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.

 

Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 





What you just said is that under the current way of doing things our government collects 2 trillion dollars a year, but still has to borrow money to stay even. So the current system is not sustainable.


That 20% of the budget is the interest on our deficit. Ready for a shock?

As of September 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.7 trillion[2], about $31,700 per capita (that is, per U.S. resident). Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.3 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion.


So, to pay off that debt completely, including the unfunded portion, all each person has to cough up is approximately $180,000.00
How did it get that way, because people, such as yourself, who have no idea of how the economy and the budget work, elect Presidential candidates, Senators and Congressmen, who promise you universal health care, free child care, government subsidized loans, bailouts of the Financial institutions, etc. etc. etc. And YOU elected them!
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, but he only got about 1% of the vote, so 99% of the people voted for same old, same old. Ron Paul tried to tell people where we were headed with the economy, but few people listened. He doesn't have a pretty face, though, and is not a smooth talker. The MSM doesn't like that type of straight shooter.
Look at how many people LOVE Obama, and yet, he has not elaborated a detailed plan on any of his "proposals", not to mention how he is going to PAY for his pipe dreams. You think the deficit is bad now. Well, do some more homework, find out how much government provided health care will cost us, and what your taxes will be under him.
By the way, when I was an active professor, my students KNEW enough to do their homework, because if they didn't they FAILED. Try thinking for yourself for a change, AFTER you do some research and self-education. You may actually then KNOW how to vote, and UNDERSTAND the consequences of that vote.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Again, people like you continue to attack liberal policies when it is a fact the last two liberals to hold office did the best job of managing and lowering our national debt.

Just because your party throws it into the military instead of social programs (and more of it at that), doesn't make you any better.

Personally, if we go broke, I'd rather it be due to trying to help the people of our nation instead of building new tanks - but that's me.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 





Again, people like you continue to attack liberal policies when it is a fact the last two liberals to hold office did the best job of managing and lowering our national debt.

Really, that is very INTERESTING, since it is CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT that authorizes the national debt.

You know, I've seen your posts on many threads, and I have yet to see one post of yours that is well thought out, based upon facts, and delivered without snide comments. In addition, most of your posts could be easily refuted with facts, but why bother? I think you just like to make wisecracks. Your Avatar is very appropriate. Have a Nice Life, as I hit the ignore button.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
we should be glad we have taxes!!!!

to rip off carlos mencia what would our country be like without taxes. lets look at the countries that don't have taxes. wanna bitch about not having electricity in your house. what do you think pays for that infrastructure?...your taxes.

Wanna have a kick ass military? what do you think pays for that. what you want to be guatamala where their air force has men with paper machet wings glued to their arms being launch skyward by giant rubber band sling shots instead of nice new sleek f-22s. didn't think so. be happy that you have the luxury of paying taxes for all the kick ass stuff we take for granted.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Can you really rely on the accounting principles of the government. Here is what the GAO said in 1999. One of Clinton surplus year.


Because of the serious deficiencies in the government’s systems, recordkeeping, documentation, financial reporting, and controls, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the financial statements and related notes may not be a reliable source of information for decision-making by the government or the public


source- Click on GAO report.


Congress has written its own accounting rules — which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignore important costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits for civil servants and military personnel.



Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.

The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.


source

Every administration does the same thing. Of course people prefer to live in fantasy land believing that we did have surplus years. It is just a manipulation of numbers. Corporations do the same thing.

I'm sure people will still say this isn't proof that we didn't have a surplus. So go figure.



Personally, if we go broke, I'd rather it be due to trying to help the people of our nation instead of building new tanks - but that's me.


I agree with you in general but at what point do people start helping themselves?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Patriotism cannot be forced. Taxes are forced

Taxes can never be patriotic.

now "donating" money to the fed is patriotic.

If taxation is patriotic so is being lazy and complaining. They all provide as much utility to other Americans.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Paying a Federal Income Tax is not only unpatriotic, it's unconstitutional. To use the guise of "patriotism" and all the emotion that term stirs up, to rationalize the redistribution of wealth in a so called "free" society, is in itself, unpatriotic.

