Trickle-down is a scam, extending the Bush tax cut is wrong:

[Mr. dB]

It's already been proven by members of the Left and the Right, that a 10% flat tax would nearly triple the federal income tax revenue taken in. It would increase the amount paid by the wealthiest (NOT Obama's idea of "wealthiest" who include McDonalds' managers in some states, but those with 7-figure incomes). It would reduce the amount paid by the upper-middle income people who run small and medium businesses. It would put all the accountants out of work, and it would reduce the need for the IRS work force by about 90%, so that's probably the true reason that flat tax isn't on the table.

Charles

I'd like to see a source for these numbers.

The last estimate I saw was in the mid-1990s, at the rate of Gov't spending in place at that time it would have taken a 25% flat tax to achieve revenue parity. Today it would be worse.

I think you are fucking hallucinating if you think that a 10% flat tax would result in revenue parity, much less an increase.

 

[javaguru]

I'd like to see a source for these numbers.

The last estimate I saw was in the mid-1990s, at the rate of Gov't spending in place at that time it would have taken a 25% flat tax to achieve revenue parity. Today it would be worse.

I think you are fucking hallucinating if you think that a 10% flat tax would result in revenue parity, much less an increase.

The "fair tax", one proposal that gives a rebate every year equal to estimated basic living expenses needs to be at 23% to generate the amount of revenue taken under the current tax system.

 

[digimon7068]

Perhaps it would be wise to pull out of the ME while the entitlements are trimmed down?

There's a game I saw around here that talked about that premise.

we can't...and we won't...fiscally-speaking it's obviously the right thing to do, but we have created a responsibility for ourselves in the middle east, and now we have to live with it...we walk away? God help us all...there's a lot of extremists in that part of the world and right now they're busy dealing with us over there...we leave now? we'll be dealing with them, over here...it really is that simple. and in that scenario, money (or lack-there-of) won't matter.

 

[EnderJE]

we can't...and we won't...fiscally-speaking it's obviously the right thing to do, but we have created a responsibility for ourselves in the middle east, and now we have to live with it...we walk away? God help us all...there's a lot of extremists in that part of the world and right now they're busy dealing with us over there...we leave now? we'll be dealing with them, over here...it really is that simple. and in that scenario, money (or lack-there-of) won't matter.

Ever hear of the declare success and move on? I think that moving out of that region would be feasible without too much attacking over here.

The main reason for this theory is because I surmise that new bloodshed (ie accidental killings and what not by US soldiers) help fuel the flames over there. If you stop that, then it's them vs them.

 

[digimon7068]

Ever hear of the declare success and move on? I think that moving out of that region would be feasible without too much attacking over here.

The main reason for this theory is because I surmise that new bloodshed (ie accidental killings and what not by US soldiers) help fuel the flames over there. If you stop that, then it's them vs them.

and therein lies the diplomatic can-o-worms...it will be vicious genocide that will make darfur look like a nice vacation spot...and we'll take all of the blame from the finger-wagging world...it's ok and intelligent to cut your losses and move on with your life's work when your business is failing or your sitting at a craps table in vegas...but to walk away from a situation where we have upset the balance of power in a whole region and we know that we are the only thing that is keeping it from turning into a decades long bloodbath? i guess i just don't see it happening like that. it's not that i disagree with you...i just don't see us going cold turkey on the situation...it sucks, but i kinda have a feeling we're gonna be living there for a while.

 

[EnderJE]

and therein lies the diplomatic can-o-worms...it will be vicious genocide that will make darfur look like a nice vacation spot...and we'll take all of the blame from the finger-wagging world...it's ok and intelligent to cut your losses and move on with your life's work when your business is failing or your sitting at a craps table in vegas...but to walk away from a situation where we have upset the balance of power in a whole region and we know that we are the only thing that is keeping it from turning into a decades long bloodbath? i guess i just don't see it happening like that. it's not that i disagree with you...i just don't see us going cold turkey on the situation...it sucks, but i kinda have a feeling we're gonna be living there for a while.

First, I totally agree and don't see the soldiers leaving the area anytime soon regardless of what anyone says on here.

Second, I think that people will die either way if soldiers stay or leave. I think that the US will be blamed either way for those people dying if the soldiers stay or leave.

However, leaving would prevent incurring new debt and allow those soldiers to live (ie go home and see their families). Ideally, the leaving would also allow the region to work itself out (unlikely but a hope).

I totally agree that it's a calculated risk.

 

[Mr. dB]

...but to walk away from a situation where we have upset the balance of power in a whole region and we know that we are the only thing that is keeping it from turning into a decades long bloodbath?

That's exactly what we should do. If the situation deteriorates drastically after we're gone, let the rest of the UN and international community deal with it, the ones who weren't on board when we first went over there.

 

[Mr. dB]

Besides, the Iraqis have not been exporting terrorism, we are not engaging the people over there who we would be engaging over here if we weren't over there. Only in the early days of Afghanistan were we engaging Al Qaeda directly.

 

[mrplunkey]

That's exactly what we should do. If the situation deteriorates drastically after we're gone, let the rest of the UN and international community deal with it, the ones who weren't on board when we first went over there.

It's hard to argue with that logic.

1) Nation-building costs us too many lives and money. I can see doing it on a case-by-case basis under extenuating circumstances, but there's a lot of evidence that suggests it's incredibly hard.

2) The people we're trying to protect (the Afghan government) are corrupt. We shouldn't die to keep corrupt regimes in power.

3) We haven't received adequate help from other countries (both NATO and middle-east neighbors).

4) We're broke. And when you're broke, everything has to get cut.

 

[digimon7068]

That's exactly what we should do. If the situation deteriorates drastically after we're gone, let the rest of the UN and international community deal with it, the ones who weren't on board when we first went over there.

hell...it's christmas time, let santa claus and the baby jesus deal with it...there's probably a better chance of that happening than the u.n./international community scenario

































sorry...i couldn't help myself