NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133369,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133369,00.html
Bad Congress. Pay your bills first.

Yeah, who cares about the middle class. We need MORE bankruptcies in this land!

Yeah, who cares about the middle class. We need MORE bankruptcies in this land!
Anyone who goes bankrupt over taxes needs to learn the meaning of 'restraint'.

Anyone who goes bankrupt over taxes needs to learn the meaning of 'restraint'.
What the IRS needs to come up with is the "Tax Me More" line in the tax forms. I am sure you all know how it works. It's been tried in a few states (Alabama and Massachusetts for example,) and it allows those who think that taxes are too low to simply request that they be taxed at a higher rate.

By the way, John Kerry, for all his talk about how "the tax cuts for the wealthy" have ruined the economy (and I still fail to see how letting every taxpayer keep more of his or her money has a negative impact on the economy,) has chosen, every year since Massachusetts instituted the "Tax Me More" provision...to pay at the lower rate. You'd think that since he is so concerned about the effects of a tax cut, that maybe he would be willing to put more of his money where his mouth is...but that would actually require him to act according to his campaign rhetoric.

Figures.

People would probably think better of the tax cuts if there were a progresive increase rather the system in place.

For me they have not given us much. The companies insurence place doubled it's cost. Gas increases and general cost of living increases pretty well wiped out the savings.

Besides the "rich" being taxed too much is nothing more then a smoke and mirror arguement just like the estate taxes have to be repealled because of all the lost families farms it caused.

Sweden has an abusive tax system and yet they still have people with tons of money.

A little more won't hurt the wealthy.

People would probably think better of the tax cuts if there were a progresive increase rather the system in place.

For me they have not given us much. The companies insurence place doubled it's cost. Gas increases and general cost of living increases pretty well wiped out the savings.

Besides the "rich" being taxed too much is nothing more then a smoke and mirror arguement just like the estate taxes have to be repealled because of all the lost families farms it caused.

Sweden has an abusive tax system and yet they still have people with tons of money.

A little more won't hurt the wealthy.\
By that logic, a little more wouldn't hurt you. A little more woiuldn't hurt anyone, more than they are already hurt. What's another percentage point or 2?

And Sweden's tax code... didnt someone post about a writer who made so much money her tax rate turned out to be greater than 100% (102% actually). That's a great example to use.

Allowing government to take more of our money is never the right thing to do. They should learn how to make do with less, as the rest of the country does. Anytime someone feels they are getting a pay cut because they cant spend more than the year prior, something is out of whack.

\
By that logic, a little more wouldn't hurt you. A little more woiuldn't hurt anyone, more than they are already hurt. What's another percentage point or 2?

And Sweden's tax code... didnt someone post about a writer who made so much money her tax rate turned out to be greater than 100% (102% actually). That's a great example to use.

Allowing government to take more of our money is never the right thing to do. They should learn how to make do with less, as the rest of the country does. Anytime someone feels they are getting a pay cut because they cant spend more than the year prior, something is out of whack.

If things were only that simple. I would be for a tiny goverment if people were honest...well make that the wealthy types. A tiny goverment would be powerless to deal with the likes of Enron (ok I know the shrub will prosecute him) but the current setup does have the ability to deal with these people.

As somebody whose family has used the support programs you have a hard time saying their crap. Sure their are abusers. Go after the abusers. It's rather weak logic to say that well say 10% abuse the system so its crap and through it out.

Aboslishing the tax rate will not get anybody very much. Why buiness will go hey! more money raise prices!

With the current climent of job export good, high worker salaries bad, tax cuttings doesn't do much when there is no work or the work available is far less then the previous wage. Reduction of income is not progress.

A job is not a reward. It is a necesity.

But to answer your question? 2%. I have no problem with it. It is not much money for me and if it helps some family because some poor wealthy guy was forced to send the fathers job overseas. So be it.

It's a comapassion thing. Something I think few liberterians pocess.

Finally, Bardinak(sp) how could people follow a guy who thinks privatization of the police force is a good thing?

