground, are national oil companies, from the saudi's to the Iranians to the Russians who basically threw the CEO of their oil company into a gulag for a few years [he musta not been paying the right people off in the politburo or whatever they have now], in every country in the world the oil in the ground belongs to the COUNTRY not the corporation. Ya gotta remember, Exxon, Shell, BP are all really small potatoes in the oil business, they don't actually own their own oil fields or their own oil until they buy it.
They are all also making up for getting kicked by chevez where they lost major investments in the wells they drilled, pipelines they built and the whole infrastructure thing, as I remember it was a 70/30 deal down there, the oil companies got 70% but they paid for all the work, did the work the govt just sat back and got 30% for doing nothing, Chavez reversed it to 30/70 and made it non-negotiable...

Precisely why we cant take over the existing US oil companies. Small potatoes are still potatoes.

[PuddinHead]

Short term we need to increase supply and decrease demand. Long term (and not very long) we should do whatever it takes to get free from foreign oil. Anybody seen the T. Boone Pickens commercial? He's right, we really can't drill our way out of this. We have to stop buying so much foreign crude and we should have done it a long time ago. There is only one way and I know its unpopular and that is nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants to make electricity and electricity to make hydrogen. Not the whole solution, but a major component. Remember Three Mile Island? When that happened all the oil executives in this country squirted all over themselves.:party: :party: :party: :party:

[k.smith904]

i swear if obama gets elected were screwed.

Vote McCain so we can implement a Fair Tax Policy, which would subsequently reduce illegal immigration...

[SBrad001]

i swear if obama gets elected were screwed.

Vote McCain so we can implement a Fair Tax Policy, which would subsequently reduce illegal immigration...

Exactly how is a Fair Tax Policy going to reduce the illegal alien problem?

[Darky]

Exactly how is a Fair Tax Policy going to reduce the illegal alien problem?
Because

[JNickel101]

I imagine they're referring to a consumption tax....which would increase the price of goods and/or some services, but eliminate the income tax that illegals don't pay anyway....

So it might be harder for them to make ends meet - but even if/when they do, at least now they're paying taxes.

[JNickel101]

Better take a closer at that military retirement, they only cover your medical till you reach medicare age then guess where you go next. It's not like the old days when you as a retired military could go to ANY military hospital, Army, Navy or air force and get treatment or even go to a nearby base and show up for 0800 sick call. The medical coverage in the military now flat out sucks.
As for social security, it was a flat out blatant tax by the democrats disguised as a benefit, when it was first started the median age for a US male to survive to was 50, a very few ever lived to collect it at 65. None of the male members of my family EVER collected a dime from SS or Medicare, they paid into it their whole lives.

As far as I'm concerned the government has had a steady program of raping and pillaging of the American citizen since the end of WWI, and it has continued and continues to this day. We really need to get politicians out of government and get people with true goals, honesty, integrity and a sense of duty, we don't have ANY of them in DC now.

Military health care has always sucked - but I can guarantee you there are folks older than "medicare" age are still getting their prescriptions filled and seeing doctors "space available" at the clinic at Holloman. I see them all the time there. So unless my quick Google searching is wrong - 65 is Medicare age - then I think you might be a bit wrong, at least partly.

[k.smith904]

Because

because, and pardon my french, these poor ass mexicans won't be able to afford a 25% sales tax. Also, to hell with our social security system. We need either personal social security accounts, or else do away with the whole thing.

[PuddinHead]

because, and pardon my french, these poor ass mexicans won't be able to afford a 25% sales tax. Also, to hell with our social security system. We need either personal social security accounts, or else do away with the whole thing.

:eek: 25% You're killing me!

[XJEEPER]

Education, it's good for your noggin.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq

[91XJRubicXD]

The sad part about this whole raise in pricing for fuel is the simple fact, we are paying these high prices and haven't even recieved the goods. But... at the same time the people of this wonderful country don't seem to care about it at the same time. First off, you have all these people bitch'n about the high prices yet what are they doing ? Are they riding there bikes to work, car-pooling, walking to the bus stop, 99% of the country, unlikely. Stop buying the fuel and you'll see what happens to prices, if millions stopped buying fuel for one single week, even a single day, they would have to drop the price of fuel, because they will be losing. Remember, we don't let the mountain come to us, we have to go to the mountian, otherwise you'll be sitting on your @ss doing nothing accept watching it continue. Ghana, Africa there dollar is currently equal to the US dollar, wtf is going on with this country. Richest country in the world until the Euro jumped in play. Don't mind me just adding all the dumb things happening

[Trail-Axe]

I'm a 'pay as I go' type of guy.

I have no frivolous (sp) debt. NONE!

You are one of the few, way to go! I to have zero (0) debt. Everything I own (everything), is paid for as well. Now as far as our country, man, we need to stop spending. Your pole question is like the "Do you still beat your wife question." One whom has never beat his wife can not answer that question with a two choice answer.

