The tea brains now have a choke hold on our democracy, and they are holding the nation for ransom. They’re about to drag the US into a new low; quite likely to be downgraded by defaulting on our obligations.
Gotta love those “patriots”. They’re all about flag waving, costume wearing, country first, and... hold on thar pardner..., except for MY wallet.
Make that country second.
They want freedom, alright, freedom to plunge their country into default.
“Don’t Tread On Me, Just Downgrade Me”.
They can’t get what they want legislatively because we still have a little too much democracy for their liking. They want their way or the highway. Like spoiled brats growing into thugs, they have become a serious threat.
Every sane person knows we need to pass the stupid debt ceiling to continue functioning. The Tea Baggers have blown a common procedure into a crisis. They’re acting like bullies on a tantrum. Like the Gingrich Gang of the’90’s they don’t care what happens. Consequences are for other people to worry about.
Like Gingrich, they too, will soon be kicked out of the House. But not before doing their damage.
Americans have agreed for quite some time how to deal with the deficit. And they don’t agree with the Republicans. And they certainly don’t agree with the tea brains. They are now feeling buyers’ remorse with the extremist Tea Party’s attempt at minority rule.
Former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett compiled polls taken the past year reflecting a clear mandate by the people for a tax increase, along with spending cuts to address the deficit.
We the People still support higher taxes.
Polls and support for tax increase:
Washington Post/ABC News (7-19-11) – 66%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal – 62%
CBS News – 69%
Quinnipiac – 67%
Gallup (7-13-11)– 73%
Washington Post/ABC News (6-9-11) – 61%
Bloomberg – 61%
Ipsos/Reuters – 61%
Gallup (4-29-11) – 76%
USC/LA Times (California only) – 62%
New York Times/CBS News – 66%
Washington Post/ABC News (4-20-11) – 62%
Washington Post/ABC News (3-15-11) – 67%
Washington Post/ABC News (12-12-10) – 62%
This is not a passing phase. This is the consensus over most of the past year. The people have spoken. Boehner and the Republican Party are not listening to the people.
Geez, I wonder who they are listening to.
Ka-ching! Who else?
But now the Ka-ching Machine is worried their bratty little pets have grown into a Bear in their China Shop, sending the market down the tubes.
Ah, ya get whatcha ya pay for, eh?
Meanwhile we the people want jobs. Jobs the Republicans campaigned on. Jobs the Democrats campaigned on. We the people want the rich to pay to fix the problem they helped create. We have overwhelmingly expressed our position.
Yeah, thanks a lot, Boehner, Cantor, minions and thugs. We see how much jobs and governing by compromise matter to Republicans. We know who you really represent.
And too many of you Democrats are even more pathetic, cowards and appeasers, instead of representatives of the people. Surrender to the Tea Cult and we all lose.
Democrats, do you want to know how to win? Here’s a secret. Serve the people. Represent us like your jobs depend on it.
Embrace democracy for a change.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
What a wash tub of hog wash!
Just like one bad apple spoils the barrel, one tea bagger spoils the country.
Wow, does that sting Jerry.
if one of us spoils the country, you must lament the whooping you took in 2010 and our numbering in the millions?
Every sane person knows we need to pass the stupid debt ceiling to continue functioning.
Whatever. Government pulls in 200 billion dollars a month. They can cover the bills. So much for your individuality. Stop jumping on the paranoia bandwagon, you sound like Glen Beck. Also, take an econ 101 class.
Reading the comments on your posts in recent weeks, I see the comments section has been taken over by some who live in an alternate reality. That's why I haven't commented lately and probably won't in the future.
Contrary to Democratic talking points, only the House Republicans have presented and passed a plan to actually reduce the deficit and fix the problem. It is called Cut, Cap, and Balance.
Harry Reid won't even bring it up for a vote in the Senate and Obama said he would veto it if he did. So tell me Dave, considering Obama has never had a plan and the asinine budget he did submit was voted down 97 to 0 in the Senate, just who the hell is preventing us from moving forward?
