Unemployment falls to 7%

I understand that a Liberal who was interested in taking from those that have to give to those that need, would want such a progressive income tax system.

 

I am not the one sadly lacking in Faith, in Capitalism. In any case, I already know private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not poverty in our republic.

 

what does that have to do with the politicians taxing the upper middle class the hardest ?

 

It has to do with public policy decisons.

 

You see people who are unwilling to put forth the effort to achieve more. And this is their choice in life but it's not right when they expect others to solve all of their problems. Government is equally responsible for not providing quality education and for allowing crime-ridden neighborhoods and the fiscal mismanagement of the nation. We have become a pathetic nation, one of welfare first and hard work last...

 

Come on, tell what their fair share is and what the fair share of the bottom 50% is. Or are you just blowing smoke?

 

Yet, even gun lovers on the right refuse to become necessary to the security of a free State without a profit motive; they may even lay some claim to being good capitalists, becuase of it.

 

No you see that with no facts to back it up.

- - - Updated - - -

I did. You must have been blowing smoke and missed it.

 

What is their FAIR SHARE of taxes? This is about their fair SHARE of taxes. Should the top 1% be paying 1% of taxes, 10% of taxes, 25% of taxes................what? And what share should the bottom 50% be paying?

They paid more tax revenue when it was 28% than 35% what is more important to you more actual revenue or just taking a higher percent of the income of the highest earners so they don't have as much left?

 

I never discuss politics so I have no response to your comment above except to say how stupid it is because you apparently believe ONLY those on the 'right' are gun lovers...

 

They seem to be the most vocal and subscribe to the same fallacies. Some even claim to have degrees and can therefore, no longer appeal to ignorance without also appealing to stupidity.

 

You didn't check my links. As for the bottom 50% they pay too much.

 

Whatever is needed by the gouvernement to run the country properly of course. You vote for a certain president/house that will lead to certain expenditure which needs to be payed by all sorts of taxes. It should balance out.

And if you dont agree, well vote him out next time.

 

In 2001, I owed $12,000 in debt. I only earned $17,000 a year in income. Oddly, I paid it all back. Year after year, I paid every penny I owed.

See I had these people called "parents", which taught me right and wrong. Morals. And I was taught that if I did something stupid, I paid it back.

So I did. Am I the only one in America taught this?

We've heard this before. Back in the 1940s, when they killed off rent controls and subsidies, everyone said millions would be homeless. Instead the housing shortages disappeared. Back in the 1990s, when they reformed welfare, and food stamps, they said millions would starve and be homeless. Instead, they got jobs, and were just fine.

Every time, people say "if you cut government, the world will end! The sky will fall! Mass death and destruction will follow!" Instead, things got better.

In 1945, the US Federal budget was $92 Billion.
In 1948, the US Federal budget was $29 Billion.

Nearly a 70% cut in the US budget. And by the way, during this time, all the tariffs of Smoot Hawley protectionism were systematically eliminated. Man, the 1950s must have been an economic disaster. Must have been a great depression or something....

In 1922, the US Federal Budget was $3.7 Billion.
In 1929, the US Federal Budget was $3.8 Billion.
In 1933 and 1936, the US Federal Budget was $5.1 Billion, and $9.1 Billion. Protectionism was passed in 1930.

So wow, the 1930s must have been the "roaring 30s", an economic boon, a golden age of US history.

I have yet to see an example where government 'doing something', actually fixed anything. The only time government 'doing something' resulted in anything good, was when they got out of the way, and stopped screwing up the world.

So yes, I want politicians using any excuse possible, to do nothing to ruins our country. In fact, if there is anything I want them to do, it is to UNDO the screwups your politicians have done. I want them to UNDO the stimulus. UNDO the bailouts. UNDO the QE4EVER program. UNDO Obama-Care.

Everything in our country that is messed up, is something they DID DO. So yes, I want them to DO less.

 

Well that's the whole problem. What we all agree, or disagree... is completely different. It's different by state. Different by region. Different by world views and religion.

There is no agreement on what the government needs to run the country. In fact, we don't even have agreement on what the government should even be doing to run the country.

For example, people like myself believe that government (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) does not need to be involved in... Education.... Social Anything.... Health Care.... Wage and Labor.... Food.... and many other things.

That should be left for the states.

Others think the Federal Government should be involved in those things.

