It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why FL Rep. is wrong about tax reform

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
According to Lois Frankel, a Democrat representative in Florida, the President's tax reform plan "will either drastically reduce government revenue or greatly increase the deficit" (source: MSN news article.

It is no secret that government spending is out of control, bringing the average debt per household to ridiculous and unprecedented levels. While Mrs. Frankel is partially correct, she is wrong about this serving to increase the deficit. President Trump has already demonstrated his will and ability to reign in government spending, cutting many programs and projects that are useless or simply not in the purview of the government.

To narrow this down to a single issue, as an example, abortion rights proponents believe that an individual should have the freedom to reproduce or not to reproduce. Common sense says that avoiding sexual activities is an efficient way to do this, but they are correct that it is their right to engage in such activity. Further, their assertion that they should control their own reproductive abilities (etc) is also fine (although I disagree with it in principle and belief, I don't feel the government should be involved AT ALL). My problem comes when these individuals expect the rest of the population to pay or contribute in ANY WAY to their poor decisions.

Abortion isn't the only issue, mind you. There are so many unneeded government programs, and many more that the government has no business being involved in. In America, your success is *your* personal responsibility - not the government of the people.

So, yes, this rep is right about one thing: the President's plan WILL drastically reduce government funding, which would be appropriately followed by a law (or even constitutional amendment) REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET. I am very happy to see this country moving in this direction. After all, every intelligent adult knows it isn't wise to spend money you don't have. Not to mention the fact that it is much easier to spend someone else's money.

Here's to hoping tax reform passes, and I believe we should set our sights on some type of balanced budget requirement as well. Note that I placed this topic in the political mud pit because I can already see the "fervent" discussion this topic will likely foster. In any case, that's the purpose of this forum so UNLOAD my fellow ATSers




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

The issue is that it isn't in politicians' nature to cut spending. All government spending is lobbied for by some special interest group that will scream bloody murder if it gets cut, no matter how inconsequential or ridiculous that spending may be.

As someone in a high tax bracket, this is my biggest beef. I don't mind paying my fair share, but the constant pissing away of money by the government and then the gall of these people to attempt to come back for more taxes is what annoys me.

It is like when you have a broke cousin who is constantly hitting you up for money to help him out and then he shows up at your house in a new car on rims. He clearly isn't spending the money he has wisely.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I couldn't be in agreement more. As someone who is NOT in a high tax bracket, I believe government spending is out of control. The answer isn't the see how much more of other people's money we can collect, it's to reduce our spending. As the OP said, there is a ton of wasteful spending we can cut. Wants vs needs folks, just like you (should) do in your home budget. When I was low on money I canceled my cable. It would've been nice to have it, if I had the money, but it wasn't essential. Sure it would be nice to keep funding stuff like National Endowment for the Arts, if we had the money. We don't.

And yeah I know, I know, that didn't save that much. There are literally thousands of programs just like it. Time to break out the chopping block.

Edit: On that note, I encourage all of you to call your House and Senate reps. They'll blow you off if it's just you, but if enough people call that they think it'll cost them come re-election time, which is all they care about, they'll wise up.
edit on 3 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I disagree with everything you've written. Your opinions are not based in any facts.

It doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. ALL THAT MATTERS is the purchasing power of your take home pay. In the last 60 years there has been only one 4 year period where the purchasing power of the median worker's wage increase during a president's term.

You make all your cuts in social programs and poverty will skyrocket. People will riot and the costs will be billions.

Maybe it's time to close 1/2 of the 800+ foreign military bases we have around the World. Take the savings and open 2 new military bases in each state. That would spur the economy and tax revenues to help balance the deficit. All military spending is pure socialism. The problem is too much of our highly valued socialism is going to foreign governments!!! AMERICA FIRST!!!!


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Your opinions aren't based in facts. We don't have 800+ military bases. Those numbers are inflated by dishonest people who count every individual piece of land we own overseas as a "base". For example when I was stationed in Alaska, in addition to the handful of actual bases up there, we have radar and censor sites, bomb ranges, utility pits, stuff like that, all over the region that are outside the perimeter of any of the bases. They count each one of those as a separate facility to inflate the numbers.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I read 600 quoted 2 years ago. I recently read 800+. What is it, do you know?

Regardless, base rents in foreign countries are exorbitant. We can fly bombing missions to anywhere in the World from American bases. These WWII expenditures are unnecessary. I would rather close our European bases that are no longer relevant if it means saving social security. But just cutting social security right off the bat will cause riots costing billions.

Google Search

Politico Article

I'm sure you will say this is all fake news because it doesn't agree with your narrative.


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

H ere's one source that calls it 800+, and their link takes you to a book written by a gentlemen whose area of expertise is anthropology. Now that doesn't mean he can't do research into this subject and find out plenty of solid facts. However, literally in the same paragraph you find this little gem:


Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US “base sites” in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon.


So now we've gone from "bases" to "base sites". This is a more accurate description. As I said, around many of our bases we have remote sites that are just auxiliary facilities that belong to that base. Some of them don't even have any buildings on them and no personnel stationed there, they might just have some fenced in equipment that feeds info or some kind of resource (electricity, fuel) to another location. Someone goes out there occasionally to check on it. But each one of these is not a base, and the folks calling them bases are misleading you.

