What analysis? I obviously got your point that special ops makes more sense in an INVASION of Afghanistan rather than straight up ground troops. Of course thats obvious. But its clear that Iraq has diverted valuable rescources from the more vital Afghanistan. How is it that reconstruction(including presence of troops for postwar maintanence) of Iraq has become a higher priority than reestablishing the nation that actually had Al Quada and the Taliban.

 

Oh and I love how you try and take the high road after telling someone to "apply a few neurons." :thumbup

Sorry to go off the current subject and chime in so late but:

 

My favorite line about tax cuts and how conservatives always bring up the average:

 

"Well if Bill Gates walks into a NY City soup kitchen with 40 homeless men and two nuns, the average income of everyone in that kitchen is 1 billion"

 

Tax Cuts do nothing unless the vast space between the rich and poor is minimized. The best part is those who are too poor to pay taxes see none of this money, aren't those the ones who should be coming first?

How am I wrong? The estate tax and dividends tax cuts definetely do not disprove my point that that with the bush tax cuts the people who mnake under 33,000 get 100% tax cuts. Previously 100% cuts existed to people that only made 14,000 or less. And no one said tax the poor, i say tax the middle class less but dont tax the upper class more. Taxing the upper class heavily does not even help the economy, if I work and make money but i have to give it up where is my incentive to be successful. Also the more money people have the more they will invest and buy proucts so more money will be circulating the economy. You cannot be for smaller government and be against tax cuts simply because higher taxes means govt has more money to spend and increase public programs

I'm a libertarian. I believe society is best served when government plays an efficient and necessarily minimal role.

 

However, what you are advocating, proportional taxing, does not further libertarian interests.

 

The incentive to succeeding in America is here, because if you are rich you can get away with not paying many taxes. The motivation problem in america is from the lower in middle classes. Why? Take a friend of mine for example. His parents make no money, he worked his balls off and made 18 grand. Now, all of his Fafsa money dried up for school. He would have been better off NOT WORKING than working. THAT'S A PROBLEM.

 

As long as we run a costly budget deficit, which costs us all hundreds of billions a year, we cannot afford to give tax cuts when the marginal benefit is not greater than the marginal cost.

 

For example, the estate tax is an awesome tax. Do not whine about it being a punishment, let's think realistically. If we tax cars, people buy less cars, costs go up and dead weight losses result. Even the dividends tax did this. However, the estate tax makes almost no dead weight loss. why? Are people going to feel like making less money because some of it gets taken away when they die? NO! Are the children of these people going to have less incentive to work? In reality, wouldn't they have more incentive, because less is handed to them?

 

Morally the estate tax is wrong and all improportional taxes are morally wrong, but it is a necessary evil in the society we live in today.

 

As a libertarian, I want what is BEST FOR EVERYONE. The rich, poor, everyone will have a higher standard of living with less government. However, you are only going to make that goal even more far off by cutting taxes and running deficits, and therefore increasing costs. The light at the end of the tunnel gets even dimmer.

 

Cutting the estate tax does nothing more than pay off the rich. The tax does not act as an counterincentive to hard work.

 

First let's stop the deficit spending, which will do nothing more than increase debts in the future, increase governments, AND TAXES.

The estate tax is socialist wealth redistribution at its finest

 

taxes have to come from somewhere, this is a fact. Other taxes damage the economy more, or at least I believe so.

But she doesnt b***h and moan and realizes its what she has to give for what she believes.

 

The key there is "what she believes" My money should go where I say it should go even if I say it all stays with me, thats greed, but thats freedom, and thats what this country is based on, life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness refers top property). The government forcing people to pay taxes for things you dont agree with is pretty damn close to a dictatorship. And soriano as a libertarian you dont want what is best for everyone, you want the most freedom possible and let the individual take care of the individual. Which is not to say that taxes are unecessary, the thing is federal programs should not exist for the most part and any social programs that are necessary (if any) should be left to the states that need each program, and the state legislature decides which those are. And if you have a beef with Iraq b/c its wasteful spending, you need to start having a beef with many other programs that are just as wasteful. Like the AFL-CIO always complains about the waste in Iraq and the money given to "anti-union" multinationals, why do you think that is? Because the AFL-CIO is a business and it rather have that money going to prounion businesses so that the AFL can get more members which adds up to more $$$$ for the AFL-CIO. and by the way Tonyi you hit the nail on the head.

The richest 10 percent of americans shoulder 90 percent of the total income tax burden.

 

Tell me again why they shouldn't get cuts?

PING!

The best part is those who are too poor to pay taxes see none of this money, aren't those the ones who should be coming first?

I don't have ANY health insurance, don't qualify for food stamps, HEAP, or any of the other nice giveaways. Yet I get a big tax bill (indeed qualify for a double bonking on social security being self employed)

 

The poor get a fair amount coming back compared to what they're contributing (i.e. zero)

 

This country is plenty socialist enough already. How many people are trying to get into Denmark as opposed to the US? The masses are voting with their feet dude. First of all I would like to say, The Fact that The Conservative Hero Rush lived off The Government's help to poor he say's he so much hates means nothing?

