Are you paying enough taxes yet?

[Evil One]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.
A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."

Jim

[Lyn-Del]

I've always thought that replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would be fairer to all.  Those who have money and spend it will pay taxes, whether the money is acquired legally or illegally.  Drug dealers would be paying their shares, etc.

But it should be a replacement of, not in addition to, the income tax.

[Brad]

I am a fan of the fair tax.  www.fairtax.org But not a sales tax in addition to what we have now.

[..]

If this national sales tax goes forward IT WILL NOT replace any other tax. Why would the Feds do that. Completely illogical. No other country that has adopted a V.A.T. tax structure has ever cut another form of tax to compensate.

In England you pay an extra 17% on cars, all home appliances, restaurant meals, gas, etc etc etc.

I don't think a flat tax will ever work because it would be letting go of to much Federal power base.

V.A.T. in England is 17% and the V.A.T. Inspector is a person to be feared. His staff ahve the right to kick inyour door and take any document they see fit if there's a suspicion of V.A.T. fraud.

http://www.ukincorp.co.uk/s-1E-vat-value-added-tax-registration.html

You also have to consider the amountof extra Federal cost to apply a V.A.T. system. More Federal workers sucking at the teat of the consumer.

[PAVALKER]

I've always thought that replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would be fairer to all.  Those who have money and spend it will pay taxes, whether the money is acquired legally or illegally.  Drug dealers would be paying their shares, etc.

But it should be a replacement of, not in addition to, the income tax.

   Agree.  Even all those displaced non US citizen types would be paying their fair share as well.  But unfortunately I think any more taxes are just more taxes and not replacement for the current tax system.

[stormrider]

Thanks Paul.
The Tea Party folkes here several weeks back were advacating more taxes. I thought the original Tea Party was held in protest to unfair taxes. I guess some believe we need all these taxes. Join the SNC and we'll show you how it should be done.

The Fair Tas is nothing more but more tax. Let's cut the size of government, say to 10% of what it is now. Read a book once upon a time that listed many of the different government agencies. You'd be suprised. We wouldn't even notice they were gone. And the bailouts, everyone of them is a theft of personal wealth from you. So go ahead and ask for more tax, they'll be glad to take that too.

www.devvy.com has some good information on the Fair Tax as well as how she beat the IRS.

Good thoughts to all, varoooommmmm. Twist the throttle baby.

[Strong Eagle]

Let's cut the size of government, say to 10% of what it is now. Read a book once upon a time that listed many of the different government agencies. You'd be suprised. We wouldn't even notice they were gone.

Man... what a great idea... let's just chop that sucka back.  There might be some repercussions but what the heck... let's see what we can do with your suggestion.

Federal expenditures for 2008 were 2.98 trillion dollars.  So, cutting the budget to 10% of what it is now means the new budget would be 298 billion dollars... still a lot of money, but only one tenth of the actual 2008 expenditures.

Let's see where we'd have to cut some fat.

Hmmm... Social security, medicare, and medicaid account for 1.2 trillion dollars, 40 percent of the 2008 budget.  Since we've got to get down to $298 billion we better chop a bunch here.  Whoops!  You think anyone will notice this?  Like all the Americans who have been paying into SS for 40 years?  Should be a piece of cake, yes?  I mean, you wouldn't mind taking just one tenth of your currently entitled benefits, would you?  That's great... you can start the move then to reduced social security and medicaid benefits.  Well... someone might notice this.

OK... what else?  Ahhh... defense budget... it came in at 792 billion dollars without the Iraq "off budget" spending.  This is 27 percent of the total budget and it does not include military related spending such as weapons research, veterans affairs ($34 billion), Iraq, or Dept of Energy expenditures.  When you stick those in, the budget pushes 1 trillion dollars for defense related spending... or 34 percent of total spending.

But, what the hell... let's chop it back to 10 percent.  The current military strength of the US would have to drop from 1.452 million troops to... oh... let's throw out some weapons programs and keep 25 percent of the personnel... our new troop levels would be down to 363,000.  You think anyone would notice this?  Especially since we already don't have enough troops in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they can actually protect one another?  Nah... no one would notice, I don't think.  Well... someone might notice this.

Whoa!  Just those 2 items... social security and the defense budget account for 74 percent of the US 2008 budget.  No matter... we still have another 25 percent to play around with... maybe we can do some serious chopping with what's left.

