And people who attack other peoples grammar tend to be (A) an English Teacher, (B) OCD to a certain point, or (C) have a superiority complex. Considering I hate spelling (English class in general, I prefer Math/History/any other core class really) and you understood the meaning of the sentence, I think everything worked out.Gunny Burlfoot wrote:It's you're, not your.
Then you know the level of spending from 2008 to the end of 2009 was a temporary budget and not one he planned to continue, correct? Because most of that budget included the Stimulus and Bail-Out (Which 80% has been paid back last I heard. But I have no clue how accurate that statistic is/was honestly) And the budget was still LESS than Bush when you remove those to (oops, two ) expenditures. But you know all of this so I'm just repeating what you know but leave out.And I am to take your response as serious? Plucking a couple words out of context and using them as ad hominem attacks on me?
And even though your second statement is an associative ad hominem, I will say that my views align more or less with Ron Paul, although I never watch Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. I look at figures on how much the US GDP is and how much the Obama budget calls for, and know there is no way to sustain that level of spending.
The statistics I saw was 51%, not 46%, but I guess with the +/- 3 to 4% most analysis and survey's have we are both withing the margins for error. What you failed to mention once again (because you know all about this with your Libertarian leanings) is that removing the Bush tax cuts (or heck, just removing the tax cuts discussed in the OP) the money we, as a country, are short, DISAPPEARS!!!! Now, here is where it gets really scary. If you tax the 46-51% of Americans who don't pay federal taxes (But still pay EVERY OTHER TAX!) you would have to tax them 50% of their income to make up for the the Bush Tax cuts vs. letting a bunch of Tax cuts that should of expired to expire.I do enjoy reading a certain libertarian economist's articles such as the excerpt found below, that demonstrates the utter folly of going after the "rich" as a source of governmental "revenue" to fix Congress's spending problem.What he does not go into is that over 46 percent of US households pay NO net federal income tax payment after all the filings are done; most of those households' non-payments are due to their low income (<$30,000/year) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicat ... ID=1001547In 2011, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.
Which leaves only 42% of US households to shoulder the burden of the rest of the federal spending from August to December 2011.
Another thing not in the discussion are Tariffs. We need to repeal, as a country, many of the treaties that we have signed that have hurt the American Tax system. Tariffs were a major source of income for the US Government while also protecting US Jobs and Companies, which then provides another tax base. Although the "Free Market System" works on paper and I support in theory, its obvious that it doesn't work in reality. I'm not encouraging removing everyone of the treaties at once, but over time I think this is something that needs to be done slowly until "the system" works.
And finally, just to point it out once again because you are obviously aware of it. If the current Tax system worked (Bush Tax Cuts) then the money the Rich are hoarding would be in the hands of their workers which would then circulate through the country instead of rotting in a bank until they feel like spending it. And the US wouldn't be going from a 3-class system to a 2-class system (Which it is). And 2-class systems historically don't (never) work, just pointing out what you know once again.
Actually every model I have seen (that isn't on Fox "news") shows the opposite of what you are saying. So either you do watch Fox "news" or you watch/listen to an affiliate because only conservative models show it not working.The US cannot afford this level of spending. It must cut spending, not merely cut the INCREASE in spending over the next decade, which is what the recent "debt deal" was. It must cut spending. Buffet's suggestion of raising tax rates will not come close to fixing the US debt. In the extreme scenario listed above, tax rates can be raised to 100% on everything higher than $250K and even that extreme measure still does not solve the US debt problem, so I am at a loss as to where you think the 2012 US Government Budget of 3.7 trillion dollars is coming from, especially with all the wealth in the country being gutted in one year in the example above.
Well, yes I consider it "nonsense" because every independent news source says otherwise. I would NOT consider it "preconceived" only because independent news agency's and government analysis shows differently. Its also (one of the reasons) why S&P downgraded the US, because the budget cuts only included cuts. Now whether you agree with S&P or not (I personally don't) the other credit agencies cited that we WILL HAVE TO RAISE TAXES (at a later date) otherwise they will ALSO lower our credit rating in "the future." How long "the future" is: days, months, or years, they didn't specify. So its very possible if the economy improves (I'm kinda pessimistic about this) then Taxes would never have to be raised. So take it as you would like. Play "Russian Roulette" or remove the Bush Tax cuts. Personally I'll remove the Bush Tax cuts and reinstate them "if" and "when" the Country can afford them. So that's 10-20 years from now regardless of how you look at it at the soonest.However, I feel that all this is wasted effort; since it doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas, you will simply dismiss the above as more "nonsense".