Draginol

Individuals do not provide things like national defense. They do not provide roads, internal security. They do not provide Social Security and Medicare. The services provided by the Federal Government allow people like you to be in business. The fiscal health of this country will impact you as well as the less affluent. We are on a course to Fiscal Disaster by the continuing deficit. We need to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt. The wealthy can afford to pay a little more to help meet that objective. To claim the wealthy can not afford to pay tax rates like those that were in effect in the 1990's is not true. Some may not WANT to pay the higher rates and that is what I call GREED! I hope you saw the comments of the Comptroller General last night on 60 Minutes.

“What public works have you done? Where is the evidence of your selflessness?”

I served as President of a non profit corporation that provided help to low income home owners repair their homes. We also owned and operated low income housing g for seniors; I served as Chairman of the parish school in my community. We support about 25 charities and sponsor a child via Christian Children’s Fund. I attempt to make people aware of some of the issues that will impact their life by writing books as well as the Blogs I write. I served as a member of the Republican Committee for several years. I have volunteered for several projects via my church. Could I do more? Yes we could all do more. However I know that many people need help and I believe that we have a responsibility as a society and Government to help those that do their part or that can not help themselves because of mental or physical issues. When I look at 500,000 families that lost their homes from
Katrina and see Bush wasting hundreds of Billions in Iraq while our people get no help, I know our priorities are WRONG! Look at the people Bush has appointed that are nothing but political hacks that waste our tax money and fail to perform their jobs.

Individuals do not provide things like national defense. They do not provide roads, internal security. They do not provide Social Security and Medicare. The services provided by the Federal Government allow people like you to be in business. The fiscal health of this country will impact you as well as the less affluent. We are on a course to Fiscal Disaster by the continuing deficit. We need to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt. The wealthy can afford to pay a little more to help meet that objective. To claim the wealthy can not afford to pay tax rates like those that were in effect in the 1990's is not true. Some may not WANT to pay the higher rates and that is what I call GREED! I hope you saw the comments of the Comptroller General last night on 60 Minutes.

The state does roads. The state provides internal security. And as I've mentioned, social security and medicare are things the federal government should NOT be providing IMO.

Social security, medicare, and medicaid do not help my business. They siphon off earned income that would be better spent paying people for doing something.

To claim the wealthy can not afford to pay tax rates like those that were in effect in the 1990's is not true. Some may not WANT to pay the higher rates and that is what I call GREED

Gene, this why people say you're an idiot.  I have probably said in this thread 20 times that the rich can "afford" to pay higher tax rates.  I have never claimed otherwise.  What I have said is that the rest of the population may not be able to afford the rich paying those taxes because the rich will simply have less money to invest.

I'm going to let you in on a real world figure: Last year I personally made over $3 million (the company made far more but that's another story).  But I only paid myself a tiny fraction of that as a salary, well less than 10% of it.  Needless to say, 35% of it went to the federal government in income taxes, 5.8% of that $3+ million went to Medicare. Social security is capped at around $100k so at least there's a limit to the looting there.

So what did I do with the other 90%+ of that income? I reinvested it in the company and resulted in hiring a bunch of new people, buying more space for those people, buying more equipment, etc. 

That's how jobs are created in the real world, Gene.  the Goverment took well over $1 million from me last year.  Do you really believe they'll use that money as well to make the lives of people better than I can? 

And do you really think that's "fair"? How much does the average American pay in taxes each year? Something like $10,000 federal I think for the average household.  Is the *federal* government really providing me with 100+ times the service in return?

The government is not just immoral in looting income to re-distribute to others, it is also harming society by taking that money from those who a proven track record of wise use of capital to give it to those who are certainly not nearly as good with that capital -- capital they didn't earn.

Your problem is you don't understand economics at all. You see it as a "greed" issue.  Like most small minded people, you envision "rich" people as people who take that money and buy gold plated rocket cars. But that's not how wealthy people get wealthy or stay wealthy. They build assets and by doing so, create jobs, opportunity, and innovation.

