[QUOTE=LouisB]
I believe this is true. In fact, I’m sure it is true. I’d like to know just how miniscule it is in terms of dollars and/or percentage points. If I simply make this statement to the people I want to challenge, they will scoff and point to specific examples to prove that foreign aid is sometimes misused. I’d like a dollar and cents number but I don’t know where to find it. If you can point me to a number, I’d greatly appreciate it.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, between flights here, but you could probably just Google ‘how much does the US spend on foreign aid’ and get a definitive answer. IIRC, it’s less than $30 billion dollars. Granted, that SOUNDS like a lot of money, but compared to the federal budget it ranks just above NASA’s budget (again, from memory)…IOW, it ain’t much and getting rid of it completely would do exactly nothing to help the deficit. Getting rid of all foreign aid AND NASA’s budget would do next to nothing to help the deficit.
The really big things in the budget are all things various large percentages of the population want…i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. All of those combined constitute something like 70-80% of the budget. Everything else is pretty much chump change.
[QUOTE=gonzomax] http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/d...0_2010&units=p
Since you believe that, I will provide you the numbers. Now you can come back fron fantasy land and show me a huge increase in revenue.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, excellent (drive by) cite that answers a question I asked you multiple times in another thread. Try changing the field for percentage of GDP to billions of dollars and tell me what the new graph says.
Well, it’s pretty clear. It shows that the amount of revenue that the federal government has gotten via corporate and personal income taxes have gone up substantially since the 40’s, despite gonzo’s assertions in another thread that they have been cut in half or more. There has been a bit of a dip during the two recent recessions (and I expect the dip to continue) but that’s not because the ‘rich’ have gotten their taxes cut in half (or more) but because we are in that whole recession thingy.
So, what it means in terms of the other discussion is that the US doesn’t and hasn’t had a revenue problem…we have a spending problem. We have more revenue coming in that in the past, but sadly we spend more than we did in the past…more than the increases in revenue can keep up with.
This isn’t to say that we don’t need to increase taxes btw. I’m all for getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts™…ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts™. But we have to do this in conjunction with reduced spending, so that our spending is balanced with our revenue.
In any case, as you have been told, but ignored upthread, removing the tax cuts from the high brackets impacts the economy far less than removing them from the middle class. This is because the middle class are barely surviving and are more likely to spend any money they save, helping the economy through increased demand.
Your assertion that we need to remove all the taxes makes zero sense if what you’re after is to improve the US economy. It only makes sense if you want to hurt the middle class because the higher brackets would be taking a hit.
Your urge to hurt the middle class to make it “even” isn’t a reason to set policy that would slow the recovery.
Also, you can typeset a trademark symbol by holding down alt and typing 0153.
Not funding government programs per se, but Colorado has been using this idea for over 30 years to bolster the funding of a number of non-profits and joint agencies: http://www.checkoffcolorado.org/
Would I donate to these programs on my own? Not likely. But when they’re put right in front of me (and this year they comprised more than half a page of the state income tax form), it’s pretty easy to give $50 to one or a couple of the 15 options that appeal to me.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You’re factually wrong. Does that change your opinion any?
[/QUOTE]
Did you mean to link a different cite that actually proved this? Because the one you linked too does not seem show a drop of half or more in government revenue. Am I missing something here (I’m reading this on an iPad in between doing a bunch of other stuff so I might be missing something).
Also, your cite seems to says that “Revenue is lower than it would be without the Bush tax cuts..” …which doesn’t say that revenue overall is lower. The way I read that is that it says that it’s lower than it WOULD have been without the Bush tax cuts.
Which doesn’t say that it’s lower over all, merely that it’s lower than it would have been had there not been any Bush tax cuts.
Yes, I’ve been TOLD a LOT of things. I haven’t seen any proof of this, and in any case I still believe it’s the best course. YMMV of course.
I don’t believe that removing ANY of the tax breaks is going to improve the economy, at least not in the short term. I don’t think that anything is going to do that. The purpose of removing the tax cuts is to increase tax revenue and, hopefully, start down the road towards balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. As I said either earlier in this thread or in another thread, I believe that reducing the deficit will pay long term dividends. In the short term we are probably collectively fucked.
My urge is to spread the pain and to try and convey to the tax paying public that there is no free lunch…and that we are all in this mess together. I’m not trying to make things ‘even’ since, even getting rid of all of the Bush tax cuts it wouldn’t be ‘even’…the rich pay more in taxes, and their increase would be more than the middle class or the poor. And that’s fine, since they also make more.
Ah, my thanks…I actually didn’t know that. I thought you’d have to change the font or something!
I don’t see any fatal flaw about the government asking for your spare change. However, allowing individuals to earmark where they want their voluntax to be spent seems like it would be asking for corruption. I can’t see how this wouldn’t end up being abused and leading to competing interests bidding against each other, offering more money for the government to take their side.
As far as I can tell, neither one of them would mind a small increase in their taxes. It wouldn’t affect their charity work at all.
A single payer plan would be a splendid way of dealing with the problem of doctors and hospitals doing things that make them money. Notice that you didn’t order the stent, they did, so it is not clear that you having less insurance would change anything. I assume they explained to you why the stent was the most effective treatment, right? And you gave permission? If they were right, and you refused it because you couldn’t afford it, and died, is that a positive outcome for anyone?
I’m taking three heart drugs without a stent, so it comes with the territory. And my father got one at 90, because putting him under to open his heart would probably have destroyed what was left of his mind, forcing him into a nursing home for the rest of his life.
Insurance companies are supposed to rein in spending, and do to some extent, but the more they pay out the higher fees they can charge and the more profit they can make. Only a government system where profit is not a motive can break us out of this trap.
There is a simple way of making your idea kind of work.
Increase everyone’s taxes 5% or10% voluntarily, in the sense that the default is that you pay more, but that you can easily go to the IRS website, get an id by providing your SSN and identifying information, and opt out.
No tax increase, really, but I predict that many, many people would never bother to opt out. Don’t believe me? Think of how many people never got around to opting in to 401K plans, which involved getting free money for retirement from your employer.
NO! Yes, based on my total lack of knowledge. Understand nothing was said about a stent or any other remedy until I was in the hospital and already had a catheter in my heart. It is highly questionable if it was the best practice or if the rules of informed consent were followed.
I’ve tried googling everything I can think of and haven’t found a definitive answer yet; I seem to get bogged down in the distinctions between direct aid and aid provided by independent contractors who are paid by the the government, as well as other forms of aid. Still, thank you for your input and efforts; I’ll keep plugging away at the problem just to see what I can come up with. I really didn’t mean to ask you to do my homework, I just hoped you would have already done it and had a reasonable figure as to the total. In any event, I doubt that the total spent on foreign aid of any and all kinds would amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of government expenditures. Thanks for your inputs.
Please help me understand what your answer has to do with taxes, which I thought was the subject of the OP. I fully understand that I personally left the subject of taxes behind when I asked about the expense of foreign aid, so don’t take my question personally. I’m just baffled by how homosexual marriage relates to the OP.
