BoatShoes;819359 wrote:...and it's not accurate to compare the U.S. welfare state to other economies...the pittance that is Social Security is small compared to other countries in the OECD.

But either way it suggest that there is indeed both a bit of a spending problem, AND a revenue problem.

It's VERY relevant to compare the US welfare state with other countries...they have higher tax rates and STILL suffering under a mountain of debt. Try again. You can squeeze the turnip as tight as you want, the govt tit isn't getting any bigger.

Back in 2000, the federal budget was, what, $1.8 trillion (and a little more for revenues)? In a little over 10 years later, receipts have grown some 35-40%, easily outpacing inflation, (but but but we have a revenue problem) but spending has more than doubled. There's absolutely no spinning it - you have to be an idiot not to see it's clearly a spending problem. Quibbling over tax rates that might net a few hundred billion more is classic misdirection to hide the real problem.

Manhattan Buckeye;819394 wrote:"could be paid for TODAY If we so desired and had the political will as we already have $200 trillion in national assets more than half of which are readily liquid."

I'm going to guess you're in the minority with the political will opinion. If you want to start taxing people's CDs and checking accounts have at it. It will go over like a lead balloon.

Expropriating wealth from corporations and private citizens is THE DUMBEST idea I've ever heard. That is the one guaranteed way to destroy an economy for generations. It makes govt default look as harmless as paying your rent a day late.

gut;819486 wrote:Expropriating wealth from corporations and private citizens is THE DUMBEST idea I've ever heard. That is the one guaranteed way to destroy an economy for generations. It makes govt default look as harmless as paying your rent a day late.

Well that is one way of saying it. The other way is that the U.S. doesn't exist anymore and everything belongs to the government.

BoatShoes;819359 wrote:You're right, Obama's revenue projections are outrageous and inexcusable...they are similar to Paul Ryan's claims about what his plan will do to the unemployment rate....both totally implausible...and it's not accurate to compare the U.S. welfare state to other economies...the pittance that is Social Security is small compared to other countries in the OECD.

But either way it suggest that there is indeed both a bit of a spending problem, AND a revenue problem.

Its all a spending problem. Want to increase revenue AND create jobs? Allow oil companies to DRILL IN AMERICA!!!!! Its a win-win! Gas prices go down, jobs are created, revenue comes in (due to more people working= more taxes collected).

BoatShoes;819373 wrote:Those 70 trillion in unfunded liabilities (which aren't really liabilities because as Paul Ryan proves...you can erase them through legislation), could be paid for TODAY If we so desired and had the political will as we already have $200 trillion in national assets more than half of which are readily liquid. But of course that would be silly to do because we earn over $14 trillion dollars every year and that increases on average by about 3% per year and we could pay for those when the time comes.

Erase unfunded liabilities through legislation, eh? What a great country!! Wonder what else they can erase through their ballpoints?

"Had the political will" to have our elitist leaders confiscate $200,000,000,000,000 in national assets. Did you really type that? We should just bend over without any K-Y and watch as our saviors and providers in DC take over our 401k's, our Roth retirements, our IRA's and leave an IOU in the account? Can we vote on this and possibly erase the pinheaded fucks in DC with OUR ballpoints???

A directly apportioned wealth tax makes more sense.

At least you aren't shy about sticking it to the job creators and taxpayers!! A wealth tax...hmmm....on the weathy....gee...I wonder how they'll take that. They wouldn't move all of their holdings out of the country would they? They wouldn't move their manufacturing facilities would they? They wouldn't find any way possible to avoid paying it would they? I'm sure they won't do any of these things because they are all members of the lucky sperm club and had their wealth handed to them without earning a dime. Stupid prick bastards...they'll just have to pony-up the cash because the socialists in DC demand it. :rolleyes:

Dream the fuck on.

BGFalcons82;819505 wrote:Erase unfunded liabilities through legislation, eh? What a great country!! Wonder what else they can erase through their ballpoints?

"Had the political will" to have our elitist leaders confiscate $200,000,000,000,000 in national assets. Did you really type that? We should just bend over without any K-Y and watch as our saviors and providers in DC take over our 401k's, our Roth retirements, our IRA's and leave an IOU in the account? Can we vote on this and possibly erase the pinheaded fucks in DC with OUR ballpoints???


At least you aren't shy about sticking it to the job creators and taxpayers!! A wealth tax...hmmm....on the weathy....gee...I wonder how they'll take that. They wouldn't move all of their holdings out of the country would they? They wouldn't move their manufacturing facilities would they? They wouldn't find any way possible to avoid paying it would they? I'm sure they won't do any of these things because they are all members of the lucky sperm club and had their wealth handed to them without earning a dime. Stupid prick bastards...they'll just have to pony-up the cash because the socialists in DC demand it. :rolleyes:

Dream the fuck on.

Exactly why job creation has stalled, and unemployment has risen. Those "rich" people, the ones that create and provide jobs, are shy to hire, because they are worried their taxes may go up. Which means less money coming in, which means less money to go out for wages which = no new hires/cutting jobs. LESS TAXES = MORE JOBS!!!! But, more taxes for the Dems, means less jobs= more people to "depend' on them(Government)= Social Government.

coyotes22;819510 wrote:But, more taxes for the Dems, means less jobs= more people to "depend' on them(Government)= Social Government.

