PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 03, 2016, 06:37:48 PM
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8050/watch-crowd-cheers-clintons-call-raise-taxes-robert-kraychik
Hillary Clinton called for raising taxes on the “middle class” while campaigning on Monday in Omaha, NE. Joined by left-wing Democrat billionaire Warren Buffett, she received applause from those in attendance.
“Because while Warren is standing up for a fairer tax code, Trump wants to cut taxes for the super-rich,” said Clinton. “Well, we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you, right now - we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”
-
Of course that's what she will do. The middle income earners are the largest block in which to tax. The 1% don't amount to nearly as much in revenue potential. The Democrats just want more economy strangling tax rate hikes.
-
remember the Clinton Tax Plan from the 90's?
It's a simple form.
How much were you paid?
Send it in
-
We're pretty deep in hock. Unless we want to send our bad paper to the next generation something has to give.
-
We're pretty deep in hock. Unless we want to send our bad paper to the next generation something has to give.
That assumes all spending is necessary and there is truly no surplus already being collected. I don't agree with that premise.
-
hmmm, how should people deal with wanting to spend more than they have....
-
We're pretty deep in hock. Unless we want to send our bad paper to the next generation something has to give.
Yes, government waste, and needless spending needs to give. If you raise taxes on the majority of earners you slow the economy even further.
-
We're pretty deep in hock. Unless we want to send our bad paper to the next generation something has to give.
Cool.
How about you and your fellow Leftists send 90% of your gross income to the Treasury? After all, it's for the children.
-
This is due to the success of the Dem's and their 5th column in the lamestream media that has convinced a majority of Americans they are not IN the middle class.
So long as it is coming from some unknown 'other', people will support governmental theft - problem is it will come from them, they are the 'other', they just don't know it.
Pathetic, we are totally hosed.
'Gimp
-
Yes, government waste, and needless spending needs to give. If you raise taxes on the majority of earners you slow the economy even further.
Lets say you could magically remove government waste. That's likely to amount to 3 cents on the dollar based on my readings. As for needless spending, everything you call needless someone else calls essential, so lets not go there.
Keep in mind that after sending out checks for social security and medicare, the government has blown its load and has to borrow the rest. If you shut down all discretionary spending, sent the POTUS and all the Executive home, shuttered the Congress, all that, you'd be breaking even.
Now, I won't claim I know what the solution to this dilemma is. Its a tough nut, and our politicians would all rather kick the can than actually deal with it. But it is a big problem, it took a long time to develop, and the solution is going to be considerably more involved than "government waste and needless spending".
-
This is due to the success of the Dem's and their 5th column in the lamestream media that has convinced a majority of Americans they are not IN the middle class.
So long as it is coming from some unknown 'other', people will support governmental theft - problem is it will come from them, they are the 'other', they just don't know it.
Pathetic, we are totally hosed.
'Gimp
As long as the Republicans control at least the House this will not happen (unless they cave as they are prone to do recently). If this were to play out correctly, Hillary would only be a one term president (see President Bush in 1991).
-
Lets say you could magically remove government waste. That's likely to amount to 3 cents on the dollar based on my readings. As for needless spending, everything you call needless someone else calls essential, so lets not go there.
No, let's go there. Let's start with what is actually essential and you can find that in the Constitution. From there we can then begin to determine certain things that we can live without, such as the Department of Education. There are so many government programs that are nothing more than a waste of money. It's easy to start trimming the fat, but the hard part is getting Congress on board because you begin affecting their districts which costs them votes.
Keep in mind that after sending out checks for social security and medicare, the government has blown its load and has to borrow the rest. If you shut down all discretionary spending, sent the POTUS and all the Executive home, shuttered the Congress, all that, you'd be breaking even.
Correct, entitlements are the majority of the annual budget. We need serious entitlement reform and not more of it. There are a number of ways to do it but Democrats are too busy spinning it as "throwing granny off a cliff" (remember that commercial that pictured a Paul Ryan look alike last election with him wheeling granny off a cliff?). What's wrong with privatizing Social Security for those that want to? What's wrong with a health savings account? There are a lot of ways to do this but if it means less government involvement, the Democrats are against it every time.
