Breaking up with Norquist

[DJW]

Originally Posted by compressor#v

Disclaimer: I don't know that SS money was spent on defense, or what it was spent on, only that it's been borrowed against and not paid back. May have been a poor example. If government can reduce even some of the waste, then come and ask for us to sacrifice.

The SS "lock-box" is a myth. SS money goes into the general treasury like every other tax, to be re-distributed according to the whims of congress. That means, yes, SS and every other tax is spent on battleships, bridges-to-nowhere, moonshots and Airforce 1 campaign stops.

So put it in context:

The entire US Gov budget is abt. 3.5 Trillion/year.

The entire US Gov tax base is abt 2 Trillion/year (that much used to borrowed from abroad but is not just printed by the fed - monetized)

The annual deficit is therefore 1.5 Trillion/Year

The entire Defense Budget is 0.8 Trillion/Year (800 billion)

Therfore if you delete the entire Defense budget you still have a deficit of abt 0.7 Trillion/Year (700 billion)

If you "tax the rich" as Obama suggest (and congress should let him) you may raise an additional 0.03 Trillion/Year (30 billion). That is assuming the "rich" aren't smart enough to keep the feds from collecting it all (they are).

ObamaCare alone will add at least another 0.1 Trillion/year (100 billion) to the deficit, so your .03 gain is actually a .07 loss.

In summary: You can completely end the entire Defense budget, every plane, every solider, every battleship, every base, every toilet seat...and still have to borrow .8 Trillion/year (800 Billion) just to break even. AND in the end your SS deduction was still spent by the general fund and you still have nothing in your "personal SS account" because it doesn't exist (except in congress' fairy tail imaginations).

[BOUTYM]

Originally Posted by DJW

The SS "lock-box" is a myth. SS money goes into the general treasury like every other tax, to be re-distributed according to the whims of congress. That means, yes, SS and every other tax is spent on battleships, bridges-to-nowhere, moonshots and Airforce 1 campaign stops.

So put it in context:

The entire US Gov budget is abt. 3.5 Trillion/year.

The entire US Gov tax base is abt 2 Trillion/year (that much used to borrowed from abroad but is not just printed by the fed - monetized)

The annual deficit is therefore 1.5 Trillion/Year

The entire Defense Budget is 0.8 Trillion/Year (800 billion)

Therfore if you delete the entire Defense budget you still have a deficit of abt 0.7 Trillion/Year (700 billion)

If you "tax the rich" as Obama suggest (and congress should let him) you may raise an additional 0.03 Trillion/Year (30 billion). That is assuming the "rich" aren't smart enough to keep the feds from collecting it all (they are).

ObamaCare alone will add at least another 0.1 Trillion/year (100 billion) to the deficit, so your .03 gain is actually a .07 loss.

In summary: You can completely end the entire Defense budget, every plane, every solider, every battleship, every base, every toilet seat...and still have to borrow .8 Trillion/year (800 Billion) just to break even. AND in the end your SS deduction was still spent by the general fund and you still have nothing in your "personal SS account" because it doesn't exist (except in congress' fairy tail imaginations).

I'll give you the stupid ass reply to these very points given by the overly leftist and clueless office worker I have these types of debates with.

"Well, we have to start someplace."

[boston62]

Originally Posted by James

Maybe...maybe not.

I guess you missed it when Joe said were out of there.

[RGRider]

Oh wow, look who all of a sudden think Norquist is a great guy.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Big-Government

A coalition of 125 celebrity musicians, including pop singer Katy Perry, have joined forces with anti-tax advocates including Grover Norquist and the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) to oppose an intellectual property "reform" bill that critics charge expands government to the detriment of the free market.

Opponents say the Internet Radio Fairness Act, being pushed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), would mandatorily lower the licensing fees paid by Internet radio giant Pandora, moving the royalties system further away from a free market and instead entrenching a system in which government sets compensation rates while picking winners and losers.

It has anti-tax and free market groups including Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), NTU, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the American Conservative Union and Citizens Against Government Waste crying foul on those grounds.

In his letter to members of Congress, ATR's Norquist asserts "the standard in IRFA moves in an even worse direction towards forced below-market rates."

Artists are concerned that if passed, the bill would amount to government artificially limiting the earnings that musicians - celebrity and not - are able to make from their trade in the marketplace.

That has Perry and others including rapper Ludacris, Britney Spears, Rihanna, Cee Lo Green, Sheryl Crow, Maroon 5, Pink Floyd and Rush speaking out via a letter published this month in Billboard magazine.

In that letter, the musicians assert that Pandora is "asking Congress once again to step in and gut the royalties that thousands of musicians rely upon." The signatories note that for over a decade, they have accepted a discounted royalty rate from Pandora because they are "big fans" of the service.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the proposed legislation this week, and proponents hope to advance it in the next Congress.

Funny, these A-hole entertainers think THEY should be immune from govt intervention and higher taxation while forcing it on us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2069274.html

There oughta be a 50% tax on entertainers, just because. I'm sick of these hypocritical fukkers.

[boston62]

Originally Posted by Mohead1

Make it a cross the board flat tax of 15-20% for EVERYONE and it will turn around....I am totally against getting it in the shorts cuz the guvment cant get their sh!t together.....

Didn't Romney pay 14, why would he want to pay 15 or 20?