If things were only that simple. I would be for a tiny goverment if people were honest...well make that the wealthy types. A tiny goverment would be powerless to deal with the likes of Enron (ok I know the shrub will prosecute him) but the current setup does have the ability to deal with these people.
Not quite sure what you are getting at. I agree that it's the governments job to protect us.. both from without and from within. A tiny government would have just as much power as the people give it to deal with companies like Enron. The people have even more power than the government but I digress.

As somebody whose family has used the support programs you have a hard time saying their crap. Sure their are abusers. Go after the abusers. It's rather weak logic to say that well say 10% abuse the system so its crap and through it out.
I am a bit confused about this part. Are you refering to me and my family? And where did I say "they're crap". Im not even sure what system you are talking about.

Aboslishing the tax rate will not get anybody very much. Why buiness will go hey! more money raise prices!
Business are free to charge whatever they wish (or should be). They will charge what the market will bear. They dont raise or lower prices on whims. If they were to simply go "Hey! More money, raise prices!" and people stopped buying their stuff because of it.. you would see prices drop quite rapidly.

With the current climent of job export good, high worker salaries bad, tax cuttings doesn't do much when there is no work or the work available is far less then the previous wage. Reduction of income is not progress.
Reduction of income is not progress. How then is increasing tax progress? Point is government really can't do much about job markets and unemployment. All they can do is try to make a favorable environment for jobs. How they can do that is another thread entirely.

A job is not a reward. It is a necesity.
While I agree with you in principle. I do not feel that anyone is entitled to employment. It should be a reward for hard work preparing for that job. Whether education or experience.

But to answer your question? 2%. I have no problem with it. It is not much money for me and if it helps some family because some poor wealthy guy was forced to send the fathers job overseas. So be it.
So, (and Im exaggerating here for effect) you are for higher taxes for everyone.

It's a comapassion thing. Something I think few liberterians pocess.
Lol... neither party has a monopoly on compassion. Neither party has a monopoly on mercilessness.

Finally, Bardinak(sp) how could people follow a guy who thinks privatization of the police force is a good thing?
Is there a candidate (other than one's own self) that holds all of a person's core beliefs? I believe American politics are simply an exorcise in compromise.

Anyone who goes bankrupt over taxes needs to learn the meaning of 'restraint'.
Oh, you mean like Congress! You are right! They absolutely should reduce their spending.

Oh, you mean like Congress! You are right! They absolutely should reduce their spending.
Or not cut income...

I agree though, spending almost 1/2 of your budget on defense is insane. We need to cut that (Add the numbers up. VA+Defense+Military construction etc is about 55%)

Oh, you mean like Congress! You are right! They absolutely should reduce their spending.
hehe, i agree with both of you.

an individual who blames their bankrupcy on taxes clearly sucks at life. a government that needs to take more than 10% of each citizen's income to cover its expenses also sucks at life. the suckery seems to be pretty well distributed, in America.

\


Allowing government to take more of our money is never the right thing to do. They should learn how to make do with less, as the rest of the country does. Anytime someone feels they are getting a pay cut because they cant spend more than the year prior, something is out of whack.

AMEN!

Yeah, who cares about the middle class. We need MORE bankruptcies in this land!

Oh yes, tax cuts are always needed, especially when the deficit is spiralling out of control :rolleyes:

Allowing government to take more of our money is never the right thing to do. They should learn how to make do with less, as the rest of the country does. Anytime someone feels they are getting a pay cut because they cant spend more than the year prior, something is out of whack.

You mean by cutting back on everything while grossly inflating the defence budget? Oh yes, defence is far more important to the people than education and healthcare.

Or not cut income...

I agree though, spending almost 1/2 of your budget on defense is insane. We need to cut that (Add the numbers up. VA+Defense+Military construction etc is about 55%)

Um... can you substantiate that with numbers, please?
The smack on "http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm" states it at 49%.

I however, note that they put paying the interest on the National Debt under "PRIOR MILITARY SPENDING!! (They're claiming 80% was via military spending. Um... no. Not even close. And I guess all those free school hot lunches and welfare and Social Security had nothing to do with it. Please.)