Edit: This is yet another example of how you can make statistics say anything you want, all you have to do is change a word or two.
edit on 3 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)


Edit 2: That Politico article is by the same guy who wrote the book. It's not fake news because I don't like the source, it's fake news because they're purposefully mislabeling sites as bases to make the public think we have more actual bases than we do. It's very dishonest. Don't fall for it.
edit on 3 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: face23785

I read 600 quoted 2 years ago. I recently read 800+. What is it, do you know?

Regardless, base rents in foreign countries are exorbitant. We can fly bombing missions to anywhere in the World from American bases. These WWII expenditures are unnecessary. I would rather close our European bases that are no longer relevant if it means saving social security. But just cutting social security right off the bat will cause riots costing billions.

Google Search

Politico Article

I'm sure you will say this is all fake news because it doesn't agree with your narrative.



If you're interested, here's an article that explains it in more detail, from a source you'll probably think is fake news:

Politifact It explains exactly what I just said, that the list they use to come up with that number counts all kinds of small sites that no one in their right mind would call a "base":


Still, caveats are in order here, too. Of the 662 overseas sites listed -- that is, those outside the active war zones -- all but 32 of them are either small sites (with a replacement value of less than $915 million) or sites essentially owned on paper only.

For instance, the sole site listed for Canada is 144 square feet of leased space -- equal to a 12-foot-by-12-foot room. That’s an extreme case, but other nations on the list -- such as Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru -- have just a few U.S. military buildings, many of them leased. Some of the sites are unmanned radio relay towers or other minor facilities. "Most of them are a couple of acres with a cyclone fence and no troops," Pike said.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The problem with cutting spending is that neither side can agree on what spending should be cut. Though, it should be noted that social program spending falls under what is called Mandatory Spending. I also feel like the math Trump and his monkey pals are using to come up with this tax plan is all magic math that relies on unrealistic economic growth. Let alone, relying on unreachable growth, what happens if the economy crashes? This tax plan is risky and looks like the start of another 2008 bubble.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Who is talking about cutting social security? Social Security is not something I believe should be cut. Medicare should not be cut. Even Medicaid shouldn't be cut - although becoming a recipient should be much more difficult (to include drug tests, and unemployment benefit style look-for-a-job-or-lose-it policies).

As far as riots go, any criminals taking part in economic terrorism should be arrested. If/when they attempt to illegally resist police, all required force should be used to squash them.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


I learned to ignore Politico during the last election cycle. They're about as credible as the Southern "Poverty" Law Center. Everything those leftists do is to further their BS narrative. Another example is "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" based out of London, by a guy that's never been to Syria. What a joke.

Leftists: We see through you.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What social programs are you speaking of? Our Constitution does not label any such programs as "mandatory." These can be revoked at any time, given appropriate support of our legislative body/executive order.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns
Please deny some ignorance:

Mandatory and Discretionary Spending



There are two types of spending in the federal budget process: discretionary and mandatory. Discretionary spending is spending that is subject to the appropriations process, whereby Congress sets a new funding level each fiscal year (which begins October 1st) for programs covered in an appropriations bill. Roughly one-third, or about $1 trillion, of the federal government’s activities are funded through appropriations legislation. Most of the direct activities of the federal government, such as those of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Defense, are funded through the annual appropriations process. Almost all education programs are discretionary spending programs, except for a small number of programs such as student loans, some vocational grants, school lunch, and a few tax benefit programs.

Mandatory spending is simply all spending that does not take place through appropriations legislation. Mandatory spending includes entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and required interest spending on the federal debt. Mandatory spending accounts for about two-thirds of all federal spending. In most cases, but not all, mandatory spending is ongoing; it occurs each year absent a change in an underlying law that provides the funding. Discretionary spending, on the other hand, will not occur unless Congress acts each year to provide the funding through an appropriations bill. Tax legislation is treated as mandatory spending in many areas of the Congressional budget process.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: face23785


I learned to ignore Politico during the last election cycle. They're about as credible as the Southern "Poverty" Law Center. Everything those leftists do is to further their BS narrative. Another example is "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" based out of London, by a guy that's never been to Syria. What a joke.

Leftists: We see through you.


I don't outright ignore anyone, I tend to look at what they wrote and see if it stands up to scrutiny. In this case, it's clear they either didn't do any further research or they were content with pushing the narrative that guy was trying to sell, dishonest though it may be.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You realize what you just posted isn't in the Constitution right? That was all he said. He was correct. The budget process is described in a bill passed by Congress, which can be changed by Congress.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Do you think that Congress is going to be united enough any time in the foreseeable future to rewrite the entire way we classify our budget spending? Hell do you honestly even believe that Congress even WANTS to do that? Why would they?

My point was that changing social spending isn't the same as changing military spending. They are treated differently and require different actions of Congress to get the changes. Democrats have more of a say when it comes to cutting social programs because it can't be done as an appropriations bill for instance.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That doesn't change the fact that your reply to him made no sense. He was 100% correct. Deny ignorance indeed.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Uh... Ok. So are you keeping score on who is right more often in the thread or are you here to discuss the OP?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this post of yours I'm replying to directly related to the OP? It looks off topic to me. Or are you above the standards you want to apply to others?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I posted a clarification of my point two posts before this one and you chose to play "mr oneupsman" and now you are trying to throw the OT argument back in my face for calling you on being petty. Are you going to post something related to my response or discussion something in the OP with me or are you here to troll me?
edit on 3-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join