The Party of "NO" is Destroying America

Well, the 2010 budget was 3.46 TRILLION dollars.

So if we cut that 10% we would save 346 BILLION dollars (I think, my head can't even wrap around this many zeros in a number).

I'd say that 346 billion dollars is a damn good start. Especially since Obama himself is wanting to raise taxes that would bring in an additional 989 Billion over TEN YEARS.

So the tax increase would only bring in 98.9 billion a year. While cutting that 10% would save 346 billion a year.

It's a no-brainer when you use common sense.

But here's the real problem. Even if you COMBINED the two. And saved 346 billion and taxed an extra 98.9 billion that's still "only" about 445 billion dollars a year difference.

Guess what? In 2010 the federal govt. spent that 3.46 TRILLION dollars. But we only had revenues of 2.18 trillion. So they spent 1.28 TRILLION dollars more than they brought in!

So even if we did all of that we would still continue going down in debt.

They are going to have to STOP spending. It's just that simple.

Everybody can say what they will about Social Security and the military and medicare...but guess what? If we go bankrupt...NONE of that will be getting paid out.

I don't see how you or anyone else can defend this type of spending by our govt. Especially when they don't even EARN the damn money. It's OURS. We work for it and they steal it.

there is a clear correlation between declining corporate taxes paid and the increase in debt. they run in parallel since the early 70s.

as corp taxes went down the government had to borrow more to meet it's obligations.

it's not that spending went up, but tax collection went down.

pretty simple.

Do you think that maybe the govt. has too many "obligations"

Because "obligations" translates into career politicians giving away a lot of money and jobs to their buddies to ensure their re-elections.

I guess that what we see in this thread is a good example of differing viewpoints on this subject.

But all I personally see when I look at what is happening is a big scam and con game that goes on indefinitely in Washington D.C.

How about this crazy idea: The govt. stops spending on shit it can't afford. And if Agent488 opens a business and it takes off and turns into a giant corporation and makes crazy profits...you know what? He should be able to KEEP his money that his corp. earned.

All of this class warfare is ridiculous and turns us against ourselves.

I WANT to be rich. And I work my ass off to make it happen. I'm not going to join the chorus of folks saying: "OMG! That big corporation is actually SUCCESSFUL and making a ton of money! The govt. should TAKE their money!"

That sounds really good...until you realize that YOU personally will never see that money that they steal from big corporations. They will spend it to fund another war. Or build a bridge to nowhere. Or any of a million other things they do to consolidate power.

That's the way I see it. And no, I don't care if big corporations have found loopholes to not pay taxes.

That's the POLITICIANS doing that shit because they are getting paid under the table and passing out favors.
The EXACT same politicians that you Democrats stand behind and you Republicans stand behind and repeat their party lines and talking points in heated debate.

In my opinion they are all crooks and there is no difference between any of them.

i don't defend the spending. but i certainly do not advocate killing a shit ton of small *stupid* programs because combined that adds up to a good start. there are much better ways to attack the issue eh.

The problem with that argument is that, at present, the government can't afford a whole lot of stuff that most of us would consider essential.


No one is talking about confiscatory taxation. We're talking about taxing the corporations and the upper 2% at the same rate they were taxed under Clinton. As I recall, those folks were living pretty damn well back then too.


I don't know about you, but when I hear Republicans refer to the same folks who are doing all of their hiring in India and East Asia as "job creators", I'm inclined to grab a pitchfork and join the nearest angry mob.

Yes, spending is way out of control and it needs to be cut, but the only real way to get out of this mess is to grow the domestic economy and thereby triple the net worth of the American tax base.

Someone should register PornAndPolitics.com.

Endless possibilities...



Great for long romantic rides in the country, or just a short flush around the block!

Here's Bernie's take, and I think it's a valid assessment...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8cmEoER6Ic

Why would that make you angry?

A business is supposed to make money. And a penny saved is a penny earned. If you can open a factory and make a big profit in a third world country as opposed to opening the same factory here and losing money because the govt. forces you to pay tons of benefits, health care, matching social security funds, etc., etc. Wouldn't YOU do the same thing?

I think Republicans just call them "job creators" to try and defend against the other side of the imaginary Republicans vs. Democrats (they are both the same).

I believe that IF the American worker could actually compete against the rest of the world we would be better off. And no, I'm not talking about going back to the Draconian pre-labor union days.

But I do feel that the pendulum might have swung too far.

I am now a one man show since I have laid off the 4 people that used to work for me. I am absolutely able to do all of their work myself. But I didn't want to have to lay them off.

I was fortunate to have been able to help them all find new gigs and one of them is even making more money now. So for that I'm thankful.

