What Happened to my Paycheck?

Democrats advocated higher taxes to pay for social programs until it was brought up we all have to pay them. So, they took it back and said just for the rich (more like $250,000 on up, which they had to compromise on). Truth is if we want these social safety nets and to reduce the deficit, we have to all payer higher taxes. I'm okay with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaintLouieWoman

Despite all the propaganda from the Obama folks, there's no way they can get substantial revenue from the 1%, who have an army of tax advisers to get around any of the fed snatches of their wealth. Wait til the feds come down harder on the middle and lower class, which they will have to do. The sad thing is there's more to grab from 99% of the people than 1%, who are already paying a lot unless you're a crony of Obama. Then they pay little or nothing.

I really wonder how long it will take for the realization to sink in, sort of the old buyer's remorse on a national scale.

---

Hopefully, by the midterm elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

Democrats advocated higher taxes to pay for social programs until it was brought up we all have to pay them. So, they took it back and said just for the rich (more like $250,000 on up, which they had to compromise on). Truth is if we want these social safety nets and to reduce the deficit, we have to all payer higher taxes. I'm okay with this.

---

I am, too, but for a different reason. We cannot afford the social hammock (it hasn't been a safety net for years), but the borrowing hides the cost, so people don't realize how out of control spending has become. Right now, we borrow about 40% of every dollar that we spend, so our taxes only really account for about 60% of the federal budget. If we cut back our spending to match revenues, the federal budget would be about $2.5 trillion, rather than the current $4 trillion. We'd still have a Department of Defense, a State Department, and a lot of other federal agencies, but we'd have to get rid of quite a lot of useless crap (the Departments of Energy and Education come to mind).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

Democrats advocated higher taxes to pay for social programs until it was brought up we all have to pay them. So, they took it back and said just for the rich (more like $250,000 on up, which they had to compromise on). Truth is if we want these social safety nets and to reduce the deficit, we have to all payer higher taxes. I'm okay with this.

---

No, we do not have to pay higher taxes. That's just one option on the table.

Problem is that lawmakers are too blind and incompetent to put in the effort of making sure every tax dollar collected is put its most effective use.

I'll bet that if we took the entire federal public assistance budget for a month, furloughed all the govt seatwarmers and paper pushers for that month, and divided the lump sum into checks for all current recipients of assistance, they'd get a year's worth of benefits in that check.

The Salvation Army manages to disburse ~90% of all the funds it collects as assistance and services. I'll bet the fed can't hit 50%.
THAT's where we should be looking to maintain and increase the effectiveness of the social safety net...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

Democrats advocated higher taxes to pay for social programs until it was brought up we all have to pay them. So, they took it back and said just for the rich (more like $250,000 on up, which they had to compromise on). Truth is if we want these social safety nets and to reduce the deficit, we have to all payer higher taxes. I'm okay with this.

---

Nothing stopping you or anyone else from paying more to the government than what they owe. I'm okay with that.

They raised SSI tax to 6.2%. Liberals voted for it, so they can own it. Schmucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madisonian

Nothing stopping you or anyone else from paying more to the government than what they owe. I'm okay with that.

---

You have to remember that when a Liberal says about paying more taxes. They never refer to themselves. They are referring to everyone but them, as a liberals is more apt to want hand outs from people who work for what they have than actually getting off their lazy ass and doing it for themselves. They don't call the Democrat Party the Welfare Party for nothing you know.. They support the lazy more than they support people who aren't lazy and like to do for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Not sure if serious.

It was "removed" from people struggling to make it. Give me a break that people making 55,000 a year are rich.

---

$20 a week. Big whoop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

$20 a week. Big whoop.

---

That is just for starter Nova, they will continue to tighten their grip until we are taxed like Europe, better learn the barter system, I hear the do a lot of it in Europe.

You aren't going to like this new world you have begged for all your liberal life.
it is too bad it is too late, the train left the station.

Rush mentioned this thread this morning. I was amazed it was allowed to stay up as long as it did. Apparently the author self-deleted.:friendly_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

$20 a week. Big whoop.

---

Thats what you libfreaks call..... a foot in the door. Just a little bit now and then more and more. What can 20 a week do for people who need that 20?
Oh I don't know, maybe 80 a month for the water bill.