Not even real cuts, just "not as big budget increases as you thought."That is an interesting way to coin it, Espy. I would say 'The rich have a duty to put more money into a system which almost guarantees they stay wealthy than the poor'.
1.3 Trillion in cuts in 10 years?!? Good luck with that.
Well that certainly sounds better but it ends up equaling the same idea. But to take you at your words, why do they have that duty? What compels that duty?That is an interesting way to coin it, Espy. I would say 'The rich have a duty to put more money into a system which almost guarantees they stay wealthy than the poor'.
That's a rather ambiguous statement which begs a disturbing question - how often is "often?" And does that mean that nobody should be allowed to "start" wealthy? Just because a person inherits money, that doesn't mean he will keep it, nor does it mean he won't get even richer - it depends on the person and the choices they make over their life - just like everyone else.I said the wealthy who started wealthy often stay wealthy in our system.
Which isn't entirely true for tax savvy individuals.Gasbandit said:And furthermore, that money has already been taxed before - most likely at the highest income bracket. When it was earned.
THAT is entirely a creation of the 9 billion ton spaghettified rats nest that is our tax code. The more time, or money that it takes to buy someone else's time, you have, the more loopholes and other methods you can find to shelter your money. You want to put an end to that? Fairtax, beyotch. No deductions. No shelters. No bullshit, and it's inherently progressive.Which isn't entirely true for tax savvy individuals.Gasbandit said:And furthermore, that money has already been taxed before - most likely at the highest income bracket. When it was earned.
I have a feeling we'll be rebuilding things from scratch withing the next few decades, so it's something to keep in mind.I have no problem with that, Gas. I don't think it would happen, though. I am entirely for simplicity in all things.
Because 19% is on the high side of reasonable expectations. From the article:And why 19%? Why not just make it 20%?
Most economists talk about a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 percent as a trigger point that makes investors very nervous about a country's ability to pay its obligations. The debt to GDP ratio was 63 percent this year and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects it will be 87 percent in 2020. Just three years ago, it was 36.5 percent. Not good signs.
So, what would it take to bring federal spending into line with plausible levels of revenue?
The CBO, the non-partisan agency charged with estimating the effects of legislation on government costs, has produced a long-term budget outlook in which Bush-era tax rates remain unchanged. Their conclusion is that over the next decade, "government revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical averages." That's actually a bit higher than the historical average, but is within the bounds of reason.
A balanced budget in 2020 based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?
*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
Hooo boy... I just love with when some dick takes a few passages from Frantz Fanon's works out of context, slaps on some references to "the lefts" and "the liberals", and then posts it online as if his tirade had any editorial value.Multiculturalism IS bunk. Especially when it comes to fighting terrorism.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.[/QUOTE]Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?
*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
The fairtax gives a prebate, so the poor pay less/none, the rich pay more.[/QUOTE]Wait, Krisken, you are for a fairtax now? What happened to the "duty* of the rich to pay more"?
*I still don't understand where this duty comes from.
Umm... unless I'm reading that article wrong, it actually looks like Obama WOULD win against those candidates, with the only person having the potential to beat him in any of the areas being Romney (who is favored by independents). The article only proves what everyone's been saying for the past few months: Obama's not a great candidate anymore, but he's still better than anyone the Republicans could field right now.If the elections were held today, Barack Obama would not win. But which GOP candidate would he lose to?
Umm... unless I'm reading that article wrong, it actually looks like Obama WOULD win against those candidates, with the only person having the potential to beat him in any of the areas being Romney (who is favored by independents). The article only proves what everyone's been saying for the past few months: Obama's not a great candidate anymore, but he's still better than anyone the Republicans could field right now.[/QUOTE]If the elections were held today, Barack Obama would not win. But which GOP candidate would he lose to?
Both myself and my brother were in drop-side cribs when we were babies. This is stereotypical "for the children!!1!" legislation. 30 deaths in 10 years. That's 3 infant deaths per year. That is a very low rate. But you can hear Helen Lovejoy screeching "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"After dozens of deaths, drop-side cribs outlawed - Yahoo! News
The Fed's have outlawed drop side cribs.
Shouldn't be up to the manufacturer to keep using cheap parts, and the parents desire to save a little money to keep these beds on the open market?
Unless of course, its lobbyists contribute a lot to your campaign.Sometimes the market won't learn on it's own. Sometimes you have to take away it's toys.
Especially considering we have considerable historical evidence that it doesn't work.Ok, so markets don't work, government doesn't work. What is the big solution? It certainly isn't "Let the market regulate itself". That is just plain gullibility.
Especially considering we have considerable historical evidence that it doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Ok, so markets don't work, government doesn't work. What is the big solution? It certainly isn't "Let the market regulate itself". That is just plain gullibility.