http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../world-us-canada-13067836

Apparently the Satanic Republicans want to give moar tax breaks to the rich while making the poor and senior citizens pay more just to get by. Lolwut.

*No tax increase for Rich peeps
*Less Health/Social benefits for the lower income peeps
*Suckier Education

Glad I don't live there. :p

me too, we dont need another lib dem here

Welcome to reality.

LOL during that speech the vice president fell asleep. I guess it wasn't a BIG fluffING DEAL.

"We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt," Mr Obama said in a speech at George Washington University.

Comming from a guy that had a 2 trillion dollar health care plan? LOL ooookay.

The ballooning US deficit is set to be a top issue in the 2012 election campaign, and in recent weeks, Republicans have laid out their own plan to cut it, based on big reductions in healthcare and social programmes for the poor and elderly and in education spending.

lol what exactly did they propose cutting? Poloticians are known for lieng ya know can't beleive everything they say. I would cut housing and foodstamps in half. If you've been on food stamps and housing for over a year without finding a job...your abusing it. As for education spending didn't Obama already cut this?

btw if you increase the taxes on the rich aka the people giving you your job...who do you think is going to get their pay cut to make up for the higher taxes...yeah thats right buddy the employee. Either way the poor man is gonna be paying it lol.

And if i'm not mistaken the Republicans plan would cut it by loads more then Obamas. Some sacrifices have to be made now we've just let this debt build and build and build we gotta do some drastic things. Also where they need to cut is government office paycheck.

Salary of the US President...$400,000. Salary of retired US Presidents...$180,000. Salary of House/Senate...$174,000. Salary of Speaker of House...$223,500. ...Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders...$193,400. .......................................Average US Salary...$33,000 to $77,000.

Thats where they need to start cutting.

if we cut gov't pay to this:

prez - $200k
retired prez - $50k
house/senate - $50k
speaker - $75k
maj/min leader - $60k

we could save $67,475,300
not much compared to the big picture.

Although I agree cutting a lot of redundant, bureaucratic, government jobs and some salaries would be good ... projects like this are better ways to cut the budget:

$2,500,000,000 for the procurement of ten C–17 aircraft. In a floor statement on September 30, 2009, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voiced his opposition to the C-17 funding: “That’s why the Administration ‘strongly objects’ to the addition of $2.5 billion in funding for these ten unrequested C-17 aircraft. The Department of Defense’s (DoD) own analysis shows that the 205 C-17s that the Air Force has or which are on order, together with the existing fleet of C-5 aircraft, are sufficient to meet the Department’s future airlift needs – even under the most stressing situations.

or this

$6,056,565,000 for 35 anonymous projects.
(sounds like "black ops" to me :D)

or even cutting numerous smaller ones like this

$4,283,375 for nine projects for financial literacy/education programs by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Senate Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee member Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), House Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), and House appropriators John Olver (D-Mass.) and Steven Rothman (D-N.J.), including: $3,150,000 for a financial education and pre-home ownership counseling demonstration project; $305,875 for a national program to improve financial literacy for the Girl Scouts of the USA; $250,000 for financial and technical assistance for the Western Massachusetts Enterprise Fund; and $100,000 for employment and financial counseling and assistance for Project Ezrah Needs, Inc. A Congress that can’t balance the nation’s budget should not be dictating where money should go to teach financial literacy.

source: http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/

67 million a year would add up, though.

not much when there is a $1.267 trillion budget deficit in Obama's 2011 budget proposal alone.

not saying it shouldn't be done, just that there are much bigger issues that would save much more $, like social security and medicare.

I think the easiest way would be to introduce a RL 2B bug; force people to spend excess wealth on stuff... :) haha

Top 10 Companies holding money overseas has a total of 408.9 Billion untaxed.

That's 143B in taxes to be collected.

Something tells me they wouldn't enjoy a 2B bug.

so they are more or less becoming the US.. can we tax the UK for being exactly like us... they can revolt and such...

err, you realize that the article is about US politics don't you Junky?

What we really need to do is change the coding in Earth Real Life so that if you thrown money at a problem it actually goes away.

It sure would be nice if money solved social problems. It'd also be nice if our government realized it didn't work that way and stopped wasting money that way.

It would also be nice if our military budget and foreign aid wasn't so huge. Military spending 'stimulates the economy' as FDR found out, but it creates a debt that the future generations have to pay. Because military spending stimulates the economy, and there's no penalty for creating a debt that you won't pay back during your term in office, there is no incentive for our government to cut military spending. Republicans are worse than Democrats at increasing spending, but Democrats do quite a good job at spending money on the military.

It is so nice to have the EE forums as an additional news source...

Unfloat your US dollar against the Chinese currency.

mwhahahaha it would work but maybe start war.

lol

Obama, saying nothing better than anybody...as usual.

Obama: "We need to live within our means!!!!"

Paul Ryan: "In my ten year plan, we cut the following...to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion"

O: "That's a stupid cut. You want old people to die!!!!"

R: "What's your suggestion"

O: "You're ugly and your momma's fat. We will do cuts to reduce the deficit $4 trillion in ten years!"

R: "What's your plan?"

O: "You guys figure it out, I'm willing to listen to all serious suggestions."

R: "Ok, here's my 73 page, 10 year point-by-point plan to..."

O: "Shut up, I said SERIOUS...tool!"

Pelosi: "Here's my plan Mr. President. Tax all the Rich everything, and stop waste and fraud!"

O: "BRILLIANCE!"

R: "May I see the details please?"

P: "Err, I have it right here in my purse" *turns her back and rummages for a few minutes, then shoves THE PLAN into R's hands*

R: "It this written in lipstick on a flufftail napkin?"

P: "PST! NOOOOOOO! That's a crayon"

R: "I see..."

O: "Oh will you just go home Ryan. Let the adults put this car in R to WIN THE FUTURE!" *strikes the pose*

http://online.wsj.com/...l?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

http://www.therightsphere.com/...an-real-obama-2012-video/

The military budget is not the driver or the deficit. It has dropped from 25% of the budget to 20% of the budget. The driver of our disaster is entitlement spending (SS, Medicare/aid). Something to the tune of $120 trillion and counting.

Additionally, foreign aid isn't much, but I'm willing to kick some of that. I'm most familiar with the $2 billion a year to Egypt. That should not be cut, we need to shore up their military and do what we can to insure radicals do not take command.

Get some truth into your life.

http://mediamatters.org/

20% of our budget is still a hell of a lot.

I thought Obama said he was bringing the troops home what happened?

Anyway 67 million a year isn't much lol is that a joke. Ok well since they don't want to give up some of their salary for the better good and a necessary sacrifice (where they will still make more then the avg. American) lets take 67 million from ummm...hmm lets see EDUCATION! Every penny cut is a penny made and saved don't be a retard 67 million is alot for such a SMALL sacrifice those people are rich anyway they don't need all that money.

I say we put large taxes on all American companies on foreign soil. If those people want to start sweat shops in Mexico thats all fine and dandy they are still going to have to pay the same so all in all wouldn't it just be cheaper to bring that plant back to America make the same amount of money and give Americans more jobs. Win:Win.

No idea why Americans keep voting Reps and Dems. It's too bad they're the only parties the media pushes and I'm flabbergasted people think that by voting the same way year after year that they honestly believe something is going to change. I feel like these conversations and real life political games have been on repeat for the last ten years and the only thing that is really changing is the world around the US.

Given that providing for a common defense is one of the constitutional mandates for our national government, I would like to see military spending be a much higher percentage of a MUCH lower figure.

good ol' political banter! :P I say screw it all, lets go to a barter system!

I didn't say it was not a large amount. It is just not what is the root of our problems. Additionally, the recent cuts and 'proposed' further cuts are endlessly foolish in light of our current posture in the world. Right or wrong, we should not drop our funding to the detriment of our military.



And such companies will close shop completely in the US and become wards of Ireland or whomever will foot them the lowest combination of tax rates, regulatory interference, and fees. It is easier and easier to move these days.



Indeed, we have a great many unConstitutional 'items' sucking down portions of our federal budget. The budget should be much smaller in scope and size.

I don't know why conservatives call "Medicare/Medicaid" an "entitlement" when they don't call the First Amendment an "entitlement". Or the Second Amendment.

They are equally entitlements.

You could also call them both "rights".

<sarcasm>

I know... let's make the minimum wage $0, tax anybody making < $80K at 40%, no minimum amounts, and tax anybody making >$80k but < $500k at 20%, and anybody over that at 5%, as that will increase revenue. And cut corporate taxes to 3%, and make minimum CEO wages be 10% company profits. Furthermore, we can cut all social security, medicare and medicade, and redirect all that spending to military programs, like the SDI. This will make the poor want to not be poor, so they will slowly become rich. And the rich will have so much fluffing money they'll employ everybody with HUGE benefits, and increase wages, because *that's what rich people do best*, give away their money. We could also add an additional FINE for people making <$5k per year, of oh, I dunno, say $1k, for being poor. That'll teach em. Speaking of teaching, all this free education is waaay costly. Better kill that funding and spend it on more important things. Maybe we can subsidize some huge corporations to do something incredibly wasteful. I dunno, think ethanol from corn. We could try making ethanol out of beef, that'd be probably a little more wasteful. We could also fine the elderly for being... well... OLD... and put that towards that scheme too.