Suppose you paid $5,000.00 you paid in taxes last year:
$1,300.00 pays interest on debt
$1,100.00 pays for the military
$900.00 pays for health care
$300.00 pays for income security
$300.00 pays for veterans' benefits
$100.00 pays for nutrition
$150.00 pays for education
$100.00 pays for housing
$100.00 pays for environmental protection
$15.00 pays for job training
$750.00 pays other

1100+300=1400, or 28% for Military Spending
1300, or 26% Interest on the National Debt
2415, or 48% on Everything Else

Check it out at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxes/IncomeTax.html?T1=5000


What's interesting about these two websites is that the 28% figure for "current military" on the first one EQUALS the figure on the second one! So... we see that the "Warresisters" have read Huff's "How to lie with statistics". :)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393310728/qid=1096121805/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-4234006-2796819?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

\
By that logic, a little more wouldn't hurt you. A little more woiuldn't hurt anyone, more than they are already hurt. What's another percentage point or 2?

And Sweden's tax code... didnt someone post about a writer who made so much money her tax rate turned out to be greater than 100% (102% actually). That's a great example to use.

Allowing government to take more of our money is never the right thing to do. They should learn how to make do with less, as the rest of the country does. Anytime someone feels they are getting a pay cut because they cant spend more than the year prior, something is out of whack.

You hit the nail on the head. Sweden also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Oh yes, tax cuts are always needed, especially when the deficit is spiralling out of control :rolleyes:
LOL - thread was only one page long and you haven't read it! There's a word for that...

You must be a congressman, yo'd rather take more of my money than stop spending so recklessly. Here are just a few of the `Bacon Bits` from the FY2001 budget:

$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio.
$26 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of Meridian, Mississippi.
$1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium, Missouri.
$300,000 to a laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens.
$600,000 to expand genetic research of catfish, Auburn University.
$300,000 for the Pineapple Growers Association in Hawaii.
$5 million for an insect rearing facility in Stoneville, Mississippi.
$5,800,000 to be transferred from the Coast Guard to the City of Homer, Alaska, for the construction of a municipal pier and other harbor improvements.
$2 million for the renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue in Kansas City.
$600,000 for two additional soybean geneticists at the Danforth Plant Science Center, Columbia, Missouri.
$143,200 for continuing termite research in Hawaii.
$500,000 for Peanut Allergy Reduction, Alabama.
$400,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia.

There are plenty, plenty more. Her is a list of the 'absolutely essential can't live without must take more money from everyone to pay for these things' programs that are being worked on just this week:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=3594
Very few have any noteworthy merit.

You mean by cutting back on everything while grossly inflating the defence budget? Oh yes, defence is far more important to the people than education and healthcare.

It is. Right now, my town spends 74% (!) of the local budget on Education. When I was in school (I graduated High School way back in 1991), it was more like %45-50. Yet test scores remain the same.

I worked at a Board of Education in another town for years. I doubt you'd have ever seen more corruption and waste anywhere.

Right now, the local, state and federal goverments all spend on Education. This has to stop. All that's happening from all this extra spending is that teachers are trading up from Pontiacs to BMWs. And I'm not talking about in "rich towns", either.

Healthcare is important, no doubt. But it is not more important than the very existance of the nation you live in. The sad fact about the history of the world (and of people in general) is that when you're on top, the others will try very hard to drag you down.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

First table
30+402=432

432/818~53%, and I know I'm missing a number here...oh yes, the 87 billion in supplimentals...

519/905~57%

You mean by cutting back on everything while grossly inflating the defence budget? Oh yes, defence is far more important to the people than education and healthcare.
Actually, yeah. Without education you have a society of dimwits who probably know only their profession really well. Without healthcare you have people living shorter lives due to not affording expensive treatment in their old age. Without defense, the first militaristic foreign nation that comes along takes over and does whatever it wants to you.
Nations survived for centuries without healthcare or education. But you don't have a defense program, you don't have a country.

