Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Presidential Candidate Q & A on Recreational Fishing

It's not a circular argument at all. Your contention is that the rich pay a lower tax rate then everyone else. I say you must first define what it means to be wealthy and then provide the proof that they all pay lower tax rates. However my argument stands and is valid. In the history of our country we have never cut significant spending and kept taxes at a reasonable level, your argument for bringing back the economy seems to be a Keynesian one. This requires me to place my faith in a gov. That has not earned it. Before I provide more of my hard earned money I think it's reasonable the gov take steps to dramatically reduce waste and abuse. When the pentagon can't account for as much as 20% of its budget it's well past the time to deal with the waste and abuse.
 
It's not a circular argument at all. Your contention is that the rich pay a lower tax rate then everyone else. I say you must first define what it means to be wealthy and then provide the proof that they all pay lower tax rates. However my argument stands and is valid. In the history of our country we have never cut significant spending and kept taxes at a reasonable level, your argument for bringing back the economy seems to be a Keynesian one. This requires me to place my faith in a gov. That has not earned it. Before I provide more of my hard earned money I think it's reasonable the gov take steps to dramatically reduce waste and abuse. When the pentagon can't account for as much as 20% of its budget it's well past the time to deal with the waste and abuse.

Mac you hit the nail right on the head. This is just a symptom of a larger problem. Both parties are no immune from it. We have too many hands on the funds between the tax payer and what the funds were appropriated for. That is a true statement upon all facets of government. On this one, the problem lies solely on the American tax payer. We let it go on for a long time now. Now the problem has become so vast and so many with their hands in the cookie jar that we can’t pinpoint the blame to one individual. (Murphy’s Law of accountability; “When more then one person is to blame no one is at fault)
The problem for law makers now is the American people have woken from their long slumber and the Socialist are scared to death about this. They have made a big miscalculation, which they did not anticipate. While the Socialist are trying to produce an America in their own image they forgot one thing and critical one; They will never be able to take the American out of the American it is ingrained in our DNA.
 
My contention has been that some of the wealthy pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes, and it does not constitute an undue hardship for them to pay a little more. I would define wealthy as someone in the top 20% of net worth in the US. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power I agree that the government needs to reduce waste and abuse. Your example of Pentagon spending is a perfect case in point. These unaccounted for funds are not going into the pockets of the poor or middle class. They are being funneled straight into the pockets of wealthy corporations represented by powerful lobbies, and they are not "trickling down", so by all means, it is time to cut out waste and abuse. Unfortunately, the Koch bothers and others have been able to use their power to demonize the poor and working class while lionizing the "job creators". This is not democracy; it is plutocracy. The one tax graph you really need to know
 
My contention has been that some of the wealthy pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes, and it does not constitute an undue hardship for them to pay a little more. I would define wealthy as someone in the top 20% of net worth in the US. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power I agree that the government needs to reduce waste and abuse. Your example of Pentagon spending is a perfect case in point. These unaccounted for funds are not going into the pockets of the poor or middle class. They are being funneled straight into the pockets of wealthy corporations represented by powerful lobbies, and they are not "trickling down", so by all means, it is time to cut out waste and abuse. Unfortunately, the Koch bothers and others have been able to use their power to demonize the poor and working class while lionizing the "job creators". This is not democracy; it is plutocracy. The one tax graph you really need to know

Not sure where anyone has demonized the poor or working class (whatever that is).
 
My contention has been that some of the wealthy pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes, and it does not constitute an undue hardship for them to pay a little more. I would define wealthy as someone in the top 20% of net worth in the US. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power I agree that the government needs to reduce waste and abuse. Your example of Pentagon spending is a perfect case in point. These unaccounted for funds are not going into the pockets of the poor or middle class. They are being funneled straight into the pockets of wealthy corporations represented by powerful lobbies, and they are not "trickling down", so by all means, it is time to cut out waste and abuse. Unfortunately, the Koch bothers and others have been able to use their power to demonize the poor and working class while lionizing the "job creators". This is not democracy; it is plutocracy. The one tax graph you really need to know

So redistribution of wealth is the answer? Did you see how much people on welfare receive?

Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per Household in Poverty | The Weekly Standard
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html
 
If you have been following what I have been saying, you would know that I am not a big fan of welfare. I do believe that government spending on education, training, and infrastructure projects would help create the jobs necessary to get people off unemployment and welfare. People who can work-should work-and if they don't, they should not get benefits. I looked on various websites and the average welfare check for a family of four is between 600 and 750 dollars, so it would be good to know how the committee came up with their numbers.
 
If you have been following what I have been saying, you would know that I am not a big fan of welfare. I do believe that government spending on education, training, and infrastructure projects would help create the jobs necessary to get people off unemployment and welfare. People who can work-should work-and if they don't, they should not get benefits. I looked on various websites and the average welfare check for a family of four is between 600 and 750 dollars, so it would be good to know how the committee came up with their numbers.


I would agree if our national debt was not being increased by 3.88 billion a day. Since you believe all the Keynesian economic theories, where will the funds come from? Enlighten me? (Don’t give me that tax the wealthy BS, because that is like trying to sink a battle ship with red rider BB gun. It won’t even put a scratch in the defect. So tell me you logic. Show me the money.

Fishhead if you were personally spending 14% more a year then you income allowed. Could you afford to; repave your driveway, send you child to a private prep school, have the dog whisper train you dog not to rub its butt on the carpet. It would be illogical if you did. You would be homeless in less then a year. So why is it ok for the government to spend our money like this?
 
I would agree if our national debt was not being increased by 3.88 billion a day. Since you believe all the Keynesian economic theories, where will the funds come from? Enlighten me? (Don’t give me that tax the wealthy BS, because that is like trying to sink a battle ship with red rider BB gun. It won’t even put a scratch in the defect. So tell me you logic. Show me the money.

Fishhead if you were personally spending 14% more a year then you income allowed. Could you afford to; repave your driveway, send you child to a private prep school, have the dog whisper train you dog not to rub its butt on the carpet. It would be illogical if you did. You would be homeless in less then a year. So why is it ok for the government to spend our money like this?
Tomfly, I answered this in an earlier post. I have put forth what I think may be the solution. Yes, it is Keynesian economic theory, and it has worked in the past. Government economics differ from household economics, but let's just say they were comparable. It is very common for a household to be in debt for more than they earn in a year (mortgages). If the household is deficit spending 14% a year to pay the mortgage and support the family, without additional revenue the house is lost and the family suffers, but if the household deficit spent to invest in other members of the household receiving training that enabled them to get a job, or helped other members create a business, they would stop being a drain on household resources and start adding income that would in time reduce the deficit. It is reported that maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would cost about 690 billion. A rather large BB.
 
One country's experience with Keynesian approach to solving their crisis.

Lost Decade (Japan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tomfly, I answered this in an earlier post. I have put forth what I think may be the solution. Yes, it is Keynesian economic theory, and it has worked in the past. Government economics differ from household economics, but let's just say they were comparable. It is very common for a household to be in debt for more than they earn in a year (mortgages). If the household is deficit spending 14% a year to pay the mortgage and support the family, without additional revenue the house is lost and the family suffers, but if the household deficit spent to invest in other members of the household receiving training that enabled them to get a job, or helped other members create a business, they would stop being a drain on household resources and start adding income that would in time reduce the deficit. It is reported that maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would cost about 690 billion. A rather large BB.
 
Back
Top