Page 12 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 372

Thread: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

  1. #111
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I think many of these Americans figure that its more than just entitlements causing the problems. Overlapping agencies, grants to useless studies and projects, pork spending, foreign aid, costly war on drugs, and many other things that cost Americans a lot of their tax money.
    I agree, there ARE many segments of discretionary spending that are wasteful, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's still mainly the entitlements that are driving the deficit.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #112
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Cut all of those, and it wouldn't even be noticable in the budget.
    Then they should cut those things first before saying we need cuts or we need to raise taxes.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #113
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Cut all of those, and it wouldn't even be noticable in the budget.
    what budget?

    the one the slasher submitted in february?

    Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012 - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    A couple of adjustments and the whole system could be fixed. But let's make political hay out of it and terrify our old people and abuse our disabled people.

    Didn't there used to be a little puking smiley?

  5. #115
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    LOL!

    yesterday at annendale obama said social security needed "tweaking"

    tell it to the boomers, slasher

    why doesn't he, then, just go ahead and tweak away

    why is he stumping instead in silicon valley

    why won't harry move

    could it be the same reason the party failed even to propose a budget in 2010

    leadership, anyone?

  6. #116
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Then they should cut those things first before saying we need cuts or we need to raise taxes.
    This is the type of smoke and mirrors that has been done for a long time. It is a way not to tackle the problem. The only serious way to tackle it is to tackle cuts to the big three, and raise revenue through taxes. The rest is not dealing with it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    the senate can't tackle a problem without producing a bill

    hurry, harry

  8. #118
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Nations rise and fall on this stuff, a wise man once said.

    "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock
    .
    "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the guy who can't run fast" Francis Malcolm in the Middle
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Whovian,

    Yours is abit of an over-hyped hypothetical...

    If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.”

    That means taxing the top earners at 70% which, combined with state and local taxes, means the top earners would be giving up 85% of their income in New York, California and other high-tax states.

    Given that Congress even under Democratic control could not accept a top-rate increase from 35% to 39.6%, a 70% rate seems like highly unlikely, if not fantasy, at this point.
    An insightful reader post on Megan McArdle’s blog on the Atlantic uses IRS data to figure out how much money the government would raise by taxing certain wealth levels. He says a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion.

    That is roughly 10% of the current annual budget deficit.

    “My point is just that I don’t see how deficits this large can be closed with income taxes on the rich, even at marginal rates far higher than anything we’ve seen in the post-1986 era,” the reader says.

    And rich people can always move and shift their income, which would reduce the amount of tax revenue raised.
    There have been several posts throughout this forum recently that provide historical evidence that the marginal tax rate on the rich has decreased over the last 55 years, and while not reaching their historic low of 7%, taxes against the rich have neither reached their historic highs of 90-92% either, not since pre-Depression era. So, for the rich to complain about their taxes being raised...I'd say they've had it damned good over the last 55 yrs.

    Now, before anyone starts in on me, let me say this:

    I'm all for a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases. The reason being pure capitalism doesn't work any better than pure socialism. In the "limited government" format conservative Republicans (and Democrats) envision, big business would provide the means for the poor and disaffected through so-called "charitable organizations and/or donations" that would negate federally mandate entitlement programs. The problem with this theory is Corporate America coupled with its insistence on deregulation would run amuck! Doubt me? Check history...

    In every instance where this country has experienced a deep recession or depression, the cause wasn't government intervention. On the contrary. It was the lack of regulatory oversight or no regulations that addressed the given situation at all. In the wake of the Great Depression, the S&L crisis and our current recession, no government oversight and deregulation created the environment for Corporate America to fail to do its part to "provide for the people". Conservative readers see this and go, "WTF?" But if you understand how this public-private partnership between big business and the federal government is suppose to work with all the tax loopholes for charitable deductions and such, you understand why "trickle-down economics" does not work effectively. The underlying cause: GREED!

    Still doubt me? Consider the failure of the following corporate entities: ENRON, Worldcom, LemanBrothers and several others.

    The Conservative philosophy for limited government would go alittle something like this:

    Little to no federal regulations on business (financial sector mostly). Major corporations would receive significant tax breaks in exchange for giving donations to the poor or establishing charities to care for same. Sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that last line from the last linked article above...

    And rich people can always move and shift their income, which would reduce the amount of tax revenue raised.

    The above applies to major corporations as well which is the reason companies such as Exxon/Mobile and GE had ZERO tax liability, but recieved big tax subsidies from the fed. How is this possible you say? Because it's suppose to be a trade-off between big business and the fed. If businesses provide for the poor via charities, the fed provides the tax write off. A win-win for both until you see that poverty is still ramped, incomes are still flat for the middle-class and the cost of consumer goods continue to rise. The average consumer can't keep up!! Yet Conservatives are insisting that it is labor unions that are a major catalysis for our nation's economic downturn. WRONG!!

    Conservatives have been trying to kill labor unions since the 1930's. When they couldn't do it using federal legislation, they partnered with big businessmen to undercut and undermine the collective bargaining rights of employees/union members. And when that didn't prove as effective as they hoped it would (because the fight laid dorment for a few years), they recently shifted their focus to public employees at the state level. The problem with this fight is public employees, just as with employees within the private sector, haven't seen a pay-raise in years. As such, we are struggling financially just like everybody else. But the GOP have tried (and in some cases succeeded) in using public employees as scapegoats for what amounts to poor budget policies and overspending that have nothing to do with the workers themselves. Yet their best resource - PEOPLE - are and always shall be made to face the music for management's blunders.

    I'm all for cutting spending. Government does need to eliminate wasteful spending, but if Corporate America isn't going to uphold its part of the deal and create jobs and provide a living wage for their employees, then government has no choice but to provide resources for the people who are suffering. Nonetheless, as I've said before, Corporate America and deregulation caused this mess. Imparting the proper regulatory reforms and changing the tax codes and/or increasing the marginal tax rate on the rich is the proper remedy for resolving it. As my father use to say, "Let the punishment fit the crime!" And in this case where our economic woes are concerned, the punishment should be increase the taxes on the rich and make them pay for the excessive risks they took that cost this country (and in some cases other nations around the world) dearly.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 04-20-11 at 07:14 PM.

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Whovian,

    Yours is abit of an over-hyped hypothetical...





    There have been several posts throughout this forum recently that provide historical evidence that the marginal tax rate on the rich has decreased over the last 55 years, and while not reaching their historic low of 7%, taxes against the rich have neither reached their historic highs of 90-92% either, not since pre-Depression era. So, for the rich to complain about their taxes being raised...I'd say they've had it damned good over the last 55 yrs.
    And who's to say they have ever paid a fare share? This country was governed by the rich, There is nothing fare about how they pat taxes. Ever.

Page 12 of 38 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •