How come...

[ThAnswr]

I'm no economics expert, Brenda...But if I was making a million-dollar-a-year salary, no I can't say that I'd complain all that much. Sorry, I have a hard time feeling pity for rich people, when the people that money goes to help are struggling to put food on the table. The quote in my signature should give you a pretty good idea of how I feel about that.

For one thing, the money has to be spent wisely. No more "no-bid" contracts to political cronies. That'd be a good start. Secondly, we need to cut the fat. 100 million dollar bridges to nowhere benefitting 100 people need to go. Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at waste and abuse throughout our domestic social programs. Again, that would go a long way towards putting the money that is spent into the places that it would do the most good.

The spending I would like to see increased is for things like education, and obviously, emergency planning. We've spent tens - if not hundreds - of billions of dollars on homeland security since 9/11. After watching the aftermath of Katrina and the bungled response at every level, do you really think that money has been well spent ? Are you in the least bit confident that your city is prepared to handle the effects of a devastating disaster, be it natural or man made ?

The Department of Homeland Security spent $22,000,000,000 (that's billion with a "B"). After all, you did get that nifty color code. Don't you feel like you got your money's worth?

Btw, Bush is now going to lead a review of what went wrong? So the people who made the mistakes are now to investigate those mistakes and correct those mistakes..........this has to be a joke. If they knew what the hell they were doing in the first place, we wouldn't have had these major screw-ups requiring a review.

 

[ThAnswr]

Your link isn't working...

This goes into the "golden gotcha" book.

 

[wvrevy]

Capitalism, democracy, and Christian principles are responsible for the success of this nation. The link is 230+ years of our history.

"Christian principles" ?!?



Since when has "screw the other guy, I'm getting mine" been a "Christian Principle" ?

 

[toto2]

So , what should be privatize and what should be public.


We have a governement here in Quebec that wants to privatize a lot , and it is scary. When the trains and subways were privatize din England , the number accidents went up , because for a private corporation that need to bring in money , safety is a spending , so they will go a strict minimum. Are you willing to put your life into the hands of someone who considered that the strict minimum is a good thing. Is your life worth the stricy minimum. We saw in New-Orlean what the strict minimum did ( and it was governement's strict minimum !) I can tell you that the private sector is very happy with what just happend in the Gulf region right now: catastrophes are a lot more money in there pockets than not !

Abd for a lot of corporation , 9/11 was a wonderfull business opportunity as well.

 

[BuckNaked]

As for how much of an increase I'm willing to accept...I'd have to figure that out for my own household. But it's not my household that would see the greatest increases anyway, since our income falls well short of $1,000,000 per year.

I wouldn't be so sure. There seems to be a misconception about tax rates/brackets and where the lines fall. We're nowhere near millionaire status, but under the current tax system, we'll pay $6,320 less in federal income tax this year than we would have under the previous system. Maybe you think that's fine, that we don't need that $6,320 every year, but then again, I'm not sure why anyone (not you in particular) would have the idea that they get to decide how much anyone else needs.

It isn't a matter of saying "OK, raise the highest marginal rate to 50%" and that means it will only affect those making $1 M. In reality, it will affect people with taxable income of less than a third of that (assuming married filing jointly). With the 33% example I used earlier, it hits people with taxable incomes of greater than $178,000. Good incomes, yes, but hardly gazillionaires.

 

[ThAnswr]

So , what should be privatize and what should be public.


We have a governement here in Quebec that wants to privatize a lot , and it is scary. When the trains and subways were privatize din England , the number accidents went up , because for a private corporation that need to bring in money , safety is a spending , so they will go a strict minimum. Are you willing to put your life into the hands of someone who considered that the strict minimum is a good thing. Is your life worth the stricy minimum. We saw in New-Orlean what the strict minimum did ( and it was governement's strict minimum !) I can tell you that the private sector is very happy with what just happend in the Gulf region right now: catastrophes are a lot more money in there pockets than not !

Abd for a lot of corporation , 9/11 was a wonderfull business opportunity as well.

Here's the problem: Too many people think government should be run like a business. They believe you need business people to run government.

Why they thought the person who failed at every one of his businesses and lost over $350,000,000 while doing it, was the man to run "government as a business" is just an example of the schizophenic thinking that part and parcel of today's US. Come to think of it, Bush did run government as he did his businesses, but, I digress.

Government is not a business. Business can pick and choose what they want to do. In addition, when you privatize a program, you've put another layer of accountablity between the voter and the program.

On a lighter note, maybe JoeEpcotRocks can give you a link as to the success of privatization.

 

[ThAnswr]

"Christian principles" ?!?



Since when has "screw the other guy, I'm getting mine" been a "Christian Principle" ?

It's the 11th commandment, the 12th commandment being "if he doesn't cooperate, assassinate him".

 

[ThAnswr]

I think this statement misses the forest for the trees. This doesn't mean there weren't serious mistakes made, or that there's not room for much needed improvement. But the notion that the government (at all levels) "failed" is just simply not backed up by the facts.

Tell that to Bush who's been "mea culpa-ing" so many times, his next speech is going to feature him wearing sackcloth and ashes.