Actually, yeah. Without education you have a society of dimwits who probably know only their profession really well. Without healthcare you have people living shorter lives due to not affording expensive treatment in their old age. Without defense, the first militaristic foreign nation that comes along takes over and does whatever it wants to you.
Nations survived for centuries without healthcare or education. But you don't have a defense program, you don't have a country.
Good luck paying for that fancy equipment or having the officers you need without education.

Actually, yeah. Without education you have a society of dimwits who probably know only their profession really well. Without healthcare you have people living shorter lives due to not affording expensive treatment in their old age. Without defense, the first militaristic foreign nation that comes along takes over and does whatever it wants to you.
Nations survived for centuries without healthcare or education. But you don't have a defense program, you don't have a country.
plus, if you get rid of education and health care, your country won't be worth invading!

You mean by cutting back on everything while grossly inflating the defence budget? Oh yes, defence is far more important to the people than education and healthcare.
I believe that if you actually read what I wrote, I didnt mention once about increasing defense spending. Perhaps you just assumed that since Im conservative that I automatically want to increase defense spending.

Well, we all know what "assume" does :D

LOL - thread was only one page long and you haven't read it! There's a word for that...

You must be a congressman, yo'd rather take more of my money than stop spending so recklessly. Here are just a few of the `Bacon Bits` from the FY2001 budget:

$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio.
$26 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of Meridian, Mississippi.
$1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium, Missouri.
$300,000 to a laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens.
$600,000 to expand genetic research of catfish, Auburn University.
$300,000 for the Pineapple Growers Association in Hawaii.
$5 million for an insect rearing facility in Stoneville, Mississippi.
$5,800,000 to be transferred from the Coast Guard to the City of Homer, Alaska, for the construction of a municipal pier and other harbor improvements.
$2 million for the renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue in Kansas City.
$600,000 for two additional soybean geneticists at the Danforth Plant Science Center, Columbia, Missouri.
$143,200 for continuing termite research in Hawaii.
$500,000 for Peanut Allergy Reduction, Alabama.
$400,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia.

There are plenty, plenty more. Her is a list of the 'absolutely essential can't live without must take more money from everyone to pay for these things' programs that are being worked on just this week:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=3594
Very few have any noteworthy merit.

I can not believe you left out the BIG DIG.
Isn't that one Kennedy's/Kerry's baby?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

First table
30+402=432

432/818~53%, and I know I'm missing a number here...oh yes, the 87 billion in supplimentals...

519/905~57%

You're only measuring "Discretionary Spending", not the entire budget.
Look down at S-12.
Here's for 2005:
Military (DOD): 429
Non Defense: 485.

Now look at the "Mandatory Spending".
Social Security: 510
Medicare: 290
Medicade: 188

So we have 429/2400 (The Total Outlay) = about 18% on Military.
Even including the Non Defense Discretionary spending (I'll suppose that kids in getting free hot lunches are necessary for national defense): 914/2400 = 38%!

Note that there is no mandatory military spending in the budget (see S-8). Unless you want to count the $820 million on Boarder Protection... but that's had a budget for decades and has, by nearly everyone's estimation, has been and still is underfunded.

Here are just a few of the `Bacon Bits` from the FY2001 budget:

$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio.
$26 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of Meridian, Mississippi.
$1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium, Missouri.
$300,000 to a laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens.
$600,000 to expand genetic research of catfish, Auburn University.
$300,000 for the Pineapple Growers Association in Hawaii.
$5 million for an insect rearing facility in Stoneville, Mississippi.
$5,800,000 to be transferred from the Coast Guard to the City of Homer, Alaska, for the construction of a municipal pier and other harbor improvements.
$2 million for the renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue in Kansas City.
$600,000 for two additional soybean geneticists at the Danforth Plant Science Center, Columbia, Missouri.
$143,200 for continuing termite research in Hawaii.
$500,000 for Peanut Allergy Reduction, Alabama.
$400,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia.