But I had to lay them off. I'm a small business compared to most...and quite frankly it was killing me just watching that extra money that the govt. forced me to pay in matching funds on their social security tax. Especially knowing that they might never see it since the govt. is so far in debt.

I can only imagine what it would be like to have a business with a hundred employees. And not only have to pay them a big salary, but then have to pay for their health insurance and matching SS taxes and paid vacations and pensions...

Basically the govt. & unions went a little too far over the years and now everybody is bitching because companies move overseas where they can actually turn a big profit.

I don't know what the answer to that is.

But apparently instead of making the U.S. more Business Friendly and bring those jobs back home...the answer is to tax the fuck out of them and put everybody on welfare so we all depend on the govt. to take care of us.

Power. Plain and simple.

Because they're part of the problem.

A big part.


That's all well and fine, but if their (relatively new) hiring practices are hurting the country at large (i.e. by diminishing the national tax base) they shouldn't expect the same tax breaks they were getting from Uncle Sam back when they were providing him with legions of middle class taxpayers.

Years ago people used to say that what's good for General Motors is good for America and it was true... then.

The game has changed and it's only fitting that the rules should be adjusted accordingly.


Of course I would, and like the fat cats, I would continue to do so until and unless I had a reason to rethink my business plan.

A corporate CEO owes his allegiance to his stockholders, not to the country at large, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Our government, meanwhile, is supposed to be looking out for what's best for the country as a whole... and in that it has failed miserably.


To compete against a peasant workforce, the American worker would have to accept peasant wages. Problem is, Uncle Sam can't collect much in the way of taxes from peasants.

This unfortunate process is already well underway with the new service economy and that is, in fact, a huge part of our current economic dilemma.

not sure why tax incentives to hire domestic wouldn't help the issue.

because the overseas work for 70 cents an hour. How else are the ceos going to pay themselves 700x what the avg worker makes.By hiring lots of cheap overseas workers. I saw when my dad worked for a very large company and this was during the so called good Bush yrs. They were dumping people constantly and putting more work on the people there. The line was to make us more competitive. Then the chairman took a 500 million bonus so we know that that really was about.

As a small biz owners its great to side with the rich guys but the its not rich guys who buy our products its the middle class and they are falling away.

Care to prove an executive at your fathers company took a 1/2 a BILLION dollar "bonus"?

while i see what you are saying, i still see areas where tax incentives would bring jobs home.
not a panacea, but certainly viable. especially these days, i've read a handful of articles re: american businesses bringing jobs back home from china due to china's increases in wages.

Not only are taxes a problem for corporations...but all the other bullshit that our country throws at them.
If any of you have ever tried to start a brick and mortar business from scratch you know what I'm talking about.

Endless fees paid to city, county, state, and federal. Endless paperwork. Endless regulations. The list just goes on and on and on.

It costs a lot of money just to buy property and to build your factory here in the U.S.

MUCH cheaper to do it in another country. And that's before the price of labor even comes into the equation.

Tony brings up something that I see used in class warfare arguments.
But you know what? If I become the CEO of a gigantic multi-billion dollar corporation...you better believe I'm gonna make 700 times what a factory worker makes.

It's called freedom and capitalism. I don't begrudge anybody for making their money. And as much of it as they can. If they are smart enough to make it to the top.

What is the use of being that lowly factory worker in the first place if you can't have the dream and possibility of one day being the "boss" and making a damn fortune?

Why would anybody bust their ass to make it to the "top", if there is no "top"?

I don't get that line of reasoning.

And yes I do believe that a CEO has in most cases already proven himself and worked his way into his position. He should be paid as much as a company is willing to pay him. Not a penny more or a penny less.

Should the govt. be giving a company bailout money while a CEO makes hundreds of millions of dollars? HELL NO. That CEO shouldn't be making one thin dime during a bailout.

But when the company is turning a profit and doing well? Hell yes.

The fact that CEO's did make huge bonus money and huge salaries while the company was getting money from the govt. is...the government's fault.

But the feds didn't really see anything wrong with it. After all, they get a "taxpayer bailout" every year in the form of TAXES. And they spend it in by the TRILLIONS. So a CEO getting a few million dollars while their company was in debt just seemed natural to our thieving politicians.

They spend like drunken sailors every day while being further in debt than all of those companies put together.

And companies that are being smarter are hiring...

I just saw on CNN a few nights ago... a man in Atlanta opened a factory making CHOPSTICKS! lol

It turns out that a couple of species of trees that grow like weeds in the Southeast U.S. and are practically useless for anything...are PERFECT for making chopsticks!

So he's churning them out by the millions. And hiring new people and even preparing to build another factory.

And he's selling them to: The Chinese! Kind of a cool example of how Americans can make money selling TO the Chinese.