Reid is just now coming up with some accounting gimmicks plan, but all along they haven't done anything but criticize the only plan that was out there and passed by the House.
The Republicans in the House are doing precisely what they were elected to do. Caving in to the big government types now will doom the country that we both love, sir.
It isn't the debt ceiling that will cause our credit down grade; it is the fact that if continued, our spending will equal 100% of our GDP within the decade. THAT is what will downgrade our credit rating and destroy our country.
Kulkuri, I apologize for contributing to the ruining of your left-wing echo chamber here. Dubya, if you would like for me to leave your blog so as not to stir up hate and discontent from my end, I will do so... however reluctantly, sir.
I don't blame you for not wading into the mud with democracy's adversaries. Not many of us find sport in exchanges with narrow ideologues. Their babble cannot undo the truth I tell. In fact, they illustrate why our democracy is suffering and how we've fallen under the tyranny of the economic elite minority and their tea cult.
Thanks for reading the post and my main points.
You don't have to leave. Because I welcome civil disagreement, this is not an echo chamber, now is it?
Just who the hell is preventing us from moving forward?
As far as I can tell, it is a minority of millionaires, billionaires, and their politicians.
They're the only ones capable of doing, or not doing, things in DC.
Those poll results are meaningless. The only way for anyone to influence our corrupt politicians (this goes for both parties) is to give a 5- or 6-figure bribe, er, I mean campaign contribution, to the "representative" of your choice.
These a$$holes don't care about the lowly 99% who can't afford to purchase elections.
Aggressive take-no-prisoners Republicans and timid spineless Democrats -- now that's teamwork.
Sad but true. The will of the people is nothing to them.
They are mostly on the same team, and it ain't Team USA, it's Team U$A.
Dave, just wondering here, but assuming the Republican-led House passes a bill that cuts some spending and raises the debt ceiling, will you then say that Democrats are "holding the nation for ransom" when the Senate doesn't pass it?
I mean, I've heard you claim you're not a Democrat, but all I hear is you complaining about Republicans when there are Democrats involved in the negotiation, too. Are all of the Democrats really behaving honorably in your mind?
Apparently your only condemnation of Democrats is reserved for their not standing up to "spoiled brat" Republicans.
This goes for free speech as well, Democrats can say what they want... Republicans are "the rich" and must be silenced. It's the nature of the progressive mind, this pervasive doublethink.
Spoiled brats and thugs becoming bullies is the perfect characterization for these absolute morons. TAX THE RICH!!!!!!! (See my next post, which will appear tomorrow at http://jackjodell53.wordpress.com).
The Senate wanting a compromise instead of only passing something on the terms of the extreme Right of the Republican Party is not the same as the extremists' refusal of compromise.
My condemnation for both parties is due to their refusal to represent the people. The Republicans are the worst offenders.
It's about the representative democracy we used to hold in our ideals. Both parties fail in their responsibility.
As I’ve said before, I think we would have a better representative democratic republic with the Libertarian and Green Parties dominant, instead of the D’s and R’s.
Free wants to share absurdities again or he is deliberately mischaracterizing me again. We get a lot of that.
If we don’t tax the rich, everybody suffers the losses, from our infrastructure, the public good, and democracy itself.
It is as if they hate America and want it to suffer to preserve the excessive comforts of the elites. We the People and our democracy are their enemies.
I think Boehner is regretting the GOP support for those Tea Partiers too. I am thinking this impasse will backfire for the GOP if the government does default, much as what happened in '94 when the Gingrich congress closed down the government. I just hope my 401k survives the meltdown...
Dave, HR, how much of the wealth of the "rich" should be taken in order to balance the budget, share the wealth and spread the pain? How much will you allow them to keep.
Well JTF, I'm pretty happy where tax rates are right now. I don't have some soap box to jump on about lowering tax rates, but I really don't want tax rates to go up.
Depending on the source and how we define taxes, the rich are already paying more than their fair share or right at their fair share. For example with federal income tax, IRS data for the year 2008 indicates that those making more than $200k per year (the top 3%) earned 29% of income and paid 51.6% of all income tax (link). To me, that's more than their fair share.
