I pay %37 of my paycheck to taxes...

[copestag]

2 things.

1) They only have authority on INTERSTATE commerce

2) The Federal government doesn't actually pass laws on anything and everything. They pass funding (say Highway construction funding) with strings (say Motorcycle helmet laws). IF you don't fulfill the strings (like passing motorcycle helmet laws) then you don't get the funding.

so very true..... they actually pass very few "laws" about something...... funding acts are the vast majority of what they do..... they figured it out long ago.... they can get around the constitution very easily because money talks

Example: national minimum drinking age....there is no federal law regarding drinking age.... a state can make the drinking age 5 if they want....your kindergarten kids could buy beer at the store..... however they would not receive a certain portion of funding (10% decrease of federal highway funds, which is a considerable $ amount) because of a funding act from 1984.... so they step in line and grab the money

 

[AndyLL]

Thats why the number of abuses in the name of the commerce clause which have been overturned require a calculator to count

Links please. There are 2-3 cases overturned because of the 10th.

They've already dipped into the red THIS year, and the Treasury doesn't have enough money to pay back those IOU's, so that money is gone.

We dipped into the red (for the 1st time) because of the recession. SS is funded until 2036-38.

BTW... Reagan had the biggest tax increase in history to fund SS into the future. He immediately dipped into those funds to pay for increased spending.

Your the first person on this thread to use the word "discretionary".

Uhh... that's because it's legally how the federal budget is allocated. SS, Medicare and interest on the debt are spending that has to happen under current law.

2) The Federal government doesn't actually pass laws on anything and everything. They pass funding (say Highway construction funding) with strings (say Motorcycle helmet laws). IF you don't fulfill the strings (like passing motorcycle helmet laws) then you don't get the funding.

Sucks doesn't it? If state don't like it they don't have to play.

But the funny thing is... the great champions of states rights... the red states... do play because they get back more for the federal government then they put in.

 

[byteware]

We dipped into the red (for the 1st time) because of the recession. SS is funded until 2036-38.

BTW... Reagan had the biggest tax increase in history to fund SS into the future. He immediately dipped into those funds to pay for increased spending.

It is projected to be in the red (and stay in the red) starting 2015. The question then becomes... how long until it consumes the rest of the budget?

Social Security: More going out than coming in - Aug. 5, 2010

Uhh... that's because it's legally how the federal budget is allocated. SS, Medicare and interest on the debt are spending that has to happen under current law.

That doesn't make them any less welfare... now does it.

Sucks doesn't it? If state don't like it they don't have to play.

But the funny thing is... the great champions of states rights... the red states... do play because they get back more for the federal government then they put in.

Some... yes. However, currently blue states are the biggest drain on our federal government.

DC 5.55 blue
New Mexico 2.03 blue
Mississippi 2.02 red
Alaska 1.84 purple
Louisiana 1.78 purple
West Viriginia 1.76 blue
North Dakota 1.68 blue
Alabama 1.66 red
South Dakota 1.53 purple
Kentucky 1.51 red
Virginia 1.51 blue
Montana 1.47 blue
Hawaii 1.44 blue
Maine 1.41 red
Arkansas 1.41 blue
Oklahoma 1.36 red
South Carolina 1.35 red
Missouri 1.32 purple
Maryland 1.3 purple
Tennessee 1.27 red
Idaho 1.21 red
Arizona 1.19 red
Kansas 1.12 red
Wyoming 1.11 red
Iowa 1.1 purple
Nebraska 1.1 purple
Vermont 1.08 blue
North Carolina 1.08 purple
Pennsylvania 1.07 blue
Utah 1.07 red
Indiana 1.05 purple
Ohio 1.05 purple
Georgia 1.01 red
Rhode Island 1 blue
Florida 0.97 purple
Texas 0.94 red
Oregon 0.93 blue
Michigan 0.92 blue
Washington 0.88 blue
Wisconsin 0.86 blue
Massachusetts 0.82 blue
Colorado 0.81 blue
New York 0.79 blue
California 0.78 blue
Delaware 0.77 blue
Illinois 0.75 blue
Minnesota 0.72 blue
New Hampshire 0.71 purple
Connecticut 0.69 blue
Nevada 0.65 purple
New Jersey 0.61 blue

 

[ElasticNinja]

Eh Byteware, forgive my ignorence, but I somehow doubt any state that could elect Sarah Palin as leader could be defined as purple

 

[byteware]

Eh Byteware, forgive my ignorence, but I somehow doubt any state that could elect Sarah Palin as leader could be defined as purple

The most reliable indicator is usually the Senators that they elect. While a state may be majority Republican, it doesn't mean that it is COMPLETELY Republican.

One of Alaska's Senators is Republican and the other is Democrat.

 

[ElasticNinja]

The most reliable indicator is usually the Senators that they elect. While a state may be majority Republican, it doesn't mean that it is COMPLETELY Republican.

One of Alaska's Senators is Republican and the other is Democrat.

Fair enough

DC has ZERO senators though

Does it have a representitive?

 

[byteware]

Fair enough

DC has ZERO senators though

Does it have a representitive?

Honestly, I have no idea. It's got them as blue on the chart. I guess they looked at the local elected leaders.

 

[savoxis]

27% in form of income (state and fed), fica, medicaid. Another 5% in property taxes until this month. Inexplicably my property taxes doubled without the value of my house changing a dime ans so now I pay 10% on property taxes.

I think it's time to rent again.

Mind you there is at least another 6% in form of sale tax on that.

You should be paying 40% then maybe we would have a decent budget

 

[BigAl_SC]

I've enjoyed the banter back and forth. My observation is that BOTH parties are money happy.... The Republicans spent money like drunk sailors on leave for 6 years while they had both sides of congress and the presidency. The Democrats came in for the last 2 years of those 8 and spent even more. For the last 2 years (yes, including the Bush bank bailout and the auto union payoff) has been even worse with wasteful spending that has done nothing except raise the debt.