 

[wvrevy]

And that's fine, Brenda. But my point wasn't to say that we should raise all taxes back to their Clinton-era levels. I think the middle class (and I would certainly class any family of four or less living on less than $150,000 a year as middle class) deserves and needed tax relief.

But the CEO of Haliburton (or Enron, or GE, or Microsoft, or any other major company or corporation) ? Sorry...Not feeling all that sorry for him. The sports star making 8 figures ? Hardly. The movie producer making 9 ? Yeah...right.

Rather than being stuck on a percentage, why not just return taxes to their previous levels for those making greater than $1 million a year in total compensation (wages, bonuses, dividends, everything) ? Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children ).

 

[ThAnswr]

You're right about one thing. You can't make this stuff up. Unbelieveable!

Wish I could stick around to watch this one play out, but I gotta run. But I look forward to reading more later.

Allow me to make a pre-emptive strike until you come back.

My guess is you're going say something along the lines of:

The problems in today's expensive healthcare system is due to lawsuits brought by people who hired someone like Mel Martinez who became one of the most successful trial lawyers in the country and who's now retired to the Senate where he can presumably fight against the very thing that made him all his millions.

Close enough?

 

[wvrevy]

It's the 11th commandment, the 12th commandment being "if he doesn't cooperate, assassinate him".

I always thought the 11th was, "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught, but if Thou Dost, Thou Shalt Not Whine About It."

 

[ThAnswr]

Why always make it out like I want the middle class to foot the bill ? I'm sorry, but nobody making 7 figures is living a middle class lifestyle (unless they've got 37 children ).

Because that's how they want to frame the argument so they can blow enough smoke to make the issue complete and utter "FUBAR".

It's the same with the "death tax" and families who've had to sell the family farm, tractor, cow, pig, chicken, etc. just to pay the "death tax".

Of course, no one has ever been able to come up with something resembling this mythical family, but it doesn't matter.

 

[Free4Life11]

I'd have no problem with them rolling back to the old tax brackets. In reality I DON'T pay much in taxes.

Also the tax brackets don't really tell the true story though because if you're making $100,000 a year gross with no deductions, you're not actually paying 33% of $100K, it ends up being more like $23K, and less with deductions.

 

[BuckNaked]

And that's fine, Brenda. But my point wasn't to say that we should raise all taxes back to their Clinton-era levels. I think the middle class (and I would certainly class any family of four or less living on less than $150,000 a year as middle class) deserves and needed tax relief.

I understand that, but when you (again, generic 'you') talk about how the tax cuts have only benefited the very wealthy, it masks the truth, which is that the cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't anywhere near "wealthy". Did the cuts benefit the rich? Of course. But those same provided benefits to everyone that pays income tax, and I see that as good thing.

Because that's how they want to frame the argument so they can blow enough smoke to make the issue complete and utter "FUBAR".

It's not blowing smoke, it's telling the truth about how the tax cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't wealthy, which is something that 'generic you' would rather ignore because it doesn't dovetail with your argument for rescinding the cuts.

 

[BuckNaked]

Also the tax brackets don't really tell the true story though because if you're making $100,000 a year gross with no deductions, you're not actually paying 33% of $100K, it ends up being more like $23K, and less with deductions.

I don't think anyone has said that the 33% bracket means you're paying 33% in income tax. I clearly explained that it was a marginal rate, not an effective rate.

 

[ThAnswr]

It's not blowing smoke, it's telling the truth about how the tax cuts have benefited millions of families that aren't wealthy, which is something that 'generic you' would rather ignore because it doesn't dovetail with your argument for rescinding the cuts.

Yes, it is............yes, it is...........yes it is.

The first question that has to be asked and answered is NOT what the tax increase should but whether or not you want to pay the bills or pass them onto the next generation. You couldn't find enough cuts in this budget without going into the Pentagon, the CIA, Homeland Security, etc.

We are fooling ourselves into believing that somewhere in this government is a stash of money that can be accessed by "cuts" and is just there waiting for those "cuts" to be made.

We are broke and are up to debt in the next generation's eyeballs and the only way we're staying afloat is by selling bits and pieces of the US to China, Japan, etc. Think about that. That's our longterm security worries.

 

[BuckNaked]

Yes, it is............yes, it is...........yes it is.

Then you deny that the tax cuts begun in 2001 have benefitted millions of families that aren't rich?

 

[SunFloridaDisney]

It's about those that can most afford to help being asked to do more for those that need help the most.

That's the Christian principle that should apply here, Joe.

See Peachgirl's siggy line.

Doesn't appear that all that privitization is the answer.

 

[Jennifer S]

Speaking of money - thought this was interesting

http://www.thepostmanscorner.net/katrina.html

Imagine if you lived in 1927 in NO

 

[Free4Life11]

I don't think anyone has said that the 33% bracket means you're paying 33% in income tax. I clearly explained that it was a marginal rate, not an effective rate.

I know I was just talking out loud because I think a lot of people don't realize it, hell I only paid 1% of my income in federal taxes last year I'm making out like a bandit.