OK... the interest payment on the national debt is 253 billion dollars for 2008, or almost 9 percent of the budget.  Listen, I have to tell you... if the US stops making interest payments on the money it owes all hell will break loose... and the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1930 look like a cake walk.  So, if the new budget is to be 298 billion.. and we've got to pay our interest debts, that only leaves 45 billion for everything else... social security, defense, Congress, parks, customs, immigration, border patrols, and such... it's gonna be tough.

So let's recap:

Social security, medicare, and medicaid eat up 40 percent of the budget (with much higher percentages to come because of the drug law passed by Bush).

Defense consumes 34 percent of the budget.  Interest on the debt consumes 9 percent of the budget.  That adds up to 83 percent of the total 2008 budget.

Leaving 17 percent for EVERYTHING else.  You could cut out Congress, the Presidency, the Federal Courts, the SEC, FDIC, parks, highways, welfare (under 1 percent of the total budget even though so many complain about it), foreign aid (another 1 percent), the EPA, student loans, health care, the Corp of Engineers, department of Homeland security, the IRS, Dept of Energy, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, CIA, NASA, ... EVERYTHING else that the government does, and you would still be left with a budget of 83 percent with just the 3 line items above.

Gee... now that I've written this, your idea looks to be full of $hit!  Face it... here are the realities.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reducing the defense budget because 46 of the 50 states have contractors and workers.  You'd be pissed to lose your job at Lockheed or Stewart/Stevenson because your Congress critter voted to reduce the defense budget.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reigning in social security, medicaid, medicare... it's your ENTITLEMENT, aint it, bro... you've been contributing for a long time.

And if we don't pay the interest on our debt the world economy collapses completely... true crap.

So... tell me again... where exactly were you planning on cutting that "We wouldn't even notice they were gone".

[DeathWishBikerDude]

51% of Americans voted for change.
 
And thats all you'll have left at the end of the work week.
 

[Lyn-Del]

More correctly, it would be a percentage of Americans that voted, not of Americans.

[Chrisj CMA]

Let's cut the size of government, say to 10% of what it is now. Read a book once upon a time that listed many of the different government agencies. You'd be suprised. We wouldn't even notice they were gone.

Man... what a great idea... let's just chop that sucka back.  There might be some repercussions but what the heck... let's see what we can do with your suggestion.

Federal expenditures for 2008 were 2.98 trillion dollars.  So, cutting the budget to 10% of what it is now means the new budget would be 298 billion dollars... still a lot of money, but only one tenth of the actual 2008 expenditures.

Let's see where we'd have to cut some fat.

Hmmm... Social security, medicare, and medicaid account for 1.2 trillion dollars, 40 percent of the 2008 budget.  Since we've got to get down to $298 billion we better chop a bunch here.  Whoops!  You think anyone will notice this?  Like all the Americans who have been paying into SS for 40 years?  Should be a piece of cake, yes?  I mean, you wouldn't mind taking just one tenth of your currently entitled benefits, would you?  That's great... you can start the move then to reduced social security and medicaid benefits.  Well... someone might notice this.

OK... what else?  Ahhh... defense budget... it came in at 792 billion dollars without the Iraq "off budget" spending.  This is 27 percent of the total budget and it does not include military related spending such as weapons research, veterans affairs ($34 billion), Iraq, or Dept of Energy expenditures.  When you stick those in, the budget pushes 1 trillion dollars for defense related spending... or 34 percent of total spending.

But, what the hell... let's chop it back to 10 percent.  The current military strength of the US would have to drop from 1.452 million troops to... oh... let's throw out some weapons programs and keep 25 percent of the personnel... our new troop levels would be down to 363,000.  You think anyone would notice this?  Especially since we already don't have enough troops in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they can actually protect one another?  Nah... no one would notice, I don't think.  Well... someone might notice this.

Whoa!  Just those 2 items... social security and the defense budget account for 74 percent of the US 2008 budget.  No matter... we still have another 25 percent to play around with... maybe we can do some serious chopping with what's left.

OK... the interest payment on the national debt is 253 billion dollars for 2008, or almost 9 percent of the budget.  Listen, I have to tell you... if the US stops making interest payments on the money it owes all hell will break loose... and the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1930 look like a cake walk.  So, if the new budget is to be 298 billion.. and we've got to pay our interest debts, that only leaves 45 billion for everything else... social security, defense, Congress, parks, customs, immigration, border patrols, and such... it's gonna be tough.

So let's recap:

Social security, medicare, and medicaid eat up 40 percent of the budget (with much higher percentages to come because of the drug law passed by Bush).