Or we could trust a liberal source that measured all taxes, not just federal income tax. Citizens for Tax Justice prepared this analysis which shows that the top 1% of income earners earn 22.2% of all income and pay 23% of all taxes. Now that sounds fair. By the way, the rest of the PDF shows that all income levels pay right around a proportional share of taxes relative to income, so everyone is paying their fair share.
Of course, JTF, as I'm sure you know, our progressive friends don't think paying a proportionate share of taxes is fair. Fairness requires that millionaires and billionaires pay disproportionately more.
To answer you more directly, none of the rich's "wealth" should be taken to balance the budget. We should take a fair portion of everyone's income. Our budget problems are a result of spending, not tax revenue.
Thank You HR, now let's just wait and see how Dave answers.
How can we work with Democrats when you guys won't even admit there is a spending problem. Your ideas for cuts are a joke. Your team wouldn't even cut NPR. You couldn't even give up Garrison Keeler's Prarie Home Companion, how the hell can we get to reforming entitlements when you can't even give up All Things Considered? You aren't realistic. Get real and wake up. You can't tax your way out of our debt with current deficits. Even if you tax 100% of all 300 million American's wages. The government is out of control, and people like you are driving. Stop. The party is over, weather or not you figure it out, no matter what any party does.
Socialism is fine till you run out of other people's money.
The voters are finally catching on that the GOP is snared by their extremists. What goes around...
One of the reasons why I ignore your questions is you ask too many at once. Show some consideration. Or as in this case, you ask something I have answered already.
We do have a spending problem. It is called war. The direct cost in trillions is bad enough. How many additional taxpayers’ dollars are and will be going to veterans with problems resulting from Bush’s war for crony profit and reelection?
Why should the rich feel like they shouldn’t have to pay more for that? Many have seen obscenely high, and even no-bid, profits from war.
NPR is relatively very, very cheap and is the only alternative to corporate media. Well, it used to be, but the Right has defunded it so it needs corporate sponsorship to survive. Now it has become a junior partner in corporate media.
War is fine until we run out of tax dollars to pay for it, eh?
Despite the percentage of overall income taxes paid as the top tier, the fact remains they pay less a percentage as individuals than before. If we all had more income, that overall percentage would not be the case. The fact remains that our middle class is shrinking. The new jobs have less pay than the ones sent overseas, by the same rich who pay lower taxes.
This explains why the rich are paying a greater overall percentage. It is because we have fewer middle class jobs with taxable income. Their wealth increased as the rest of ours did not. The system is rigged in their favor. The representation in government is also disproportionately theirs. Why shouldn't they pay as much as in 2000 since your man Bush cut their taxes and charged the wars for rest of us?
The debt is a result of tax cuts, wars, and spending. Over half our discretionary spending goes to the military. That spending requires revenue. Yes, that is the other side of the coin. The tax cuts made it a revenue problem. You cannot pay for your wars without taxes.
Would you like a suggestion? Let’s cut our defense budget in half. We will survive. Let’s allow the wrong-headed tax cuts given in wartime expire. The rich will still prosper. They always do.
We cannot rebuild America without taxes. We cannot sustain unending militarism in Asia and Africa. We have no reason to occupy the world, other than feeding the military industrial complex.
Let’s redirect some of that spending to our own needs. Bridges are a better investment than bombs
"If we all had more income, that overall percentage would not be the case" Dave Duyba
I agree with this statement, what I disagree with is how to correct that.
"The new jobs have less pay than the ones sent overseas." Dave Duyba.
Why are jobs/business going over seas? Like GE electric light bulb factory? Which I beleive boils down to the this central question.
What is the purpose/goal of a business?
What is the purpose/goal of a business?
To become a corporate "person", with more free speech rights and representation than all the rest of us?
Why are jobs/business going over seas?
Because your corporatist elites love money more than America. They bought the politicians and wrote the trade agreements to do so.
"...the fact remains [the top tier] pay less a percentage as individuals than before" and "The fact remains that our middle class is shrinking."
