There are no adverse economic consequences for the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. There is income disparity between the rich and the poor of the USA. That's why they are rich or poor... without the rich, there would be no poor.

What's the problem with this disparity, though? Is it a problem that the rich get to eat delicacies that most of the poor think are disgusting anyway? Is it a problem that the rich can afford nice cars while the middle can still drive and the poor can take the subway? Everyone's still eating, getting where they need to go, and able to fall in love, get married, have kids, etc. So who cares if someone has more money? Why should the government take my rich boss's money and give it to me to feed my family, when he is already paying me a fair salary? That's where the argument really breaks down. You go from this phantom rich that isn't really pinpointed to the guy who is paying your salary already. If I want more money from him, I need to talk to him, not get the government to hand it to me.

Ah, but you see he doesn't actually work. His job isn't threatened in any way as he lives on tax dollars. Is it any surprise that he wants to see taxes increased? We do need to cut government spending so maybe we should start by eliminating government pensions and cutting off all payments. That would save a fortune.

only for the ranks of Col from the army....keep the pensions for everyone else...in fact, my time in the army, I never met a Col I cared for....Generals were all good to the soldiers, captains were too....but Cols, full bird or not....they never impressed me or any of the soldiers I knew while I served...

---MasonM

Does anyone, really, grasp it? I wonder sometimes.

jythier

It is the disparity between the haves and all others that is a problem. To have 10% own 90 % and the remaining 90% split the other 10% is the issue. With that sort of distribution, it is clear that we solve the budget deficit by taxing the 10% more and leave the taxes of the 90 % the same.

MythicalMino

Well you do not impress me!!!!!!!!

I love those that want to solve a 600 Billion per year budget deficit (Not counting the surplus from Social security) with spending cuts at a time when we need to increase the size of the military, hire 10,000 border agents, increase the intelligence agencies and Homeland Security. Yes there is 30 Billion in Pork but that is a drop in the bucket compared with the size of the deficit and the need to REPAY the $9 Trillion dollars in debt Reagan and Bush 43 have piled up.

wait a minute....how did Reagan get involved in this? I thought you have been spouting that Bush did this all by himself, and that Clinton took care of everything after Reagan....Col, you make no sense....

And, the funny thing about me impressing you or not....I never have tried to "impress" you....especially you being a Col in the military. Officers are a strange breed....they live off the backs of the enlisted. Especially Cols....Cols (at least any Col I ever came into contact with) reminded me of every 1Lt I ever came in contact with (except for one...he was the executive officer of my last unit I was in). They were either lording it over the lower enlisted (1st Lt over enlisted, trying to prove a point...and Cols over the all enlisted and lower rank officers) or kissing the asses of those ranked higher (1st Lt kissing the Captains' asses....or Cols kissing the asses of the General on base).

Col, a Col in the army always seemed like the "middle" rank, that was only trying to get to the next level. You are like that....but you want to tax those more successful than you to get there, instead of working for it.

A dead horse that gets beaten...is STILL dead!

MythicalMino

If you look at history you will see what Bush 43 did is a replication of what Reagan did. Cut taxes increased spending and created a budget deficit. Reagan with that supply side Voodoo economics added $3 Trillion to the national debt during his term and it took 19 years to finally balance the budget. The National debt went from $900 Billion in 1980 to $5.7 Trillion when GWB took over. Bush did the same thing-- Cut Taxes and increased spending and in one year turned a Balanced Budget into a major deficit. His fiscal policy has taken the national debt in 6 years from $5.7 Trillion to $9 Trillion and heading toward $10 Trillion by the end of his term!

About 5% of the officers reach the rank of COLONEL. I was also nominated for general but my lack of combat service in Vietnam was most likely the reason I was not given a Flag. Only about 3% of all officers are nominated for a Star. I was promoted to Colonel in 19 years had three commands and graduated from the Army war College. What have you achieved in the military?

I helped officers look good as far as their units NBC training goes...as a Private, while in Korea, I did the job of an NCO, running an NBC room for a field artillery support unit. I served my time with honor, and I wouldn't trade a moment of it. The point I am making, Mr. Col, is that most all of the Cols, more than ANY other rank, was a pain in the ass. Nothing, more than a pain in the ass, and nothing less than a pain in the ass. And you, Mr. Col, are continuing that experience.

The point I am making, Mr. Col, is that as a Col, you were "successful"....but how much of that success you spout off actually, truly came from the sweat and backs of the enlisted that were under you? ALL OF IT....Captains work, I have seen them work. Lts work, I have seen them bust their asses out in the field...I have seen them right there next to me digging their fox holes. Generals spend time walking and visiting with the troops (at least all the Generals I have served under). Every single Col I ever met, NEVER did. They were too busy barking orders and kissing ass. Hell, even Majors for the most part did good with the troops.

The thing about troops, Col, which is probably something that you will never understand (seeing that you had 3 commands and graduated from the Army War College and all that jazz), is that the more time that the officers spend with their troops, the higher the morale of the troops are going to be. An officer that gets in the dirt with those under his command and actually digs his fox hole, the soldiers are going to be willing to die for him. But those that want others to do the "dirty" work for them, those are the ones that are going to be accidentally friendly fired. And this goes to your own political BS....you want the rewards of others work...instead of working for it yourself. You can go on and on all you want about how much hard work you did...but as an officer....the only hard work you would HAVE to do is open your mouth and bark out orders. The same with your blogs...you bark, but you don't know how to bite.

Just for the record....I have come across a few cols during my stint in the military that were good men/women. But...as an experience on a whole, Col was a rank of officer I dreaded to have to deal with, where every other rank (even those pesky 1Lts) were very personable and much more easy-going....

And Col...I am in no way demeaning your time in the military. I respect anyone who serves (as a soldier myself)....officer or enlisted. But...you throw that around like it is supposed to mean something. And as an enlisted, officers really don't impress any enlisted too much. Perhaps other officers....but I know that most enlisted really don't care what rank you are, just be a good leader.

But, the point of this is, I thank you for your service (even though you brag about being a Col)...even though I can't stand your politics....

Why is it a problem? You state it's a problem but you never explain why it' s a problem.

 

I don't favor spending cuts. I favor slowing the rate in which we increase spending.  If we simply stopped increasing spending for a copule of years the deficit would by gone rather quickly.

Tax receipts by the government have nearly doubled since Bush came into office.

MythicalMino

Just which of the policies I have expressed are so offensive to you?

I have enough respect for our military that I would not send them (officers and enlisted alike) into a war that was not needed to protect our country and has not made us safer at home.

I believe we should conduct the fiscal affairs of this country in a responsible way which means we do not run up the debt and hand it off to our children.

I believe there should be some fairness. People who do their part should be able to live and the taxes should be predicated on your ability to pay.

For those through no fault of their own need help, we collectively should help them.

I believe health care is important and to have 47 million without health insurance is a major problem.

I believe the President and those under him should be enforcing g our laws-- tax laws, immigration and border security.

We need to be following an energy policy that moves away from the entanglements that we find our selves in because we must purchase so much oil from foreign countries.

I believe in FAIR trade policies that enable equal access to other countries markets as they have access to our markets.

Please tell me which of these concepts that I consider important you do not agree with for America!