Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 5 Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1766 times:
Quote: Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, said Congress should extend the Bush-era tax cuts for upper-income Americans and pay the cost by cutting government spending.
. . .
Pawlenty, 49, would spend unused funds from the economic stimulus program and reduce spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security to finance the extension of tax cuts.
I would be laughing about this if it wasn't a real possibility. Gotta cut payments to people on SOcial Security in order to fund continued tax cuts for the top tier? Maybe he'll go for even more tax breaks for the rich, funded by closing down the VA and leaving the Vets on the street.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4649 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
The real problem though is that by only having the "top tier" tax cuts expire, over 75% of the tax revenue that could be realized will not be.
No matter what, government expenditures will have to be reduced (in other words: programs cut) or there will be no balancing the budget and getting out of the debt hole we are in. It is not popular but at the tax cuts across all brackets should be allowed to expire AND cuts made to the budget.
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
rwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
The tax cuts have to go, and the sooner the better. You can't simply cut taxes, start two wars at the same time, and expect any sort of fiscal solvency. Thrown in multiple bank bailouts, stimulus packages, etc. and it's surprising that the US isn't bankrupt.
I think at a minimum, the Bush tax cuts must be repealed. Even better would be to add 3% (making a maximum rate of 42.6%) for top wage earners, and perhaps 1.5% for the bracket below that.
I'm sure the usual reaction will be the hysterical cries that "raising taxes will KILL our economic recovery". I'm not convinced. There is no evidence that minor tax cuts such as these have directly driven any long-term economic growth. Further, no one can argue that the economy of the late 1990s was extremely robust, and it was at a time when taxes were higher than today.
You can only cut so much. At some point the revenue side of the equation must be fixed. The US government has racked up too many charges on their credit card. It's time to start paying it off.
bhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
More tax breaks!!?? Cry me a river....“For every dollar of wealth in America, the top 1 percent got about a quarter and the rest of us split the other 76 cents.”
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14408 posts, RR: 26 Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
Screw the income tax and go with a VAT. If nothing else, it might teach Americans better money habits.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4649 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1713 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4): Screw the income tax and go with a VAT. If nothing else, it might teach Americans better money habits.
To wipe out all income tax you would need about a 21% VAT.
However I am not sure what would be included in it. I would say that you would need to include every transaction that "sells" something and I am quite sure that Wall Street would have a conniption fit about that (not to mention the real estate industry, etc).
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14408 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1695 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 5): To wipe out all income tax you would need about a 21% VAT.
Maybe you wouldn't want to get rid of the income tax entirely, but the VAT is an easy solution to those who complain about the rich getting richer and how much you pay is entirely up to you.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1686 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4): Screw the income tax and go with a VAT. If nothing else, it might teach Americans better money habits.
A VAT (we call it a GST) got Canada out of fiscal trouble back in the late 80's and our federal rate is now 5% (plus provincial sales taxes which vary), but you need it in combination with an income tax IMO as a 21% VAT will discourage spending big time, because it gets passed on to the consumer.
It was discussed in Canada last year looking at the US deficit last year that a 3% federal VAT with your current tax rates would pretty much wipeout your 2008 deficit.
Quoting Tugger (Reply 5): However I am not sure what would be included in it. I would say that you would need to include every transaction that "sells" something and I am quite sure that Wall Street would have a conniption fit about that (not to mention the real estate industry, etc).
In Canada it covers all goods and services which is pretty much everything.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1674 times:
Just be careful with a VAT. From what I remember, any sales tax that may resemble a VAT is set by the state, so a federal VAT or GST could cause that the states complain that this is federal law meddling in state affairs. That being said, we in Germany had an increase of the VAT from 16 to 19% about 3 years ago, and it has not done anything to solve our problems. In fact, the government has cut taxes for the richer, while social programmes and benefits for lower income people have been reduced or even cut (I remind the issue with the parent benefits that are being kept for high income parents and was cut for lower income parents and also for people who are under welfare). The coalition member party FDP still insists on tax cuts, while the people are outraged by these tax cuts and demand higher taxes for high income people and even millionaires. Even millionaires have pleaded that they're willing to pay more taxes to help our country, but those pleas have been blatantly ignored by the FDP and the federal government.