 

What the hell is this, The Poor contribute nothing to society and should get nothing?

 

I guess working for menial minimum wage at jobs that you all benefit from with manual labor means nothing. I assume then Tony, you live off what you get in your backyard or through hunting because if you don't I'm willing to bet you live off food that is packaged and made with Those under of barely above the poverty line. Those people then are given poor conditions and are tossed aside and not allowed to be defended because of Eugene Scalia and his friends in THe White House tossing Ergonomics aside.

 

Yes, they contribute nothing to society except doing the jobs no one else would want to do and are treated like crap. THey don't deserve benefits, Tax Cuts do nothing for them because it's not helping the economy and you know that. They are treated like crap but yet because their poor that doesn't mean anything?

Here is a very simple example that even fish fillet should understand.

 

I take a poor guy who needs 1 dollar to buy that egg mcmuffin for breakfast, if I take 30 cents from him he cannot go buy his breakfast.

 

I take someone from the middle class with 150 dollars and take away 50, they cannot buy a decent amount of groceries.

 

I take a rich person and take 300,000 of his 1,000,000 dollars, he is still pretty well off.

 

The point being is that if we were to tax everyone equally, you would make a stratified society of totally rich and totally poor and the middle class would dissappear (assuming that the taxes generated are necessary for the size of a government like the one we have today.)

 

The rich CAN AFFORD BEING TAXED! Is it right? It depends, though I personally do not think so. However, what is even more dumb and irresponsible than taxing the rich unequally is DEFICIT SPENDING. You cannot be CUTTING TAXES WHEN YOUR COUNTRY IS IN DEBT. Too bad, what incentive will there be for any of us to work if our country totally sucks 60 years from now? What incentive will we have to work when we watch our income taxes take 60% of our paycheck away?

 

Bush's short term solution to tax relief is going to burry us all. Under no circumstances can we accept such unsound fiscal policy.

 

How many poor hire employees? The number must be vanishingly close to zero.

 

"Think of the inheritance tax as collectable in actual possessions rather than in money. Suppose the collector says: "We must take one of the furnaces, four of the ovens, two of the elevators, ten of the machines, 25 percent of your coal pile, as an inheritance tax." ?Inheritance is always expressed in dollars, yet the dollars are seldom there. What most heirs inherit in these days is a job, a business to be maintained, a responsibility to be shouldered (Henry Ford, 1926, Today and Tomorrow).

 

My family, being near victims of this wretched thing after my dad died, I can vouch for Ford's analysis completely. Cash supply was near zero, and we were left with a bunch of rundown properties in desperate need of maintenance, and $1.6M worth of bogus "slip'n fall" lawsuits(which have no impact on the tax!). We should have walked away and let the effing govt have the whole thing - would have served them right to try and sort that mess out.

 

You have no idea how wrong you are. Its punitive, screws people over, and ruins lives.

 

Did you ever hear "life is not fair?" Now, did the estate tax somehow limit your families incentive to work? No. It is a tax that DOES NOT HURT THE ECONOMY when compared to sales taxes and such. I would take the efficient tax over a tax that hurts our economy any day of the week. All taxes have victims, but sadly the marginal benefit is greater when money is derived from such a tax.

Cutting taxes is just as bad as raising them.

 

No one wants their taxes raised, but yet everyone wants their taxes cut... You have to compromise. Rich people should not get tax cuts, nor should the poor. Taxes are there for a reason... Please remind me why do we pay taxes for? :mischief Just curious.

The best part is those who are too poor to pay taxes see none of this money, aren't those the ones who should be coming first?

I don't have ANY health insurance, don't qualify for food stamps, HEAP, or any of the other nice giveaways. Yet I get a big tax bill (indeed qualify for a double bonking on social security being self employed)

 

The poor get a fair amount coming back compared to what they're contributing (i.e. zero)

 

This country is plenty socialist enough already. How many people are trying to get into Denmark as opposed to the US? The masses are voting with their feet dude. First of all I would like to say, The Fact that The Conservative Hero Rush lived off The Government's help to poor he say's he so much hates means nothing?

 

What the hell is this, The Poor contribute nothing to society and should get nothing?

 

I guess working for menial minimum wage at jobs that you all benefit from with manual labor means nothing. I assume then Tony, you live off what you get in your backyard or through hunting because if you don't I'm willing to bet you live off food that is packaged and made with Those under of barely above the poverty line. Those people then are given poor conditions and are tossed aside and not allowed to be defended because of Eugene Scalia and his friends in THe White House tossing Ergonomics aside.

 

Yes, they contribute nothing to society except doing the jobs no one else would want to do and are treated like crap. THey don't deserve benefits, Tax Cuts do nothing for them because it's not helping the economy and you know that. They are treated like crap but yet because their poor that doesn't mean anything?

You cry that no one would fill those menial and low paying jobs, but when they are outsourced overseas or are targets for elimination via corporate cutbacks you are the one crying foul.

 

The poor do contribute very, very little when compared to their relative worth and contributions back into society.

Cutting taxes is just as bad as raising them.