</sarcasm>

Then they would loose all American customer base. Because what i'm saying is we don't tax them for making the stuff we tax them to bring it back into America. So lets say since Nike has been caught for running sweat shops. They are making Jordans if they make the Jordans in Mexico paying people 10 cents a day when ever they try to send it to America to sell it they tax the sht out of it. Thus making it no different then paying American citizens instead of sweat shop workers.

Or IMO they should just stop allowing this all together.

BTW about the taxing the people who made more money is kind of lame. I made 40k last year...but worked 100s of hours of overtime and work in a factory breaking my back. All to have Uncle Sam send me a smaller income tax check because I made to much...thats stupid as fluff. I paid in so I would make more back. But instead I made more money paid in more money but got back less.

If you want to know exactly how many hours of overtime I worked I make $14.30 an hour and made $40k. Every hour over 40 is time/half. Sunday is double time but that would be hard to figure in because I don't know how many Sundays I worked. I would like to know actually lol. Tax people based on what they do tax the people who sit on their ass all day! :-P

I figure that the US is so used to the Rich getting tax breaks, that it wouldn't really be news wourthy anymore :-P ad the UK and such in the title, I figure it was a UK thing XD

Off topic I heard Europeans don't take a bath everyday is that true? (may be stupid but j.w)

So ZDH, you are suggesting the US abandon free trade ?

If it's going to make the entire country go bankrupt and no one be able to get a job...uh duuuuh yeah I think that would probably be a smart choice.

If it's broke...FIX IT.

It doesn't work obviously gotta try something else. Or you can force them to pay them US minimum wage. But it has to be made not worth it to make US companies on foreign land.

How exactly has it not worked?

Well IDK...The country hasn't got enough jobs for the population. With thousands of jobs in other countries. Thats bad buddy.

The country is going broke more and more year to year. Do you see that as a success?

Absolutely not, but I don't see how free trade is the cause of the effects you mention.

Stick to something you know something about, you CanuckCom!



Global economy man, tariffs only cause Americans to fall farther and farther behind competitively. All the while the rest of the world stays competitive. The solution to a flood of outside competition is not to build sandbag walls, higher and higher, but to build a boat to stay afloat amidst the flood.



First, don't accept the premise about "Uncle Sam SENDING you a check." That's your money, that they have taken from you for a year without paying you for it. That's a forced loan, but you don't get any interest. Try owing them too much at the end of the year...see how they treat you.

Flat tax. The more you produce the more you pay, but you aren't punished for being more successful. Like all things, if you reward behavior you'll get more of it. If you punish it, you will get less of it.

Mind you, this pays little mind to the super rich who have the ability to play with the tax code set up to benefit them. This is why Google pays so little taxes and Gov't Motors paid none.



Define rich.

Actually, the Government has not taken it from you for a year without paying you for it. It's not a forced loan. You can actually change how much you wish to withhold for federal income tax. If you wish to withhold nothing and pay it all on April 18th of this year, there is nothing wrong with that.


As for the flat tax, I'm not against it--I just think that it will never happen. For one reason, there is an entire industry propped up by the crazy tax laws. Secondly, companies will lobby hard to keep it the way it is. If it was a straight flat tax, no loopholes or exceptions--I'm fine with that. I doubt that would ever happen.

True, but if you end up owing more than $1000, you are fined. And you have to pay a heck of a lot more attention to managing your taxes throughout the year. It is sad and pathetic that most of my coworkers (engineers) resort to H&R block companies to do their taxes. Something is wrong there.




There may be hope with the tea party movement. I hope it happens. I think we are more likely to see the Paul Ryan and the debt commission put forth. A widening of the taxed population, elimination of loopholes, and lowering of tax brackets. This would be a very beneficial step.

[quote poster=Foobooy Evolution; 8903; 155260]

The only thing that worries me about a flat tax though is that loopholes work their way into the tax law. In the 80s when they last did major changes to the tax code, they eliminated much of the exceptions--but they find a way of working themselves back in.

yea; that's the huge problem with that; and only the wealthy can afford loopholes

there should be a minimum percentage anybody making above say $100k/year should pay, regardless of write-offs, loopholes, tax credits, etc... that would take care of some of the excessive credits & loopholes that occur


also there should be tighter restrictions on using off-shore accounts and whatnot

That's the problem with anything, it is always subject to change. Even if you codify tax codes into the Constitution, you end up with those that will ignore the Constitution, see abuse of the commerce clause in ENDLESS instances in the past 60 years.