are you sick of Harry Reid?

[Openmind]

I want the Wealthy pay their fair share! like 45% Look how the Weathy are taxed in France and in England? I want something like the wealthy eurpeans are paying. You realize Doctors are targeted in Europe because they make too much money. Now i like Doctors taxed higher in america as well CEOs Movie Stars and Pro Ballplayers.

Doctors are not targetted in Europe. . .another one of your myths!

And Europeans do not complain half as much as Americans although their taxes are a lot higher because they get what they pay for. . .much better, updated infrastructure, universal health care, child benefits, better education, longer vacations, and many "safety net" programs, including extended (sometimes for many years) unemployment benefits.

And still Europe's GDP is growing faster than the U.S's!

 

[Pandora]

And where do you think the State funds will come from to cover SSI?
By the way, I disagree. I have worked closely with populations that absolutely need SSI. .and it's not easy to get!

Also, are you aware that SSI is a mere $400 to $700 per month? I would hardly say that ANYONE on SSI is CHOOSING to have it as their only form of income!

Do you also realize that many states (including Alaska, who receives one of the highest federal contribution per capita) who are RECEIVING more in Federal assistance than what they CONTRIBUTE are in fact, "Red States?" And that many of the BLUE States are actually contributing a LOT more than what they receive? How do you explain that?

The states would get the money by taxing the people just like the feds get the money by taxing the people. The fed tax would go much much lower because their role would be reduced and states would raise taxes to what ever point the tax payer is willing to pay before they vote them out and say they do not want the program

My niece is now a heroin addict thanks to the wonderful free methadone program Oregon offered to people

she is also on SSI and has been since she was 12 (for a sore ankle) she gets over 700 a month and her 210 in food stamps and has no desire to work nor does she have a sore ankle Her dad ( my brother ) is on SSI and has been since he was in his early 20s and his only disability is that he is a lazy drunk who milked the welfare system till the state took the kids away ( I adopted one of them), his girlfriend (the kids mom who he never married because it would mess up the welfare check) is also on SSI and has no desire to do anything other than drink. They also are in the HUD program so their housing is free, Leaving more money for booze. My other brother is on SSI but his case is probably more legitimate. He shattered his hip in a drunk driving accident and is in a lot of pain. Not sure how it's the tax payers responsibility to pay for his living because he was drunk driving but at least he is actually in need of the program. Another friend of mine is on SSI, has been since about 22, he was transporting chem's from Washington State to Oregon to make meth and caused a 5 car crash on I5 and is now in a wheel chair. He is probably a legitimate case too but again not sure how it's the tax payers responsibility to pay for his living (very expensive due to needing to hire him an aid, get a wheel chair periodically) and a huge list of other things.

My childhood friend is on SSI and has been since 18 because she was born without a right hand. She can do so many things it is really amazing but somehow she can't work

A lady from my daughters soccer team is on SSI, I asked her what her disability was and she said she was not comfortable around people so she cant work. Odd thing is she is really comfortable in the bar

I could go on but it doesn't really matter. and those are just SSI cases, I could go on about people I know getting welfare too, all of them have nicer cell phones than most working people and get to do things due to not being tied down to a job that most of us are lucky if we get to do on our annual vacation.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Because Democrats realize that there is NO WAY to lower the deficit by cutting spending ALONE!

While I agree tax hikes will have to be part of the solution, it's far from obvious that there is "no way" to balance the budget through spending cuts alone.

Spending wasn't always $3.5 trillion a year, after all. As little as 12 years ago it was less than $2 trillion.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Do you also realize that many states (including Alaska, who receives one of the highest federal contribution per capita) who are RECEIVING more in Federal assistance than what they CONTRIBUTE are in fact, "Red States?" And that many of the BLUE States are actually contributing a LOT more than what they receive? How do you explain that?

Well that stands to reason. Blue states are wealthier on average.

 

[steveox]

My childhood friend is on SSI and has been since 18 because she was born without a right hand. She can do so many things it is really amazing but somehow she can't work

Now if you expand Lawsuits and make it differcult for Doctors to win in court people wont been born without a right hand or foot. Its Hospital excutives and Adminstrators making easy for doctors to win in court. Like for example Hospitals are now banning Cameras inside a delivery room. What do Doctors and staff have to hide? Now why cant the ACLU get involved in that? But they wont Challege cops who have Cameras in their squad cars. They wont Challege cameras on streets and highways cause invasion of privacy. They wont challege seat belt laws cause freedom of choice the right to choose. But oh year theyre fight for a womans right to choose on abortion. So its Hospitals making it harder for patents to sue and win.

 

[Openmind]

Well that stands to reason. Blue states are wealthier on average.

You mean, their "pro-people" ideologies does not prove to be detrimental to business?

How about Alaska. . .with all it's oil, and with the "reverse subsidies" from the oil industry given to each one of their citizen? Why do THEY need to receive $2.40 in Federal assistance for every $0.46 they contribute?

Won't be come as a major suprise to those "POOR, Red State" when it is THEIR federal funding that gets cut?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

You mean, their "pro-people" ideologies does not prove to be detrimental to business?

How about Alaska. . .with all it's oil, and with the "reverse subsidies" from the oil industry given to each one of their citizen? Why do THEY need to receive $2.40 in Federal assistance for every $0.46 they contribute?

Won't be come as a major suprise to those "POOR, Red State" when it is THEIR federal funding that gets cut?

