Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
and then

Will We Go Over the Cliff?

Over the Cliff?   31 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Obama and the Repubs allow the tax hikes and budget cuts to kick in on Jan 1?

    • Yes
      13
    • No
      9
    • Don't Care
      9

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

121 posts in this topic

They get plenty of revenue. If they spent less they wouldn't have to 'get' more revenue.

Anytime they get more they always spend more and then they don't do the right things with half of it and the right things that they actually do they pay more than double what they should and they never pay down the debt that they use as some kind of guilt trip telling everybody they need to pay down the debt and its always a minuscule amount paid over several years and then they ask for more, repeat all of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they spent less

Yep, let's start by cutting military spending by 50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, let's start by cutting military spending by 50%

Entitlements first. We need the military more than affirmative action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck cut both. It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of. And when was the last time an army marched towards our borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck cut both. It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of. And when was the last time an army marched towards our borders?

If our military was slashed it might not be so long before one tries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They get plenty of revenue. If they spent less they wouldn't have to 'get' more revenue.

population01.png

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise - government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our military was slashed it might not be so long before one tries.

Why would anyone bother to invade the US when they can just buy it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise - government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

Of course. And how will that work? A Socialist will look at the curve and only see an increasing number of dependency. And that means only one thing, you got to confiscate all the money you can from those who earned it up front to redistribute. A Conservative will see new opportunities and new business and entrepreneurs which means a broadening of the tax base which means more money all the way around and perhaps a lowering of taxes. The thing that gets me is that nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the purpose of this government is to provide dole for the people. The five charges of this government are to assist everyone to follow their own path; to build their own future on their own, with their own two hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

population01.png

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise - government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

Well unless job growth is on par with or greater than birth rates, job losses and immigrants entering without jobs getting gov assistance I can't see how the working class doesn't keep getting hit harder and harder. The death rate doesn't level that out because there are almost twice as many people born every year than how many die.

Edit: what that means is that tax revenues can never keep up with what you deem as necessary spending if job growth can't keep up with all those factors.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless job growth is on par with or greater than birth rates, job losses and immigrants entering without jobs getting gov assistance I can't see how the working class doesn't keep getting hit harder and harder. The death rate doesn't level that out because there are almost twice as many people born every year than how many die.

Edit: what that means is that tax revenues can never keep up with what you deem as necessary spending if job growth can't keep up with all those factors.

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entitlements first. We need the military more than affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement". And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of.

Assuming you're referring to Social Security. That is not an "entitlement" but paid for directly. And does NOT contribute to debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement". And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

So, you are advocating another 15% unemployed?

Fact remains that there are very few healthy industries left in the country, one of them carters to the military. Reduce the military budget in half and half of those people will be unemployed.

First you have to make it possible to pay the current bills and then you can think about economical restructuring, like reducing the military complex. And the only way to do that is increase taxes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are advocating another 15% unemployed?

Fact remains that there are very few healthy industries left in the country, one of them carters to the military. Reduce the military budget in half and half of those people will be unemployed.

First you have to make it possible to pay the current bills and then you can think about economical restructuring, like reducing the military complex. And the only way to do that is increase taxes.

guns or butter? I would choose butter. invest in green energy, infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guns or butter? I would choose butter. invest in green energy, infrastructure.

Your problem still is that you won't have that money by just cutting down the military. You might not need to spend that money and it might make a considerable dent in the deficit, but you still don't have money to invest in green energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement".

It sure is. It assures that people that may not necessarily be as qualified as others to get a job solely on the color of their skin.

And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

Actually it’s closer to more than only the next 20 or 25 nations. Spending less than 1/5th of the Budget has paid a peace dividend well worth the expenditure. This is the best investment this country has made. Can we spend a little less, like in the neighborhood of more than the next 15 to 20? We probably could and we should look into it. But what would that be, about $100B? That puts the defense budget at less than 1/6th of the overall budget. Where’s the rest of the budget going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

Then at what point do they stop asking for more to solve a situation that can't be solved by the sweat of someone else's brow? There is never an end to it and apparently you agree. So the question is, why are you ok with it?

