Dems bring in crowds by the busload to fill stadium for Obama speech

[Billybob]

.Gov is already paying the public debt. The problem is they issue more debt faster than they pay it off.

We could always require a balanced budget with no tax increases, but then we get everybody complaining that government is cutting spending. And if a Congressman supports cutting spending to anything, he loses votes.

Agreed, nobody wants their goodies cut so it will have to be tax increases.

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Do you really think you owe 50+ thousand dollars of debt? Poop.

Remind me to never loan you any money.

[Lurker66]

Remind me to never loan you any money.

why? Im debt free, retired, have a nice house, own land and live on a self made "allowance".

Id never ask anyway, lol.

[Shootin 4 Fun]

why? Im debt free, retired, have a nice house, own land and live on a self made "allowance".

Id never ask anyway, lol.

Sure you're debt free, except for that $50k that you owe China.

[Lurker66]

Id rather owe the chinese than cheat em out of it.

Your taxes are only collected once a year, your only on the hook for whatever taxes are due that year. I understand that collectivly we are in debt and run a deficit. Ive got a vague grasp of the issue. Im sure the Chinese understand how the system works and what the risks are.

But you let me know when China sends you a tax bill for $50,000+, ill pay yours and mine.

[Veggie Meat]

Sure you're debt free, except for that $50k that you owe China.

Really, that'd be only ~$3.5K.

Just saying.

[HMFIC]

Y'alll aren't seriously trying to argue that the massive record national debt and the record yearly deficits we've had under Obama are peachy keen are you?

Pay no attention to the man in the mirror I guess...

[Veggie Meat]

Y'alll aren't seriously trying to argue that the massive record national debt and the record yearly deficits we've had under Obama are peachy keen are you?

I'm not.

As for the others?

[Lurker66]

Im not peachy keen about our debt or deficit, both are staggering numbers. I doubt it will ever get fully under control. But im not the kinda guy who worries about who might be paying for a bus.

Which is how we went from bussing people to the DNC to political rhetoric about how much people owe due to a breakdown of the debt clock.

[Veggie Meat]

Agreed, nobody wants their goodies cut so it will have to be tax increases.

So where do you raise them?

In 2009, the 1% ($343,927+) accounted for 16.9% of AGI and 36.7% of income tax revenue. The 5% ($154,643+) accounted for 31.7% of AGI and 58.7% of income tax revenue.

I would venture and educated guess that even increasing taxes on the top 5% to the 90% rate seen during WW2 wouldn't make a dent even if you actively forced them to stay in the country.

And even then, all that Congress would see it as is "I CAN HAZ MOAR 2 SPEND 4 MOAR VOTEZ". And the cycle continues.

[Lurker66]

So where do you raise them?

In 2009, the 1% ($343,927+) accounted for 16.9% of AGI and 36.7% of income tax revenue. The 5% ($154,643+) accounted for 31.7% of AGI and 58.7% of income tax revenue.

I would venture and educated guess that even increasing taxes on the top 5% to the 90% rate seen during WW2 wouldn't make a dent even if you actively forced them to stay in the country.

And even then, all that Congress would see it as is "I CAN HAZ MOAR 2 SPEND 4 MOAR VOTEZ". And the cycle continues.

agreed, all the more reason to not "sweat the load" about debt, deficit and taxes for generations that havent been born.

[RickN]

So where do you raise them?

In 2009, the 1% ($343,927+) accounted for 16.9% of AGI and 36.7% of income tax revenue. The 5% ($154,643+) accounted for 31.7% of AGI and 58.7% of income tax revenue.

I would venture and educated guess that even increasing taxes on the top 5% to the 90% rate seen during WW2 wouldn't make a dent even if you actively forced them to stay in the country.

And even then, all that Congress would see it as is "I CAN HAZ MOAR 2 SPEND 4 MOAR VOTEZ". And the cycle continues.

Exactly right. What needs to happen but will not until the people start loudly demanding it, is to cut all wasteful spending, fraud, duplicate programs, etc before they even think of cutting anyone's benefits or raising taxes. It will not solve the problem by itself, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. At this time do we really need to spend $592,000 on a study to figure out why chimpanzees throw poop?

http://moneymorning.com/2012/02/22/w...ernment-waste/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/2...n-and-overlap/

An analysis of 18 different programs across three federal agencies that deal with domestic food assistance found that though multiple programs can ensure the needy have access to food, "administrative costs increase significantly," with GAO estimating a $62.5 billion expense to the government from overlap and duplication.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...t-obtained-fox

[Billybob]

So where do you raise them?

In 2009, the 1% ($343,927+) accounted for 16.9% of AGI and 36.7% of income tax revenue. The 5% ($154,643+) accounted for 31.7% of AGI and 58.7% of income tax revenue.

I would venture and educated guess that even increasing taxes on the top 5% to the 90% rate seen during WW2 wouldn't make a dent even if you actively forced them to stay in the country.

And even then, all that Congress would see it as is "I CAN HAZ MOAR 2 SPEND 4 MOAR VOTEZ". And the cycle continues.

Not sure what the answer is, but whether it's taxes or cuts the same question remains, who's going to take the biggest hit.

[Billybob]

cut all wasteful spending, fraud, duplicate programs, etc before they even think of cutting anyone's benefits or raising taxes. It will not solve the problem by itself, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. At this time do we really need to spend $592,000 on a study to figure out why chimpanzees throw poop?

I agree with that, of course that means cutting Gov. workers that we're told we "need" and likely their friends and family who went to collage to be poop experts and they deserve a good job whether we need them or not, would we be funding the study otherwise?

[Veggie Meat]

I agree with that, of course that means cutting Gov. workers that we're told we "need" and likely their friends and family who went to collage to be poop experts and they deserve a good job whether we need them or not, would we be funding the study otherwise?

No one "deserves" a "good" job, especially if that job is unnecessary.

If someone gets an education in something useless, that's their problem.

If someone wastes money getting a degree that will never pay itself back, that's their problem.

I've got no problem cutting government jobs. A lot of .gov jobs are created simply for kickbacks. If their skills are needed, I'm sure they'll find another job in the private sector. If not, they can either retrain or accept that its just tough cookies.