I don't WANT to pay higher taxes but it has nothing to do with greed. Greedy people are people who want things others people have made. Perhaps you should be looking at yourself, Gene. You're the one who wants to take my money that you didn't earn.  How can one possibly argue that someone wanting to keep their earnings is "greedy"? 

I don't WANT to pay higher taxes because I want that capital to invest in things that I know will continue to produce results. Results that create jobs, opportunity, and enable people to take care of themselves.

The state provides internal security. And as I've mentioned, social security and medicare are things the federal government should NOT be providing IMO.

Sorry Brad but that is partly incorrect. State does "not" provide security at "any" international border. IE: Canada or Mexico. Those are taken care of by "Federal" Border Patrol Agents. Which is the security that col is talking about. And if the "state" provides security they were doing a poor job on 9/11.

Social security, medicare, and medicaid do not help my business. They siphon off earned income that would be better spent paying people for doing something.

And I take great offense at your choice of words here sir. What about those of us that for one reason or another "can not do something"? What are "we" supposed to do? Just kiss off, right?

dragional

First Social Security does help the economy and thus your ability to conduct a business. Your desires and needs are unlike the vast majority. What you want is to forgo what the majority need and want so you can stack up your wealth a little higher. Our economic strength is in the best interest of ALL income levels. The fiscal policy we are following is undermining our economy and will negatively impact all of us. You should look at slightly higher taxes paid by the wealthy as an investment to keep the economic system strong.

People like you claim when the government taxes and spends that money it some how disappears. When the Fed pays the salary of a soldier or civil employee, assuming they are performing a service the public wants or needs, they spend that income and it returns to the economy and to people like you. When the fed buys another tank, the labor to build the tank and the profit of the company making the tank returns to the economy. However, 40% of the interest we are paying on the debt is going to foreign investors and does NOT return to our economy. Tell me that the wealthy did not prosper during the 1990’s when we had the higher tax rates. We need policies that look to the long term benefit of the country overall not that just to help the wealthy.

dragional


Here is a question for you that no Bushie has had the guts to answer.

In 2001 Bush justified his tax cuts by telling us we were overtaxing the American taxpayers and the proof of that was this $5.7 Trillion dollar Surplus over the next ten years. There was NO Surplus. NOT ONE DOLLAR! WHY are we continuing tax cuts to return a Surplus that does not exist?

Greenspan and O’Neil advised Bush to tie the tax cuts to the available Surplus. I doubt that either of them believed we had the $5.7 Trillion Dollar Surplus but as good Republicans they did not want to tell Bush he was full of BS! Bush cleverly did not accept their advice and got his tax cuts through Congress regardless of the fact there is no Surplus to return to anyone.

Still no answer to my question!

I'm pretty sure we were both referring to police.

You can't just state that social security "helps" the economy and leave it at that. How does it help the economy more than what the producers could do with the capital? 

Giving money to people who haven't earned it who simply turn around and purchase consumables is no better than the argument that taxes are good because the government employs tax collectors who need jobs.

You have no evidence to support your assertion that a 1% of GDP per year deficit is going to undermine the economy.

But you have very tangible evidence that reducing the amount of capital me and people like me have to invest will damage the economy because I am telling you it will cost jobs based on my personal experience. This site exists because of the tax cuts.

The majority doesn't "need" the government to steal what I make to hand to them. When obesity is a major problem for the poor in this country, I would say that material wealth is not something that is in short supply by any demographic.

Ultimately, I'm done here because you're hopeless. Anyone who thinks that tax money is an "investment" and that the "guvment" redistribution of wealth is a more effective way of strengthening the economy than how the actual proven producers of wealth doing the same is just too ignorant of basic economics to reason with.

I guess I can rest easy knowing that ultimately, and I mean this with no offense, people like you have no power. You rely on people like me to produce. You post your drivel not on a goverment provided site but one created by the private sector despite government confiscation.

Perhaps you should find a blog site started with funds taken in by a welfare recipient.

Dragional

"You can't just state that social security "helps" the economy and leave it at that. How does it help the economy more than what the producers could do with the capital?"

