#41
|
|||
|
vay, I think you're missing the overall point:
Frankly I don't mind defense spending when it's spent on defense. You know, like research (the same research that brought us superplastics, internet, etc), and general security (CIA, FBI) and even terrorist extraction/eradication... but just like every other department they are mismanaged. Furthermore, all of those projected lines on your graph are pretty much following the same path as the ones on this graph: [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Coupled with this, what else would you expect? Some people want to remove all of this mandatory spending but still be covered under magic age-cutoff point of Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare. The very people that are clamoring for the shutdown of the government in exchange for their private funds? It's self defeating, in my opinion. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | ||
Last edited by Aadill; 11-30-2011 at 12:31 PM..
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
vay is saying that mandatory spending should be on the table? absolutely, defense spending is under that "mandatory spending" umbrella. nobody is disagreeing that i can see.
| ||
|
#43
|
||||
|
Quote:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] not progressive enough
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005 Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present | |||
|
#44
|
|||
|
Look, the point is... if you want to have a discussion around federal spending and sustainability of US financials, then you have to look at mandatory spending programs. I'm not asserting that defense doesn't need cuts, but the common rhetoric that defense spending and not enough taxes on the wealthy is the root of the problem is a misnomer.
Mandatory spending needs REFORM (read: not cut completely) as does defense and health care. People frame the discussion as discretionary spending (calling out defense) is the only consideration here. Defense spending is not under the mandatory spending umbrella based on government budget terminology. Congress has no ability to control mandatory spending during the normal budget process and only with new legislation to reign it in and provide reform. | ||
|
#45
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
#46
|
|||||
|
Quote:
A note here... We are talking in percentage and not dollars. They are paying both a higher percentage of their income and obviously much more in terms of actual dollars. Quote:
| ||||
|
#47
|
||||
|
Quote:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] tax the rich then see wut needs to be cut imo the best years of our country when we created the interstate system went to space bla bla bla were when we taxed rich people proportionally to how much money they make in our country. problem however with a global economy if you are getting taxed out your ass here you are likely to go somewhere else... so in the end we lose either way imo
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005 Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present | |||
|
#48
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Griefer of Greenie, 1999-2003
PvP Champ, 2003-2005 Senior Vice President, <PvP Champs> 2006-Present | |||
|
#49
|
||||
|
Quote:
If the top bracket doesn't go above $379,000 then any money over that is only taxed at 35%. With the right deductions that becomes next to nothing. No extra taxes paid on monies above $379,000 when there are people making $6+ mil a year. This goes for corporations as well as individuals. At the low end, if you accidentally make a few more bucks a year ($34,500 vs $40,000, 15% vs 25% respectively) you can end up getting taxed at a much higher rate on those few thousand extra you made... Why isn't this happening at the top end? Because no one expected $12mil in stock options and $6-8mil in annual income. | |||
|
|
|