Dave, if we're talking facts, let's look at the IRS data during the Bush administration. 1) The tax burden on the rich increased from 41% in 2001 to 51% in 2008. 2) The ranks of the poor are shrinking and the middle class is expanding. (Analysis and IRS data found here)
If neither point is no longer true (I simply don't know), that is a result of the recent recession and Obama's so-called recovery. If you looked at the data honestly, your priorities were fulfilled by President Bush.
The debt is a result of tax cuts, wars, and spending... The tax cuts made it a revenue problem... We cannot rebuild America without taxes.
Wars and spending, sure, but not taxes. Wars happen to be necessary most of the time and spending is a political addiction. Republicans have been cured, so now it's the Democrats' turn.
But tax cuts have not created our debt; tax cuts are not a "cost" to government. Your thinking is backwards on this: our dollars are ours first. The only way you can call tax cuts a "cost" to government is if you assume our dollars belong to the government. In that case, reducing what the government gets is a "cost" to the government.
The proper viewpoint is that taxes are a cost to us, and spending is a cost to taxpayers.
I really do appreciate your willingness to answer my questions.
Not to pick a fight, but I always thought the purpose of a business was to make money/profit for it's
owner/owners by providing a product or service, that the free market can choose to purchase or not purchase based on the value of product gives in exchange for its cost. In other words, getting your moneys worth.
Again not to fight, but using GE as an example, they are closing their US light bulb plant and moving it to China, because the cost of making the light bulb in China is less than making it in the US. So if the purpose of a business is to make a profit by producing goods or services that the free market feels is is worth the cost for the value received, then does it make sense that if GE can not make a light bulb and make a profit in the USA they will go somewhere to make their bulbs that cost less to make? In order to remain competitive, after all if a light bulb costs 10 cents to make in China and to make in the USA the cost is 50 cents, do you expect GE to sell their light bulbs at the same cost of China bulb and lose profit on each bulb they make and sell?
What does this reality of the free market place have to do with your statement that "corporatist elites love money more than America"? Is selling at a loss and going out of business show that the owner/owners love America more than they love money? The bulb will still be make in China after the American loving company goes out of business.
Higher tariffs on imports, how does that keep American jobs here if the result increase in cost of the bulb is more that the buyer is willing to pay regardless of where it came from? Will wages go up as fast as goods will in a non free market, where prices are controlled but wages aren't?
GREAT POST, but good luck in getting Dave to beleive as you said that:
"tax cuts have not created our debt; tax cuts are not a "cost" to government. Your thinking is backwards on this: our dollars are ours first. The only way you can call tax cuts a "cost" to government is if you assume our dollars belong to the government. In that case, reducing what the government gets is a "cost" to the government.
The proper viewpoint is that taxes are a cost to us, and spending is a cost to taxpayers."
Of course they are in business to make profit. But at what cost to the community and people that helped them prosper in the first place? Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember a quaint notion called “company loyalty”. People understood the mutual benefit relationship between them and a business. Then businesses started to betray that loyalty.
Funny thing about light bulbs. When I was a kid the electric company gave us bulbs for free.
Point 1. This is because they have amassed a far greater proportion of the wealth in the country.
Point 2. I found nothing to corroborate this. In fact, at the IRS site I noted that numbers of tax filings for middle class ranges fell from 2008 to 2009.
No matter how you spin it, the tax cuts, without offsets, contributed to the debt. Everything I’ve read on the subject indicates stagnation for middle class wages over the past three decades. (Factcheck.org confirmed John Kerry’s claim the middle class was shrinking in 2003.)
Shown in 2003 dollars.
Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.
Not to mention the trend that two incomes are required to maintain the same lifestyle one income used to provide.
HR: "The ranks of the poor are shrinking and the middle class is expanding."
Dave: "I found nothing to corroborate this."
Here is the direct IRS link: Historical Table 3. It all depends on how you define low, middle, and upper class, because this is just the raw data.
When I did my analysis, 2009 data wasn't yet available. Basically I divided the data as $0-$50,000 (poor), $50,000-$200,000 (middle), and more than $200,000 (rich).
