sorry for the double post... for the record i don't like many of the spending policies of this admin, or the last... but i would find them more acceptable if they were actually financed rather than borrowed.
no, really if you're the type of person who is arguing for a balanced budget, (which you may or may not be) then there's pretty much no credible way to do so without raising taxes. I know there is a Ron Paul-ist fantasy group out there who thinks that we can eliminate the postal service and have a balanced budget tomorrow, but that's simply not reality.
i'm not afraid to say there needs to be an increase in taxes. it's pretty obvious there is mass waste that can be trimmed from programs, or entire programs that can be eliminated... but there is clearly some spending that we "need" as a nation, and it should be financed properly. it goes back to my question of how much was the government spending from 45-65, and on what. furthermore, was there a yearly deficit during that period? and more importantly, as a nation, this (relatively) new spending that we seem to have, is it so necessary that we can't do without?
As a percentage of GDP it was over 55% during WWII and then stabilized around 35-40% for most of the rest of the period...probably up to 45% now but a lot of that is due to a record drop in GDP rather than any vast expansion in services.
SamFisher, I am not into name calling but you seriously have some issues. You have a inferiority complex. You spend too much time on a message board and like to think you own these boards. First off who in the right mind is going to go into details on financial investments on a message boards with a bunch of strangers? Where does that get me and what does that accomplish? I am not that insecure like you are. You are such a joke it really is getting pretty sad. Like I am really going to go brag about my financial status or anything on a message board. I do not know yours nor do I care one bit. I have said I am not considered the elite wealthy nor am I even close to being one. I work hard for everything I have and hopefully one day one of my current ventures will pay off. There was a poster that asked me about my tax concerns and I said I was not going to go into details but just outlined my overall concern with some of the new taxes that might be put in place by the Obama administration. If you are jealous that is your problem. Good day
Perhaps you should stop trying to live beyond your means. If you make 250k+ and live paycheck to paycheck, you are spending far too much. You could find a place to live for a lot less than 60k a year. Home ownership is not a right. Or you could move. The bottom line is that if you have a household income above 250k, you're making more than 98.5% of families out there. Even if after taxes it ends up "looking a lot like 100-125k" that's still more than 83% of households make before taxes.
$250K in the U.S.S.C. (California) and $250K in Spring, TX = big differance...Actually those living in California are making mistake #1 anyhow...Let that state implode on its own doings...
According to whom? The CBO says it is nearly budget neutral. Yes, I realize that you got yours during the Bush years and you don't think you should have to give up the extra 3% of every dollar you make over $250,000. However, there are budget realities to deal with that make extending this giveaway to the rich an extremely bad idea. You do realize that most of us saw little more than the rebate check from the Bush tax cuts, don't you? Oh, that's right, you don't give a rat's a$$ as long as you get yours.
If you are not rich enough for the Bush tax cuts to have really affected you, then your taxes aren't set to increase. Please stop buying the mistaken assumptions that Faux "News" is trying to spoon feed you.
But how is wanting to buy a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools living beyond your means? What gives the Govt the right to take half of everything you work for?
You should have thought about that before you put your life savings into building a GARMIN-Game Boy hybrid - Gizmodo had that idea way before you btw.
Well, they build the roads that allow you to get to work, the schools that educated you, the police who protect you, the courts who make sure you are treated fairly, the agencies that make sure the food you eat and the drugs you take are safe, the post office that gets your mail to you, they created the Internet which has improved productivity... I could go on, but you should have gotten my point by now.
Buying a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools is living beyond your means if it leaves you living paycheck to paycheck. And as already mentioned, the government provides countless services and protections that you take advantage of, and those have to paid for. The more fully you take advantage of them, the more you pay for them.
This is actually a false statement! Everyone benefited from the Bush Tax Cuts! Not just the Rich! Just go look at the IRS tax brackets. Please stop buying the mistaken assumption that the so called main stream media or the democrats try to spoon feed everyone. The Bush Tax Cuts lowered these brackets (for single income filer) You can confirm this on the IRS website if you like. 27% rate goes to 25% 30% rate goes to 28% 35% rate goes to 33% 38.6% rate goes to 35% The 10% and 15% rates were unaffected Sunset Rule: Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether. This means the poor the people in the 10% bracket will see their rates go up by 5%!!! This is not even talking about all the other tax benifits from the Bush Tax Cuts. Let's not forget Capital Gains and Dividends which also affect someone's 401k. Not sure about you but people who have to pay capital gains tax does mean they are rich. In fact most are in the middle class. Expiration will mean a 33% increase in the capital gains tax (from 15% to 20%); a 13% increase in the top bracket (from 35% to 39.6%); and a 9% increase in the next highest bracket (from 33% to 36%); there is also an increase in the tax on dividends. I thought it was pretty sneaky on Obama's part saying he wont raise taxes for the middle class. Well he is going to do that under the radar by letting the Bush Tax cuts expire. Sounds like a increase in taxes to me. I have read somewhere there were talks about just letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the two top brackets. Not sure if this is true or not but again someone making 200k is not considered rich by any means. But again it is a FALSE assumption that the bush Tax cuts only benefited the rich.
Why do you people want the Govt to take care of you?? That is the problem with everyone's train of thought. What the Govt Gives the Govt has to take from someone else. Also the Govt never does anything efficiently. Anything involved with the Govt costs 10 times as much. Trust me here having personally worked with Govt Contractors and even had a few Govt contracts at our company. Now I admit I am a hypocrite here because Govt contracts are by far the most profitable for our company.