Now, I won't claim I know what the solution to this dilemma is. Its a tough nut, and our politicians would all rather kick the can than actually deal with it. But it is a big problem, it took a long time to develop, and the solution is going to be considerably more involved than "government waste and needless spending".
I agree, it goes well beyond that. However that is still a large factor in this.
-
There is so much needless overlap of government agencies, on the Fed, State, and Local level. Education, Environmental Protection, law enforcement, code enforcement, etc. It is ridiculous, and we allow government to get away with it because we are too busy with life.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8050/watch-crowd-cheers-clintons-call-raise-taxes-robert-kraychik
Monkeys at the zoo creep me out. Same with the clapping monkeys cheering on a democrat politician.
-
Raising taxes might help with budget deficit/debt if the gov. didn't spend $5 more for every extra $1 they take in.
-
No, let's go there. Let's start with what is actually essential and you can find that in the Constitution. From there we can then begin to determine certain things that we can live without, such as the Department of Education. There are so many government programs that are nothing more than a waste of money. It's easy to start trimming the fat, but the hard part is getting Congress on board because you begin affecting their districts which costs them votes.
Ahh, a reasoned response. What a rare pleasure on this site. Keep in mind that you can shut down all discretionary spending (including our boys who are busy bombing the crap out of the latest bad guys) and you still only break even. And I bet Constitutional arguments can be made for everything in the discretionary program. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean someone else can't. Besides, the first thing I'd do is decrease our military budget to the point where we can effectively defend the CONUS and not bomb the crap out of the latest bad guys.
Correct, entitlements are the majority of the annual budget. We need serious entitlement reform and not more of it. There are a number of ways to do it but Democrats are too busy spinning it as "throwing granny off a cliff" (remember that commercial that pictured a Paul Ryan look alike last election with him wheeling granny off a cliff?). What's wrong with privatizing Social Security for those that want to? What's wrong with a health savings account? There are a lot of ways to do this but if it means less government involvement, the Democrats are against it every time.
It is a tough nut, isn't it? If you want to cut entitlements, fine. I won't argue. But who's? And there you get into a royal kettle of fish. Andy think folks are pissed now? Try denying them their checks or medical procedures and see who far you get with that.
-
Lets say you could magically remove government waste. That's likely to amount to 3 cents on the dollar based on my readings.
Only 3% waste? your source?
As for needless spending, everything you call needless someone else calls essential, so lets not go there.
No, let's go there.
people who think spending money on studying why prisoners want to escape should be able to make the case.
people who think Federal (or State) money should be used to make golf courses should be able to make the case.
people who think law enforcement needs to spend more money on the War on Drugs should be able to make the case.
people who think the VC-32 needs new carpet should be able to make the case
people who think painting a salmon on a 737 is needed should be able to make the case
one easy source for finding probably government waste are the plethora of budget earmarks
-
3% waste is a joke. Entire agencies could be shut down with no repercussions on services due to the huge overlap of Fed, State, and local government, and just general waste on every level. Patronage, do nothing jobs, especially union are a big culprit.
-
3% waste is a joke. Entire agencies could be shut down with no repercussions on services due to the huge overlap of Fed, State, and local government, and just general waste on every level. Patronage, do nothing jobs, especially union are a big culprit.
I wonder how much of the DHS and TSA could be shut down with no loss of security? Does anyone here think that all of DHS and TSA is essential?
-
3% waste is a joke. Entire agencies could be shut down with no repercussions on services due to the huge overlap of Fed, State, and local government, and just general waste on every level. Patronage, do nothing jobs, especially union are a big culprit.
The "Penny Plan" was proposed a few years ago. It would have reduced federal spending by $7.5 Trillion over 10 years, and balanced the budget by 2019.
It was brilliant, but because it was a Tea Party idea, it must be crazy.
Fucking incumbents.
http://www.onecentsolution.org/the-one-cent-solution/
-
... the first thing I'd do is decrease our military budget to the point where we can effectively defend the CONUS and not bomb the crap out of the latest bad guys.