Defense consumes 34 percent of the budget.  Interest on the debt consumes 9 percent of the budget.  That adds up to 83 percent of the total 2008 budget.

Leaving 17 percent for EVERYTHING else.  You could cut out Congress, the Presidency, the Federal Courts, the SEC, FDIC, parks, highways, welfare (under 1 percent of the total budget even though so many complain about it), foreign aid (another 1 percent), the EPA, student loans, health care, the Corp of Engineers, department of Homeland security, the IRS, Dept of Energy, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, CIA, NASA, ... EVERYTHING else that the government does, and you would still be left with a budget of 83 percent with just the 3 line items above.

Gee... now that I've written this, your idea looks to be full of $hit!  Face it... here are the realities.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reducing the defense budget because 46 of the 50 states have contractors and workers.  You'd be pissed to lose your job at Lockheed or Stewart/Stevenson because your Congress critter voted to reduce the defense budget.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reigning in social security, medicaid, medicare... it's your ENTITLEMENT, aint it, bro... you've been contributing for a long time.

And if we don't pay the interest on our debt the world economy collapses completely... true crap.

So... tell me again... where exactly were you planning on cutting that "We wouldn't even notice they were gone".

Mr Eagle
Just because "president" Obama surprised all you that voted for him by over the top expansion of government, and spending to the point of disaster........you must all either be in serious denial or serious embarassement....

Government is just too big, too powerful and too irresponsible.

You wanna know what should be cut........ok:

The IRS.......go to fair tax, no returns

get rid of Czars

Get the government out of the housing market, banking and car industry

Leave health care alone

Let the free market invent green energy...NOT the Government

Cut some cush benefits and entitlements for senetors, congressmen and the rest of them

punish those caught in corruption.....ACORN, Barny Frank, that "Blasonovabitch" dude and all the Chicago type strong arm tactics that so many of them is into up to and including our "president"

In other words give the power back to the people, and make the government the servants they were always supposed to be.

Mr Eagle.......I  (like so many others) fought for your right to say whatever it is you want.....and by all means continue to do so.....maybe if more like you spew venomous, pro socialism comments more Americans will be empowered to stand up for the country we have always loved before its lost forever.

[MNBill]

Flat tax, same no matter how much you make with no deductions. Even if the goverment supports you, pay the flat tax. Working folks like us would pay less, rich and corps that get all the write offs and know how to use them would pay their fair share. Around 5-8% would be fair and would give the goverment more than enough money to run.

[qc-teky]

"In other words give the power back to the people, and make the government the servants they were always supposed to be."

"The power" will not be "given" back to the people - we are going to have to take it back - we gave it away in the first place.

[Chrisj CMA]

"In other words give the power back to the people, and make the government the servants they were always supposed to be."

"The power" will not be "given" back to the people - we are going to have to take it back - we gave it away in the first place.

I agree dude.......I was talking in the sense  "how should things be if we could just make it so"  There are not enough serious patriots left willing to "take it back" 

And, if we wait much longer there isint gonna be anything left to take back anyhow

[3fan4life]

The Tea Party folkes here several weeks back were advacating more taxes. I thought the original Tea Party was held in protest to unfair taxes. I guess some believe we need all these taxes. Join the SNC and we'll show you how it should be done.

The Fair Tax is nothing more but more tax. Let's cut the size of government, say to 10% of what it is now. Read a book once upon a time that listed many of the different government agencies. You'd be suprised. We wouldn't even notice they were gone. And the bailouts, everyone of them is a theft of personal wealth from you. So go ahead and ask for more tax, they'll be glad to take that too.

www.devvy.com has some good information on the Fair Tax as well as how she beat the IRS.

Good thoughts to all, varoooommmmm. Twist the throttle baby.

The "Tea Party" people are supporters of the Fair Tax.

Take the time to actually check it out:  www.fairtax.org


It is not an additional tax.... it's a new tax system.

One that makes perfect sense.

And because of that, one that will probably never happen.


It's biggest downfall is that it would become the "only" tax.

Which means that politicians would lose the ability to invent a new tax every time that they want more money.

They would have to learn to "live on a budget".

Imagine that, politicians would have to do what more than 90% of their constituents do.

Well, there is no way that could ever happen.

The Fair Tax is a great idea.

A Value Added Tax (VAT) in addition to all of the taxes that we already pay is a TERRIBLE idea.

