To be fair the Roman Empire fell due to a number of reasons; not least among them being the decay of institutions put in place during the Roman Republic that were either swept aside or allowed to decay once Caesar siezed power. The Roman Empire became a far more militaristic and shortsighted version of the Republic it replaced; making for itself far too many enemies and was ultimately unable to defend the enormous territory that it has wrested from native inhabitants. Barbarian invasions crippled agricultrural production and wrecked local economies. The Roman citizen became less inclined to rally in support of the leaders that were more interested in their own ends that those of the people. And so by the Fourth Century AD the Roman Emperors had all but abandoned the 'Western Empire' and were not even using Rome as their capital. All that remained was a slow and agonizing death that would take centuries in coming.

To that end, the fall of Rome does not support either of your arguments.

So social security is a giveaway, and caring for our elderly are entitlements?

We have been paying into SS our whole lives. It is not an entitlement.

Maybe if congress can stop stealing it to dump into wars, it will not be seen as an entitlement to be taken away by the far righties.

I like you haplo, but you have a "screw the poor for being poor" vibe.

Not all poor are takers, some feel shame for having to do it.

On a side note, go ahead and kill SS, I want every penny back I put into it, since I started working at age 14, with inflationary interest. So does everyone else. (or is it in some Iraqi or pakistani pocket already?)

I don't know a lot about Medicare, but Social Security was supposed to be a zero-sum proposition.

And it is broke. Social Security did at one point pay for itself, and the mony you put in was there for you when you retired. Congress could not steal it. The problem has nothing to do with wars. Congress is not allowed to touch Social Security. Unfortunately, SS is allowed to "loan" the money in the provision that it be repaid with interest. SS looks good because they are helping out, and Congress looks good because the National Debt is lowered by however much money they get. At least that's how it looks on paper, and the debt never manages to get repaid. You've paid into SS your whole life and the only money available is what others are paying in now. So what's in it for them, and when does the ponzi scheme collapse? And what happens when it does?

SS is already dead. The money you paid in is gone, and it's not the fault of "the rich", and it's not the fault of the Right, or of the Left. It's what Congress does, and we've let them get away with it for so long that it seems natural.

Be that as it may it is still a debt that the Federal Government owes the American people. If they don't pay it back then it removes any legitimacy they may have.

:rotfl2: Like that's ever gonna happen. :dead:

Wasn't laughing at you or your comment, just at the idea. I don't think they have any legitimacy at all, and the only reason it works is because people believe it.

Supposedly The Government owes the debt to itself, and then it owes it to the people. Unfortunately Congress will never pay SS back, and rather than even trying to pay the people, the Fed tells us it's what we owe, not them, and we believe them. Part of the problem is that back in 1935 benifits had to passed out right away, and to people who had never paid in, because there was no Social Security while they were working. The good news was that there were a lot more paying in than recieving benifits. Then in the '50s the Greatest Generation came home and started making babies, and lots of them. In the 1970 we believed in Zero Population Growth. That didn't really happen, but thanks to medicine, diet and better living there are more people on the recieving end than the paying, and funds are dwindling, not growing. Couple that with SS buying Treasury Bonds to shore up the other spending, and it's a wonderful house of cards just waiting for a big blow.

During the Big Bailout I asked where the money was coming from. Congress is so far in debt there is pretty much no hope of recovery, and SS is right there with them. Taxing the Rich at 99% wouldn't go five yards toward bailing out the Government, but it would leave them as broke as the rest of us and make a lot of people feel good about themselves. The problem isn't The Rich, it's The Congress, and the only way out of this is to take away their exorbitant salaries and benifits, and make it a public service, not a great career move. That wouldn't solve the debt either, but it might make them think of themselves as servants, not overlords, and it might make them actually do something to help the country rather than the handful of people who make them ever richer.

That is how I see it. We the people allow the government to collect that money in good faith.

In good faith, when that faith is gone, then we are gone. Everything we fought for, from independance on. Poof.