There are plenty, plenty more. Her is a list of the 'absolutely essential can't live without must take more money from everyone to pay for these things' programs that are being worked on just this week:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=3594
Very few have any noteworthy merit.
Animal waste management is a big problem in several states, especially those with a big pork industry. A million dollars looks pretty reasonable when you consider the environmental and public health impact of improperly managed animal waste.

Chickens are an important food animal, both for eggs and for meat. Mapping their genome could lead to genetic engineering and higher yields, or better health care and higher yields. Either way, 300 thousand for a boost to the industry sounds pretty good.

If Homer, Alaska is an important port town, then a pier and "other harbor improvements" could be very important. Of course, I have no idea how much it costs to build a pier or how many "other harbor improvements" they had planned. 5.8 million could very well be a steal.

Vegan taxpayers alone probably more than paid for the soybean research, and they're not the only ones who'll benefit.

I have a hard time believing that termites have done less than $143,000 worth of damage in the last year, and the research probably has the focus of preventing further damage.

As much as peanut oil is used in the production of non-peanut-related products, people with peanut allergies need to be extremely careful. There are places they can't even eat french fries because they were cooked in peanut oil. I wouldn't be surprised if peanut allergies cost the economy half a million in lost consumer consumption and allergic reaction treatment costs in the past year.

And remember, something we build now will generally last a while, and research we do now lasts forever. Much of this spending only has to happen once, and then we can reap the benefits for decades to come, or even until the end of civilization as we know it.

Animal waste management is a big problem in several states, especially those with a big pork industry. A million dollars looks pretty reasonable when you consider the environmental and public health impact of improperly managed animal waste.
Funny you should mention PORK! let the pork farmers clean their own filfth - no reason to leave it to the public. Fine the crap out of those who don't like we do with all other indusrty.

Chickens are an important food animal, both for eggs and for meat. Mapping their genome could lead to genetic engineering and higher yields, or better health care and higher yields. Either way, 300 thousand for a boost to the industry sounds pretty good.
If it is so good and potentially profitable, then let the industry pay for it. (and promptly be shut down by Greenpace nimrods - LOL)

If Homer, Alaska is an important port town, then a pier and "other harbor improvements" could be very important. Of course, I have no idea how much it costs to build a pier or how many "other harbor improvements" they had planned. 5.8 million could very well be a steal.
Then let Homer or the state of Alaska pay for it the same way every other commuinity in America does.

Vegan taxpayers alone probably more than paid for the soybean research, and they're not the only ones who'll benefit.
Then let the vegetable industry pay for it, or pass a tax on vegans themselves.

I have a hard time believing that termites have done less than $143,000 worth of damage in the last year, and the research probably has the focus of preventing further damage.
The extermination business is quite profitable last I checked and they don't need federal help doing their research.

As much as peanut oil is used in the production of non-peanut-related products, people with peanut allergies need to be extremely careful. There are places they can't even eat french fries because they were cooked in peanut oil. I wouldn't be surprised if peanut allergies cost the economy half a million in lost consumer consumption and allergic reaction treatment costs in the past year.
Then let the peanut farmers like Mr. Carter figure it out on their own. If it makes their product more marketable they should be pleased to. Why is the government needed to subsidize their business?

And remember, something we build now will generally last a while, and research we do now lasts forever. Much of this spending only has to happen once, and then we can reap the benefits for decades to come, or even until the end of civilization as we know it.
There is no reason the Federal government should underwrite anything that could be easily covered by private or local interests. It is only done for one reason - lobbying from those industries for tax-payor hand-outs aka political favors.

we have a huge deficit that is racking up a huge national debt
i am 47 years old. do you think that *I* am going to be paying this money back?
YOU ARE
is it really OK with you that we are spending money we dont have that YOU wiill have to pay back when you are working adults with children to support?

we dont need middle class tax cuts, we need to balance the budget. we need to stop mortgaging the future. its crazy to be going into debt half a trillion dollars a year.

Oh yes, tax cuts are always needed, especially when the deficit is spiralling out of control :rolleyes:
What is truly needed is less government spending, NOT higher taxes!

