Voter Fraud In Ohio

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more

So I guess your saying Obama's economic plan is not very good and he is lying to 95% of Americans or is he planning on lowering our taxes then turning around and raising them.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So I guess your saying Obama's economic plan is not very good and he is lying to 95% of Americans or is he planning on lowering our taxes then turning around and raising them.

Dude neither of the candidates are lying, their plans have to first be approved by Congress. I hope Congress realizes that huge tax cuts from either party won't help. I am expecting a moderate raise in taxes.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by dmek25

with the massive deficit we now face, any ideas on how to start paying on it? or is now the republican way to spend, spend, and spend some more, and let our grand-kids worry about it? lets face facts. no matter who gets into office, out taxes are going up. that's just a fact. i guess the real debate is who will raise them more

Keep in mind the Congress is controlled by Dems and they're as much to blame as the Bush admin for the last few years of spending recklessness.

How about we freeze spending at current levels, pass a balanced budget ammendment, review and cut unnecessary/wasteful government programs, pass some sort of privitazation of a portion of SS, raise the age for maximum SS benefits for those under 45 up to 75 or whatever the curent life expectancy is. Any surplus goes to paying down the national debt. Interest on the national debt is 8.5% of our national budget.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Unemployment are over 50% of the budget. These programs have to brought under control now or we're looking at MASSIVE tax increases by 2030. I'm sure this isn't what FDR intended when these programs were put in place.

Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Keep in mind the Congress is controlled by Dems and they're as much to blame as the Bush admin for the last few years of spending recklessness.

How about we freeze spending at current levels, pass a balanced budget ammendment, review and cut unnecessary/wasteful government programs, pass some sort of privitazation of a portion of SS, raise the age for maximum SS benefits for those under 45 up to 75 or whatever the curent life expectancy is. Any surplus goes to paying down the national debt. Interest on the national debt is 8.5% of our national budget.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Unemployment are over 50% of the budget. These programs have to brought under control now or we're looking at MASSIVE tax increases by 2030. I'm sure this isn't what FDR intended when these programs were put in place.

Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was one of the very few things Bush did that I liked. Unfortunately, it went nowhere. That's because Matty unfortunately is right -- we are going to get more government and apparently the people want it. If we really wanted less gov't then the people would have loudly supported Bush's attempt to privatize a portion of SS.

One more large item in your list of spending cuts -- how about we stop forking over $10 billion a month for Iraq?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

That was one of the very few things Bush did that I liked. Unfortunately, it went nowhere. That's because Matty unfortunately is right -- we are going to get more government and apparently the people want it. If we really wanted less gov't then the people would have loudly supported Bush's attempt to privatize a portion of SS.

One more large item in your list of spending cuts -- how about we stop forking over $10 billion a month for Iraq?

IMO we should've taken a more Reagan-esque approach, subvert Saddam with special ops and fund rebels/Kurds, but we had to do something. Saddam was intent on rebuilding his nuclear program and US forces found enough Sarin there to kill over 500K people. Not to mention him thumbing his nose at numerous UN Resolutions. Although the Bush Admin was certainly the catalyst here, there was heavy bi-partisan support for going into Iraq. The Bush Admin certainly did not act unilaterally internally or externally in Iraq. Another modification I would've made would be Iraq funding more of its own reconstruction rather than us footing the bill.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and we are where we are. We MUST finish the job and stabilize Iraq or we'll be looking at a far worse situation 10-15 years from now if we walk away with the job 60-70% done.

[firstdown]

Well federal tax revenue is at a all time high.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ook/PDF/R2.pdf

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well federal tax revenue is at a all time high.
http://www.heritage.org/research/fea...ook/PDF/R2.pdf

Not sure what we're supposed to take from this--hasn't the population also increased dramatically during that time as well?

For the record, I am fully in favor of cutting bloated federal programs.

[dmek25]

lets face facts first. the old stand by of trickle down economics no longer works. the reason? corporate greed. it used to be the guys running these companies worked their way up the ladder. now, a degree will get you a high paying management job. and once you fail at that, you will collect your severance, and move on to the next company. there is no loyalty, and no drive to have your company succeed. all the big money is negotiated at the time you sign on. if you look at all the major C.E.O's, they just keep retreading them. kind of like sports coaches

[MTK]

Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Did trickle down ever work at anything other than making the gap between the rich and poor even greater?

Originally Posted by hooskins

I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.

"Trickle down" economics was never meant to make everyone rich. It's a basic premise which says that government should get out of the way of people who are trying to make life better for themselves.

Rich people don't hide their money in mayonnaise jars and bury it in their back yard. They save it, which enables banks to make loans; they invest it, which provides capital to companies who in turn, use it to expand and hire more of the low and middle class; or they spend it; and yes they buy expensive things like yachts, million dollar homes, fancy cars and luxurious vacations. That, I believe is what makes the low and middle class so angry. But even there, the people who build, market, and sell yachts, million dollar homes, and fancy cars benefit because they have a job!

When you try to nail wealthy people to the wall, sooner or later it will affect the low and middle class. When you stop punishing the wealthy and let them succeed, it ultimately benefits the low and middle class.

That's the essence of 'trickle down' economics.

[hooskins]

I think no one can dispute that people in general are better off since the 80's, but the rising tide did NOT lift all boats equally. To me that is the concern with trickle-down.

[MTK]

With all the bailouts going on looks like we're getting more gov't involvement whether we like it or not.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

With all the bailouts going on looks like we're getting more gov't involvement whether we like it or not.

If the bailouts are properly managed it should be a break even or win for the U.S. taxpayer. But we are talking about government managing the process so a positive outcome is unlikely.

[MTK]

I'm not against paying more either if it's for the better good of society in general.

[firstdown]

When Goverment can cut its waistful spending and our tax dollars are put to good use I would only then give a tax increase consideration. The problem is if they did that we would not have a need for a tax increase.