As well as our standing amongst nations.

Edit: I am not a rape the rich kind of guy, but am for elimination of loopholes that only the wealthy have access too, and a more uniform tax system based on total earnings over the course of the year, rather than on earned income (you know like fairness for blue collar guys) . Why should the trust fund baby playing with the stock market pay 15%, while I struggle with my bills and pay 30% plus?

(don't even get me started on NJs local taxes)

While I pretty much agree with you it must be noted that for every trust fund baby living the good life there are plenty of seniors living modestly on dividends too. Doubling their tax rate would screw them over pretty good.

I want my piece of the pie.

I was gunna go with the Bamster's pie speech, then I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Tcp...feature=fvwrel

:haha:

See the problem is he's taxing billions, but he's spending trillions.

They need to pick a tax, pick a percentage that EVERYBODY pays, no deductions, no exeptions, and base the budget off that. Any spending over what they are taking in gets cut.

Sure, it would make tax lawyer go extinct, but who cares, they're lawyers.:haha:

Okay Great: here's my take

1. I don't hate the rich, but I don't feel they need the white glove treatment they currently get from the tax code. They are the income bracket who should get the least tax breaks, because frankly it's much more easy to live on 70% of 1,000,000 vs. 80% of 30,000 or so. The rich act like when the get taxed more and can't pay for their planes and Ferraris it's a catastrophic event, when really those items ate luxuries.

2. So? two wrongs make a right now? Just because GE worked the tax code does not mean the rich get to do it and write "well GE did it so I can too" in the margins of their Itemized tax forms that put them in an effectively lower bracket than the middle class.

4. source on the Muslim brotherhood thing? as far as ive read they gave it to the new elected government that had a majority of elected officials in the brotherhood...this IMO is just pointed journalism and is WAY different than actually giving money to a group...like the difference between giving money to the USA when it is controlled by a particular political party and giving money directly to a party. I read a couple news stories and the seemed to be blogs really trying to make it seem like a direct payout to the group...which seems dubious as to reality.

4. Again, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Warren should pay his taxes if it is determined he rightfully owes this amount of money.

honestly though all of you I would spend a day with in Chicago if we could. we have different views but are good people. I kinda wanna make a mini meet happen if possible

Pick a day. The best part about the subsim meets, they are mostly apolitical. :woot:

Yes and Yes

Correct, then wrong. The fact you have been paying into it verifies it is an entitlement - it is something you are ENTITLED to - aka - something you are owed by the government. Not all entitlements are "government charity".

Really? Because I even stated that just dealing with entitlements is not an answer. This was a cold hard look at facts, not a suggestion for a fix. We need a lot of changes - yes - some in entitlements - but a lot of others as well. Please don't take a hypothetical scenario as some proposal to screw the poor.

I know. I have been there myself. I was not denigrating anyone.

Personally - I think SS should be an "opt in" system for many - especially the younger generation. People above 50 should get their standard SS - between 35-50 should get the choice to opt in or get their money back (even withouot interest that would be substantial) and below 35 they should be pure opt in, no refund.

Yes - a little "sacrifice" - but the two younger groups both sacrifice some - and its not a perfect solution - could be tweaked - but you get the general idea.

The issue here is that the left is pushing "fairness" idea without ever defining what fairness really is. The rich pay the lions share - how much more is "fair". The amounts keep changing. So we hear for days and days about hte "buffet" rule - wasting days of time on something that pays for 11 hours of government spending.... see the inefficiency? Its a political ploy, not a serious attempt at solving the nation's fiscal problems.

I am not against getting rid of loopholes. I am not against redoing the tax code. I am against people making a political herring out of something while ignoring the problems of this country. THAT is what the buffet rule is about - distracting the populace and trying to score political points on "fairness" instead of dealing with real issues.