With these break-downs, the poor made up 70.1% of the population in 2001 and 63.7% in 2008, a 9.1% decrease during the Bush years. The middle class made up 26.8% in 2001 and 31.5% in 2008, a 14.9% increase during the Bush years.
Obviously, if you don't like my income break-down, you're free to do your own, but that's what Historical Table 3 from the IRS tells me.
Dave, permit me a little snark. I didn't make it up and I just gave you the facts and my assumptions with supporting links to the IRS. Are you capable of admitting you're wrong and that you learned it from a Republican? Or will you try to prove me wrong, cut and splice the data until you can prove what you think you already know?
I say that respectfully, of course.
"But at what cost to the community and people that helped them prosper in the first place."
Hold on Dave, the community and people that helped the business prosper, were they paid a wage, or did they work for free out of their "company loyalty"? I think you know the answer is no, so I wont even ask it. Even so if it costs 5O cents to make a light bulb in the USA and 10 cents in China, which bulb will sell the most? It has nothing to to do with company loyalty, its about being able to make a profit in order to stay in business.
Unlike government jobs, private business has to have make a profit in order to stay in business. The more government reduces that profit by it's regulations and taxation, the less chance the company can stay in business competing against a Chinese competitor. Who already has lower labor costs much less govt regulations to deal with.
The goal of a private business is to make a profit and stay in business, not provide it's workers with health care benefits, or wage higher than any competitor out side the USA. Those are the by product of a profitable company.
Look how Boeing is being treated by it's own government for opening up a nonunion plant in S.C. Boeing has added union jobs to it's work force in Settle as well as creating real good living wage jobs in S.C.and the Labor Dept wants to stop them from doing so. Just because the Democrats owe so much to the Unions to get elected the Labor Dept would destroy AMERICAN JOBS. Where is company loyalty when it comes to govt? Is it any wonder with this type of crap from Washington D.C., that business either flees the USA or closes up?
You agree corporations are “persons” and are therefore entitled to more free speech rights and representation in our government than the real persons who comprise we the people. Fine.
You agree that the American worker must compete for jobs against the lowest paid people in the world because it is good for business. Fine.
You agree corporate “citizens” owe no loyalty, or taxes, to the US or its people. Fine.
So it must also be fine with you that Americans must live like Chinese. Whatever happened to, “We want our country back”?
Like I’ve been saying. “Country second”.
I really wish I could celebrate your conclusions with you.
Your percentages are based on people who have the jobs to file tax returns, not the entire population. You assumptions go only as far as those particular stats lead you.
Those tables show stats on income. They do not reflect unemployment or account for inflation and other realities. They also do not show losses to the middle class caused by the housing bust, the losses of 401-K and retirement investments. They do not reflect the reality that basic needs consume a growing percentage of our wages. Our middle class is also defined by its standard of living, and that has not improved for the majority of Americans. The redistribution of enormous wealth to the few has not done the country’s public services and infrastructure any good. In fact, we as a nation are in far worse shape than ten, twenty, and thirty years ago.
You admitted the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The rising tide is only lifting yachts. That trend should set off alarms that something is very out of balance.
We cannot rebuild the country and pay for unending wars without taxes. Since the rich are getting richer, they can afford it more than ever. They're not creating jobs. The government can create infrastructure repair and maintenance jobs with more tax dollars. Then the rich and everybody else would have a better country...If they really held the notion of country first.
Respectfully I must ask you, what has your reply have to do with my post? In re reading my post I cant find the word corporation once, but in your answer you do. Explain?
Let me show further how OUR federal govt moves jobs overseas. The reason GE closed their US light bulb plant is it costs too much to rebuild it to make the new light bulb required by OUR federal govt. The same federal govt that will will now spend millions of dollars in unemployment benefits and to retrain the workers whose jobs THEY sent to China.
Loyalty, for a business, it's workers or the country it governs, where is this loyalty for these, in the liberal/progressives who support things like reduction in the free market to just one type of light bulb for the"greater good"? At the cost of good union jobs!
