100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Simple Math, Broken Values - Why America is Lost | |
|---|---|
|
|
A look at the 2013 budget proposed by President Obama should give any intelligent person enough of an understanding of what is wrong with the United States. Projected revenue totals $2.9 trillion. Projected spending totals $3.8 trillion. That leaves a nearly one trillion dollar shortfall - $1,000,000,000,000 just for one year. If you continue that annual shortfall, then our current $16 trillion dollar debt will balloon beyond its already unfathomable levels. Already, eyes roll. People tune out. "So what." "Who cares?" "It doesn't matter." "It always works out." That apathy and ignorance mean the problem will never be solved. But President Obama has promised to fix it all. He will just make rich people pay their "fair share." That'll do it, right? Wrong. Let's say the so-called "Buffett Rule" were implemented. According to FactCheck (which I view suspiciously but I will use it since it is trusted by people on the left who love government), Obama's millionaire tax "would generate $20 billion a year in additional tax revenue — which is about 3 percent of the $609 billion deficit the White House projects for fiscal year 2015 (and only 1.5 percent of last year’s $1.3 trillion deficit)." Yep, a whopping 1.5 percent dint. Realize that FactCheck is being generous. The truth is that the Obama wealth tax would only generate $47 billion over 10 years. That would average out to $4.7 billion a year, about a quarter of a percent of the FactCheck numbers. Woo-hoo! Evil rich bastards cannot bail us out. Note, this budget spending is without a war in Iraq, again undermining the intellectually bankrupt and dishonest suggestion that ending all wars will make the nation fiscally solvent. Greece has not fought a war in centuries and they went broke. The welfare state always collapses under its own weight. Again, eyes roll and most have already gone to read the latest celebrity news. Ask a politician (Democrat or Republican) or ask a fellow voter (any party or "not into politics") this one simple question:. Is there any area of life or society where the federal government should NOT play a role? This question will seldom elicit an immediate, intelligent response. A discussion of enumerated powers as outlined in the Constitution would certainly draw a blank stare. The entire situation points out a few simple, profound truths: The current (and projected) situation of our federal government is unsustainable, and there is not enough interest or awareness among the public to bring about a change. Our modern society is too focused on immediate gratification, selfishness, entitlement and envy to embrace personal responsibility and individual liberty. The rule of law and the Constitution mean little, if anything. Without an objective standard, without limits on the power of the state, the situation cannot be repaired. This was a quick rant, but it easily could be turned into an entire book. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can smell a revolution coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've got conflicting interests, here.
We spend more than we take in, but politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices. We could raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but Republicans and some Democrats resist that. We could cut spending, but there's little agreement on what to cut, and even small cuts to most programs are unacceptable to some major groups. Check out the proposed 8% cut to defense spending, and how the Conservatives cried about that. Try to cut Medicare and Social Security and you tick off the old and poor people, who combine to make a major voting block. Cut some major tax loopholes, and the moneyed interests send their lobbyists to kill those plans. Sure, there are balanced plans proposed, but the more actions taken results in higher resistance. Personally, I think we should (1) cut defense by 20% or more. I'm even in the military, but see that the amount we currently spend is unsustainable. (2) Taxes should be raised to pre-Bush levels. It won't crush the economy. Businesses will find ways to invest their profits, in order to lower their taxes, and that money being "invested" really just goes back into the economy. The economy grows, unemployment drops and everybody wins, except possibly shareholders. (3) Kill the medicare provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices. Let market forces lower our drug bills. (4) Eliminate corporate tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas and writing off the cost as a business expense deduction, as well as tax cuts for oil exploration and subsidies for coal. It would probably never make it, since it makes too many people angry, but I agree that the deficit is growing too high. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Mon 01/21/13 05:18 PM
|
|
You've got conflicting interests, here. We spend more than we take in, but politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices. We could raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but Republicans and some Democrats resist that. We could cut spending, but there's little agreement on what to cut, and even small cuts to most programs are unacceptable to some major groups. Check out the proposed 8% cut to defense spending, and how the Conservatives cried about that. Try to cut Medicare and Social Security and you tick off the old and poor people, who combine to make a major voting block. Cut some major tax loopholes, and the moneyed interests send their lobbyists to kill those plans. Sure, there are balanced plans proposed, but the more actions taken results in higher resistance. Give me cell phones and freebies, I'll vote for you. Personally, I think we should (1) cut defense by 20% or more. I'm even in the military, but see that the amount we currently spend is unsustainable. (2) Taxes should be raised to pre-Bush levels. It won't crush the economy. Businesses will find ways to invest their profits, in order to lower their taxes, and that money being "invested" really just goes back into the economy. The economy grows, unemployment drops and everybody wins, except possibly shareholders. (3) Kill the medicare provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices. Let market forces lower our drug bills. (4) Eliminate corporate tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas and writing off the cost as a business expense deduction, as well as tax cuts for oil exploration and subsidies for coal. It would probably never make it, since it makes too many people angry, but I agree that the deficit is growing too high. Politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices because they are not made to do. We have reached the point where voters don't elect responsible representatives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've got conflicting interests, here. We spend more than we take in, but politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices. We could raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but Republicans and some Democrats resist that. We could cut