So I believe we need to first cut spending. You and I do not spend more money then we have. When there are things we want, but can not afford, we do with out them, or we save first. We should elect people who can run our country the same way.

[Mudderoy]

Lower the taxes and downsize the federal governemnt.

[TRNDRVR]

Lower the taxes and downsize the federal governemnt.So, what about our record federal deficit?

How about keep taxes as they are and downsize the federal government?

*edit* The problem as I see it is we have too many people voting on their own jobs, so "downsizing the federal government", as good as it sounds, probably won't happen.

[WrenchMonkey]

So, what about our record federal deficit?


Actually, there isn't one.

As a percent of GDP, it's running about half of its historical highs.

But that doesn't fit the "Omigawd we're dying" news cycle, so it's never reported/discussed/understood.

Robert

[TRNDRVR]

Actually, there isn't one.Oh?
WASHINGTON - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released Monday........Now I'll never claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed but...........:huh:

[WrenchMonkey]

Now I'll never claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed but...

And we're not accusing you of it :D

I'll assume you read more than four words of my post, and just don't believe me...

Nussle said the 2008 deficit is "just slightly above the average of the last 40 years," and that the deficit for the next fiscal year, a $482 billion or 3.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is "still below the recent peak of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004, and it's well below the record deficit of all time, which was 6.0 percent of GDP back in 1983."

Link (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011769584)

I guess you'll call it spin, I call it context...

Robert

[JNickel101]

And don't forget, budget deficit has as much to do with government spending as it does with lack of incoming taxes....

Taxing by way of income taxes is by no means a steady, constant source of income.

Another vote for fairtax.org

[TRNDRVR]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.

[JohnX]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.
Come on....it is definetely "context"

You can make witty remarks all you want, but the poster was posting clear evidence and instead of a rebuttal, you ignore the evidence and make a wise crack about him??? Gimme a farking break....I know you're not that stupid.

[WrenchMonkey]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.

Okay, let's try this again:

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said the 2008 deficit is "just slightly above the average of the last 40 years," and that the deficit for the next fiscal year, a $482 billion or 3.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is "still below the recent peak of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004, and it's well below the record deficit of all time, which was 6.0 percent of GDP back in 1983."

Does that help?

Dingleberry.

Robert

[Ecomike]

Link (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011769584)

I guess you'll call it spin, I call it context...

Robert

Interesting. Wasn't a republican by the name of Ronald Reagan in Office then, 1983? That is a rhetorical question. IIRC he ran promissing to balance the budget like he did in California, and then he promptly ran up the largest budget deficits in US History at the time by cutting taxes to the rich (it was called trickle down economics, I am still waiting for trickle!:tear:), and writing blank checks to the defense contractors to fund the star wars missile defense system. He also let the Fed run the Fed funds interest rate up to about 20% to kill inflation, and put millions of americans out of work in the process. Inflation adjusted wages of the middle class have never caught up with the damage Reagan did during his era.

But I here what you are saying about % of GDP budget deficits, that is the real issue. Have you actually verified those numbers?

I will make a counter point, that the Bush deficits were at time when we had very, very low unemployment, and record tax receipts, so we should have had a budget surplus for once, not a huge deficit. The Reagan deficits were when unemployment was the worst since the Great Depression, which was at a time when the government is forced to raise the deficit to restart the economy. If Reagan had raised taxes and balanced the budget, or at least came closer to balancing it, interests rates would have fallen instead of skyrocketing, further lowering the deficit, or creating a surplus, which would have brought inflation down and solved the economic problems of that period. Back then the largest part of the federal budget was interest on debt. In short Republican Reaganomics (trickle down theory of reducing taxes for the ultra wealthy) was a disaster, and Bush Jr. has continued that disasterous Reagonomic policy of taxing the middle class out of existance while concentrating more than 90% of the wealth of the USA in the hands of fewer that 100 people (or there abouts).

I find it strange that Republicans made the most noise since about 1976 about balancing the federal budget during elections, and then ran up the largest deficits since then (Reagan-Bush Era), while only one Democratic president ever had a balanced budget since then. I think JFKennedy was the last before Clinton to have a balanced budget, or a surplus.

[WrenchMonkey]

See, that's the trouble with debating a liberal: Any time you make a point, they just change the subject....

Reaganomics did work, and if your personal income and situation haven't improved with the rest of us since 1980, it's because you're doing it wrong. We can debate that elsewhere if you like...

The closest you got to on-topic was this:

Bush deficits were at time when we had very, very low unemployment, and record tax receipts

Which begs the question: How did we manage record receipts if Bush gave billions in tax cuts to all those nasty rich people?

It's because, as I said, cutting taxes stimulates the economy, which increases tax revenues.

