so Obama wants to tax the people making over 200k a year right? 250k per couple
If we let entitlement programs to get more and more money why tax the rich?
robbing peter to pay Paul never works in the long term.
if you want to tax the rich making over 200k you cant turn and give it to entitlement programs . when you have a huge debt that needs to pay down.
I say cut down on entitlement programs if you want to tax people making over 200k and couples making 250k.
Yes and no. You can’t just cut entitlement programs. Believe me, I would love to cut them, but common sense does need me to give into some liberal part of me.
The problem with simple cutting the programs is that people have become far too dependent on them to simply cut them and be done with it. With a lack of jobs and stable employment, cutting them immediately might be devastating and plunge us deeper into a recession. But it’s not as though you can’t possibly cut them.
1. Revamp the programs to encourage self reliance and independence. There are many churches that have successful welfare programs that use this model. I would rather spend all the tax money that we do on welfare programs, to be rebudgeted into a program that includes some kind of job skill training, budgeting classes, counseling. Something.
2. Hold accountable those who are on the program by monitoring how they spend their money. I think you and I both are sick of those who drink away their welfare money. I think people need to be held accountable for how that money is being used.
3. Don’t let people get comfortable. There’s a vicious cycle of poverty, where welfare is the hub. It pretty much goes like this. I am poor. I get welfare money. I learn to live off welfare money. I have children. They learn to live off welfare money. Schooling becomes less important because we learn to live off welfare money. Friends see how easy my life is living off of welfare. They apply for welfare. Suddenly community is living off welfare. Community interest in school goes down as education becomes less relevant in a community that lives off welfare. (Why this is important is because I sincerely believe, and maybe some teachers can correct me, schools, no matter how rich and how much money, cannot function properly without community interest. Whereas schools with little budgets can do rather well in educating children, with high community interest. High community interest encourages teachers as it takes a lot of stress off of them.)
Now we got a big problem. We have a community that has a poor school, because no one cares. And those who want to get out of the cycle, are going to find it harder, because now education prospects is bleak. So the poor stay poor. Crime begins to spread for two reasons. No education means no job. No employment. And we raised a generation of people who believe they can just take what they need without working for it.
I am suspecting, poverty is not the result of class oppression as it is an internal issue within the community.
I do not receive a Social Security Entitlement check, I get a Benefits Payment that is due as I and my parents and nephews and others have paid into that thing since it was enacted as Law.
If I made over $250k a year, I would expect to pay %38.7 in Income Tax. If I bought a motor yacht for 1.3 million I would expect to pay a VAT tax, that is a luxury tax.
No human can make any more gold than already exists on this planet, if that is what your economy is based on then it is finite.
Amtrak is an Entitlement that no one can actually justify.
I like riding trains, but I cannot justify a State Sponsored Rail Road, that is kind of silly.
Our Infrastructure needs repairing, cannot get goods to market with out a road or navigable channel. When the people that built the roads and defended the nation get old and can no longer work, do we shoot them, nice job and all that.
No, we do not, that is not how we do things.
We are a Civil Nation, a Union of States, let us join together and remember this.
Americans on the right seem to believe grinding poverty and brutalization of those at the bottom of society is sound way to develop a civilized country. I am not sure where the idea came from and have not seen a good example of where it has ever worked. I guess the US has a long way to go yet before it realizes it full potential.
I’m all in favor of cuts to entitlement programs as long as the cuts apply to ALL of them, including entitlements for the rich.
The problem with that is that democratic parasites don’t see it that way.
They sing songs to the poor on how they are victims and so on, turn the poor against the rich… war war war… Imagine all the people… yadda yadda yadda…
I’ve made my point by now because you can only go so far when painting a democrat.
yes. Only Democrats think they should be kept the same. Also raising taxes on everybody to 100% won’t even fund the government for 1 year. If they think they are so strong on military, why do they want to cut it? Hypocrites.
Entitlements with restriction ok, but stop this, reach in the barrel and take out what you can.
вЂњAusterity!вЂќ versus вЂњUnsustainable Debt!вЂќ is a false dilemma. There IS a way out вЂ“ a better way!
