I agree, and I am probably more seriously anti-democratic than you are. But that quote is used in this democracy to inculcate the idea that our government is illegitimate; and to encourage people to vote oh-so-democratically not only against their own interests, but against legitimate government authority in general.
Oversimplification. It’s coming from us spending more than we take in revenues. If we reduce 10% of our spending, from the standpoint of correcting the deficit, it doesn’t matter whether that 10% comes from entitlements or the military.
We both know that why healthcare spending here is high, since it’s been topic that has been debated ad nauseum. Don’t insult our intelligence by pretending as though it’s because the government provides too many people with health insurance.
But we don’t spend 9 times as much on groceries as we do clothes. You need to cough up some cites for the stats you threw out in your earlier post. From my reading*, we spend 19% of our budget on healthcare and 19% on the military.
To go back to my earlier analogy, the same percentage of our income is going to groceries as it does on clothes. You could say we need cut back on groceries, but the house is full of growing children who are barely eating as it is. At the same time, the kids are dressed in Armani suits and Air Jordans. Seems to me that before we decide to let kids starve, we need to cut back on the designer clothes and sneakers. And raise revenue.
*Not the most credible site on the planet but the best I could find in 30 seconds.
What a silly article. Look at the first paragraph:
Would you care to make a list for us of every policy Bismarck ever enacted so that we may know in detail what else we must avoid? Shall we go back to the time before Bismarck, say the days of kings and serfs? Oh wait, the founding fathers fought a war to escape that, whoops.
This kind of thinking is a way to avoid dealing with real-world problems by hiding in ideologies. Yeah, it is all about ‘controlling the economy’, nothing to do with addressing a real problem which leads to suffering and death for millions if left unaddressed, nosiree Bob.
How are we going to take care of seniors and sick people, Shodan? Are we going to just throw them all to the dogs because Bismarck did something in 1889?
I don’t think you quite got the point of the paragraph.
Well, no - as I said, you might want to actually read the article. It deals with a real-world problem.
And speaking of retreating into ideological inanities rather than dealing with real-world problems -
The notion that doing something to avoid going bankrupt is “throwing seniors and sick people to the dogs” is a good example.
I’m so hard-hearted - I don’t want entitlement spending to grow until it consumes 100% of the federal budget.
At least the current debate about driving the country further along the road to bankruptcy makes it clear who are the serious people, and who are not.
Regards,
Shodan
Two things I’ve read (Time IIRC): 1.Our Defense spending is more than the rest of the 1st World combined. 2.Pentagon spending has allowed Western Europe to fund their social safety net.
Because many of them have no skin in the game. If we everyone, or even a substantial majority, paying income tax and they voted to increase the tax burden on everyone, fine. I’d have no problem with that. But when you have 50% or so of the populace excluded from being hit by the tax it should be unsurprising that they’d vote to increase taxes on other people.
So what? That is what the Constitution calls for; one man, one vote, or as libertarians call it, tyranny by the majority. That is far preferrable to tyranny by the minority, which is what you are advocating, and what the Republicans are arguing for in the House. Not likely to change just because you don’t like the way the Constitution works.
No, that’s not what I’m arguing for. I’m arguing for everyone (with a few exceptions) paying income tax. And in a way that if it goes up for anyone it goes up for everyone.
But out of curiosity, what do you say to this idea: we tax everyone worth over $1 billion, 95%? would you advocate such plan. If so, why? If not, why not?
So you agree with Orrin Hatch, who thinks the poor need to “share some of the responsibility” for reducing the deficit?
Because it is unecessarily confiscatory. However, returning to the Clinton era tax rates would work wonders to reduce the deficit.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So you agree with Orrin Hatch, who thinks the poor need to “share some of the responsibility” for reducing the deficit?
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re mischaracterizing his point. It all depends what you mean by “poor”. He was making the point that some of the so-called “poor” make over $80,000. And yes, they should share in whatever pain there is.
You know, it’s kinda funny that the same group that considers people who make $80,000 poor constantly characterize those making over $200,000 as "millionaires. I don’t know if they’re having a hard time with the numbers or the language.
There are no people making $80,000 that pay no income tax. Full stop.
Why? Seriously?
Because, to paraphrase Montgomery Burns, “You know, as much money as I have, I’d trade it all away for just a little more.”
Can you prove that? I just filled in a tax return spreadsheet (you can get it from http://www.excel1040.com) and found it pretty easy to enter details for a family making $80k and end up with zero income tax liability. My fictitious family:
[ul]
[li]made $80k gross[/li][li]put 6% into a 401(k)[/li][li]has 4 children, all eligible for the child tax credit[/li][li]Paid $3k in property taxes[/li][li]Paid $6k in mortgage interest[/li][li]Donated $1k to charity[/li][li]Put $5k in an IRA[/li][/ul]
Now this I agree with. Of course, that would mean many more people paying federal income tax. Less than 25% escaped federal income tax in the Clinton years.
I see that amarone has dealt with this.
Would you be an advocate of this?
I would advocate returning to pre-1994 tax rates, yes.
Why pre-1994? If Clinton’s policies were responsible for for our financial health, why not go with the ones he enacted?
As per amarone’s link, the tax code in 1993 had about only 23% of people owing no taxes at the end of the year. Are you okay with having more people on the lower end paying? If so, I’d agree with that. Widening the tax base is helpful in several respects.
Because the 1993 Clinton tax increase rates will reduce the deficit faster than the rates rammed through by the Contract on America.
I am willing to compromise. If you can get your side to go for pre-1994 tax rates, I will work on broadening the tax base. But note that amarone’s statistics are per person, while mine are per household. Not the same, so I doubt there is much of a difference.
Not so. The statistics I linked to are “per return”, which is neither per person nor per household. However, it is a lot closer to “per household” then “per person”, as most couples file jointly and you mostly will get multiple returns per household only if more than one working generation lives together.
All the statistics I found (I only linked one of several) were done on a per return basis - it is difficult to analyze any other way.
Why are the poor opposed to paying ANY taxes… I say if POTUS wants to raise taxes on ANYONE, then they need to raise taxes on EVERYONE.
Oh wait, 1/2 of the population pay NO TAXES… perhaps it’s time they start paying their fair share.