So the answer to the poll is "Borrow and spend, cut taxes, increase revenues, and reduce the not-so-record deficit."

Robert

[the_weirdo]

I cannot overspend my income by 0.5 Trillion. Why should the government be able to? Who pays for it in the end?

[WrenchMonkey]

Who pays for it in the end?

Nobody. Our grandparents didn't, our parents didn't, we won't, our kids won't.

Everybody talks about it, everybody just passes it on down the line...

Robert

[Ecomike]

See, that's the trouble with debating a liberal: Any time you make a point, they just change the subject....


Robert

And your point was?:rolleyes: LOL.

And here I always thought that was the problem with debating conservatives, silly me, LOL.

:worship:

:cheers:

Seriously, You have introduced some factual information and statements, that many here might find interesting, I already knew them, but I do not agree with all your conclusions. And I don't think the pissed off taxpayers in this forum will agree that they are not paying for some of those deficits, regardless of what you and I think. What I find curious is that as well informed as you are, you are still a conservative?

[Ecomike]

The closest you got to on-topic was this:



Which begs the question: How did we manage record receipts if Bush gave billions in tax cuts to all those nasty rich people?

It's because, as I said, cutting taxes stimulates the economy, which increases tax revenues.



Robert

You missed one major variable. They dropped the Fed funds rate down so low, for so long, to levels we have not seen since the Great Depression, that it overstimulated the economy, that is a big part of what increased employment, thus increased tax revenues, and thus made it look like the tax cuts stimulated the economy. We are just now starting to see the huge infationary effects of that mistake. No doubt, some tax cuts like deductions for buying a new vehicle hepled the auto industry for a few years, but look where that got us. The big three are in real trouble now. I don't beleive cutting the tax rate on corporate dividends, or the tax rate on those who make over $10,000,000.00 a year helped stimulate anything but their greed.

[scat]

You and lots others. Thank you.

Military is one of the few services that the gov't should provide the people. Again, as was stated earlier:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton regarding the purpose of our Federal Gov't
"(1) The common defense (national security);
(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;
(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.


Ok, This is an honerable persuit, I agree. I work in the defense industry, and have "followed orders" for 25+ years in this endevour to provide tools so that the nation, can remain safe. Lets make this more general. The averave person, be it the local sanitation worker or the mechanic that fixes the suff you can't, Cops and Firemen, provides you a sevice that makes life a bit more enjoyable and safe. Would you denie them the beifits that you enjoy?

[scat]

The sad part about this whole raise in pricing for fuel is the simple fact, we are paying these high prices and haven't even recieved the goods. But... at the same time the people of this wonderful country don't seem to care about it at the same time. First off, you have all these people bitch'n about the high prices yet what are they doing ? Are they riding there bikes to work, car-pooling, walking to the bus stop, 99% of the country, unlikely. Stop buying the fuel and you'll see what happens to prices, if millions stopped buying fuel for one single week, even a single day, they would have to drop the price of fuel, because they will be losing. Remember, we don't let the mountain come to us, we have to go to the mountian, otherwise you'll be sitting on your @ss doing nothing accept watching it continue. Ghana, Africa there dollar is currently equal to the US dollar, wtf is going on with this country. Richest country in the world until the Euro jumped in play. Don't mind me just adding all the dumb things happening

I car-pool now, but I don't like it. My car pool partner doesnt care about surfing =(

[Ecomike]

Nobody. Our grandparents didn't, our parents didn't, we won't, our kids won't.



Robert

Both of my parents, God rest their souls, would have strongly disagreed with you, and they were both ultra conservative Texas Rebublicans. They were convinced the national dept was costing them dearly in income taxes. My Mother was sold on returning to the Gold standard, which was another major conservative republican stand in the 80s.

[Ecomike]

Ok, This is an honerable persuit, I agree. I work in the defense industry, and have "followed orders" for 25+ years in this endevour to provide tools so that the nation, can remain safe. Lets make this more general. The averave person, be it the local sanitation worker or the mechanic that fixes the suff you can't, Cops and Firemen, provides you a sevice that makes life a bit more enjoyable and safe. Would you denie them the beifits that you enjoy?

Perhaps we should just let the free market place loose and privatize all those city departments like fire, police, sewer, water, the courts, jails, road and bridge repairs, city parks and pools, and so on.

:jester:

[JNickel101]

Perhaps we should just let the free market place loose and privatize all those city departments like fire, police, sewer, water, the courts, jails, road and bridge repairs, city parks and pools, and so on.

:jester:

Well...some of them shouldn't be Fed Gov programs....

Sorry - but I'm a fan of small government and greater responsibility for all. If you can't handle that - please move to Canada or the UK and you can partake in all the lovely benefits of large scale government - like universal healthcare.

Go ahead...ask a Brit or a Canadian how wonderful their healthcare system is....