We were promissed "Mehr Netto vom Brutto (More net from our gross salary)", but the government has epically failed in keeping that promise that it made during the campaign for people in lower income classes.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1650 times:
Quoting rwSEA (Reply 2): I'm sure the usual reaction will be the hysterical cries that "raising taxes will KILL our economic recovery". I'm not convinced.
Let's look at it this way:
Our government pplaces a tax on activity that it wishes to discourage, for any variety of reasons. Right, wrong or indifferent, that is what happens. Let me write that again, if the government wishes to curtail an activity it places a tax on it.
Further, if a special interest group wishes an activity to be curtailed, they lobby for a tax, conversely, if the government or a special interest group wishes an activity to continue or even expand, a tax cut or credit is offered.
That is how we use tax policy in the United States. Again, right, wrong or indifferent.
Then how can anyone argue that taxing economic activity (income, dividend distribution, capital gains, etc.) will not have a negative affect (or is it effect) on those very activities? Allowing the tax cuts to expire WILL, not may, will have a negative influence on this economy. It will kill this jobless, anemic recovery.
Quoting bhill (Reply 3): More tax breaks!!?? Cry me a river....“For every dollar of wealth in America, the top 1 percent got about a quarter and the rest of us split the other 76 cents.”
Since you're so good at research, what percentage of tax does the top 1% pay into the dole? Top 10%, how about them? What about the bottom 50% of earners? What do they pay?
Taxes are necessary to run government. But when government expands into areas that it does not belong, it costs us money. Truth be known, I don't believe my tax burden is too high. But, I wish the distribution were different. Much less to the Federal Government (let's say enough to pay for their enumerated powers) and much more to my local and state governments, so that they can continue to provide my neighbors and me the services for which we need (police, fire, ems, infrastructure, etc) and those we may ask for (garbage collection, leaf collection, parks, recreational activities, etc)
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1643 times:
I'm going to buck the trend.
I say that the lowest tier tax cuts need to go away. The Bush tax cuts, as well intentioned as they were, resulted in nearly half the households in the country paying no Federal Income Tax at all. No wonder you have half the population loving the idea of increasing federal spending and increasing government social programs - they don't have to pay a bloody cent for it! That mentality has to stop - even if you only pay a few hundred bucks per year, everyone needs to have at least some skin in the game. Maybe then they will think a bit more when they vote.
I would keep all the middle and upper tiers at the same rate they are today, or even lower them a tad.
But then I would add some tiers, say another tier at $500,000, another at $1 million, one at $5 million. The top tier at that point would be something like 42-45%. The idea that someone earning $300K per year (a healthy upper management salary) being taxed at the same rates as Bill Gates is silly.
I would maintain and even reinforce the capital gains tax cuts. Investment drives the economy, and it should be encouraged, not penalized. To that end, I would drastically increase the tax deductability of investing in 401ks and IRAs. You should be allowed to deduct up to 25% of your gross income, in my opinion.
All that is if we insist on keeping the Income tax system. Personally I tend to think that eliminating income taxes (including corporate) entirely would be a good idea, to be replaced by a Consumption Tax (or a VAT) and a tax on net worth, say 2 or 3%. That will encourage savings and investment. Exports would have virtually no tax load.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7501 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
Pawlenty is a slut. He will sleep with anybody to get ahead, figuratively speaking. He doesn't even know what he is talking about.
He is right that business people are worried about stability. That's because the federal budget overhang is just too damn large in this country. Given that, only a fool would invest in a long term business venture in the USA. They need to make a real plan involving taxes and austerity to make the business world believe the USA is going to be around long term, and not be reorganized under Beijing command.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): The idea that someone earning $300K per year (a healthy upper management salary) being taxed at the same rates as Bill Gates is silly.
Even sillier is that cardiologist or VP making $300k per year pays far HIGHER tax rates than Bill Gates. Gates pays nowhere hear 50% of his income on taxes. More like between zero and 15%. If Gates died this year, his heirs would pay 0% on his estate.
A $300k earner living in New Jersey or Mass could easily be nearing 50% of gross income in tax. That's because W-2 income is treated differently from capital income. Hedge fund guys are known to pay 10% or less on their income, using tax lawyers and roundabout deferred capital gains. A VP or cardiologist can't afford to spend $50k on a tax attorney every year.
And, obviously, the bottom 50% of the tax rolls aren't paying very much.
dxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4): Screw the income tax and go with a VAT. If nothing else, it might teach Americans better money habits.
Only if the 16th amendment is repealed first.