Good Question. Demand that results from spending is the driving economic force. Most economists state that at least 70% of economic activity is a direct result of spending and this creates demand. Lower income people spend all of their disposable income which creates demand. Supply caused by investment does produce growth but is not as effectively as demand and spending by consumers. Thus to trade dollars, that would reduce spending as cutting Social Security would do, for the LESS effective economic stimulus does not make economic sense. In addition, cutting Social Security so we could maintain or increase tax cuts to the wealthy to boost investment would create major social issues. Finally, for investment to produce increased economic activity there must be increased spending. If the new investment causes one company to increase sales while another company experiences a corresponding drop in sales is no solution. There must be MORE available dollars to be spent. If the dollars remain the same or drop from a cut or the elimination of Social Security, spending will be reduced and the economy will suffer!

Dragional

"You have no evidence to support your assertion that a 1% of GDP per year deficit is going to undermine the economy.

But you have very tangible evidence that reducing the amount of capital me and people like me have to invest will damage the economy because I am telling you it will cost jobs based on my personal experience. This site exists because of the tax cuts."

First, the Comptroller General has documented that the ADDED revenue from the growth produced by added investment is returning only $1 for every $2 dollars in tax cuts. We have the empirical data from the 1981 tax cuts that were to BALANCE the budget caused by economic growth from the Reagan tax Cuts. Problem was that the GDP Growth Reagan said would result from his tax cuts was 6%. We got only 3% GDP Growth and we went from a National debt of $930 Billion to $4 Trillion in the 8 years of Reagan. Bush did the very same thing in 2001 with the same results. We got GDP Growth but not enough to offset the loss in revenue from the tax cuts and to pay for higher spending. Before you tell me we need to cut spending please read my Blog today:


Every politician that says we must CUT SPENDING to solve the fiscal problems of the U.S. should be required to list their top 10 spending cuts with the amounts they would propose to cut.

I am very tired of listening to the meaningless statement that we hear from most GOP candidates and some Democrats that we are spending TOO MUCH. Fine then tell us just WHAT and HOW MUCH you propose to CUT to solve our fiscal problems!!!

Sorry Brad but that is partly incorrect. State does "not" provide security at "any" international border. IE: Canada or Mexico. Those are taken care of by "Federal" Border Patrol Agents. Which is the security that col is talking about. And if the "state" provides security they were doing a poor job on 9/11. I'm pretty sure we were both referring to police.

"You" may have been. But I'm "relatively" sure the col wasn't. He specifically said "national" defense. National defense usually doesn't include police. Since police do not defend the country as a whole. Now internal security is different. And "you" were correct about the other things that the state supplies.

Draginol Individuals do not provide things like national defense. They do not provide roads, internal security. They do not provide Social Security and Medicare. The services provided by the Federal Government allow people like you to be in business.

Although this statement is obviously wrong.

The services provided by the Federal Government allow people like you to be in business

Perhaps the col would care to explain just "what" services the Feds supply that "allow" people to run a business?

Drmiler

"Perhaps the col would care to explain just "what" services the Feds supply that "allow" people to run a business?:

Here are a few:

Security- national defense and homeland security
Interstate Commerce
Coast Guard and Border security
Treasury and banking
FBI, CIA
Interstate transportation
Airline security
Social Security
Medicare
FCC
Immigration
IRS

These are just a sample of the services that make our free society possible and enable business to operate.

Yes, and every one except social secureity and medicare are required by the consititution. The last two were temproary helps that were supposed to go private within ten years of them starting.

Security- national defense and homeland security Interstate Commerce Coast Guard and Border security Treasury and banking FBI, CIA Interstate transportation Airline security Social Security Medicare FCC Immigration IRS

NONE of these "services" are required for someone to run a business. Although they "do" make life easier.

The "only" one that comes close is banking. And just how did they run a business before banking came along? Ever heard the word "barter"?

And just what the h*ll does immagration have to do with "allowing" someone to run a business. Or for that matter the FBI/CIA? Coast Guard and Border security? Social Security? Medicare? Not a one of these "allow" someone to run a business. Best you rethink those comments of yours before you get torn to shreds on it.

And just an FYI for you old clueless one. The Feds DO NOT provide Interstate transportation! That is provided by shipping companies.