Man... what a great idea... let's just chop that sucka back.  There might be some repercussions but what the heck... let's see what we can do with your suggestion.

Federal expenditures for 2008 were 2.98 trillion dollars.  So, cutting the budget to 10% of what it is now means the new budget would be 298 billion dollars... still a lot of money, but only one tenth of the actual 2008 expenditures.

Let's see where we'd have to cut some fat.

Hmmm... Social security, medicare, and medicaid account for 1.2 trillion dollars, 40 percent of the 2008 budget.  Since we've got to get down to $298 billion we better chop a bunch here.  Whoops!  You think anyone will notice this?  Like all the Americans who have been paying into SS for 40 years?  Should be a piece of cake, yes?  I mean, you wouldn't mind taking just one tenth of your currently entitled benefits, would you?  That's great... you can start the move then to reduced social security and medicaid benefits.  Well... someone might notice this.

OK... what else?  Ahhh... defense budget... it came in at 792 billion dollars without the Iraq "off budget" spending.  This is 27 percent of the total budget and it does not include military related spending such as weapons research, veterans affairs ($34 billion), Iraq, or Dept of Energy expenditures.  When you stick those in, the budget pushes 1 trillion dollars for defense related spending... or 34 percent of total spending.

But, what the hell... let's chop it back to 10 percent.  The current military strength of the US would have to drop from 1.452 million troops to... oh... let's throw out some weapons programs and keep 25 percent of the personnel... our new troop levels would be down to 363,000.  You think anyone would notice this?  Especially since we already don't have enough troops in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they can actually protect one another?  Nah... no one would notice, I don't think.  Well... someone might notice this.

Whoa!  Just those 2 items... social security and the defense budget account for 74 percent of the US 2008 budget.  No matter... we still have another 25 percent to play around with... maybe we can do some serious chopping with what's left.

OK... the interest payment on the national debt is 253 billion dollars for 2008, or almost 9 percent of the budget.  Listen, I have to tell you... if the US stops making interest payments on the money it owes all hell will break loose... and the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1930 look like a cake walk.  So, if the new budget is to be 298 billion.. and we've got to pay our interest debts, that only leaves 45 billion for everything else... social security, defense, Congress, parks, customs, immigration, border patrols, and such... it's gonna be tough.

So let's recap:

Social security, medicare, and medicaid eat up 40 percent of the budget (with much higher percentages to come because of the drug law passed by Bush).

Defense consumes 34 percent of the budget.  Interest on the debt consumes 9 percent of the budget.  That adds up to 83 percent of the total 2008 budget.

Leaving 17 percent for EVERYTHING else.  You could cut out Congress, the Presidency, the Federal Courts, the SEC, FDIC, parks, highways, welfare (under 1 percent of the total budget even though so many complain about it), foreign aid (another 1 percent), the EPA, student loans, health care, the Corp of Engineers, department of Homeland security, the IRS, Dept of Energy, Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, CIA, NASA, ... EVERYTHING else that the government does, and you would still be left with a budget of 83 percent with just the 3 line items above.

Gee... now that I've written this, your idea looks to be full of $hit!  Face it... here are the realities.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reducing the defense budget because 46 of the 50 states have contractors and workers.  You'd be pissed to lose your job at Lockheed or Stewart/Stevenson because your Congress critter voted to reduce the defense budget.

It is Congressional suicide to vote for reigning in social security, medicaid, medicare... it's your ENTITLEMENT, aint it, bro... you've been contributing for a long time.

And if we don't pay the interest on our debt the world economy collapses completely... true crap.

So... tell me again... where exactly were you planning on cutting that "We wouldn't even notice they were gone".

Quite the long rant..............


So let me get this straight, are you suggesting that there is no waste in Federal Government Spending?

Or

Are you saying that we should just blindly trust the government to spend our money?


WOW!!!.......


I don't even know where to begin to respond to that.....

[Strong Eagle]

Mr Eagle.......I  (like so many others) fought for your right to say whatever it is you want.....and by all means continue to do so.....maybe if more like you spew venomous, pro socialism comments more Americans will be empowered to stand up for the country we have always loved before its lost forever.

Are you out of your mind?  I posted a REAL view of the US budget for 2008, and the best you can do is say I "spew venomous, pro socialism comments"?  You are out of your mind.  The crap you spoke of is chicken feed, chump change, 2 or 3 percent at best.  You deny reality.  You deny facts as you live in your fantasy worldview... just throw in a 'fair tax'... cut a few 'cush' benefits and all will be well?  Ooooo!  And ACORN!  Holy moly... wiping out ACORN will make us whole again!  Hallelujah!  Hello?  Do you read?  Listen, I gave up believing in fairy tales when I was about 10... you seem to have little understanding of the composition of the US budget or what can be done about it... too much Hannity and Limbaugh I suspect... shallow thinking... and you've bought in hook, line, and sinker.