[Uncle Salty]

Romney could pay 20% without breaking a sweat. A couple earning $70,000 a year, not so easy.

edit, but tax revenue will be of little benefit if we don't find a way to control our spending.

[Waffen]

Originally Posted by DJW

The SS "lock-box" is a myth. SS money goes into the general treasury like every other tax, to be re-distributed according to the whims of congress. That means, yes, SS and every other tax is spent on battleships, bridges-to-nowhere, moonshots and Airforce 1 campaign stops.

So put it in context:

The entire US Gov budget is abt. 3.5 Trillion/year.

The entire US Gov tax base is abt 2 Trillion/year (that much used to borrowed from abroad but is not just printed by the fed - monetized)

The annual deficit is therefore 1.5 Trillion/Year

The entire Defense Budget is 0.8 Trillion/Year (800 billion)

Therfore if you delete the entire Defense budget you still have a deficit of abt 0.7 Trillion/Year (700 billion)

If you "tax the rich" as Obama suggest (and congress should let him) you may raise an additional 0.03 Trillion/Year (30 billion). That is assuming the "rich" aren't smart enough to keep the feds from collecting it all (they are).

ObamaCare alone will add at least another 0.1 Trillion/year (100 billion) to the deficit, so your .03 gain is actually a .07 loss.

In summary: You can completely end the entire Defense budget, every plane, every solider, every battleship, every base, every toilet seat...and still have to borrow .8 Trillion/year (800 Billion) just to break even. AND in the end your SS deduction was still spent by the general fund and you still have nothing in your "personal SS account" because it doesn't exist (except in congress' fairy tail imaginations).

Anyone who advocates for the spending to continue is a treasonous, unAmerican SOB and should be jailed.

W

[baggerman11]

let's make the decision for them, come April 15th, no one file or pay any taxes. course, it would take them 6 months or so to figure out what was going on. if my checking account is empty, I can't keep writing checks. let's unite for a change and force them to have money in the bank before they spend it.

[Uncle Salty]

We had a chance to send them a message a few weeks ago. But we as a group put most of the crooks up for election back into office. I'll pass on not paying my taxes. There are better ways to create change.

[baggerman11]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

We had a chance to send them a message a few weeks ago. But we as a group put most of the crooks up for election back into office. I'll pass on not paying my taxes. There are better ways to create change.

yep, yep, yep, missed our chance. still wish we could fire them all on both sides of the table and start all over again. but most people wouldn't want to be involved.

[James]

Originally Posted by baggerman11

yep, yep, yep, missed our chance. still wish we could fire them all on both sides of the table and start all over again. but most people wouldn't want to be involved.

What exactly does this mean baggerman? How do you fire them all? What does it mean when you say most people wouldn't want to be involved? Do you include yourself in the "most people" category? Why not be a leader in this quest to "fire them all"? Because if you are suggesting what I think you and thousands of others are suggesting then I wonder why you don't act with anything more than your mouth.

[Scabbydoo]

My only comment on the whole "breaking the pledge" scenario is that I know I didn't and as far as I know, nobody ever voted for Grover Norquist. He holds no office yet holds our government hostage. It's time for this ego centric little troll to be sent packing. As for those that signed the pledge, why would you as one sworn to an oath of office abdicate that responsibility and turn it over to someone that no one elected to anything.

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by Scabbydoo

My only comment on the whole "breaking the pledge" scenario is that I know I didn't and as far as I know, nobody ever voted for Grover Norquist. He holds no office yet holds our government hostage. It's time for this ego centric little troll to be sent packing. As for those that signed the pledge, why would you as one sworn to an oath of office abdicate that responsibility and turn it over to someone that no one elected to anything.

Do you really think the self- proclaimed protectors of the Constitution, aka wingnuts, will understand your post?


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free

[DJW]

Originally Posted by Scabbydoo

My only comment on the whole "breaking the pledge" scenario is that I know I didn't and as far as I know, nobody ever voted for Grover Norquist. He holds no office yet holds our government hostage. It's time for this ego centric little troll to be sent packing. As for those that signed the pledge, why would you as one sworn to an oath of office abdicate that responsibility and turn it over to someone that no one elected to anything.

Scabby, with all due respect, that is ridiculous.

Does the NRA require the candidates it gives money to to "pledge' to protect gun rights?

Does Planned Parenthood require candidates it gives money to "pledge" to protect the right to murder your own children?

Does the Oil and Gas industry require candidates it gives money to to "pledge" not to increase lease fees on federal lands?

Of course they do. That's the whole point.

So, does the RNC require the candidates it gives money to to "pledge" not to raise taxes? Isn't that the #1 plank of the RNC for the past 40 years? Lower taxes?

So GN represents the RNC. That's his job. Michael Steele did the same thing 2 years ago. So there's nothing new under the sun besides a concerted effort on the part of the Media to find a goat to blame.

[Lefty]

What is ridiculous is not knowing the difference between requiring a signed pledge coupled with a threat to support another republican who will run against you in the next primary if you don't sign vs accepting contributions from organizations currying influence. Wake up, it's the signed pledge/oath to a private citizen by an elected official that's the problem. What the pledge concerns is irrelevant, it's the principle that's disgusting. At least you validated my previous post.


Sent from my iPhone using MO Free