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 8): We were promissed "Mehr Netto vom Brutto (More net from our gross salary)", but the government has epically failed in keeping that promise that it made during the campaign for people in lower income classes.
Which unfortunately is exactly where we would find ourselves in this country.
But even some top democrats are calling for the tax cuts to be extended much to the chagrin of their colleagues.
Midwestern centrists such as Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) have called for an extension of all of Bush’s tax cuts, including those benefiting individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning over $250,000 annually.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1615 times:
My plan would be to allow some cuts to continue, and reinstate in part the expiring or expired ones.
Return the top rate for the highest incomes although raise the income needed for that level, with limited exemptions for small business owners to encourage their investments.
Reinstate the 'death tax', with a higher deductable and a lower rate than under the former law as well as allow for deductable exemptions for certain family owned properties or businesses to prevent disruption and sell outs under pressure.
Cap by income, adjusted by regional costs of living, deductions for real property taxes and mortgage interest. In effect this would hold down taxes on the middle class and encourage their purchase of homes and make investments while raising them on the .
A higher rate of short-term (less than 2 years) capital gains taxes on real property, stocks, bonds and commidities to discourage 'flipping' of such investments to reduce financial bubbles.
Substantually raise the limits as to the Alternative Minimum Tax or ditch it completly with caps on non-taxable income that the ATM covers now.
Change corporate tax laws to discourage excessive compensation for executives, shipping out of jobs to other countries or to limit extorted tax subsidies by local and state governments that hurt their revenues.
Raise by 48 cents a gallon, by 1 cent a month over 48 months, the Federal tax on road gasoline (not on road diesel). This would help discourge consumption, reduce pollution, recognize in part the real cost of gasoline (enviromental, health, military) and raise revenues for badly needed infrastructure projects, perhaps targeting highways and decrepit bridges.
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): Maybe then they will think a bit more when they vote.
Are you implying that people who vote in a different way from you do so because they have not thought enough about the issues?
thegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2278 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
The sad thing is the federal government has done nothing to curtail spending....
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Even sillier is that cardiologist or VP making $300k per year pays far HIGHER tax rates than Bill Gates. Gates pays nowhere hear 50% of his income on taxes. More like between zero and 15%. If Gates died this year, his heirs would pay 0% on his estate.
Don't compare income with investment returns or estate. Investment and saving is something we should be encouraging. Estate taxes is criminal theft IMHO, as that money has already been taxed. If someone worked hard all his life, what he leaves behind should be a windfall for his kids, not the government which has already taken its piece of the pie and has not earned the rest.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): A $300k earner living in New Jersey or Mass could easily be nearing 50% of gross income in tax. That's because W-2 income is treated differently from capital income. Hedge fund guys are known to pay 10% or less on their income, using tax lawyers and roundabout deferred capital gains. A VP or cardiologist can't afford to spend $50k on a tax attorney every year.
So simplify the tax code. No deductions or credits apart from the base credit per family member, deduct charity and part of your mortgage payment (on primary residence only) and apply the rates. Tax forms do not need to be more than 1 page.
Quoting cws818 (Reply 14): Are you implying that people who vote in a different way from you do so because they have not thought enough about the issues?
Hell, I think we should consider limiting the vote to people who are net payers of taxes. If you don't pull your share of the weight, you don't vote. The idea is attractive, though granted prone to possible abuse.
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 17): That little clip features only one person and does not establish a general trend or rule.
In my own experience, those people I know who voted for Obama are either 1) independents who just wanted a change and thought they were voting for a traditional democrat like Clinton (and who are now regretting their decision), 2) Socialists and idealists who truly believe that the country would be better off without business and capitalism, or 3) Ignorants like those in the video.
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4994 posts, RR: 25 Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1580 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): In my own experience, those people I know who voted for Obama are either 1) independents who just wanted a change and thought they were voting for a traditional democrat like Clinton (and who are now regretting their decision), 2) Socialists and idealists who truly believe that the country would be better off without business and capitalism, or 3) Ignorants like those in the video.
Wow! That characterization is offensive on so many levels. You're basically suggesting that those who voted for Obama are ignorant, independents who are too stupid to find out who it is they are voting for, or a bunch of pinko socialists who want to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Do you really harbor that much contempt for those who voted for Obama?
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1563 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 13): Reinstate the 'death tax', with a higher deductable and a lower rate than under the former law as well as allow for deductable exemptions for certain family owned properties or businesses to prevent disruption and sell outs under pressure.