Or who oppose Boeing adding "good paying union jobs" in their Settle plant AND in a new S.C. plant by actions of the federal govt NLRB?
Should I go on?
OK, I will.
Recovery starts when small business's start to rehire, not large corporations. Show us one thing in the "real liberal" (IE not Obama, cause he's not a REAL liberal) play book that would encourage small business growth.
Is it increasing taxes on incomes over $250,000? Is it not enforcing our immigration laws? Is it allowing the EPA (who is starting to become the largest private interest lobby group in the country) ruling's to effect economic policy?
In closing, I know I piss you off cause I ask questions, sorry but here are my last ones.
You state to HR "We cannot rebuild the country and pay for unending wars without taxes". I guess you are talking about the endless federal govt WAR ON POVERTY"? Right?
You mention yachts, which brings to mind these, when a heavy tax was place on the cost of yachts cause only the rich would buy them, what happened? When Obama knocked as a perk for the rich, trips a to Vegas, what happened to it's economy? If and when sales of corporate jets dry up because of their being knocked as toys for the rich, what will happen to the small business that supplied the wood work for the interior, or seat covers, or wiring, or paint, or door hinges, etc?
What, only seven or eight questions this time?
You’re wasting my time again. What, Boeing is not a corporation? Your comment has “private business”, and “company” mentioned repeatedly. Give me a break.
The fact is you cannot argue with my points. You want Americans to compete with the Chinese for jobs.
Such obsession with light bulbs! I have nothing to do with their manufacture. I know of no progressive who does either. GE paid no taxes, yet you whine about them like they are some sort of poor “victim”. Give me another break.
I also have nothing to do with Boeing. I do know they get corporate welfare and sweetheart deals with their tankers. Corporations move overseas to increase profit, not to survive. You whine about companies, many that pay no taxes and have more free speech and representation than the people, companies that value maximizing profit over our people and national well being. “In greed we trust” may as well be your motto. “Country second” still logically follows your beliefs.
Your “free market” is a lie. It does not exist. Let’s cut all corporate welfare, and then talk about gutting the services to the needy. The government has made it easier to offshore jobs because their corporate owners wrote the trade agreements to facilitate their agenda. Recovery starts when large corporations stop sending jobs overseas.
You want small businesses to prosper and hire. Good. Tell your cash-hoarding buddies on Wall Street to start lending them money. Recovery starts when money is circulated in the economy to create jobs.
Government can create infrastructure jobs when it can pay for them. Recovery starts when taxes are used to create those jobs.
You need to get it through your head the reason things are screwed up is because millionaires and billionaires have dictated our public policies, through politicians they paid for, over the past thirty years, not me. Not even Rachel Maddow. Get it?
No, you don't. Blame the liberals. You Rightists must always have scapegoats. And the scapegoats are never the rich and powerful, the ones who actually have been creating this mess. You worship them as infallible gods. You are incapable of blaming them for anything.
You state to HR "We cannot rebuild the country and pay for unending wars without taxes". I guess you are talking about the endless federal govt WAR ON POVERTY"? Right?
This is yet another example of mischaracterization that wastes my time.
That is what trolls do. They ask question after question, offer no information, and mischaracterize and distract from the subject of the original post. These all further indicate the truth to my original post that you on the Right hate democracy. “Country second, American people last”.
Go drink some more tea and suck on your own hogwash.
"You want Americans to compete with the Chinese for jobs". Get real Dave.
Where did I say I wanted them to, and unless you are living in a hole in the ground, you have to know we are competing for jobs with the Chinese. Every day in every market of our country.
Scapegoats? You want to talk about scapegoats? Try Geo W. Bush for the lefts scapegoat.
I am amazed on how pissed you get when asked a question, then how you claim that I offer no information.
You would have to be stupid or purposefully acting stupid to miss the information I presented which you summarize with "I have nothing to do with their (light bulbs) manufacture."
