You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The rich are waging class warfare on the poor
- Thread starter failed_trad3r
- Start date
Quote from MKTrader:
There's a HUGE amount of spending we can cut before even thinking about raising taxes. I'm talking about entire Federal agencies. Take the Dep't of Energy. It was created in that late 70s to "reduce our dependence on foreign oil." It's now a huge, wasteful bureacracy with 16,000 employees and $24 billion annual budget. And guess what? We import more oil than ever. 30+ years of an epic failure. But is anyone talking about putting them on the chopping block? Heavens no. If anything, they'll probably grow under Obama.
$24 billion for an agency is pennies. They need to reform medicare, social security, and reduce defense spending.
That's just one example. There are hundreds of others. All this class warfare talk of "the richest must pay" is a diversion. It's just playing on people's envy and frustrations. A massive amount of pork-cutting needs to happen before a penny is raised on anyone's taxes (rich or poor).
This is not class warfare. It's just what's fair. The rich will still be rich. They're just asked to pay what they did when Clinton was in office.
Quote from Betapeg:
$24 billion for an agency is pennies. They need to reform medicare, social security, and reduce defense spending.
This is not class warfare. It's just what's fair. The rich will still be rich. They're just asked to pay what they did when Clinton was in office.
Okay, so we just let $24 billion get wasted here, there and all over the place. No big deal. But we'll tax the rich, even if it has negative consequences. Some of those "rich" own business and employ others, remember?
But you've clearly shown your bias, and that this is about imagined "fairness" (paying a rate from a past administration), not about real spending cuts.
But yes, I'm all for cutting/streamlining costs from the military, SS and Medicare, too.
Quote from MKTrader:
Okay, so we just let $24 billion get wasted here, there and all over the place. No big deal. But we'll tax the rich, even if it has negative consequences. Some of those "rich" own business and employ others, remember?
But yes, I'm all for cutting/streamlining costs from the military, SS and Medicare, too.
When did I say I was for waste and excessive bureaucracy? I didn't. My point is that this agency and their budget pales in comparison to medicare, social security, and military expenditures. These 3 things are what they need to focus on in regards to reform. Everything else can come after that in my opinion. If we could cut our healthcare costs to that of Canada, Japan, UK, or France, that would save many more billions on that alone. The occupational wars of Iraq and Afghanistan could probably save us even more.
Oh, and surprise surprise, I'm a liberal who is for a national privatized pension system regulated by government and with a mandate given by government to provide a pension for all workers who meet certain criteria with the risk chosen by the worker themself (i.e. paying into the system for 20 years). Chile's pension system is something we should be taking a very hard look at. I also like Milton Friedman's idea of the "negative income tax".
But you've clearly shown your bias, .
My bias? What about your bias?
and that this is about imagined "fairness" (paying a rate from a past administration), not about real spending cuts
Like I said, I'm for entitlement reform, cuts in military spending, AND the highest income earners paying pre-Bush tax cut rates. I think that is good policy and fair for everyone including the rich.
AND the highest income earners paying pre-Bush tax cut rates. I think that is good policy and fair for everyone including the rich. [/B]
That's your bias. It doesn't matter if we could cut a huge amount of spending...and maybe even lower certain tax rates to provide more incentives for growth and jobs. No, the rich have to pay some arbitrary prior tax rate or we're not happy.
Get over that and then we can get somewhere. It's Obamatown Kool Aid and preventing a real root cause discussion of how to get out of this messs.
Quote from Betapeg:
I'm not a detective FYI.
Warren Buffet doesn't need government services like someone making $20,000 a year might.
If you want to live in a society where people go bankrupt or die because they can't get basic affordable healthcare, then good for you.
Nor are you any good at analyzing basic data.
Again, why should being born in a particular country cost me money above and beyond what I get back from that particular country? If I pay $20K in taxes, why can't I get back $20K in benefits? You hem and haw about "fairness", well what's more fair than getting back at least what you pay in? I wasn't put on this planet to be your cash cow.
As for the whole "live in a society" thing, that's exactly why I said in another thread that the US should be split into at least two countries. I don't want to debate. It's boring and people never change their minds. The US as-is is a giant landmass that can easily be split into two countries and function just fine. If you turn this into a zero-sum game where only one side wins, you're just inviting the kind of violence that culminates in a second civil war. Do you really want that? Because that's the "kind of society" you're going to get. You can count on it.
Quote from MKTrader:
Get over that and then we can get somewhere. It's Obamatown Kool Aid and preventing a real root cause discussion of how to get out of this messs.
Liberals are incapable of analysis. It's all emotive adolescent posturing with them. The minute you refuse to grant them their untenable assumptions about the world, their arguments all collapse in a heap.
Quote from MKTrader:
That's your bias. It doesn't matter if we could cut a huge amount of spending...and maybe even lower certain tax rates to provide more incentives for growth and jobs. No, the rich have to pay some arbitrary prior tax rate or we're not happy.
Not arbitrary. Pre-bush tax cut. Arbitrary would be all rich must pay 50% tax rate effective immediately. Take a nice trip to Europe, because they'd probably laugh at you Americans complaining about high taxes. Even if we returned to Clinton tax rates, we'd still have one the lowest tax rates of any of the G20 nations.
Get over that and then we can get somewhere. It's Obamatown Kool Aid and preventing a real root cause discussion of how to get out of this messs. [/B]
We can have an exchange of ideas or one of rhetoric like "Obamatown Kool Aid". I'm not interested in rhetoric.
Quote from logic_man:
Nor are you any good at analyzing basic data.
...said the angry right winger.
Seriously, you need to chill out.
Again, why should being born in a particular country cost me money above and beyond what I get back from that particular country? If I pay $20K in taxes, why can't I get back $20K in benefits? You hem and haw about "fairness", well what's more fair than getting back at least what you pay in? I wasn't put on this planet to be your cash cow.
I pretty much agreed with you. That's why I suggested you support universal healthcare. You want a 1:1 payback don't you?
As for the whole "live in a society" thing, that's exactly why I said in another thread that the US should be split into at least two countries. I don't want to debate. It's boring and people never change their minds. The US as-is is a giant landmass that can easily be split into two countries and function just fine. If you turn this into a zero-sum game where only one side wins, you're just inviting the kind of violence that culminates in a second civil war. Do you really want that? Because that's the "kind of society" you're going to get. You can count on it.
In a democracy, there are going to be people who disagree with you. If your response is to get angry and suggest radical ideas like secession just because you don't get your way, then that's unfortunate.