You do realize this will discourage savings, correct? I'm more likely to do what I can to divest myself of assets before my death if a larger percentage of my estate will go to the government. The money has, generally, already been taxed. It was the deceased's income at some time and was probably taxed.
The Left (and some on the Right) is found of social engineering by using the tax code. They want to shape behaviour to conform to whatever view of society they have.
Increase taxes on fuel, there will be less driving.
Increase taxes on cigarettes, there will be less smoking.
Increase taxes on alcohol, there will be less drinking.
Increase taxes on inheritances, there will be less savings.
Increase taxes on business income, there will be less business income.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14408 posts, RR: 26 Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 15): The sad thing is the federal government has done nothing to curtail spending....
Exactly. The whole notion that the solution is raising taxes is ludicrous. What happens when we spend all of that money?
I can look past a lot if it will make me a profit.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): Investment and saving is something we should be encouraging. Estate taxes is criminal theft IMHO, as that money has already been taxed.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7879 posts, RR: 22 Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Quoting OA412 (Reply 19): Wow! That characterization is offensive on so many levels. You're basically suggesting that those who voted for Obama are ignorant, independents who are too stupid to find out who it is they are voting for, or a bunch of pinko socialists who want to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Do you really harbor that much contempt for those who voted for Obama?
Why is it offensive? Those are my observations. I have no contempt for committed socialists - I think they are wrong, and just wish they wouldn't get so defensive about it. Those independents I've talked to, I can understand how pissed off they were at Bush - I certainly was too. The only people I have something akin to contempt for are those who don't bother to inform themselves about political affairs, who have no clue of the issues of the day, of the key people in government, who their congressman is, who are only interested in the next American Idol or Desperate Housewives, and who vote for whoever their friends say it's cool to vote for (and in 2008, it was cool to vote for Obama).
thegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2278 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21): Exactly. The whole notion that the solution is raising taxes is ludicrous. What happens when we spend all of that money?
The bail out to the states will give them a free pass to continue their recklessness...look at CA and NY...
cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1167 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1547 times:
Generally, but not exclusively. Sometimes a person will vote his or her conscience, too.
volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
25 Flighty: Well, they are both income. In the business world they are fungible. Income is investment returns is stock options. There are gray areas. Some people
26 fr8mech: I don't think he's saying that it shouldn't be taxed, nor am I. But, it should be taxed at the rate of income and not at some higher rate. Why should
27 Pyrex: That's it? In Portugal we have a 21% VAT AND a 40+% income tax rate. So you are saying that the people who should be the ones breeding in the first p
28 BMI727: Damn. For that much, they better be paving the freeways with marble.
29 Aaron747: I just have a question for the majority of people who oppose tax cuts for those in the highest bracket - don't you *want* them to have some incentive
30 LTU932: No, I'm saying that high income parents get unlimited benefits, while low income parents (those who work, as well as those who are on welfare) are ge
31 Dreadnought: You cut the part where I talked about eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Altogether, I think that encourages people
32 STT757: I would let the tax cuts expire and direct the additional revenues towards paying off the debt run up by all these supplemental war spending bills, th
33 LTU932: Tax incentives for small business are all fine and OK, but the issue is with people in the highest bracket, who do NOT own a small business and just
34 fr8mech: You assume additional revenues. But, revenues will be lower, because the recovery, such as it, will die or remain anemic, at best. Why do you think b
35 Ken777: Actually the various levels of government use "Sin Taxes" because it's common knowledge that you can increase them without a major drop in use. Cigs
36 Dreadnought: Which is why in most countries there are separate VAT rates for food and necessities and another for everything else. Which is exactly the opposite o
37 BMI727: What does that have to do with anything? Scrap the whole thing and tell people that if they want money when they are old they will either have to sav
38 Aaron747: That would be a hell of a thing to see. I doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes though.
39 Ken777: We did save, and we also INVESTED in Social Security. Since I'm around half a century older than you appear to be I'l understand that you have faith