!!!1

[JNickel101]

Ok, This is an honerable persuit, I agree. I work in the defense industry, and have "followed orders" for 25+ years in this endevour to provide tools so that the nation, can remain safe. Lets make this more general. The averave person, be it the local sanitation worker or the mechanic that fixes the suff you can't, Cops and Firemen, provides you a sevice that makes life a bit more enjoyable and safe. Would you denie them the beifits that you enjoy?

My pension (like many pensions) is based on the fact that I'm being paid 2/3 of what I should be getting paid. After 20 years, my reward is to receive the remainder of that doled out over the rest of my life. I may only live 2 years after retirement, or I might live 50 years. Personally, I'd like to get all 100% of it while I'm doing the work, so I can invest it as I see fit - but then the military loses that "incentive" to have people stick around for 20 years. You get lots of people who'd only stay around for 5...10...15 years.

I also wish that the money the military paid for medical would go into my check so that I could get my own medical insurance. But that's just me. Lots of people have proven they are unable to take care of themselves, even when compensated enough. They piss it away on other things. Also, it is probably cheaper for the military to pay for its form of health care, rather than give everyone an equal amount, based on the most sickly person. People abuse "free" healthcare - they turn into hypochondriacs and think that they need to see a doctor for every little cough - or need a pill for every ache and pain.

/end rant

[PuddinHead]

I can understand wanting the money withheld for retirement now. Perhaps you would have a bigger nest egg in twenty years versus military retirement, but I really doubt it. Let's assume with your investment strategy you're better off. You know as well as I do the hammerheads who blow every penny of every payday. Where are they going to be in 20 years? You say you should have options, but how is the govt. going to know you can handle your retirement responsibly? They can't hold your hand, and if you screw up someone has to take of you. It would be welfare then.

[JohnJohn]

Borrow. What collection agency is going to call Capitol Hill?

Who do we "borrow" from anyway? Your poll needs to give us background on the "national debt". Who do we exactly owe money too? I know we hear about "a huge national deficit". I am putting my foot down and not believing we have one until someone tells me who we owe.

[Trail-Axe]

Borrow. What collection agency is going to call Capitol Hill?

Who do we "borrow" from anyway? Your poll needs to give us background on the "national debt". Who do we exactly owe money too? I know we hear about "a huge national deficit". I am putting my foot down and not believing we have one until someone tells me who we owe.

This will give you a perdy good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/Issuebrief203

[JohnJohn]

This will give you a perdy good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt)
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/Issuebrief203

Ok, now if Wiki is correct..RIGHT?:rolleyes:

How much do these countries owe us?

Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (April 2008)

Nation/billions of dollars
Japan/592.2
China, Mainlang/502
United Kingdom/251.4
Oil Exporters/153.9
Brazil /149.5
Carib Bnkng Cntrs/115.4
Luxembourg/84.8
Hong Kong/63.1
Russia/60.2
Norway/45.3
Germany/44
Taiwan/42.6
Switzerland /42.5
Korea /40.5
Mexico/38
Singapore/33.3
Turkey/31.1
Thailand/27.9
Canada/24
Ireland/18.5
Netherlands/15.5
Sweden/13.1
Egypt /12.7
Belgium/12.5
Poland/12.5
Italy/10.6
India/10.5
All Other/154.2
Grand Total/2601.8

[Ecomike]

Borrow. What collection agency is going to call Capitol Hill?

Who do we "borrow" from anyway? Your poll needs to give us background on the "national debt". Who do we exactly owe money too? I know we hear about "a huge national deficit". I am putting my foot down and not believing we have one until someone tells me who we owe.

In part, the US Treasury borrows money by selling US Treasury notes at public auctions. Who owns them changes over time. Right now with our record trade deficits with China, China is rapidly becoming the major owner of US debt. US treasury notes earn an interest rate.

The green paper money you use as "Money" to pay your bills with, and buy stuff with, says across the top of the paper note, "Federal Reserve Note". In the upper left area it also says "this NOTE is legal tender for all debts, public and private", so in essence you are paying your bills with someone elses debt, a Federal Reserve Note debt to be specific. Federal Reserve Notes do not earn interest.

As the economy grows, and the domestic product grows, more paper money and electronic money is needed in circulation in order to have stable prices for goods and services. If they print too much money, it stimulates inflation, too little money stimulates deflation (the Great Depresion kind of deflation if it goes to far for too long).

The money supply gets more involved with the relationship between banks and the Federal Reserve system and Federal Reserve Banks, and loan reserves..etc., but I think I already answered your question.

Oh, and one of the ways we float so much US debt (paper money) overseas is that we have maintained enough control of the world market for oil that we have been able to require that oil purchases be paid for with US dollars. Iran has been trying to break that dollar-oil monopoly by trying to switch to Euros recently.

It is also partly why oil doubled this past year while dollar droped something like 30% in value over the same period versus most other world currencies.