Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

united states


dmarc117
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been worrying about this exact thing. We're running up huge budget deficits and mortgaging the future. Our first place to go to borow money, the Social Security surplus will be drying up soon too and start pulling money from the general fund, instead of providing a cash cow to milk and fill up with IOUs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been worrying about this exact thing. We're running up huge budget deficits and mortgaging the future. Our first place to go to borow money, the Social Security surplus will be drying up soon too and start pulling money from the general fund, instead of providing a cash cow to milk and fill up with IOUs.

 

 

What are you talking about? We're in good hands with fiscal conservatives. There is no debt. All is well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony when Democrats talk about balancing budgets and controlling the deficits. :D I do notice that not one of you socialists ever suggests cutting spending on the trillions wasted on your welfare/social programs. Your only answer always involves more taxes for the middle class who you conveniently refer to as "the wealthy". Dumbasses! No wonder you cant win the Presidency when only welfare leeches, homo's, and folks with their hands out will vote for your candidates. Give me a break you morans...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony when Democrats talk about balancing budgets and controlling the deficits. :D I do notice that not one of you socialists ever suggests cutting spending on the trillions wasted on your welfare/social programs. Your only answer always involves more taxes for the middle class who you conveniently refer to as "the wealthy". Dumbasses! No wonder you cant win the Presidency when only welfare leeches, homo's, and folks with their hands out will vote for your candidates. Give me a break you morans...

 

 

:D

 

Oh my god this is good schtick ...

 

Please explain to me how opposition to cutting the very top tax rates and eliminating the estate tax "involves more taxes for the middle class who you conveniently refer to as "the wealthy"".

 

I can wait for eternity Spain and you never, never, never will be able to answer this because you speak with forked tongue ... :D

 

BTW, I am 100% for cutting many social programs/corporate welfare schemes. Seems the GOP has no stomach for that though ...

Edited by Beaumont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gravy I am glad they cut the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. Doesn't this sound like a grand time to get rid of the Estate Tax too?

 

 

Beau, there were tax cuts for all Americans, and even after the tax cuts, the "wealthiest still pay a higher taxes than everyone else (both in $ and as a % of income), and get less in return for their tax dollar. That being said, I'd be for raising taxes to take care of the debt, provided for ever additional $ taxed, that a dollar was taken out of the budget (excluding defense and border control). And if said tax cut was temporary, and that the minute that spending is increased, that taxes are decreased by the same proportion as spending was increased. Would you go for that? And sense we need to tax, why not make every estate taxable? Afterall, those that recieve the estates didn't earn it, so they shouldn't complain.

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beau, there were tax cuts for all Americans, and even after the tax cuts, the "wealthiest still pay a higher taxes than everyone else (both in $ and as a % of income), and get less in return for their tax dollar. That being said, I'd be for raising taxes to take care of the debt, provided for ever additional $ taxed, that a dollar was taken out of the budget (excluding defense and border control). And if said tax cut was temporary, and that the minute that spending is increased, that taxes are decreased by the same proportion as spending was increased. Would you go for that? And sense we need to tax, why not make every estate taxable? Afterall, those that recieve the estates didn't earn it, so they shouldn't complain.

 

 

1. I was not really up for cutting anyones taxes, but by far the cuts benefitted the wealthiest Americans (in terms of $$$ not collected as revenue). I dont think you cut taxes during times of deficits. That is fiscally irresponsible.

 

2. I will hold your hand and sing campfire songs if we can resolve the deficit 50% by raising taxes, 50% by cutting non-defense spending. This is an eminently reasonable position. There should be a limitation that neither spending may be raised nor taxes may be lowered until the deficit is elimiated, and then only so long as the budget is still balanced.

 

3. I am not sure why you would want to tax the first two million of estates (four million if you are married). That really would sink the ol' family farm. Its not a question of whether they "earned" it or not, but a question of whether we want to allow tax free transfer of wealth up to a point (i.e., with a dollar limitation). There is no reason that you cannot limit the exemption ... and you certainly should limit the exemption, since you need the tax for revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I am not sure why you would want to tax the first two million of estates (four million if you are married). That really would sink the ol' family farm. Its not a question of whether they "earned" it or not, but a question of whether we want to allow tax free transfer of wealth up to a point (i.e., with a dollar limitation). There is no reason that you cannot limit the exemption ... and you certainly should limit the exemption, since you need the tax for revenue.

 

 

I have to admit, this one is out of spite. Maybe if everyone had to sell of a good portion of what their parents worked so hard to earn, that the would not be so quick to take from me what parents worked so hard to earn. I'm just a tad bitter when it comes to this subject if you didn't know that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neither party is fiscally conservative.

 

That right there is the crux of the problem. Once we get our military back home and stop spending billions of dollars we don't have on them, it'll take a harsh, across the board cut on ALL government spending to bring things back under control. Neither party has the balls to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beau, there were tax cuts for all Americans, and even after the tax cuts, the "wealthiest still pay a higher taxes than everyone else (both in $ and as a % of income), and get less in return for their tax dollar. That being said, I'd be for raising taxes to take care of the debt, provided for ever additional $ taxed, that a dollar was taken out of the budget (excluding defense and border control). And if said tax cut was temporary, and that the minute that spending is increased, that taxes are decreased by the same proportion as spending was increased. Would you go for that? And sense we need to tax, why not make every estate taxable? Afterall, those that recieve the estates didn't earn it, so they shouldn't complain.

 

 

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information