Look up "Liberal" in the dictionary and your picture appears. How 'textbook'...
-
Besides, the first thing I'd do is decrease our military budget to the point where we can effectively defend the CONUS and not bomb the crap out of the latest bad guys.
screw Alaska and Hawaii, eh?
-
screw Alaska and Hawaii, eh?
Why do Liberals hate Native brown people? ;D
'Gimp
-
No, let's go there. Let's start with what is actually essential and you can find that in the Constitution.
That's a start, but even the Constitution doesn't mention things that in this day and age are "'essential" - for example, air traffic control. Figuring our what your "essentials" are and what my "essentials" are is the essence of government.
From there we can then begin to determine certain things that we can live without, such as the Department of Education. There are so many government programs that are nothing more than a waste of money.
Some truth to that, yet no administration whether Republican or Democrat has ever really tried to do so. All these programs have their sponsors (on both sides of the aisle) and don't want their programs cut.
It's easy to start trimming the fat, but the hard part is getting Congress on board because you begin affecting their districts which costs them votes.
Now you've identified the problem!
Correct, entitlements are the majority of the annual budget. We need serious entitlement reform and not more of it. There are a number of ways to do it but Democrats are too busy spinning it as "throwing granny off a cliff" (remember that commercial that pictured a Paul Ryan look alike last election with him wheeling granny off a cliff?).
Agreed on the entitlement reform, it really is the 900 pound gorilla in the room, yet no party has had success in doing so. While it is fun to label the Democrats as the cause of all all woes, I do remember that it was the Republicans that passed the largest, non-funded program in quite a while - Medicare Part B prescription drug program. Also remember Ms Palin screaming "death panels" when in reality none existed. Political spin is indeed truly bi-partisan! ;)
What's wrong with privatizing Social Security for those that want to? What's wrong with a health savings account?
Absolutely nothing, I'm all ears for a plan that can provide an equal level of benefits at a rock bottom risk (as Social Security does). Heath Saving accounts are great, have one myself.!!
There are a lot of ways to do this but if it means less government involvement, the Democrats are against it every time.
I agree, it goes well beyond that. However that is still a large factor in this.
If such a plan from the Republicans was proposed, provided similar benefits AND didn't penalize recipients, present and future, I'd be for it.
-
That's a start, but even the Constitution doesn't mention things that in this day and age are "'essential" - for example, air traffic control.
Here's some trivia for you kids at home.
It was POTUS 42 that created an EO naming ATC services as "inherently governmental" thus an essential service.
It was POTUS 43, within the first 100 days in office, that created an EO explicitly removing ATC's "inherently governmental" status. This paved the way for the privatization of FSS.
-
Department of Education - gone
-
BTW, my wife and I listened to that clip from the speech and my wife says that she said, We aren't going to raise taxes in the middle class"
-
BTW, my wife and I listened to that clip from the speech and my says that she said, We aren't going to raise taxes in the middle class"
I've listened to it many times. She's wrong.
-
Keep in mind that you can shut down all discretionary spending (including our boys who are busy bombing the crap out of the latest bad guys) and you still only break even.
The Constitution says that Congress can raise and support an army and a navy in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13. In Clause 14, it states that Congress has the ability to regulate the land and naval forces. While these are broad, it provides a Constitution basis for having and using our military.
And I bet Constitutional arguments can be made for everything in the discretionary program. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean someone else can't.
I'd like to see the justification for some of these programs, such as the Department of Education.
It is a tough nut, isn't it? If you want to cut entitlements, fine. I won't argue. But who's? And there you get into a royal kettle of fish. Andy think folks are pissed now? Try denying them their checks or medical procedures and see who far you get with that.
No doubt this is a tough issue and everyone is involved. But there are ways to accomplish this that don't have to negatively impact everyone if done correctly. Phase it in deliberately and allow room for adjustments as needed. There's a reason this is called the "third rail" of American politics.
-
Is this meaningful ,accurate or hogwash?
-
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-
"nor prohibited" is kind of a forgetten part, eh?
-
"nor prohibited" is kind of a forgetten part, eh?