If Biden and the others candidates were true patriots themselves they would be running on the platform to abolish the Federal Income Tax, not arguing over who to apply it to.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Again, people like you continue to attack liberal policies when it is a fact the last two liberals to hold office did the best job of managing and lowering our national debt.


Clinton's success at presidency is often overestimated. You mentioning Carters failed presidency is comical.

Clinton inherited a good economy with 4% growth! Netscape was invented in the same year Clinton took office. Clinton didn't do a whole lot to help the economy, hell, he mostly hurt it. The only other reason, besides the dotcom boom , the economy did well is because the Republican controlled house and senate took Bill Clinton by the horns and turned him into a supply sider.


The budget surplus under clinton was also fixed. It involved Clinton taking money out of social security while retroactively overtaxing the American people.

In closing, the democrats want to divide and conquer the American people. Democrats want to keep people poor and stupid so that they can have control over them.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Riiiight. I forgot. The President has nothing to do with the economy, ever! It's either luck, or a republican congress!

Well I guess that means we know who we can blame for the current financial crisis, since the democrats haven't had control (barely) over congress for long enough to allow this much bad debt.


Now let's wait for the excuse of how the democrats managed to cause this even though it contradicts everything just said.

And I will respond to other comments soon enough. I haven't had time to put together a thoughtful post.

*Edit:

And do you mean mean the dotcom boom help put together by the democrats? Yes, while most people misquote Al Gore as saying he invented it, he did do what he actually said, which was help introduce the Internet into Congress. He was a pioneer in legislation to help bring the dotcom boom along.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
If Senator Biden wants to be patriotic, then let him serve in the Senate for no pay, no bennefits, no health care. Let him do serve because it is the right thing to do. The same goes for the every elected member of the government. They get elected stating they want to "serve the people," then they take huge salaries, vote themselves huge raises, don't contribute to social insecurity, opting instead for a retirement fund that is available only to federal government employers, while those of us blue collar workers who "retreat to our guns and our religion" (did I get that quote right?)work our butts off to support them.
These fools make me want to puke!
Why has this man spent 30 years in Congress? Why have we repeatedly reelected these crooks? No Senator should ever serve more than two terms. No representative should ever serve more than three. And then only if he or she has truly voted the will of the people.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Riiiight. I forgot. The President has nothing to do with the economy, ever! It's either luck, or a republican congress!


So besides sitting back and coasting on the tech/dotcom boom what did Bill Clinton do to help the economy? Raised our taxes? Shut down Military bases which killed entire economy's of the towns they were in? how about raised taxes again? What did Mr. Clinton do that was so monumental in your opinion?


Well I guess that means we know who we can blame for the current financial crisis, since the democrats haven't had control (barely) over congress for long enough to allow this much bad debt.


Now let's wait for the excuse of how the democrats managed to cause this even though it contradicts everything just said.


Both parties are guilty, and have failed the American people.



And do you mean mean the dotcom boom help put together by the democrats? Yes, while most people misquote Al Gore as saying he invented it, he did do what he actually said, which was help introduce the Internet into Congress. He was a pioneer in legislation to help bring the dotcom boom along.


He did not invent the internet (DARPA did back in the 1960's). He was not the sole reason for the internet hitting the main stream. And that does not give much credit to Bill Clinton either.

Back on subject, look up Trickle Down/Supply-Side Economics. If Obama and Biden have there way, it will be more than 95% of the american people paying higher taxes.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


Why would I look up supply side economics when I can explain what it is, and how it "works".

The problem is, it's just a theory. In my opinion, it's failed theory. If it wasn't a failed theory, then you wouldn't care where the tax breaks were given: supply or demand side. Either way, it should balance out. But it doesn't.

That is easily shown just through the last 8 years. According to the "trickle down effect", when tax breaks are given to corporations and the upper class, they have more money to play with. Obviously, NI after tax looks much better.

