Yes! We have an aging population. This aging population had plenty of time to prepare for the inevitable. Poor planning on their part is not an emergency on my part.
Let the old [deleted] die.
From my perspective my taxes are NOT historically low.
Quit spending MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!
Revenue my [deleted]! We used to shoot revenuers!
Tax "the rich" at 100% - take it all. How long will that fund the government at the current rate of spending?
Yep - even at a 100% tax rate for everyone over $250k, it still would not cover the budget deficit gap. We cannot tax our way out of this deficit.
Indeed, we have a spending problem. We have more than enough revenue coming in.
This isn't rocket science, even a squid brain should be able to understand such a simple concept as "don't spend more than you have."
Then again, it has continued to surprise me with depths of ignorance heretofore unimaginable....
Wrong. Revenue has almost entirely recovered from the recession and are near record levels. Spending is still outpacing revenue by over a trillion dollars a year.
You have a spending problem.
Boener, McConnel and the rest of "the right's" alternative betaverse are acting as if the election didn't happen.
America voted and rejected "the right's" vision of the future.
"The right" will try to pretend otherwise, stirring up the base and making headlines of a complacent whore press.
...and what happens in the whore press is echoed here; talking points and Faustian logic make up this betaverse. Do you believe ME or your lying eyes?!
Obama and kosbots must think winning an election makes the spending problem moot. So there is definitely an alternative betaverse going on there. If anything, the complacent whore press is largely ignoring the spending problem. The GOP and DNC can argue about revenue all they want but if your lying eyes ignore the spending that they're up to then the oligarchy wins.
Asking $250 a year (less than $5 per week) from the 50% (70 million filers) who don't pay any federal taxes wouldn't hurt anybody either.
Both are symbolic increases (the "rich tax" and my example) that are not going to fund the deficit, but would go a long way in the propaganda war being waged by both sides. The "rich" would get a tax increase, and the "takers" would be asked to pay a little as well.
And the answer to the problem is still spending cuts.
And how many seats in the House did you lose?
Oh, and of course, anything you clowns come up with in the House has to be approved in the Senate, then signed by the preznit...
...but you knew all that.
Oh, and I prefer a small, brass pipe. Better taste and easier to clean.
Bongs are highly over-rated.
The reason repubs are so eager to cut spending is because they know that will cause another recession.
Their graph shows that in 2009 federal spending was $3.517 trillion and $3.796 trillion in 2012; that's an increase $0.279 trillion, or 7.9 percent. If federal spending had increased by 27 percent, the 2012 total would be $4.462 trillion.
I don't know that I trust SayAnythingBlog.com. [of course if my math is wrong the egg is on my face]
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278