As is the "reserved" part.
-
"nor prohibited" is kind of a forgetten part, eh?
There are very few powers prohibited to the states. Things like ex post facto laws, and declaring things other than gold or silver to be legal tender.
Article 1, Section 10
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
-
We need a tax revolt in this country. We won't get it because 50% of the people don't pay Federal Income Tax. If people would stop paying taxes en masse, then things may change. Until then, politicians of both parties will continue to confiscate wealth from the working people. Meanwhile, the elites in politics, and business get a pass.
The ways government comes up to tax, and fee us to death is very, very creative. They have nothing better to do than grow their fiefdoms, and power. More control of the populace on every level is the order of the day. When the confiscate our legally owned firearms, then that will really be the end. God help them.
-
Nothing will happen with entitlement reform until A) a single party is in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency B) they are committed to the reform no matter what the consequences are, C) the president included entitlement reform in the platform, D) they do it in the first 100 days of the president's term and E) that party is the Republicans.
This mandated spending is literally killing our economy. In 2015 entitlement spending + debt interest accounted for 2.68 trillion in spending on revenues of 3.18 trillion. That would be pretty good except that in that 2.68 trillion, we haven't actually done a single thing to operate the government. That is 2.68 trillion spent to provide for the welfare of individuals, of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As Peter, I'm pretty sick of working my butt off to get ahead only to be dragged down.
-
Is this meaningful ,accurate or hogwash?
Interesting break down. Thanks for sharing. The only real surprising thing to me was the amount tax deductions allowed was greater than all of the discretionary spending combined. It seems to me there many holes that need to be plugged.
-
Interesting break down. Thanks for sharing. The only real surprising thing to me was the amount tax deductions allowed was greater than all of the discretionary spending combined. It seems to me there many holes that need to be plugged.
perhaps the whole discussion of budget, revenue, etc would be better served if people were honest about "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" spending.
-
Interesting break down. Thanks for sharing. The only real surprising thing to me was the amount tax deductions allowed was greater than all of the discretionary spending combined. It seems to me there many holes that need to be plugged.
Holes in revenue or in spending?
-
Holes in revenue or in spending?
he must mean revenue. Because "hole" would be entirely inappropriate to discribe the cavern called spending. The federal budget makes aviation spending seem downright frugal.
-
Holes in revenue or in spending?
In this case I meant revenues, but there are holes in both for sure. Basically, IMO the practical solution to balancing the budget is to cut back, but not eliminate both discretionary and mandated spending and reduce the amount of tax deductions, rebates and credits. This is something everybody can live with both on the left and the right.
-
In this case I meant revenues, but there are holes in both for sure. Basically, IMO the practical solution to balancing the budget is to cut back, but not eliminate both discretionary and mandated spending and reduce the amount of tax deductions, rebates and credits. This is something everybody can live with both on the left and the right.
You say there are problems with both, yet you look to taking more from people as your solution. Classic Leftist solution.
Question - who should it come from and how much? What should they give up so you can play with their money?
-
We need a tax revolt in this country. We won't get it because 50% of the people don't pay Federal Income Tax. If people would stop paying taxes en masse, then things may change. Until then, politicians of both parties will continue to confiscate wealth from the working people. Meanwhile, the elites in politics, and business get a pass.
The ways government comes up to tax, and fee us to death is very, very creative. They have nothing better to do than grow their fiefdoms, and power. More control of the populace on every level is the order of the day. When the confiscate our legally owned firearms, then that will really be the end. God help them.
Why do you think, when the general income tax was imposed, that they also mandated paycheck estimated tax withholding?
-
Why do you think, when the general income tax was imposed, that they also mandated paycheck estimated tax withholding?
Spot on. They made the confiscation of earnings almost invisible to the American worker. It just comes out of your paycheck, and then you just reconcile on April 15th. People are GLEEFULL over their "tax return" like the government is giving them free money. What many don't realize is that they gave the government a FREE LOAN for the entire year. If people had to write that HUGE check at the end of the year, they'd realize what incredible abuse, and waste the Feds, and many states are doing.