Due to this, they create jobs. They pay more. They lower prices. That way, their bottom line balances back out to what it was before the tax break.

It doesn't work. Inflation rises just as fast and wages never keep up. So even though your wages are slowing become more and more worthless, you are also getting hit harder with taxes so that you can get paid more and so that your dollar can by more. But it doesn't happen. Prices don't drop, and your salary doesn't go up.

People are getting paid the same now as they did 10 years ago. And that, my friends, is supply side economics.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I have a friend, who has been driving since he was 16 years old. He takes his girlfriend out, who he met in college, to eat almost daily at restaurants like the olive garden, etc. whereas I throw down garbage dorm food down my mouth. He drives a relatively nice car, I walk around/take the bus to conserve my running, and he said his parents were buying him another car. "A new one?" I asked. "No, can't buy a new car or it'll go into the system. He then proceeded to tell me it was because he got benefits such as Medicare/Medicaid for being poor." He replied. I have another friend, who uses his $5,000 check for "college" every quarter to add onto his HAT COLLECTION where his parents get to buy nice plasma tv's along with various other nice "objects" with all the money they save from not having to pay for housing (gov't paid.).

Now I, born into a "well-off" family where my dad works 7am - 7pm owning his own business, who crawls under cars (he owns a garage) comes home stressed EVERYDAY, and he makes a relative decent living. AND I HAVE TO SEE MY DAD PAY FOR THESE ****ERS?

BTW, the gov't is paying for my friends college, so by the end of 4 years, he doesn't pay ANYTHING, whereas me and my family end up paying $100,000. My dad gets taxed 30% federal income, roughly, whereas his family gets taxed probably 10%. They get benefits, we don't. DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL? By the time me and my 2 younger brothers get out of college, my family will of paid 300,000 hard working dollars. Literally, my dad's blood, sweat, and tears. AND HIS FAMILY? NOTHING.

When he told me about his benefits, I lost my smile and died a little on the inside. I lost my smile because I cannot believe my dad is paying for this #, and I died on the inside thinking Obama has a chance of giving these guys more handouts.

/long f'ing rant. **** obama, **** the socialists.

"America is not a place, it is an idea." Winston Churchill
Don't let these ****ers take the idea of freedom and liberty away from us.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Gun Slinger]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Historically speaking... when the bulk of the tax burden is shifted off onto the backs of the middle class and the poor... the seeds of violent revolution is sown.

Time and again this has been proved to be true.


"Higher Taxes Are Good!" . . . So long as someone else is paying them

Let's just ignore what happens when your own income finally meets that level - Or when "they" just lower the line far enough that suddenly you're in the "rich" zone...

It's truly sad how much class envy and divisiveness the Democrats have been able to generate. Wait, isn't Senator Obama supposed to be a "uniter"? But, yeah, let's take the smallest group of high-income earners, who are already paying the vast majority of taxes, and penalize them even more for their success.


December 07, 2005
A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.


www.nationalreview.com...


According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.


taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org...

I wonder how many of these people who support higher taxes are currently writing a voluntary check to the US Treasury each month?

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Gun Slinger]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


So now you are psychic and you know how I voted in the primaries. How exactly would you solve this problem since you are so smart?

I think it is pretty clear that in order to clear up the economics of a family, a business, or a government you must spend less than you make. It is common sense. But I am willing to listen to your ideas since you are so much smarter than me. I have yet to hear you give a solution, you just tell me how stupid mine are. So lets try yours genius. What exactly would you do to clean up this mess?

By the way Professor, just for the record I am against universal healthcare, government subsidies for just about anything, etc.. I vote against every tax increase I have a chance to vote against. I dont care if they created a tax and I was going to get all the money from it, I would vote against it. My thinking is along the way of Ron Pauls for the most part. I only disagree with him pulling out of Iraq, because I think it leaves the Iraqis defenseless against the Syrians and Iranians.

Also Iwould never vote for Obama or Hillary because I would prefer we not become any more Socialized then we already are.