40 BMI727: That and the realization that my generation will probably never see a dime of it.
41 Ken777: You might be surprised. The super rich will fight it like mad, pouring millions into propaganda. But the money is there. You know how some people tal
42 Pyrex: Nope, you still have to pay tolls on most highways! You do have some streets paved with marble, but they are mostly in towns that produce a lot of ma
43 FlyPNS1: So your goal is to take money from people who have little or no money, so that wealthy people can have an even greater percentage of the wealth in th
44 Ken777: Well, it is far lower than when JFK (not a poor man by any means) brought the top tier down to about 75%. And I don't see how you get 80% "all in". W
45 Pyrex: Not sure how many times I need to explain this but here it goes again, maybe this time around you are able to get it in your head. If you are living
46 LTU932: You still don't get it. I'm not talking about having more kids, I'm talking about people, who fall into the welfare system and ALREADY have kids. I'm
47 BMI727: Perhaps, but the majority of baby boomers haven't gotten to retirement age yet, and that is usually what is projected to break the system. Besides, c
48 Flighty: Has Gates' money been taxed? Or Larry Ellison's or Michael Bloomberg's? That is an open question. My guess is that, no, it was never taxed. They are
49 Flighty: Exactly, we went through that in the airline industry. When the company is weakened, then don't expect your pension to happen. Especially when it was
50 Pyrex: I wish I knew. According to this source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_as_percentage_of_GDP#cite_note-0 Tax revenue as a % of GDP is 37% (p
51 Dreadnought: My intention is to turn everyone into taxpayers and even if it's a few hundred dollars per year. It's not important how much you can get from them -
52 cws818: Why do you assume that they don't care now?
53 Dreadnought: Hello! There are still about 40% of the population who like what Obama and Congress are doing. How can anyone care and still be part of the 40%?
54 cws818: That just means that they have political views different from yours. It does not mean that they don't care.
55 Pyrex: No. But the fact that they don't have any skin in the game means. This way, who wouldn't vote on a tax increase on other people and on more money for
56 fr8mech: Why is there no demand? Because folks who still have their jobs are also uncertain and holding their cash. People are scared to death of what this go
57 seb146: The funny thing about all of this: Republicans are screaming about "we need ways to pay for this that and the other" but where were they when these ta
58 StarAC17: Employers only hire additional people if they can profit off someone's labour. Also what employers have been doing is realizing that they can get by
59 Dreadnought: Doesn't the "tax breaks for the wealthy" BS get tired after we've been talking about how the Bush tax cuts actually took tens of millions of American
60 Ken777: That assumes, of course, you find someone in the "top bracket" without a tax accountant or tax attorney. That's the reported funding. Then there is c
61 Pyrex: Of course. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
62 fr8mech: I never said that. I don't bbelieve that we use tax policy correctly. Taxes should pay for government...that's it. They should not be used to shape s
63 Ken777: They aren't. Both conservatives and liberals understand that demand in these areas ("sins") have traditionally been pretty inelastic. There is also t
64 Pyrex: If you are prepared for the headlines when some guy starts collecting a pay-check from Social Security worth a few million bucks a year go right ahea
65 Ken777: Try lobbyist and politicians needing campaign contributions and other support. Do you believe that the average American took part in shaping, or is e
66 windy95: Ummm. Yes. Sure does. That boogie man is as old as an Egyptian mummy No they are worried about the massive debt, more taxes and the cost of the healt
67 Ken777: But what is "government"? It sure "shaped society" with the draft in WW II through Vietnam. It "shaped society" when it distributed the original poli
69 Pyrex: Sounds like a plan to me. I thought liberals always kept saying FICA was not a tax, but it was supposed to fund your own retirement? Basically, a way
70 fr8mech: And let's look and see which of these are part of the enumerated powers: The draft...yes. Vaccinations: I can stretch the Commerce Clause, but no, no
71 BMI727: I wonder how much it costs Uncle Sam to do the equivalent of me making a couple trips to the bank?
72 FlyPNS1: More like people are coming off of a massive high where they spent years spending money they didn't have. During the so-called boom years after the B
73 Dreadnought: You are missing the point. Everyone should chip in. We are all worried about survival, our jobs, and not wasting money so that you have a little in r
74 Ken777: Those were legal laws passed by elected officials. Let the Republicans run on a program of abolishing all three of them after the November election a
75 bhill: For those of you folks bemoaning the so called "Death Tax"..you have not been asking the right people...I have wondered why the talking heads on Repub
76 StarAC17: The reliance on spending in western economies needs to change. China and most of Asia is a saving economy perhaps to their detriment but that is what
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7525 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3229 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
Let the games begin.
Printer friendly format 