 

No one wants their taxes raised, but yet everyone wants their taxes cut... You have to compromise. Rich people should not get tax cuts, nor should the poor. Taxes are there for a reason... Please remind me why do we pay taxes for? :mischief Just curious.

oh come one, we can just deficit spend forever!!! :blink:

The thing is tax cuts should only be done when the people as a whole are being 'overtaxed', for example when theres a budget surplus you need to cut taxes b/c that means that our money is sitting somehwere in govt b/c we're paying too much taxes. If you really want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, you need to keep taxes how they are currently (unfortuneately) and cut certain programs that are wasteful spending programs. and before anyone says it YES it is too late to eliminate the cost of rebuilding iraq at this stage. After the U.S. hand over power we'll spend less on Iraq, but other social programs need to be cut too so the economy can function, because money needs to be in the hands of taxpayers so that the economy can function. By reviewing every single entitlement in the USA you will see how many of them are ineffective and in need of reform, and in fact a program can be changed to be more effective in practice and more cost effective, because throwing streams of money into somehting that doesnt work will not solve the problem, and contrary to what many people say underfunding is not a problem in every program, in fact many are overfunded and tkaing the money from places that need it like schools.

The thing is tax cuts should only be done when the people as a whole are being 'overtaxed', for example when theres a budget surplus you need to cut taxes b/c that means that our money is sitting somehwere in govt b/c we're paying too much taxes.

 

there's no msurplus and we have a debt. first you pay the debts unless the laffer curve dictates tax cuts are necessary.

 

If you really want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, you need to keep taxes how they are currently (unfortuneately) and cut certain programs that are wasteful spending programs.

 

Yes, let's get rid of medicare and social security. However, everything you are saying is contrary to Bush's "let cut taxes anyway" mantra.

There was a surplus during clinton. And i dont know of you were beign sarcastic about social security and medicaire, but those programs have inherent flaws, social security in particular, all the tax money that goes there will be drained when the baby boomers begin to retire and nothing will be left for the next generations, and we sure a shell should not pump even more money into it

There was a surplus during clinton. And i dont know of you were beign sarcastic about social security and medicaire, but those programs have inherent flaws, social security in particular, all the tax money that goes there will be drained when the baby boomers begin to retire and nothing will be left for the next generations, and we sure a shell should not pump even more money into it

Yes but still trillions of dollars of debt existed then AND NOW.

 

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

Totally agree :notworthy

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

Totally agree :notworthy I also completely agree.

 

Social Security is one of the worst things ever implemented by the government as far as I'm concerned.

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

Totally agree :notworthy I also completely agree.

 

Social Security is one of the worst things ever implemented by the government as far as I'm concerned. What was even worse was the US Government taking a big IOU from Social Security and Medicare decades ago, thus turning it into the crap it is now.

 

 

 

I disagree 100%.

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

Totally agree :notworthy I also completely agree.

 

Social Security is one of the worst things ever implemented by the government as far as I'm concerned.

 

There is little question that huge governement programs like this need a lot of work...

 

But I just think this is just being overly simplistic.

 

It has been said that the true character of a nation is judged by how it treats its weakest -- the poor, the sick, the lame, the old, etc.

And I am 100% serious when I say I think social security, unemployment, medicare, and ect. should be eliminated.

Totally agree :notworthy I also completely agree.

 

Social Security is one of the worst things ever implemented by the government as far as I'm concerned.

 

There is little question that huge governement programs like this need a lot of work...

 

But I just think this is just being overly simplistic.

 

It has been said that the true character of a nation is judged by how it treats its weakest -- the poor, the sick, the lame, the old, etc. Not particularly. If so then socialist European nations have better character than the U.S. I guess you are saying because they have all kinds of social programs for these groups.

 

Look at how inefficient and ineffective Social Security is. Most of us will never benefit from it because they will keep moving the age at which you recieve it back.

No, I'm not saying let's be like France or something. Don't go there.

 

And one reason for pushing the age back is that we're living a bit longer.

 

 

and it was never intended to be a cure-all anyway. more of a supplement. i don't believe government has ever instructed people to "spend all your money because you'll be able to retire in luxury later on your social security checks...."

Sometimes i unfortunately need to concede points in order for things to get done, and since it doesnt look like a program like this will be completely dissolved then why not take it one step at a time and start reforming these programs so they can be more cost effective and also work at their best.

What was even worse was the US Government taking a big IOU from Social Security and Medicare decades ago, thus turning it into the crap it is now.

 

 

 

I disagree 100%.

 

All government spending is inefficient. You get less in return when you give your money to social security, like putting socks in the drier...less come out and none of them match.

 

Morally it is wrong. We are rational beings. We have the right to keep our own money and save it. The government is not our parents, if people are too stupid to save for their retirement, well tough sh*t.

What was even worse was the US Government taking a big IOU from Social Security and Medicare decades ago, thus turning it into the crap it is now.

 

 

 

I disagree 100%.

 

All government spending is inefficient. You get less in return when you give your money to social security, like putting socks in the drier...less come out and none of them match.

 

Morally it is wrong. We are rational beings. We have the right to keep our own money and save it. The government is not our parents, if people are too stupid to save for their retirement, well tough sh*t. AMEN