airdvr 210 #1 February 10, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is badPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #2 February 10, 2011 Quote http://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad I think I want to be sick.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #3 February 10, 2011 When you see it laid out like that it might already be too late. Seems the dicretionary portion is smaller than the interest on the debt. Reminds me of a line from the engineer in the movie Titanic whe n he said something like 'it will sink. It's a mathematical certainty.'Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 February 10, 2011 That is a great video though! Thanks for posting! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 February 10, 2011 Quotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #6 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect. The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison. Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect. The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison. Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately. Hey teach still worming and weasling I see I got another one for you to worm or weasle out of As asked by another What is an apropreiate amount of taxation God knows you dont give a flying flip about fair Hey Are you still not anwering those three questions you asked of me (and you made a statement I would weasle out of answering) I then answered and aksed you the same and you still are worming and weasling The old do as I say not as I do teach Good stuff huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #8 February 10, 2011 >What is an apropreiate amount of taxation You keep asking him this. So let me ask you - What level of taxation do YOU think is fair? Or even appropriate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #9 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect. The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison. Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately. Hey teach still worming and weasling I see That old reading problem of yours has returned, I see. Quote What is an apropreiate amount of taxation Enough to pay the bills, and pay off some of the debt. You're welcome.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #10 February 10, 2011 Quote>What is an apropreiate amount of taxation You keep asking him this. So let me ask you - What level of taxation do YOU think is fair? Or even appropriate? No more than today and it should be less At least at the fed level Spending is the problem Not the rate of taxation It would be nice to get some kind of answer from kallend so one might get a point of reference too but I doubt that will happen"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect. The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison. Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately. Hey teach still worming and weasling I see That old reading problem of yours has returned, I see. Quote What is an apropreiate amount of taxation Enough to pay the bills, and pay off some of the debt. You're welcome. Agreed So we cut spending to a level where todays rates will make that happen How about the other three quesions since you are on a semi roll?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #12 February 10, 2011 >No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 February 10, 2011 Quote>No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Dont agree Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues As for cutting? Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree neither party is willing to do what is right"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #14 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuote>No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Dont agree Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues As for cutting? Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree neither party is willing to do what is right So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #15 February 10, 2011 >Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues Agreed, which is why tax cuts were part of the stimulus package. However, that means that taxes other places have to increase _more_. There's no such thing as a free lunch. We're playing shell games here, trying to get the money from places in the economy that are damaged the least by the taxation. And while it's a necessary shell game, it leads to some bizarre laws - and resulting bizarre behavior in the economy. In any case, the time to cut taxes, or government spending, is not during a recession. Laying off a million government workers would be a very, very stupid thing to do right now. The time to make changes like this is when we can afford it - when the economy is doing well, and when the private market can absorb layoffs from government. Unfortunately, that's also the time that politicians feel they have the most freedom to spend money. (It's not just them; public support of expensive public projects rises when the economy does better, so the politicians are indeed supporting "the will of the people.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #16 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote>No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Dont agree Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues As for cutting? Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree neither party is willing to do what is right So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters? First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job training departments who overlap responcibilities and who have not been audited in 7 years then an across the board cut to take the politics out if as best you can 10% sounds like a good start Now You answer your quesions Oh And nobody is going to like the cuts but is has to be done"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #17 February 10, 2011 Quote>What is an apropreiate amount of taxation You keep asking him this. So let me ask you - What level of taxation do YOU think is fair? Or even appropriate? Rome was a dominant force in the world on 10%. The Catholic Church was a dominant force in the world on 10%. It appears 10% is plenty if you can keep the corruption to a minimum. I vote for 10%.