Thus how much money the Federal Government needs to 'run the country' is drastically different between different people. If I had my way, you would cut taxes by 50%, and still have more than enough money to 'run the country', and pay down the national debt.

 

Yeah during and after WW2 not really valid comparison.

Defense spending then was 50% or something. Bring that down to 10% (as they did) and you have easy cuts.

Well not if you count the after effects of a WW, of course we dont have that now so I dont see it as relevant.

Gouv duty is to enable others. Its easy to put any glory on private sector and people and any detriment on gouvernement.

The current crisis is a fine example what not enough gouv can do. We need to have a balance and yes, in some sectors gouvernement has gone too far while in others not far enough.

Its not black and white, it never is.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats why we have elections, to represent people to defend your ideas. The concensus what comes out of that IS was the policy should be .

Btw this is no different on state federal or city level.

http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf

Seems pretty good.

I can certainly imagine that because you dont have insurance you are less likely to have treatment up until it might be too late.

 

Not!!!!

BTW, I looked up gouvernement and couldn't find out what that was.

 

I ask YOU not someone in a link. And I didn't ask what rate. Why the dancing? What percentage of tax revenues are the fair share of the top 1% and the bottom 50%?

- - - Updated - - -

Non-answer noted. OK it takes X dollars to run the country what percentage of x is the fairshare of the top 1% and what is the fair share of the bottom 50%?

 

The claim is that cutting government will ruin the economy because of a lack of jobs, lack of infrastructure spending, lack of support for the public. They cut everything. Yes, most of that was military cuts, I agree. Does military cuts not cut jobs? Yes it does. They also cut rental subsidies, and other things. They also cut make-work programs. They cut nearly everything dude.

That's why the leftists, the Keynesians of the day, screamed that it would cause a massive recession in the 1940s.

What after effects?

No, the duty of government is to protect rights. Not enable people. Where would you get that idea? So you really support the idea of government taking from you, to give to me? Why not just give me your money yourself?

Completely wrong. Government directly caused this crisis. Government directly pushed banks to make bad loans. They caused the entire thing.

First off, it's *NEVER* the majority. There is NEVER a consensus. At the very most, only half the population votes. So at the most we have a tyranny of the minority. 51% of the half of the population that votes, gets to dictate tyranny to everyone else? That's why we're supposed to have a constitution, that limits what government can do, to protecting the people's rights, not confiscating from some, and giving to others.

Wrong. According to our constitution, all rights are reserved for the state. The Federal Government, is limited to those specific abilities outlined in the constitution.

Not true. I personally have gone to a doctor, without insurance, and I got this thing called a "bill". Then I did something amazing... I paid the bill.

I know other people who have done the same.

I've also read this particular report, and it is still wrong. Repeating false data, doesn't make it true.

Further, the fact is, the survival rates for all people in our country, is higher than that of other countries. This includes those without insurance.

 

Do you know the difference between personal debt and national debt? Have you paid back your $53,400 national debt?

What part of "we have not paid for our spending for 30 years" do you not understanding?

I want world peace. First we cannot "undo" stimulus or bailout. "qe4ever" is stopping. ACA is here and will not go away. Deal with it.

 

I said before that bringing up the 1% households rate to over 35% would be okay. I believe that the bottom 50% pay too much in taxes. Dropping even a little bit their tax burden would be better than the share that they pay right now.

 

So true.

When fighting a World War we spend a lot of money. When the war is over,there is a lot of spending that can be cut. What part of that do you not understand? The same thing happened after WW 1 and the right claim the same thing that you are claiming now. I guess that flawed theories have a very long self life.

 

There is no 'they'...you can't stereotype 50 million voters into one pigeon-hole. There are 300 million guns in the USA...do the math...150 million for Reps and 150 million for Dems. BTW; those who commit the gun crimes...do you actually believe they are affiliated with either party?

 

You have not been asked about RATES........................understand now? Nor have you justified raising those rates. I asked you what percentage of income tax revenues is the fair share of the top 1% and what is the fair share of the bottom 50%. Their share has nothing to do with the rate or are you just choosing to be obtuse?

 

They seemed to be doing just fine along with the rest of the country when they "only" got 10% of the nation's income had 20% of the nation's wealth. 30 years later after "trickle down" they've doubled their take to 20% of the nation's income and 40% of the nation's wealth. How much more of the nation's income do you think it is fair for them to get? How much more than 40% of the nation's wealth do you think it is fair they should have?