Do you even read what I write? Because it seems we are on the same lines. I dont vote for people who promise me stuff. I vote for people who seem like they may actually cut down the size, reach, and expense of the government. Which seems pretty much what you are proposing in this last post of yours.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I never said that you were stupid. What I said was that I felt you needed to do more "homework" or research before you make a suggestion that can't work, given the facts of the situation. My comment about people like you, didn't refer to who you voted for, but referred to the lack of research of people who back candidates, without really knowing the implications of that vote. I would propose that most people that back either major candidate don't have a clue as to what specific measures their candidate will try to enact. On both sides, the implications of that lack of research is potentially catastrophic. Germans loved Hitler, because he mesmerized the crowds. Look what happened as a result.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus


I never said that you were stupid. What I said was that I felt you needed to do more "homework" or research before you make a suggestion that can't work, given the facts of the situation. My comment about people like you, didn't refer to who you voted for, but referred to the lack of research of people who back candidates, without really knowing the implications of that vote. I would propose that most people that back either major candidate don't have a clue as to what specific measures their candidate will try to enact. On both sides, the implications of that lack of research is potentially catastrophic. Germans loved Hitler, because he mesmerized the crowds. Look what happened as a result.


Alright I apologize for getting a little short with you. I really would like to know what your ideas would be for fixing our national finances.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 





I really would like to know what your ideas would be for fixing our national finances.


This is what I would do:
1.) I would eliminate margin trading on commodities and financial instruments. In plain English, if you want to buy a stock, commodity or position, you must put up 100% of the value of that deal. Currently, depending upon the situation, you may buy an instrument by only putting up 50% of the cash, holding positions require 25% or 30%, etc.
This, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, would greatly curtail wild moves in the market, fueled by nothing more than gambling with someone else's money. (Eventually yours, as the buyouts by the government(US) continue.)
Remember, the Great crash of 1929 was caused, in large part, by even lower margin requirements.

2.) would eliminate the Federal Reserve as a separate private entity, with only Federal Oversight. I would replace it by a return to a standard whereby our money is BACKED by precious commodities such as gold, platinum, silver, etc.

3.) I would enforce strict regulations regarding mortgage loans, and outlaw some of the loan types that caused so much trouble.


4.) To insure the survival of social security, I would eliminate the wage cap on collection of social security taxes.

5.) I would raise the poverty level so that those under a true living wage would pay no taxes. I would further mandate that states comply with the national minimum poverty level, and I would index that level with the Federal COLA.

6.) I would set high tax penalties to companies that export jobs, without a corresponding increase of jobs in the US, with "corresponding" being based upon total salary, not total numbers of jobs.

7.) I would give significant tax CREDITS to companies that bring BACK jobs into the US, or that create new jobs in the US, as long as those jobs remain in the US for a significant period, which would be determined based upon growth of the related industry, and survival length of the industry.

8.) I would require ALL government contracts, both federal state, and local, to be bid upon, with the winning bidder being based in the US, with at least 51% of the workers involved in the contract, being in the US.

9.) I would IMMEDIATELY eliminate ALL H1B Visas, which are a SHAM. We currently produce ENOUGH qualified college graduates to replace all of those H1B Visa people.

10.) I would re-negotiate NAFTA, so that unless Mexico, Canada, and the US have the same labor laws, and labor standards, then the NAFTA agreement is NULL and VOID.

11.)I would provide the equivalent of the GI Bill to all Public Safety Workers, such as Police, Fire, Emergency, etc. to attend college, with full forgiveness of tuition, if the graduate stays in his/her public safety position for a minimum of 10 to 15 years (to be determined, based upon budget requirements, etc.)



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
After a morning of 'meet the press', george sthephanpolis and others it is quite clear.

We will be, and our chilren, and our childrens children that will be the pack mules for this mess.

The great ponzi scheme went awry. McCain said something I really liked this morning.

He wants to hunt these suckers down and not allow them to get away scot free with millions and billions.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join