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #18 February 10, 2011 Quote>Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues Agreed, which is why tax cuts were part of the stimulus package. However, that means that taxes other places have to increase _more_. There's no such thing as a free lunch. We're playing shell games here, trying to get the money from places in the economy that are damaged the least by the taxation. And while it's a necessary shell game, it leads to some bizarre laws - and resulting bizarre behavior in the economy. In any case, the time to cut taxes, or government spending, is not during a recession. Laying off a million government workers would be a very, very stupid thing to do right now. The time to make changes like this is when we can afford it - when the economy is doing well, and when the private market can absorb layoffs from government. Unfortunately, that's also the time that politicians feel they have the most freedom to spend money. (It's not just them; public support of expensive public projects rises when the economy does better, so the politicians are indeed supporting "the will of the people.") The stimulus did nothing. It is an epic failure. A failure so big we will never know where the money really went (except for gov, state and union pension bail outs) And during the stimulis the gov employees numbers increased when very few other sectors were That mess is Obamas own. He needs to suffers the consequences of reducing those numbers The pain will be great the stuff you list only delays it The private market can not come back enough under the current regs, rules, taxes and restrictions to do what you say needs to happen The crap is deep It is going to take a big big shovel to get out and it is going to stink anyway you look at it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,593 #19 February 10, 2011 Corruption was kept to a minimum in the Catholic Church? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #20 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Dont agree Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues As for cutting? Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree neither party is willing to do what is right So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters? First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #21 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.youtube.com/user/10000Pennies#p/u/9/cWt8hTayupE This is bad Best visual demonstration of the mess I have seen Thanks Indeed. Shows very nicely that all the right wingers' insistence on balancing the budget by cutting foreign aid, "welfare", education spending, etc., will have almost no effect. The big three are Medicare, SocSec, and defense. All else is peanuts by comparison. Of course, we could always raise revenues by taxing ourselves appropriately. I agree - every individual that makes more than the poverty level, (about 32K for a small family) should pay a sliding scale up to where the taxed amout does not drop the tax payer below the poverty level, then a flat 35% up to a maximum of 10 million. That should about cover it. How much does that increase your taxes?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #22 February 10, 2011 Quote The stimulus did nothing. It is an epic failure. A failure so big we will never know where the money really went (except for gov, state and union pension bail outs) Well, there are also those big bonuses to execs in AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #23 February 10, 2011 QuoteCorruption was kept to a minimum in the Catholic Church? Wendy P. No, Wendy. Nor was it in Rome. My point is that 10% was plenty until the corruption got out of control. Our government can't survive on 10% because the corruption is already out of control. I say cut the government and it's spending and the intake will be just fine. How many people get to vote themselves a raise to match their desired spending?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #24 February 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>No more than today and it should be less Reducing taxes now would bankrupt us. If you want to reduce taxes you have to reduce spending FIRST. And unfortunately that's not going to happen. Neither party is willing to make any significant cuts. Dont agree Correctly targeted cuts would stimulate and increase revenues As for cutting? Sharp edged point and hard to argue with and I agree neither party is willing to do what is right So what will YOU cut that will make a difference AND be acceptable to the voters? First you get rid of department like that of education and the arts Then get rid of the dups like the 7 differnt job Try again, it has to make a difference, not be a drop in the bucket. It's mathematically impossible to balance the budget without cutting defense, Soc.Sec. and/or Medicare. So what will you cut? 10% across the board End many constitutionaly questionalbe departments and programs and then realocate those monies back into the big three. Cut gov employment by at least 10% Cut much of the foreign aid Kick the UN out of the US and stop footing all the bills give much of the power back to the states ......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #25 February 10, 2011 >The stimulus did nothing. It is an epic failure . . . Hmm. Unemployment is down, interest rates are coming up and US manufacturing sectors are adding jobs. Wages are rising faster than inflation. "The recovery act failed" is going to be harder and harder sell as time goes on. In any case, it's odd that you would argue that the tax cuts that were part of that failed. >That mess is Obamas own. The stimulus act was Bush's. >The private market can not come back enough under the current regs, rules, >taxes and restrictions to do what you say needs to happen Then why is it coming back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