And ninja, affirmative action is by definition entitling somebody to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then at what point do they stop asking for more to solve a situation that can't be solved by the sweat of someone else's brow? There is never an end to it and apparently you agree. So the question is, why are you ok with it?

I'm not sure that that's what I agreed with.

What I agreed with was that the economy needs to at least grow inline with population, or things get worse over time. Luckily - in the US, aside from recessions - it generally does.

As to there being an end to it:

43295-LTBOBlog.png

The green chart is what happens if we go over the cliff and the Bush tax cuts are repealed in their entirety, and the various sequestration cuts are made. The yellow line is what happens if we just kick the can down the road and do nothing.

Basically - the Bush tax cuts need to be repealed - for everyone, as well as the other cuts that are currently part of the sequestration. The only real question is whether to do it all at once (and throw the economy back into a recession) or lower the US down the cliff gently.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. And how will that work? A Socialist will look at the curve and only see an increasing number of dependency. And that means only one thing, you got to confiscate all the money you can from those who earned it up front to redistribute. A Conservative will see new opportunities and new business and entrepreneurs which means a broadening of the tax base which means more money all the way around and perhaps a lowering of taxes.

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?

The thing that gets me is that nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the purpose of this government is to provide dole for the people. The five charges of this government are to assist everyone to follow their own path; to build their own future on their own, with their own two hands.

In the preamble, you'll note the phrase "...to promote the general welfare".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?

In the preamble, you'll note the phrase "...to promote the general welfare".

And to promote that general welfare, the powers that the federal government has were thereby enumerated. Cool, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to promote that general welfare, the powers that the federal government has were thereby enumerated. Cool, huh?

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fell well below the poverty line in 2008. Ive adjusted. Im comfortable. There are no real jobs where I live so i work here and there and dont contribute taxes. I used to pay my fair share. The only thing the government does for me is SNAP. If they cannot create jobs that will pull me out of poverty then I will continue this way. It is entertaining to look at pictures from the Great Depression and realize. I dont have it so bad. YET.

I voted I dont care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

It is clear from the Founders that going into debt was a necessity; however some strong voices wanted to limit that ability to times of war only. And yeah, that was a softball for all the perpetual-war supporters out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where we have to say that in that enumeration there is a provision to raise taxes, but none to make debts.

It is clear from the Founders that going into debt was a necessity; however some strong voices wanted to limit that ability to times of war only. And yeah, that was a softball for all the perpetual-war supporters out there.

Man! The blind leading the blind. Yes, Congress has the ability to levy taxes, but just because they do doesn’t mean they have to. It wasn’t until the Civil War that the first income tax was instituted. It took until 1872 to repeal this because it was considered unconstitutional. But the Dark Energy out there continued on until 1913 when the 16th Amendment was passed to impose the income tax. It is unconstitutional yet we still have it. Justice Roberts is right when he said that such things must be dealt with by the people.

Debt is what hampered the Revolution. Our Founding Fathers believed in pay as you go. Debt was not a necessity but it became a necessary evil. That is why our soldiers fought in retched conditions and with substandard equipment. From almost the beginning of our founding, this nation has fought against deficit banking. The idea of a Central Bank had been crushed 4 or 5 times until it was slipped in behind our backs in 1913 and it was called the Federal Reserve. Now our system runs on deficit spending and fractional banking.

This must end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's that whole partisan scapegoating thing working out for you, exactly?

It’s all a big joke to you, isn’t it? Well, keep it up. As Dr. Emilio Lizardo would say …

In the preamble, you'll note the phrase "...to promote the general welfare".

Great! Finally!! Thank you for mentioning this. Shall we take a closer look? It says to PROMOTE not PROVIDE and it is the GENERAL WELFARE, not WELFARE. So please note that. The General Welfare is in reference to maintaining roads, public works, and the like so that the people can go about their daily lives without the hindrance of not having those inanimate things to facilitate the daily routine. The Constitution was setup to regulate the objects and implements of this Republic and not regulate the people. That is the whole idea behind liberty and non infringement by the government. But I digress, you don’t understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.