In any case, tax cuts have always resulted in increased revenue, thanks to increases in economic activity as a result of the tax cuts. It's a proven point.

You mean by cutting back on everything while grossly inflating the defence budget? Oh yes, defence is far more important to the people than education and healthcare.
If terrorists manage to trigger a nuke in a major city in your country, healthcare and education will be the smallest of your worries. Would you rather kill the snake before it enters your house, or wait until it's inside your house, striking at you?

If terrorists manage to trigger a nuke in a major city in your country, healthcare and education will be the smallest of your worries.

and spending more on the military than the next 14 nations combined is what prevents this from happening? which is why we need to spend even more?

(freaking tax and spend liberals...)

and spending more on the military than the next 14 nations combined is what prevents this from happening? which is why we need to spend even more?

(freaking tax and spend liberals...)
We should just scrap these welfare programs, make equal percentage taxes (on rich and poor) and cut back slowly on military, because the military bases provide a strong economic support for the cities around them.

Um.... amid all the bickering, I think people failed to note that these are not new tax cuts. They are mearly extentions of the current cuts already in place for the most part....

Funny you should mention PORK! let the pork farmers clean their own filfth - no reason to leave it to the public. Fine the crap out of those who don't like we do with all other indusrty.

Animal waste is used for other things as well, perhaps the consortium is actually looking into new uses for it? Anyone want cheaper gas or electricity?

If it is so good and potentially profitable, then let the industry pay for it. (and promptly be shut down by Greenpace nimrods - LOL)

Not only can the mapping of the chicken genome help the chicken industry, but also medical care for people. How? By giving scientists experience that can help them map the human genome, and learn how to manipulate it to cure formerly uncurable diseases.

Then let Homer or the state of Alaska pay for it the same way every other commuinity in America does.

Maybe Homer is a secret military base. Who knows.

Then let the vegetable industry pay for it, or pass a tax on vegans themselves

Soybeans are also an alternate energy source - the money spent on it could help the Earth stay around longer, by protecting the environment.

Then let the peanut farmers like Mr. Carter figure it out on their own. If it makes their product more marketable they should be pleased to. Why is the government needed to subsidize their business?

Allergies are a growing problem, often they lead to deaths due to an accidental ingestion of a food product. Can we really put a price on life? (Well probably, but this could save lots of lives.)

The extermination business is quite profitable last I checked and they don't need federal help doing their research.

Didn't see anything about the research being geared toward the elimination of them, however termites damage all sorts of valuable things. Try living in your house only to find out one day it will fall over because of extensive damage, or that you can't breathe anymore because the termites went on a tree killing rampage. (Doubtful, but it might happen.)

Most of the things Congress spends money on are important, even if the effects might be invisible to you or me. Anyway, the only thing that could actually fix the government at this point is to increase taxes. It is a small price to pay for the life that we are able to live in America. If you really don't want to pay the taxes, open a bank account in Luxemburg - one of the few countries that won't divulge banking records. (Swiss bank accounts are not the way. They turn over records all the time.)

Um.... amid all the bickering, I think people failed to note that these are not new tax cuts. They are mearly extentions of the current cuts already in place for the most part....

You are indeed correct. These are extensions of the Middle Class tax cuts and not a new series of Middle Class tax cuts.

I guess people DID NOT read the article or heard the story.

This is a victory for those making income. However, I do wish that Congress cuts its spending drastically. I know exactly what it can cut, too.

Most of the things Congress spends money on are important.)

That alone tells me all I need to know about you.

Your post is nothing but a desperate attempt to justify needless spending using very weak 'what-if's' rather than considering the fact (yes, fact) that every last one is best funded by private enterprise (including some of your lame what-ifs).

The government is not in the pigshit business. That is for private enterprise without any need for federal help. Basic services are all a government should provide (national defence, education, professional standards, law enforcement, etc.) Note pigshit is not included in that list. No amount of what-ifs or excuses will change that. If you don't recognize government waste then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The question our congress consistently fails to ask is the one that we, as consumers, as every day when we spend money:
"Do I really need this and is there a cheaper or better way to do this?"



