
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

#1
Posted 27 September 2011 - 11:42 PM


#2
Posted 28 September 2011 - 12:02 AM

#3
Posted 28 September 2011 - 12:05 AM

It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029. There's also been a lot of talk about abolishing the DoE lately.Fun fact: Social security has never once contributed to the deficit. It usually runs a surplus.
Second fun fact: If we ended all health care subsidies and enacted negotiable prices and then extended medicare to everyone, we could balance the budget.
Third fun fact: You're an idiot for thinking that the Department of Education will be replaced by online schools.
#4
Posted 28 September 2011 - 12:28 AM

#5
Posted 28 September 2011 - 12:55 AM

Mars.If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?
#6
Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:22 AM

And social security does not contribute to the deficit since there's enough money in it until the 2020's or something like that.

#7
Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:27 AM

What?
Mars.
If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?
#8
Posted 28 September 2011 - 03:33 AM

What?
Mars.
If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?
He's saying that it would be impossible to go to Mars without the help of NASA.
#9
Posted 28 September 2011 - 05:48 AM


#10
Posted 28 September 2011 - 10:20 AM

A country can't function without some form of government. That said, it can't be an intrusive one.So the government is needed after all
#11
Posted 28 September 2011 - 10:41 AM

Where is a company like SpaceX going to find over a trillion dollars?
What?
Mars.
If you are so liberal with your predictions, why are there massive funding in NASA, surely private companies like Space X should be sufficient?
He's saying that it would be impossible to go to Mars without the help of NASA.
That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.Social Security is easy to fix. Simply take the cap off and people earning above $106,800 /year will have to pay into the program in perpetuity no matter how much money they make. And second, this who earn 1 million dollars a year or more; make them pay a little bit more.
And social security does not contribute to the deficit since there's enough money in it until the 2020's or something like that.
#12
Posted 28 September 2011 - 04:21 PM

#13
Posted 28 September 2011 - 05:43 PM

That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.
The wealth has been redistributed from the middle class and the working poor to the upper-middle class and the rich, namely those making million a year or more. You see that red line below? That's called stealing from the poor and middle class and redistributing it to the rich. That's right wing fraudulent stealing and it has to stop. Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts because unemployment insurance was being held hostage by the Republicans in Congress.

#14
Posted 28 September 2011 - 10:55 PM

You do realize that an increase in income for one group is not an increase in taxes for another? In order to see who actually has a tax burden, we need to look at income relative to taxes:
That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. It is predicted that Social Security will have its first deficit in 2017, and this is set in 2029.
The wealth has been redistributed from the middle class and the working poor to the upper-middle class and the rich, namely those making million a year or more. You see that red line below? That's called stealing from the poor and middle class and redistributing it to the rich. That's right wing fraudulent stealing and it has to stop. Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts because unemployment insurance was being held hostage by the Republicans in Congress.

#15
Posted 29 September 2011 - 12:48 AM

OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...
Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.
Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.

I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one
#16
Posted 29 September 2011 - 01:28 AM

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.
OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...
Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.
Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.
#17
Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:22 AM

#18
Posted 29 September 2011 - 03:25 AM

It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.
OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...
Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.
Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.
Did you see the graph I posted? It has to do with AFTER TAX INCOME, not before. We're talking about money that goes to Uncle Sam based on a certain tax bracket, not the aggregate of a tax group representing a summation of the whole of the tax payers. And your graph doesn't separate corporate income taxes from personal. LoL whata load of crap that is. You think people around here have never studied accounting before!? And since when do 13 yr old's study financial accounting? I can see the older right-wing crew over your shoulder.

Here's the FACTS:

#19
Posted 29 September 2011 - 04:07 AM

What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate?
Ronald Reagan is evil, never speak of him again.
#20
Posted 29 September 2011 - 10:43 AM

After-tax income growth doesn't really tell me anything about the tax rate nor does it tell me anything about redistribution of wealth. Just income growth. It just tells me people are making more money.
It doesn't say that people pay 66% of their income in taxes. It says the top 25% of all income earners make up 66% of all income but pay 85% of all taxes. Isn't that unfair? What happened when Reagan slashed the tax rate? We got out of the stagflation and into a mini-boom.
OK... I'm calling shenanigans on this graph...
Who is paying 66% of their income in taxes? The highest tax bracket in America pays just 35%, and even that is marginal, so it isn't even 35%.
Historically, that highest tax bracket has been far higher... from FDR through to Reagan, the highest tax bracket paid at least 70% of their income in taxes. Let's see... what happened when Reagan slashed that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans? Oh yeah, our debt rose. By a lot.
Did you see the graph I posted? It has to do with AFTER TAX INCOME, not before. We're talking about money that goes to Uncle Sam based on a certain tax bracket, not the aggregate of a tax group representing a summation of the whole of the tax payers. And your graph doesn't separate corporate income taxes from personal. LoL whata load of crap that is. You think people around here have never studied accounting before!? And since when do 13 yr old's study financial accounting? I can see the older right-wing crew over your shoulder.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: USA, Budget, The future, Future, NASA
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users