spending, but there's little agreement on what to cut, and even small cuts to most programs are unacceptable to some major groups. Check out the proposed 8% cut to defense spending, and how the Conservatives cried about that. Try to cut Medicare and Social Security and you tick off the old and poor people, who combine to make a major voting block. Cut some major tax loopholes, and the moneyed interests send their lobbyists to kill those plans. Sure, there are balanced plans proposed, but the more actions taken results in higher resistance. Personally, I think we should (1) cut defense by 20% or more. I'm even in the military, but see that the amount we currently spend is unsustainable. (2) Taxes should be raised to pre-Bush levels. It won't crush the economy. Businesses will find ways to invest their profits, in order to lower their taxes, and that money being "invested" really just goes back into the economy. The economy grows, unemployment drops and everybody wins, except possibly shareholders. (3) Kill the medicare provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices. Let market forces lower our drug bills. (4) Eliminate corporate tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas and writing off the cost as a business expense deduction, as well as tax cuts for oil exploration and subsidies for coal. It would probably never make it, since it makes too many people angry, but I agree that the deficit is growing too high. I like these ideas,, u r right, balancing only requires that we spend less and bring in more but noone wants to stick their constituency with more taxes, and noone wants to cut the perks of their base either,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've got conflicting interests, here. We spend more than we take in, but politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices. We could raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but Republicans and some Democrats resist that. We could cut spending, but there's little agreement on what to cut, and even small cuts to most programs are unacceptable to some major groups. Check out the proposed 8% cut to defense spending, and how the Conservatives cried about that. Try to cut Medicare and Social Security and you tick off the old and poor people, who combine to make a major voting block. Cut some major tax loopholes, and the moneyed interests send their lobbyists to kill those plans. Sure, there are balanced plans proposed, but the more actions taken results in higher resistance. Personally, I think we should (1) cut defense by 20% or more. I'm even in the military, but see that the amount we currently spend is unsustainable. (2) Taxes should be raised to pre-Bush levels. It won't crush the economy. Businesses will find ways to invest their profits, in order to lower their taxes, and that money being "invested" really just goes back into the economy. The economy grows, unemployment drops and everybody wins, except possibly shareholders. (3) Kill the medicare provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices. Let market forces lower our drug bills. (4) Eliminate corporate tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas and writing off the cost as a business expense deduction, as well as tax cuts for oil exploration and subsidies for coal. It would probably never make it, since it makes too many people angry, but I agree that the deficit is growing too high. I like these ideas,, u r right, balancing only requires that we spend less and bring in more but noone wants to stick their constituency with more taxes, and noone wants to cut the perks of their base either,,, As long as members of Congress keep trying to deliver pork to their districts in order to be re-elected, I don't see the USA's fiscal problem being solved anytime soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, OP. Any justice or sympathy went out the governments thoughts a long while ago. As long as the people in the US gather together, then millions against one, can be a very powerful thing. No? Obama is one person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any area of life or society where the federal government should NOT play a role? The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Pierre Trudeau |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any area of life or society where the federal government should NOT play a role? Absolutely! Everything other than protecting our liberties and our borders.... as the constitution says is their only function! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any area of life or society where the federal government should NOT play a role? Absolutely! Everything other than protecting our liberties and our borders.... as the constitution says is their only function! Last time I looked, our borders were not being protected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any area of life or society where the federal government should NOT play a role? Absolutely! Everything other than protecting our liberties and our borders.... as the constitution says is their only function! Last time I looked, our borders were not being protected. Exactly! They can't even do their own jobs, and they only have 2, but they want to tell everyone else how to do theirs. That's gov't for ya! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 01/24/13 02:21 AM
|
|
You've got conflicting interests, here. We spend more than we take in, but politicians are unwilling to make the hard choices. We could raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but Republicans and some Democrats resist that. We could cut spending, but there's little agreement on what to cut, and even small cuts to most programs are unacceptable to some major groups. Check out the proposed 8% cut to defense spending, and how the Conservatives cried about that. Try to cut Medicare and Social Security and you tick off the old and poor people, who combine to make a major voting block. Cut some major tax loopholes, and the moneyed interests send their lobbyists to kill those plans. Sure, there are balanced plans proposed, but the more actions taken results in higher resistance. Personally, I think we should (1) cut defense by 20% or more. I'm even in the military, but see that the amount we currently spend is unsustainable. (2) Taxes should be raised to pre-Bush levels. It won't crush the economy. Businesses will find ways to invest their profits, in order to lower their taxes, and that money being "invested" really just goes back into the economy. The economy grows, unemployment drops and everybody wins, except possibly shareholders. (3) Kill the medicare provision that prohibits Medicare from negotiating prices. Let market forces lower our drug bills. (4) Eliminate corporate tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas and writing off the cost as a business expense deduction, as well as tax cuts for oil exploration and subsidies for coal. It would probably never make it, since it makes too many people angry, but I agree that the deficit is growing too high. You can't raise that much Money in Taxes! http://mises.org/daily/5847/No-Melissa-There-Isnt-a-Santa-Claus |
|
|
|
|