-
Spot on. They made the confiscation of earnings almost invisible to the American worker. It just comes out of your paycheck, and then you just reconcile on April 15th. People are GLEEFULL over their "tax return" like the government is giving them free money. What many don't realize is that they gave the government a FREE LOAN for the entire year. If people had to write that HUGE check at the end of the year, they'd realize what incredible abuse, and waste the Feds, and many states are doing.
I believe it would make more sense to get the employers out of the business of being the IRS collection agent.
How much money would businesses save (especially small businesses) if they didn't have to do the IRS' work for them?
-
Spot on. They made the confiscation of earnings almost invisible to the American worker. It just comes out of your paycheck, and then you just reconcile on April 15th. People are GLEEFULL over their "tax return" like the government is giving them free money. What many don't realize is that they gave the government a FREE LOAN for the entire year. If people had to write that HUGE check at the end of the year, they'd realize what incredible abuse, and waste the Feds, and many states are doing.
Perhaps, but it is enshrined in the Constitution. You can thank the Temperance movement, since before Income tax the government was funded by Whiskey taxes.
-
Perhaps, but it is enshrined in the Constitution. You can thank the Temperance movement, since before Income tax the government was funded by Whiskey taxes.
funny, the liberal is okay dokay with taxes being enshrined in the Constitution but not the 2nd amendment.
-
funny, the liberal is okay dokay with taxes being enshrined in the Constitution but not the 2nd amendment.
You characterization some is utterly dishonest, and this may be my last post on this board as of this insult. I do not like lies told about me. I am an ardent supporter of firearm rights, as I've said on this site numerous times, along with my (rather well thought out) reasoning for being so. I consider my own thought well reasoned, whereas those I hear from other firearm enthusiasts ("I'm going to shoot those villains when they enter my home and fight the tyranny of the government", come to mind).
That said, I hostly do not think firearm rights are enshrined in the Constitution. This difference between me and you guys is I think they bloody well ought to be.
-
That said, I hostly do not think firearm rights are enshrined in the Constitution. This difference between me and you guys is I think they bloody well ought to be.
The 2A in the Constitution could not be more clear.
-
The 2A in the Constitution could not be more clear.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, "
Sorry, leaves lots of wiggle room according to the SCOTUS. Says me there should be an amendment that just drops that phrase and just says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
-
funny, the liberal is okay dokay with taxes being enshrined in the Constitution but not the 2nd amendment.
I do not like lies told about me.
I didn't read that being about you. I read it as Liberals (Leftists) in general.
-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, "
Sorry, leaves lots of wiggle room according to the SCOTUS. Says me there should be an amendment that just drops that phrase and just says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
But these days if you tried to push one, it would more likely come out as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be denied."
-
But these days if you tried to push one, it would more likely come out as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall be denied."
I doubt it. In the history of Constitutional Amendments the presence of strongly motivate supporters has always boded well.
-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, "
Sorry, leaves lots of wiggle room according to the SCOTUS. Says me there should be an amendment that just drops that phrase and just says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Dammit, how many times does this have to be explained: The "Militia" is US. YOU AND ME. The Constitution not only does not allow the Government to infringe gun ownership/carrying, it actively ENCOURAGES WEAPONS OWNERSHIP BY ALL CITIZENS as a responsibility of the same. It's "misinterpreted" by people who a)Have an agenda and/or b) Can't properly parse an English sentence.
-
Says me there should be an amendment that just drops that phrase and just says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Trojan Horse.
-
You characterization some is utterly dishonest, and this may be my last post on this board as of this insult. I do not like lies told about me. I am an ardent supporter of firearm rights, as I've said on this site numerous times, along with my (rather well thought out) reasoning for being so. I consider my own thought well reasoned, whereas those I hear from other firearm enthusiasts ("I'm going to shoot those villains when they enter my home and fight the tyranny of the government", come to mind).
That said, I hostly do not think firearm rights are enshrined in the Constitution. This difference between me and you guys is I think they bloody well ought to be.
Yawnnnnnnnn........ The perfesser is threatening to leave and take his ball......
Yawwwwwnnnnnnnnnn"...........