Well, if you back out earmarks I'm relatively confident the money that's being funneled to red states is happening by means of programs established by blue state representatives, e.g., Medicaid.

If you object to it that sounds like a good reason to cut spending and deny the ungrateful hillbilly red staters their unfair share of the pie, no?

 

[Openmind]

Well, if you back out earmarks I'm relatively confident the money that's being funneled to red states is happening by means of programs established by blue state representatives, e.g., Medicaid.

If you object to it that sounds like a good reason to cut spending and deny the ungrateful hillbilly red staters their unfair share of the pie, no?

I am not concerned about medicaid.

What I am looking at is subsidized industries that took jobs oversea.

And subsidies for huge corporate farms when those subsidies were in fact establish to help SMALL farmers.

What do you have against Medicaid? It doesn't fit within your "natural order?"

 

[pocketfullofshells]

If both the Republicans and Democrats agree on "cuts" but disagree on taxes, why not just pass the stuff they can agree to and move forward?

because republicans will not pass it..they ***** about wanting a constitutional amendment...and then they want more cuts...but they will not give a inch to dems who are willing to make cuts...if they get something back..close loopholes...but damn if the right will not destroy this nation before it asks the rich to pay for a closed loophole..

 

[GenSeneca]

because republicans will not pass it...

It's already been established that both sides agree to the "cuts", so why would the Republicans refuse to pass something they have already agreed to?

 

[BigRob]

The Republicans who refuse to compromise by agreeing to some revenue increase to add to the cuts in spending agreed upon by the Democrats.

And also the Republicans who insist in having a second round at this craziness, instead of agreeing to "stabilize" the economy by putting off the next "debt ceiling" fight for 18 months!

Just playing politics, again!

How about this....according to the debt clock, the share per taxpayer of the national debt is $130,000 roughly. I will write a check to Treasury for that amount, and by doing so it makes me exempt from all federal and state income taxes, as well as property taxes, until the debt is paid off. I know of a ton of people who would do the same.

After all, I would have just paid my share of the debt right?

 

[Openmind]

How about this....according to the debt clock, the share per taxpayer of the national debt is $130,000 roughly. I will write a check to Treasury for that amount, and by doing so it makes me exempt from all federal and state income taxes, as well as property taxes, until the debt is paid off. I know of a ton of people who would do the same.

After all, I would have just paid my share of the debt right?

If everyone who can afford it was willing to do that, it would work.

But, obviously you realize that abuot 95% of people in this country have NEVER and will NEVER hav $130,000 in the bank at any one time. . .some even in a life time!

By the way, I do not believe that every American gets the same advantage from the government! Just as a small exemple, it is obvious that someone living on SSI is NOT getting any advantage from government subsidies going to airports! Someone living in a trailer house in "nowhere" Alabama is not getting as much advantage from our the costly infrastructure and beach preservation in Malibu as the people owning multimillion dollars homes in that area. And someone who loses his/her 1//2 million dollars "weekend home" in the Florida key gets more from FEMA than the many retirees living in trailer parks in the rest of Florida!

So. . this is cute, but I know you realize how ridiculous it is!

 

[BigRob]

If everyone who can afford it was willing to do that, it would work.

Even if only 10,000,000 people did it, you have just paid down $1,300,000,000,000 of the national debt.

But, obviously you realize that abuot 95% of people in this country have NEVER and will NEVER hav $130,000 in the bank at any one time. . .some even in a life time!

That was debt per taxpayer...I am not even asking almost half the country (who pays no federal income tax) to bear any burden of this responsibility.

So. . this is cute, but I know you realize how ridiculous it is!

What is ridiculous is that the government spends $130,000 on the behalf of someone that has no hope of ever paying it back...then tells me I am absurd for not wanting to pay their share.

 

[BigRob]

Do you also realize that many states (including Alaska, who receives one of the highest federal contribution per capita) who are RECEIVING more in Federal assistance than what they CONTRIBUTE are in fact, "Red States?" And that many of the BLUE States are actually contributing a LOT more than what they receive? How do you explain that?

Let us remember that many "blue" states are far more expensive to live in, and therefore people are paid more, but are not better off persay.

Take New York for example....if I was making $200,000 a year and living in the city, I would hardly be rich, but I would be taxed like I was.

If I was living in Houston instead making $120,000 a year, I would be far better off (I would have to do the actual math on those numbers, but the get the concept).

So, blue states pay more..maybe...but does that mean it is because they are better off, or does it mean that is because they have a much higher cost of living and have to make more to have the same life?

 

[Openmind]

Let us remember that many "blue" states are far more expensive to live in, and therefore people are paid more, but are not better off persay.

Take New York for example....if I was making $200,000 a year and living in the city, I would hardly be rich, but I would be taxed like I was.

If I was living in Houston instead making $120,000 a year, I would be far better off (I would have to do the actual math on those numbers, but the get the concept).

So, blue states pay more..maybe...but does that mean it is because they are better off, or does it mean that is because they have a much higher cost of living and have to make more to have the same life?

I think you're missing the point! Yes, some of the "Blue" states are more expensive to live in. . .and STILL they don't need as much assistance from the government as many of the "Red" states!

By the way, this is NOT an assumption. It was reported in detail yesterday on CNN, with very precise numbers. If necessary, I will be glad to find a specific link for you, with the EXACT numbers! But I remember Alaska being one of the most unevened ratio between contribution to and receipt from the Feds.