Dave deal with it IE: massive govt interference, regulation and threats of more and passage of new taxes have kept the country in it's current poor state of economics. And to wonder why the "cash-hoarding buddies on Wall Street" are not lending money is to forget your stated reason for business is to make a profit, not run a charity.
"Your “free market” is a lie" I agree it doesn't exist. Not under the liberal driven concept of "fairness" and the liberal agenda driven EPA and NLRB currently in place. And for you to scream about sending jobs offshore, how can you even broach that subject when Obama shuts down our drilling off shore for oil but turns around and allows Brazil to do so?
You want a great example of how your beloved govt spending on shovel ready jobs has worked, listen to Obama saying he guess's there weren't as many shovel jobs ready as he thought there were. So spending by govt didn't create more jobs cause, but the money sure was spent, with no results.
It just dawned me as I was ready to bring up a mining company in AL that gave up trying to open a new mine and put 250 people to work paying $50,000 to $100,000 a year, saying the heck with after all the EPA crap thrown at him I'm not opening it, that you really don't like examples of failed liberal policy or questions that can prove with their answers that liberalism fails. So for now, I'll stop.
We do have a spending problem. It is called war.
This spending problem started in the 60s. We've had both peace and war since then, and the spending problem persisted through both. This isn't a new problem, it's only now noticed because it's become so huge. Washington over-spending is hardly new.
How many additional taxpayers’ dollars are and will be going to veterans with problems
Lots and lots, all the more reason to cut, so it can be paid for.
Why should the rich feel like they shouldn’t have to pay more for that?
They will, even if I get my way totally. 12% of a billion is a lot more than 12% of 30k. They pay more. Right now the "so called rich" pay 50% and the mega rich and the so called "poor" pay nothing. That status quo must change.
Many have seen obscenely high, and even no-bid, profits from war.
Profit is never obscene. Further, profits from Haliburton, Blackwater, General Dynamics, Rayathon to name a few make up a tiny percentage of our GDP. Most of that still comes from manufacturing and Agribusiness.
NPR is relatively very, very cheap
So, it should be easy to live without then.
the Right has defunded it so it needs corporate sponsorship to survive.
Let it go all the way to sponsorship and be done with it.
War is fine until we run out of tax dollars to pay for it, eh?
Depends on the war.
Ah guys. The truth is nothing of substance will be cut because we all not only love our government goodies, government is above all else a giant social program that benefits everyone.
What military base will anyone close. Congress won;t even allow trhe Postal Service to close a mailing center or drop Saturday delivery because an old couple in rural America likes going to town to pick up their mail. Or the jobs that will be lost.
How many jobs are lost if Ft. Leonard Wood or the Great Lakes Naval Base are closed.
Real cuts ain't gonna happen.
As for taxing the "rich" I have no problem paying more taxes to help my government pay it's bills and keep it's promises. I'm not rich either. Raise all our taxes for a stronger America.
You all love America enough to help pay for the freedoms and way of life we enjoy, don't you guys?
Companies have an obligation to the communities they do business in, and make their profits from.
They have a stake in and a duty to do what's in the best interests of the country, their community, and the people within the community.
Capitalistic philosophy is not just about money, or how, or who makes the most.
Supply and demand principles are not working; but if companies can make a good profit (cash holdings show they are) selling to a smaller percentage of customers than they used to, that's fine with them.
Henry Ford had it right when he understood that buy making his product affordable to the masses, it not only made him richer, but was good for prosperity and an easier lifestyle for the masses.
We have already seen how this multi-trillion dollar debt has limited our choices, just imagine how few choices future Americans will have, if we pass this debt onto them.
We pay half the taxes the WW II generation paid, and they did not pass on the massive WW II debt, they paid it off.
The now 14 trillion dollar debt, is a single generation debt. These multi-trillion dollar debts did not start adding up until 1983. This is our greedy fault.
The idea that tax increases are "out of the question" at this high a debt, seems unreasonable and unwise.
Yes, except for the "Country second" crowd.
Despite Ford's sympathies to the Nazis, he did understand the fundamentals of shared prosperity, unlike the current radical Rightists.
Post a Comment