Our nationвЂ™s money supply (M2), a.k.a. вЂњconsumer demandвЂќ, is now about $10T. Since investors are sitting on about $2T, only $8T is available for consumers. Our GDP is about $16T so our M2/GDP ratio is now less than 63%, much too low. The ratios of Switzerland and China are now twice our current ratio. And HongkongвЂ™s ratio is twice their ratios. To reach prosperity, we must at least double our M2 supply!
Can the Fed double or quadruple M2? By law, the Fed can only buy securities from banks to (1) increase bank reserves (which are not part of M2); (2) lower long-term interest rates to ease borrowing; (3) increase commodity prices indirectly; and (4) raise expectations. But it cannot add to M2.
In fact, M2 enters our economy through only three doors:
(1)Bank loan growth now increases our M2 less than 5% annually because investors see too few opportunities. Until our economy gets much more M2, banks wonвЂ™t lend much more M2! Anyway, bank loans provide M2 only for investment, not for consumption. And, with loan repayment, M2 disappears.
(2) A foreign trade surplus would increase M2 but our trade deficit is now draining more than 5% of M2 annually, canceling the effect of bank loan growth. Anyway, over time, trade balances tend to even out.
(3) Federal deficit spending is the ONLY net M2 source for consumers. (If every budget since 1789 were balanced, M2 would be close to zero! We would now have to barter for everything!) Our вЂњUnsustainable Debt!вЂќ is the net sum of all budget balances. It is roughly equal to the total of privately-held cash. It is not an IOU but simply and only the sum of all government spending unrecovered by taxation. Our вЂњUnsustainable Debt!вЂќ is no more than a semantic illusion. Nobody wants to sell back their cash to us!
Federal deficit spending is absolutely necessary! INFLATION IS THE ONE AND ONLY CONSTRAINT! Deficit spending is now the only factor saving the economy from a depression. By adding over $1T to M2, Obama avoided HooverвЂ™s collapse and a 25% unemployment rate. He saved over 20 million jobs but we still need 20 million more. But Congress wonвЂ™t spend more because it fears вЂњUnsustainable Debt!вЂќ
That fear conceals a fraud. A century ago, with a few thousand dollars, our wealthiest 1% bribed Congress to pass a law requiring the Fed to finance budget deficits by auctioning bonds. Since then, trillions of dollars in bond interest payments have been redistributed from middle class taxpayers to the richest 1%, the greatest return on investment in history. ThatвЂ™s the cause of our вЂњUnsustainable DebtвЂќ!
We can stop this fraud just as President Roosevelt stopped it during World War Two. To finance the war, the Fed pegged Treasury bonds at an interest rate close to zero and bought enough Treasury bonds to pay the nationвЂ™s wartime salaries. After the war, consumers spent their savings, turning old farms into new suburbs and starting 35 years of prosperity without harmful inflation. But President Truman reinstated the fraudulent law and the scam goes on and on, increasing our вЂњUnsustainable Debt!вЂќ.
If that law were overturned or suspended, as it was during World War II, the Fed could finance our infrastructure needs by buying zero percent perpetual (вЂњZero ForeverвЂќ) Treasury bonds (i.e., by printing money) so that the Treasury could spend on infrastructure without paying bond interest. Our federal government is not a business that needs to balance its budget. It is a sovereign state that can create any amount of fiat currency (which we have had since 1971), has no need to borrow, and can never become insolvent. The successful WW II purchase of T-bonds proves the policyвЂ™s viability beyond any question.
Printing too much money would cause inflation but increasing M2 by $1T annually would amount to only $11 daily per consumer (not Zimbabwe!). According to the Congressional Budget OfficeвЂ™s infrastructure multiplier, GDP would rise $1.6T, yielding a $0.32T federal tax revenue increase plus half of that at the state and local government levels. There would also be a $0.5T savings in benefits for 25 million unemployed and working poor. Unlike tax cuts, infrastructure spending really does pay for itself.
When full employment appears, Congress can restrain infrastructure spending. As bank lending increases, the Fed will watch economic indicators and stop inflation on a dime with higher interest rates.
Make Congress and the President overturn the stupid law! Let the Fed print just enough M2, not more.
Google: UMKC Economics Faculty, www.NewEconomicPerspectives.org
America has voted. We lost. Entitlements for everyone!
To reduce the addiction, you have to cut the access to them living off other people’s money.