They are both trains heading for a cliff and and the only difference is the speed to the fall. Unfortunately, you, me, and everyone else is on that train. There is time to jump off it but it is going to take making hard, hard choices.

Greece is having to make those choices and the people are rioting in the streets. No more handouts from the government, Higher taxes to pay for past spending. We are Greece minus 15 years and 100 times larger. Look at the GDP vs government spending graphs. They are identical except for the number of years on the curve.

Social programs (and everything else not required by the federal constitution) needs to relegated back to the states and the local communities. If a community feels that it needs to give free health care or lifetime unemployment (unemployment is self funded for the first 13 or 26 weeks, I can't remember which) , let them do it and see how many people who are paying taxes stay living there. Our communities used to help people (widows, elderly, sick) directly but now people just say 'I have nothing left after taxes, ask the government'.

Tough choices are coming and the sooner the United States makes them, the faster the problems are solved.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Greece is in a different situation
Put plainly, they are fecked

Lowest exports/GDP ratio in the EU (15% GDP, Ireland's is like 80%) and they have worse corruption then the Baltia states

The sad thing is, its the doctors etc who are most corrupt, yet its the poor who take the hit


Even Ireland is in a far better position :/

 

[alex51]

Good lord, I don't know where to start with that mess....lets start with...social programs are programs where you take from a group of people and give to others. Just because they are funded by taxes designated for that purpose doesn't mean they aren't social programs. I guess that knocks over your house of cards so I'm done. Oh but wait, they aren't in the black as the government borrowed heavily against them and thus couldn't earn the interest to keep them in the black. It's now only a matter of time before they are wiped out...unless we raise tax on these social programs.

I love the games people play to look right. I mean lets take away the largest chunk of the social programs and put them in a different category.

I personally am very bitter that anyone gets free money for the poor choices they make....and make no mistake that's the majority of the recipients.

Poor choices,wow.While I disagree that welfare was ever tied to social security,I totally disagree with your twisting the facts about the rest of social security as a whole.For that matter,I will have paid into it my whole adult life,why shouldn't it be there for those that funded it.I suppose you would rather gamble it, like Bush suggested, which is ironic because when he suggested it was a short time before it was announced that Enrone,Tyco crooks bilked investers out of hundreds of millions,then the Ponzi schemes and dozens more white collar scams surfaced since then. Deregulation = white collar crime on a larger scale,at least with ss intact we get something back.
Does anyone think any of the scammers/schemers mentioned were liberals or self serving conservatives?

 

[SamsungVibrant]

27% in form of income (state and fed), fica, medicaid. Another 5% in property taxes until this month. Inexplicably my property taxes doubled without the value of my house changing a dime ans so now I pay 10% on property taxes.

I think it's time to rent again.

Mind you there is at least another 6% in form of sale tax on that.

Are you in the lower income bracket, middle class, or in the higher income brackets? If you are in the higher brackets, I say stop complaining, you should probably pay more. I have no problems paying my taxes, and paying even more as I make more money.

However, the way republicans work, which is backwards, chances are you are in the lower bracket since you are complaining about high taxes, because the rich don't pay high taxes, so you must be on the lower income end. This is the backward thinking of republicans. Lets give tax breaks to the rich, and tax the poor. The rich don't spend, the rich save, saving doesn't help the economy.

As long as people vote for republicans, the middle class will continue to pay more in taxes than the rich man who is getting through via republican loopholes.

 

[byteware]

Poor choices,wow.While I disagree that welfare was ever tied to social security,I totally disagree with your twisting the facts about the rest of social security as a whole.For that matter,I will have paid into it my whole adult life,why shouldn't it be there for those that funded it.I suppose you would rather gamble it, like Bush suggested, which is ironic because when he suggested it was a short time before it was announced that Enrone,Tyco crooks bilked investers out of hundreds of millions,then the Ponzi schemes and dozens more white collar scams surfaced since then.

Social Security will NOT be there for you. At it's current rate, it will be exhausted within 20 years.

You may disagree with HOW Bush wanted to fix Social Security, but who else has even put forth a plan to ATTEMPT to fix Social Security? No one disputes that Social Security is heading towards bankruptcy. Yet no one is putting forth any kind of solution to the problem.

Deregulation = white collar crime on a larger scale,at least with ss intact we get something back.
Does anyone think any of the scammers/schemers mentioned were liberals or self serving conservatives?

One problem with Social Security is that all the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been "borrowed" and spent already. Your money that you paid into Social Security was "borrowed" and spent. The Treasury has no money to pay back those IOU's.

Do you think that money was spent by liberals, or self serving conservatives?

The answer to your question, and mine, is both. Criminals come from both sides of the political spectrum. IF you believe the partisan rhetoric put out by either side, then your intelligence is in question.

However, the way republicans work, which is backwards, chances are you are in the lower bracket since you are complaining about high taxes, because the rich don't pay high taxes, so you must be on the lower income end. This is the backward thinking of republicans. Lets give tax breaks to the rich, and tax the poor. The rich don't spend, the rich save, saving doesn't help the economy.

You don't know anything about taxes beyond the Democratic talking points do you? I ask that because the poor pay no taxes, 0, zilch, nada.

Half of the taxpaying(right) citizens in this country pay less than 3% of the taxes collected. Let me let that sink in for a second. The lower tax brackets that have HIGH taxes (according to you) pay less than 3% of the taxes collected.

The top 1% of earners pay 40.42% of all the income taxes collected.

Let's think about that.


I'm assuming you want tax breaks for the bottom 50%. How much of that 2.89% do you want us to cut?