Yeh... there is waste... I think that the defense budget ought to be cut by 50 percent, at least... but it aint gonna happen.  And you... as a good "Christian"... quotes intended exactly as you use them... surely you would give up something of your social security as a "patriot" in this country to make it fiscally whole again?  You talk about your "love" for this country but I say it is bullshit... because if it costs you to make this country whole you run the other way... talk about a squawking chicken... you're one of the anti tax guys, even if it brings this country to its knees... you subscribe to ideology, not reality.

And don't patronize me with your bullshit about fighting for me.  I appreciate and and indebted to all the service men and women who have served this country... what I don't need is some sanctimonious "Christian" (hey - there are those quotes again... just like around "president") trying to use this as some sort gold star when it comes to expressing an opinion.  I know many current and retired service men and women... and none of them are sanctimonious like you... nor as unrealistic in their world views as you are.  As the Ozzies like to say, "F&CK OFF MATE!"

And the fact is that until you are willing to accept reality as it is, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  You are belligerent with nothing to offer to make things better.  Call all the names you want... fact is... this country is on the right track to recovery.

[John Schmidt]

But....although I'm not enamored with the president's actions of recent months, I'll continue to watch and see which way things are moving. Until then, I'll withhold comment....thereby giving the man at least a fighting chance to prove he's on the right track. I know something is happening, I can see it in my investment fund...small as it may be(smaller now than a year ago). It has risen over 50% since Jan. 1 of this year, which allows me to do a few extra things not otherwise possible. Since my retirement resources are totally government funded...both state and federal, I don't worry too much about whether it will be there for me.....at least not yet. As for my personal life, I'd like to see the feds stay out of it in many ways, but I also know that's not going to happen. I do feel the career politicians have too many ties with corporate America to make decisions beneficial to the general populace. Being a retired government auditor, I've seen the inside workings of large corporations and it boils down to one major insight; the public is getting screwed. To name only a couple areas, there is no fiscal basis for the prices we pay for the drugs sold in the U.S., and there is no fiscal basis for the prices we pay for fuel. Again, these are but two of many areas that are allowed to do "business as usual" unimpeded and generally operate as such with impunity. As for unnecessary expenditures, granted, cutting some of the programs mentioned would be a drop in the bucket. A rather large "drop" in that bucket, to the tune of well over $300 billion annually, could be seen by doing away with the cost to the taxpayer put upon us by the millions of illegals.

I think I was irked more by Obama's recent European trip....the apologies, the general tone of his speeches, and bowing to the Saudi king. In my view, and it's just that....my view, the majority of it was uncalled for. He certainly didn't speak for me, and I doubt the majority of Americans based on what I've read and heard in numerous interviews since.

If things turn around, or give the notion that they are, then he will probably be a second term president. If things appear to stagnate over the next three years after an early sprint out of the blocks, he's gone...as any man should be.

[Strong Eagle]

John... no one is perfect... and I disagree with some of your comments... and you are a well considered man... and it is midnight... and I get to take a con call at 5 AM from an American group that apparently doesn't understand time zones and a 13 hour difference between here and CDT.

And I will be back... it looks like a good debate.

[humshark]

W O E ! hmmm   AHH!  Mr. ChrisJ I think you struck a chord in Strong Eagle.  Are you ready to throw food yet Mr Eagle?

I do take offense at some of your quotes here.  Let's see...

Yeh... there is waste... I think that the defense budget ought to be cut by 50 percent, at least... but it aint gonna happen.  And you... as a good "Christian"... quotes intended exactly as you use them... surely you would give up something of your social security as a "patriot" in this country to make it fiscally whole again?

---and---

And don't patronize me with your bullshit about fighting for me.  I appreciate and and indebted to all the service men and women who have served this country... what I don't need is some sanctimonious "Christian" (hey - there are those quotes again... just like around "president") trying to use this as some sort gold star when it comes to expressing an opinion.

