erynthered Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I take it back. The Republicans are now caving and willing to talk about revenue generation..err..taxing the rich. Nice to see the right starting to get something right. Maybe this supercomittee will finally finish the hard work the president started. Taxing someone is hard work?? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Yet we also spend close to 50% of tax money on entitlements. Not that your rant really had anything to do with my quoted post. Entitlements are taxes returned in form of services. Honestly what return do we get for Blackwater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Entitlements are taxes returned in form of services. Honestly what return do we get for Blackwater? Dead brown people and a corporate namechange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Dead brown people and a corporate namechange? Koko..........for shame. The first thing we learn in the health field is not to feed into the delusions of the (in this case) woefully misled. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Entitlements are taxes returned in form of services. Honestly what return do we get for Blackwater? Entitlements are income confiscated from one group of people and distributed to another group of people. In this context "services" is about as honest a term as "revenue" is for taxes, or "progressive" is for liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Koko..........for shame. The first thing we learn in the health field is not to feed into the delusions of the (in this case) woefully misled. . I know, but I couldn't resist the gag. I'm in one of *those* moods today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Welcome to new math. Slowing down spending growth counts as a cut. I love the goverment's cash accounting system suddenly and magically becomes accrual accounting when deficits are discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) I Thought the Supercommittee Was Supposed to Reduce the Deficit November 10, 2011 5:20 P.M. By Veronique de Rugy According to The Hill, Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package: The latest offer from Democrats on the deficit panel, made Monday night to their Republican counterparts, would use some of the war savings to help pay for spending on infrastructure. While sometimes it seems like a good idea to compromise, I was reminded recently of the real risk that this approach entails: that the tax increases will be implemented and the spending cuts wont. In a recent article in Commentary, Steven Hayward reports on how President Reagan experienced the true cost of agreeing to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts. In Reagans case, it happened when he made a deal with Congress before the 1982 elections ($1 in revenue for $3 in spending cuts). That deal, which came to be known as TEFRA (the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act), featured what was then, to date, the largest tax hike in American history. TEFRA came a little more than a year after the enactment of the Kemp-Roth bill, which slashed marginal tax rates at every level by 23 percent over three years and was the heart of what came to be known as Reaganomics. . . . All the tax increases to which Reagan agreed as part of TEFRA were temporary excise hikes on cigarettes and telephone calls. The bill also featured technical changes in the tax code (such as the elimination of depreciation schedules and the reduction of tax credits and deductions). The result: . . . the balanced approach he had advocated in the 1982 budget deal had never come to pass. TEFRA was designed to bring about $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in new revenue, which meant that, on paper, it advanced Reagans goal of shrinking the federal government. In practice, the results of TEFRA were almost exactly the opposite. While the tax increases were real, Congress never delivered on the spending cuts. By one calculation, the 1982 budget deal actually resulted in $1.14 of new spending for each extra tax dollar. .NRO Edited November 11, 2011 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Entitlements are taxes returned in form of services. Honestly what return do we get for Blackwater? Very little.... we need to step back form being the world police stattion... defend our domestic soil..... We also need to reform program like SS to act as they were intended. SS should not be a National Pension program for every American.... it should exist to help truly unfortunate Americans live a dignified life in their elder years. There is no reason millionaires should be getting checks, its wasteful and pointless- and if you start planning now, pretty good chance you can me a millionaire in retirement. This all goes back full circle to one of my favorite discussions, scope of Government: 1. Should the FED Government be in the Pension Business? 2. " be in the Private Residence Financing business? 3. " be in the higher education financing business? 4. " subsidizing certain crops business? 5. " sunsidizing variosu industries business? 6. " be in the Healthcare payment/management business? Small reforms to these area could shrink the power and reach of the USFG by huge amounts. People need to begin asking the question, IMHO, "what can be delegated to States, Cities and Communities to Provide. While I think it seems logical to attack problems from the TOP, it becomes so distant, bloated and corrupt so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Very little.... we need to step back form being the world police stattion... defend our domestic soil..... We also need to reform program like SS to act as they were intended. SS should not be a National Pension program for every American.... it should exist to help truly unfortunate Americans live a dignified life in their elder years. There is no reason millionaires should be getting checks, its wasteful and pointless- and if you start planning now, pretty good chance you can me a millionaire in retirement. This all goes back full circle to one of my favorite discussions, scope of Government: 1. Should the FED Government be in the Pension Business? 2. " be in the Private Residence Financing business? 3. " be in the higher education financing business? 4. " subsidizing certain crops business? 5. " sunsidizing variosu industries business? 6. " be in the Healthcare payment/management business? Small reforms to these area could shrink the power and reach of the USFG by huge amounts. People need to begin asking the question, IMHO, "what can be delegated to States, Cities and Communities to Provide. While I think it seems logical to attack problems from the TOP, it becomes so distant, bloated and corrupt so fast. NO!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts