By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama: Cut the deficit by taxing the rich

Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:

The US government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ...

The problem being that "cut the budget" always seems laser-targeted on cutting off medicare and other necessary entitlement programs, when these programs are quite honestly not comprehensive enough.

Revenue alterations are the only alternative, that and eliminating waste and streamlining programs without reducing benefits (and eventually increasing the benefits as is the only ethical long-term option).

And there is definitely a revenue problem when we're leaving so many groups that should be shouldering more of the burden paying absolutely nothing (or being owed money by the government, like GE)

....Why are bloated entitlement programs needed?

They are massively inefficient, and provide very little benefit for what they cost.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network

I love the Republicans: Cut spending for the poor and make the Rich richer by having them taxed less LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. 

Whats Sad i bet alot of poor people will vote for the republicans, but moves like that cause discontent between classes and results in people movement revolutions. Really how is not taxing rich people = more jobs. Shouldn't it be lowing taxes on US businesses and have the money saved used to employ more people?? 

Really the Republicans in the US are mad people. 

An isn't it that the US is in 11 trillion in debt and that China lent you 100s of billions in loans? 



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:

The US government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ...

The problem being that "cut the budget" always seems laser-targeted on cutting off medicare and other necessary entitlement programs, when these programs are quite honestly not comprehensive enough.

Revenue alterations are the only alternative, that and eliminating waste and streamlining programs without reducing benefits (and eventually increasing the benefits as is the only ethical long-term option).

And there is definitely a revenue problem when we're leaving so many groups that should be shouldering more of the burden paying absolutely nothing (or being owed money by the government, like GE)

For every $1.00 created in the private sector the US government is spending $0.66, within a couple of years it will be $1.00, the people who are not doing their fair share are the people who are living off of the government; regardless of whether you're talking about people on welfare or those within government bureaucracy or public unions.

The economy needs to be (about) thee times the size to support current spending levels, taxing the rich will not magically fix this problem.



The people with the $ will make happen what they want to happen just like they did with the backroom deal in 2008 that bailed out banks after being turned down by the people elected to actually represent them.Funny how failing banks thought they deserved for the people to bail them out, but did little to nothing to help those being thrown out of there homes caused partly by them. Rich Americans hate socialism ideas when it involves their money, but love it when they take taxpayer money for being failures.

The "rich" will lose class warfare easyily in time after enough people are tired of being screwed and shit on. Theres a shit load more hard working and decent people than there are rich people that are (feel in the back). Their is plenty of "bad and good" in every social class. The difference is the bad in the rich communtiy have all the money. Money=Power Power=others screwed.



HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:

The US government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ...

The problem being that "cut the budget" always seems laser-targeted on cutting off medicare and other necessary entitlement programs, when these programs are quite honestly not comprehensive enough.

Revenue alterations are the only alternative, that and eliminating waste and streamlining programs without reducing benefits (and eventually increasing the benefits as is the only ethical long-term option).

And there is definitely a revenue problem when we're leaving so many groups that should be shouldering more of the burden paying absolutely nothing (or being owed money by the government, like GE)

 

For every $1.00 created in the private sector the US government is spending $0.66, within a couple of years it will be $1.00, the people who are not doing their fair share are the people who are living off of the government; regardless of whether you're talking about people on welfare or those within government bureaucracy or public unions.

The economy needs to be (about) thee times the size to support current spending levels, taxing the rich will not magically fix this problem.

Some streamlining is necessary, but i hope to be one of those people living on bloated goverment benefits in the future (like my Uncle, whose near retirement and now spends most of his time on vacation, though he's from the self-sustaining FDIC), though that's aside the point. The public sector breeds necessary public good, and what the private sector needs to sacrifice on that point is their duty to sacrifice



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:

The US government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ...

The problem being that "cut the budget" always seems laser-targeted on cutting off medicare and other necessary entitlement programs, when these programs are quite honestly not comprehensive enough.

Revenue alterations are the only alternative, that and eliminating waste and streamlining programs without reducing benefits (and eventually increasing the benefits as is the only ethical long-term option).

And there is definitely a revenue problem when we're leaving so many groups that should be shouldering more of the burden paying absolutely nothing (or being owed money by the government, like GE)

 

For every $1.00 created in the private sector the US government is spending $0.66, within a couple of years it will be $1.00, the people who are not doing their fair share are the people who are living off of the government; regardless of whether you're talking about people on welfare or those within government bureaucracy or public unions.

The economy needs to be (about) thee times the size to support current spending levels, taxing the rich will not magically fix this problem.

Some streamlining is necessary, but i hope to be one of those people living on bloated goverment benefits in the future (like my Uncle, whose near retirement and now spends most of his time on vacation, though he's from the self-sustaining FDIC)

Wouldn't you rather have a real pension built off of the growth in value of real investments than to live off of the work of someone else?



HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Some streamlining is necessary, but i hope to be one of those people living on bloated goverment benefits in the future (like my Uncle, whose near retirement and now spends most of his time on vacation, though he's from the self-sustaining FDIC)

Wouldn't you rather have a real pension built off of the growth in value of real investments than to live off of the work of someone else?

I agree that idle money should be put to work, which is why i like the idea of 401s, and i'm not saying that money shouldn't be put to work while it idles, but that money should be there

And again we have this implicit idea that government provides nothing of value. Public good is the most noble service at the end of the day, because it evens out the necessary inequalities of capitalism (i like my materialist excesses, which keeps me from being an advocate of Communism proper, but social democracy with a strong public sector is the best third way)

EDIT: heh, i discovered a new smiley...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Some streamlining is necessary, but i hope to be one of those people living on bloated goverment benefits in the future (like my Uncle, whose near retirement and now spends most of his time on vacation, though he's from the self-sustaining FDIC)

Wouldn't you rather have a real pension built off of the growth in value of real investments than to live off of the work of someone else?

I agree that idle money should be put to work, which is why i like the idea of 401s, and i'm not saying that money shouldn't be put to work while it idles, but that money should be there

And again we have this implicit idea that government provides nothing of value. Public good is the most noble service at the end of the day, because it evens out the necessary inequalities of capitalism (i like my materialist excesses, which keeps me from being an advocate of Communism proper, but social democracy with a strong public sector is the best third way)

EDIT: heh, i discovered a new smiley...

I'm not convinced that the government "evens out" anything ... For example, the government of the United States of America has constantly increased its spending as a portion of GDP, is hitting a point where the excessive size of the government is threatening the stability of the economy, and yet there is little sign that the economy has become any more equitable from this intervention.

Welfare creates poverty because it takes people who are struggling because of lack of education and experience, and who may exhibit self-destructive behaviour, and prevents them from gaining education or experience while they continue their self-destructive behaviour. Food Stamps encourage low paying jobs by increasing costs on all businesses (even those that pay their employees well) to subsidize companies who pay their employees poorly. The government creating incentives for health care benefits created an industry with almost no way to controll the rapid increase in costs.



Or cut spending on fixing up the fucking environment, politicians make me sick.



Seece said:

In a speech in Washington DC he outlined a package of tax increases and spending cuts aimed at reducing the deficit by $4tn (£2.45tn) by 2023.

The deficit is forecast to reach $1.5 trillion (£921bn) this year and both Democrats and Republicans have said cutting it is a priority.

Is that 1.5 this year alone, or total? else I'm confused, unless they expect it to peak above 4 trillion ..

the deficit is about 76 tillion...

http://www.datelinezero.com/2011/03/31/economic-warning-signs-abound-in-u-s/



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453