If you really don't want to pay the taxes, open a bank account in Luxemburg - one of the few countries that won't divulge banking records.
That, my friend, is called tax evasion - a crime. (-not to mention your scheme is absolutely useless applied to earned income - surely you understand that) I would never suggest anyone break a law, particularly one with substantial penalties. You would do well to emulate that.

This is a victory for those making income. However, I do wish that Congress cuts its spending drastically. I know exactly what it can cut, too.

Pray tell, what?

Pray tell, what?
Agricultural subsidies, Social Security, and the bloated bureaocracies across the board. I want more responsibility given to the states, which can do it better and cheaper than the federal government.
*Edit*
If Congress privatizes Amtrak, we'd save a helluvalot of money, and improve our passenger train system, decrease our dependence on oil, improve our economy, and perhaps increase government tax revenue. NASA may soon need to be cut as well, as private citizens are now going into space. I want NASA around just for space exploration, like sending another man to the moon.

[snip of the typical republican parroted cut areas]

If Congress privatizes Amtrak, we'd save a helluvalot of money, and improve our passenger train system, decrease our dependence on oil, improve our economy, and perhaps increase government tax revenue. NASA may soon need to be cut as well, as private citizens are now going into space. I want NASA around just for space exploration, like sending another man to the moon.

How would privatization of Amtrak improve things? Most likely the people that use this would be faced with "We are sorry but inorder to maintain the service you expect, we have to cut your route."

Why would Nasa deserve a cut because millionaires can go to space?

LOL - thread was only one page long and you haven't read it! There's a word for that...

You must be a congressman, yo'd rather take more of my money than stop spending so recklessly. Here are just a few of the `Bacon Bits` from the FY2001 budget:

$500,000 for the restoration of a carousel in Cleveland, Ohio.
$26 million for the rehabilitation of the opera house in the City of Meridian, Mississippi.
$1 million for the Animal Waste Management Consortium, Missouri.
$300,000 to a laboratory in East Lansing, Michigan to map and identify genes in chickens.
$600,000 to expand genetic research of catfish, Auburn University.
$300,000 for the Pineapple Growers Association in Hawaii.
$5 million for an insect rearing facility in Stoneville, Mississippi.
$5,800,000 to be transferred from the Coast Guard to the City of Homer, Alaska, for the construction of a municipal pier and other harbor improvements.
$2 million for the renovation on the Northwest corner of 63rd Street and Prospect Avenue in Kansas City.
$600,000 for two additional soybean geneticists at the Danforth Plant Science Center, Columbia, Missouri.
$143,200 for continuing termite research in Hawaii.
$500,000 for Peanut Allergy Reduction, Alabama.
$400,000 for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia.

There are plenty, plenty more. Her is a list of the 'absolutely essential can't live without must take more money from everyone to pay for these things' programs that are being worked on just this week:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=3594
Very few have any noteworthy merit.

And even if we cut all of those programs, the deficit would still facing a gap of about. . .oh, 10-15,000 times the costs of the items you just mentioned. So do pray tell, what else should we cut? Social Security? Fine by me, if you want to have to take care of your mother-in-law as she slips into dementia. Medicare? Fine by me if you want to have to pay out of your own pocket for your Dad's care if/when he has a stroke. Medicaid? Fine by me if you don't mind if some low-income schmuck mugs you to pay for his uninsured kid's medication. Defense? While I readily concede that we could cut out a huge number of programs, like the unneccessary B-2 bomber. . .oh wait, that was the program you lambasted Kerry for trying to cut (and additionally, it should be pointed out that he voted along with one Sen. Dick Cheney).