It's their boogeyman argument - the problem is we aren't taxing the rich enough, pretending like a few hundred billion is the answer to a $1.7trillion deficit. But it's effective because, as is demonstrated repeatedly around the internetz, the average american is even more ignorant of economics than Obama.

coyotes22;819492 wrote:Its all a spending problem. Want to increase revenue AND create jobs? Allow oil companies to DRILL IN AMERICA!!!!! Its a win-win! Gas prices go down, jobs are created, revenue comes in (due to more people working= more taxes collected).

You have made the logical conclusion that most Americans have done. Makes too much sense, doesn't it? Become self-sufficient, create jobs, reduce unemployment rolls, increase government revenues, create a positive economic environment, etc.

So....aks yourself the follow up question and study how the leaders have led over the past 29 months. Why won't they? Why won't they act in American's best behalf? Why not promote growth and capitalism? Why not let entrepreneurs step in and make our country great? Why, oh why?

gut;819514 wrote:It's their boogeyman argument - the problem is we aren't taxing the rich enough, pretending like a few hundred billion is the answer to a $1.7trillion deficit. But it's effective because, as is demonstrated repeatedly around the internetz, the average american is even more ignorant of economics than Obama.

Obama want to raise taxes on private jet owners? Is that what I heard the other day? Doing that would raise $3 billion a year. We spend $42 billion a year, JUST ON EDUCATION, that is failing anyway!! Raising taxes does nothing! You have to cut spending first!

BGFalcons82;819518 wrote:You have made the logical conclusion that most Americans have done. Makes too much sense, doesn't it? Become self-sufficient, create jobs, reduce unemployment rolls, increase government revenues, create a positive economic environment, etc.

So....aks yourself the follow up question and study how the leaders have led over the past 29 months. Why won't they? Why won't they act in American's best behalf? Why not promote growth and capitalism? Why not let entrepreneurs step in and make our country great? Why, oh why?

Oh, i know! Because then more people will be less Dependant on the Government! And we cant have that! The government owns mortgages, banks, car makers. Obama has positioned Himself as daddy government. "Oh, those big bad rich CEO's wont hire you? Come to daddy government, here is some free welfare." "Oh, those big rich bad health companies wont give you insurance. Come see daddy government, I will give you free health care."

Create a government program. Then create a disaster, so that you can swoop in, and be the hero, with the new "program". Sounds like Russia.

Manhattan Buckeye;819394 wrote:"could be paid for TODAY If we so desired and had the political will as we already have $200 trillion in national assets more than half of which are readily liquid."

I'm going to guess you're in the minority with the political will opinion. If you want to start taxing people's CDs and checking accounts have at it. It will go over like a lead balloon.

Naw...people will just "save" their cash under their pillows and use cash to make their purchases. Aw the good ol' days, eh?

hmmm, interesting. Speaking of doing nothing. Apparently we had a debt problem with a much lower debt ceiling, but now that it's way higher at 14.3 Trillion, we apparently don't have any spending problem?

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006.

Interesting, and in 2007 and 2008 Senator Obama didn't even bother voting about the ceiling limit. Apparently it wasn't that big of a deal?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/gibbs-senator-obama-only-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-in-2006-because-he-knew-it-would-pass-an.html

So, therefore, Obama must consider himself a failure (like many of us do). His own words. Should be good to see those come out in the election or during a debate. Of course by then his handlers will have prepped him with a good, weasely answer.

Obama says that congress takes too many vacations, and needs to work more.

I think he tweeted that, while on the golf course.

coyotes22;820525 wrote:Obama says that congress takes too many vacations, and needs to work more.

I think he tweeted that, while on the golf course.

Naw....One of Michelle's aides wrote that for Barry in advance last summer while she was shopping at upscale Spanish department stores. The Bammer's staff was too busy setting up his next tee time to address such matters.

believer;821923 wrote:Naw....One of Michelle's aides wrote that for Barry in advance last summer while she was shopping at upscale Spanish department stores. The Bammer's staff was too busy setting up his next tee time to address such matters.

Oh, is that what it was?

I wonder how well he shot this weekend?

gut;819483 wrote:It's VERY relevant to compare the US welfare state with other countries...they have higher tax rates and STILL suffering under a mountain of debt. Try again. You can squeeze the turnip as tight as you want, the govt tit isn't getting any bigger.

Back in 2000, the federal budget was, what, $1.8 trillion (and a little more for revenues)? In a little over 10 years later, receipts have grown some 35-40%, easily outpacing inflation, (but but but we have a revenue problem) but spending has more than doubled. There's absolutely no spinning it - you have to be an idiot not to see it's clearly a spending problem. Quibbling over tax rates that might net a few hundred billion more is classic misdirection to hide the real problem.

EXACTLY. I could cut 25% from the budget tomorrow and nobody would even notice. The class warfare rhetoric being tossed out by the radical left is unconscionable ---- they are absolute lunatics.

QuakerOats;822327 wrote:EXACTLY. I could cut 25% from the budget tomorrow and nobody would even notice. The class warfare rhetoric being tossed out by the radical left is unconscionable ---- they are absolute lunatics.

Are you kidding me? If you cut spending by even 1% you'd be killing old people, starving poor children, depriving the disabled from assistance, preventing women from killing the unborn for purposes of convenience, and causing the world's ozone layer to collapse.

believer;822338 wrote:Are you kidding me? If you cut spending by even 1% you'd be killing old people, starving poor children, depriving the disabled from assistance, preventing women from killing the unborn for purposes of convenience, and causing the world's ozone layer to collapse.

Also noone would have Health Insur.