You are of course entitled to your view.  I am curious though as to why you rallied against "christians" in your post.  Is it because of ChrisJ' picture?  I do not remember him mentioning his faith or any "come to Jesus" revelation, yet you attacked "Christian".  You do have a problem, a problem that is so ingrained in you that you can not see it, to understand or believe it.  There are MANY, MANY people that share ChrisJ views.  I suppose since they do not wear "Christian" attire they are spared your retaliation. 

Chris and those who believe like him are not the problem at large.  They are a problem if you believe in the "pipe dream" we are headed into.  Have you EVER asked yourself why the CORRECT direction will encompass more complication and require 4x more money than a country has?  In almost every discipline there is a level at which complication results in dimishing returns. 
Do you feel our Govt is lean, strong and effiecient? ( even in 1 area ) - or -
Maybe we are not, and the solution that many would like to see is a mathematically viable, SIMPLE solution that returns more power back to the people that make up this country. ( flat tax - fair tax )  While this is but one portion of a large and complicated system, it would quickly highlight where further changes would come as branches and agencies struggle to reconnect their money pipeline. 

I too chose to serve in the armed services.  I learned a lot.  I learned that when we stick to the KISS method, things get done quickly and efficiently.  There is NO service, branch or system that can not be changed and made better while reducing complication, dependencies and costs*.  Our Government IS TO BIG in MY opinion.  The basic needs of all Americans has not changed, only the opinion of what is needed. 

I am not a simpleton in that "we just have to".  I know that even to simplify, it will be complicated.  BUT - the complication leads to an end that is stronger, faster, wealthier, and efficient in comparison to current standards.  I do not choose, because it is too complicated, to throw more money that doesn't exist at the trouble.

Your opinion tells me that you are happy with Govt controlling just about every aspect of our lives.  The really scary part is what we will do when we have to sort out spending twice as much as we have? - - - Isn't that kind of what got us into a lot of trouble already?  Funny how there seems to be a lot of "speak" about spending and saving more wisely at the personal and family level, but our own govt doesn't agree and sets an example that is in direct opposition to that message.

Remember folks, ( a quick recap )  I object to the attacks of ChrisJ by Strong Eagle and the rest is OPINION!  I will educate, vote and work to support my opinions on government even as they change with me through life!

[Chrisj CMA]

W O E ! hmmm   AHH!  Mr. ChrisJ I think you struck a chord in Strong Eagle.  Are you ready to throw food yet Mr Eagle?

Thanks for the support Shark.....but old walking eagle doesnt know me well enough to hurt me.  I suppose as the Koolaid wears off "they" go through a withdrawl.  It will take some time before the halo they see around Obamas head wears off and we can talk to them civil again.  Im a patient guy

[DeathWishBikerDude]

Cut military spending?
 With all the other countries building up their military?
Lets just use up the nukes we have and get it over with.
I'm all for a mad max society where the strong survive and the weak can beg for Change.
 

[stormrider]

Quite the contrary. If we were about peace instead of war and collectivism we wouldn't need a big military. Imperialism is very alive whether we want to admit it or not. And Strong Eagle, you know what I've read about the real bird is they are great scavengers.

The real problem is uncontrolled greed from every segment of our society; from government leaders, to the bankers that control our "money" which is fiat money, (money made out of thin air), to corporate leaders, to religious leaders, local to national employers, greed controls a lot of what happens in our society. Strong Eagle, I suppose you like big government, I for one fear the idea and so did our founding fathers and for good reason. I suppose you like being told what you can and can't do. No need to argue the point, you stand well entrenched on one side of the fence, I on the other. My side, will, when all is said and done, walk in freedom, your's in capitivity.

And as for cutting the Fed, that would be the first place to start. The gold they hold in reserve is theirs, taken from the American people by one man, FDR, in 1913. But that doesn't matter. We have fiat money, something from nothing, abra kadabra, lookie here, we just created another trillion in debt for your grandchildren. The last stat I saw was $35,000 per man, woman and child. Go big government. Strong Eagle is all for it. Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you, and all the others that love big government, you take the services, the corruption, the lies and deciet, the nationalized companies, such as AMtrak, and soon to be Government Motors, along with the debt and let me have my horse and wagon and see who ends up on top. I guess you can plow with a tank, if you  have the fuel.

You must not be a farmer and see what the government has been doing to destroy the small family farmer. You must not realize that most of our manufacturing has gone overseas, leaving us with little to no way to provide for ourselves. But that's okay, the government is going to take care of us, don't worry.

That coolaid must be good, and addictive. I've got a brother that must be sharing with you.

And a word to the wise, as Hilary once said, "you haven't seen nothing yet."