All kidding aside, the only possible reason you could make this argument is if you don't have the first frapping clue about the actual function of the government. Are there ineffeciencies? No government works without them. Does this corruption need to be curbed? Certainly. If it were all cut out, would we be able to retain our current standard of living while paying only 10% of our income in taxes? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

How would privatization of Amtrak improve things? Most likely the people that use this would be faced with "We are sorry but inorder to maintain the service you expect, we have to cut your route."
If passenger trains are managed by private businesses, they'll compete with eachother. One of the things they'll do is to buy better trains, upgrade service, and perhaps help the government upgrade more railroads to electric ones, utilizing highspeed passenger trains. Fares may go up, but it'll never be as much as plane fares.
Why would Nasa deserve a cut because millionaires can go to space?
After millionaires come scientists for research firms. As space travel increases efficiency, probably in part due to competition, all sorts of scientists can go up, and eventually civilians. By this point, NASA's sole reason for existence is space exploration.

If passenger trains are managed by private businesses, they'll compete with eachother. One of the things they'll do is to buy better trains, upgrade service, and perhaps help the government upgrade more railroads to electric ones, utilizing highspeed passenger trains. Fares may go up, but it'll never be as much as plane fares.


That is an iffy argument. We have heard that about mass transit arguments in my area.

People don't ride what mass transit we because it isn't convient(I once tried to buss it from work to school and had to change 5 busses and ended up late for class).

The mass transit guys response "Well if people would use it more then we could expand the coverage."

Would they are would it be "profitable" routes and "profitable" times of day which adds to the convience argument as the one time you miss the buss for school or work and really don't have another way, you aren't going to do it anymore.


After millionaires come scientists for research firms. As space travel increases efficiency, probably in part due to competition, all sorts of scientists can go up, and eventually civilians. By this point, NASA's sole reason for existence is space exploration.

The research firms and scientists are already using it.

Civs won't be going in mass for a loooooonggggg time.

One space accidnt would be a lawyer field day.

Especially if some costly mainentenance was delayed to keep expenses down. ;)

That is an iffy argument. We have heard that about mass transit arguments in my area.

People don't ride what mass transit we because it isn't convient(I once tried to buss it from work to school and had to change 5 busses and ended up late for class).

The mass transit guys response "Well if people would use it more then we could expand the coverage."

Would they are would it be "profitable" routes and "profitable" times of day which adds to the convience argument as the one time you miss the buss for school or work and really don't have another way, you aren't going to do it anymore.
Perhaps this can be an arguement used with buses, but the federal government funds trains. The routes would remain profitable due to the private sector's better management, accounting, and of course, some still prefer trains. About accounting, btw, I know you'll point to Enron, but that was in the news because it was caught. I heard that if federal accountants revealed the same mistakes on a regular basis, it'd create a scandal that makes Enron look like a model of fiscal responsibility.


The research firms and scientists are already using it.

Civs won't be going in mass for a loooooonggggg time.

One space accidnt would be a lawyer field day.

Especially if some costly mainentenance was delayed to keep expenses down. ;)
That'd happen with NASA, too.

What is truly needed is less government spending, NOT higher taxes!

In any case, tax cuts have always resulted in increased revenue, thanks to increases in economic activity as a result of the tax cuts. It's a proven point.
Prove it :)

oh yeah... the middle class is struggling so hard they really need tax cuts. :rolleyes:


Glad our coungress men and women are thinkiing about their own welfare at least. How about they vote for a raise for themselves while they are at it and raise taxes on those of us who work our asses off and are living paycheck to paycheck.

All that's happening from all this extra spending is that teachers are trading up from Pontiacs to BMWs.

Where's MY BMW? I want it!

*drives in her seven-year-old, second hand Ford*

Prove it :)
Easy enough - there has never been a year when tax revenues in the US were lower than the prior year.

Easy enough - there has never been a year when tax revenues in the US were lower than the prior year.
That proves little. You have to prove tax cuts help make more thus not same revenue but more!
If they make more than you could cite it as a one time thing unless it continues to do so.

Oh, you mean like Congress! You are right! They absolutely should reduce their spending.
Spend smarter, not more!

Nobel Prize winner says Tax-Cuts are good and that Bushes Tax cuts are small and should have been bigger

http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/oct212.html

I will find the article the quotes him directly when i have time

dola, a reprint of the AP story

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,277703-1097791140,00.html