The scam that is the debt ceiling as an issue

[PhDeac]

Dirk, how much are you willing to pay to live in America? What's it worth to you to be an American?

 

[jhmd2000]

Dirk, how much are you willing to pay to live in America? What's it worth to you to be an American?

Why join the minority of people paying, when the majority rules?

 

[Shorty]

Dirk, how much are you willing to pay to live in America? What's it worth to you to be an American?

Those are two different questions with potentially two different answers.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Prison sentences make dishonest politicians more honest.

Not usually.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

What level of taxation is sustainable exactly? Give me a ballpark figure if you like. Is there some reason the federal government can't function on my 33%? That's just not enough? Would 40% due? Or how 'bout I just work Jan-Jun for the government and the other six months for myself? Could you live with that or is 50% not enough?

The Clinton era rates seem appropriate, IMO. I could be wrong, but I know the current ones are not sustainable if the US intends to remain a global superpower. If we don't want to run the world any more, we could all pay way, way less. But the Pubs are not putting together a tax plan and political platform that can possibly co-exist, even with their so-called austerity measures. The revenue levels are insufficient. Bush tried it and exploded the deficit, leaving us defenseless to a severe downturn.

 

[jhmd2000]

The Clinton era rates seem appropriate, IMO. I could be wrong, but I know the current ones are not sustainable if the US intends to remain a global superpower. If we don't want to run the world any more, we could all pay way, way less. But the Pubs are not putting together a tax plan and political platform that can possibly co-exist, even with their so-called austerity measures. The revenue levels are insufficient. Bush tried it and exploded the deficit, leaving us defenseless to a severe downturn.

If we have to make choices, do you view our entitlement programs as being a bigger priority for our federal government than defense? Do you think the Constitution does?

 

[jhmd2000]

Not usually.

Jim Black's been pretty quiet lately. MSP's the same way. Nifong should have gone to jail, and Easley certainly should have. Edwards is looking at a real threat of active time as well. Either way, it is not hard to discern that each of them thought they were beyond the reach. The efforts to hold these people accountable are tax dollars well spent (and long overdue).

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

If we have to make choices, do you view our entitlement programs as being a bigger priority for our federal government than defense? Do you think the Constitution does?

Much of what you call defense I call direct pork barrel funneling of trillions of US tax dollars to private corporate interests for little practical utility.

I'd pay for public option health care over a European missle shield of no utility ten times out of ten.

The Constitution does not answer the question either way.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Jim Black's been pretty quiet lately. MSP's the same way. Nifong should have gone to jail, and Easley certainly should have. Edwards is looking at a real threat of active time as well. Either way, it is not hard to discern that each of them thought they were beyond the reach. The efforts to hold these people accountable are tax dollars well spent (and long overdue).

I simply said that it doesn't make any of them more honest. It doesn't.

We need a system more prone to attractive honest men rather than sycophant agents of the special interests who control who has the economic ability to actually run for office. Our current system -- wildly exacerbated by the Roberts' court terrible recent campaign finance decisions -- promotes the exact opposite. It's built for amoral yes men like Easley and Cheney.

 

[jhmd2000]

Much of what you call defense I call direct pork barrel funneling of trillions of US tax dollars to private corporate interests for little practical utility.

I'd pay for public option health care over a European missle shield of no utility ten times out of ten.

The Constitution does not answer the question either way.

In the strictest sense, the document does not forbid wealth redistribution as an end in and of itself, but only b/c the notion was beyond the contemplation of people who just fought a war for freedom and independence from an oppressive government.

The authority to provide for an effective defense is fairly evident in the text.

 

[jhmd2000]

I simply said that it doesn't make any of them more honest. It doesn't.

We need a system more prone to attractive honest men rather than sycophant agents of the special interests who control who has the economic ability to actually run for office. Our current system -- wildly exacerbated by the Roberts' court terrible recent campaign finance decisions -- promotes the exact opposite. It's built for amoral yes men like Easley and Cheney.

Come again?

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

In the strictest sense, the document does not forbid wealth redistribution as an end in and of itself, but only b/c the notion was beyond the contemplation of people who just fought a war for freedom and independence from an oppressive government.

The authority to provide for an effective defense is fairly evident in the text.

As if any was talking about wealth redistribution. Under that rubric, taxing for fire control services is wealth redistribution.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Come again?

Dick Cheney is perhaps the most blatant corporate soldier even to hold public office. He never worked for anyone but his former and future corporate employers. Those companies made out like bandits, even if the country did not, and that was all Cheney really cared about. That's why Iraq happened. You think Cheney lost a wink of sleep when it turned out there were no WMDs, and that the war's expense was a fiscal disaster the nation could not afford? Of course not. Most of that taxpayer money went directly to the special interests he worked for, with no strings and no oversight. And that was the point. When your boss is a company that rebuilds countries after the US military smashes them, for an incredible profit, you need so smashing to occur, and it doesn't really matter where or why. He did his job.

 

[jhmd2000]

As if any was talking about wealth redistribution. Under that rubric, taxing for fire control services is wealth redistribution.

What's the point of refundable tax credits to people without any tax liability, other than redistribute wealth?

 

[jhmd2000]

Dick Cheney is perhaps the most nakedly blatant corporate soldier even to hold public office. He never worked for anyone but his former and future corporate employers. Those companies made out like bandits, even if the country did not, and that all that Cheney really cared about. That's why Iraq happened.

I did not know this; thanks for sharing.

 

[RJKarl]

If graduated taxes are income redictribution ALL taxes are income redistribution by definition. They take money from one person or company and give to someone else.

Thus even GOP tax concepts are income redicstribution.

"Would you sleep with me for $5?"
"No."
"would you sleep with me for $1,000,000?"
"OK."
"Now that we know what you are. Let's work on the real price."

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

What's the point of refundable tax credits to people without any tax liability, other than redistribute wealth?

When were we talking about that? You're all over the map. That can't be described as an entitlement program, which is what you were complaining about.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I did not know this; thanks for sharing.

No problem. Glad to help. It's one of the reasons I invested heavily in Halliburton as soon as Bush was handed the office. Connecting the dots and all that.

 

[jhmd2000]

When were we talking about that? You're all over the map. That can't be described as an entitlement program, which is what you were complaining about.

You're correct; that is clearly wealth redistribution, but not an 'entitlement" by genus.

Social Security is intergenerational wealth redistribution. Taking social security out of the check of a construction worker making $40,000/yr (food off the table of his family) and giving it to a rich retiree with substantial other assets is the redistribution of wealth, rooted in our entitlement programs.

 

[jhmd2000]

No problem. Glad to help. It's one of the reasons I invested heavily in Halliburton as soon as Bush was handed the office. Connecting the dots and all that.

Investing is usually a good idea when Republicans take over power.