You are incorrect on the definition of "entitlement spending." The programs are entitled to the spending, not necessarily the end recipients of the program. You've fallen into the propaganda trap, either willfully or not, of using loaded words like entitlement. Entitlement spending, in government terms, is spending that's automatic unless Congress deems otherwise. Every year, Social Security isn't reauthorized, so it's an entitlement expenditure.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...s_mandato.html

Using the term "entitlement spending" the way you are is using rhetorical tricks to push your side's agenda, either willfully or not.

Tell that the to the end recipients of the programs. The programs exist to spend money to the benefit of the recipients. If SS had money, but refused to send it to the recipients, and instead blew it on hookers and parties in Vegas (ala the GSA), do you really think the citizenry would stand by? *Ok granted - due to accounting tactics that kinda happens - but its hidden*

Now see - your claiming I have a "side". I called out BOTH sides for their lack of restraint and fiscal irresponsibility. However, the topic is one that is being pushed by YOUR side - all I have done is point out that its a red herring. I distinctly made it clear I was not for killing "entitlement" spending - I think we should cut some military spending too, for example. This isn't partisan other than YOUR side is pushing something for the sole reason that they are unwilling to deal with the real problems.

Why is it that when someone just points out facts that you can't dispute - they are immediately on some "side"? The Democrats had Congress and the Presidency for 2 years, they have had half of Congress and the Presidency for a further 1.5 - how is calling them out for their utter refusal to deal with the real problems we face automatically "partisan"?

"Team R" did the same thing - and the American people held them accountable in 2008. Talking about it then wasn't partisan - but because your side is now the one catching heat, it is? Cmon.....

The buffet rule is a farce - its totally like "SQUIRREL!" from the movie up - hey everyone - look over here and don't think about the important stuff. You know it as well as I do - in fact - you have not even denied it. So lets stop the partisan attack/defend crap and agree that BOTH sides need to stop with trying to score political points and instead focus on digging the country out of the whole they have all put us in.... Can we do that?

Just because you refuse to accept the definition of a term and prefer your own, doesn't mean that you've changed the definition of the term.

And the term "entitlement spending" is a loaded one, used mostly by those espousing the desire to cut spending on people like the "entitled," the "lazy" and the "welfare queens."

If it walks like a duck, and uses terms like "entitlement spending" like a duck...

Are you seriously going to use that old Glenn Beck tactic? You know Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, don't you? Do you know why we know this? He never denied doing it!

Fixed for you. :O: Since when does owning something become the country's ? I thought that was the whole point of owning.

Anyway, I don't see how taxing the 1% more or less is going to have much impact on me. I don't receive government aid. Maybe we'll get bigger libraries...

If we are going to make the tax system really fair, it should be a straight percentage across the board for all income, no deducations, no exceptions. Everybody contributes their 20%.

More diversionary tactics....

So instead of dealing with the fact that our government spends 1/3 more than it takes in (on many things that need cutting), despite the fact that I am for cuts in lots of areas and not just "entitlements", as well as the reality that you could "fair" the rich away - just take every dime and thing they own and it still wouldn't solve the problem - much less this 11 hr pay "fairness" idea - you'd rather continue to obfuscate and ignore the real problems facing this nation.

This is why we are in the shape we are in - because some people - and you in this case mookie - are more about the partisan crap than you are about solutions that must occur if we are to fix the problems.

Why not answer the questions outright as they have been asked of you already? With the rich already paying the lion's share of taxes - how much is enough? August or Aramike asked that - you ignored it. I asked why are we spending days and days on something that pays for 11 hours of government when we are spending 1/3 more than we make as a country - you won't touch that one either.

When someone points out a position or facts you don't like - its all because they have a "side". If someone says "lets pretend" to remove all the entitlements for the sake of proving a point regarding how much we overspend - that immediately makes them be using rhetorical tools to push an agenda.... Cmon - your better than this.

I get your left and your not happy that your side is catching flak. But your not responsible for that - and you can't seriously argue that those in control of your chosen party are acting responsibly while governing. I mean - no budget from the senate in 3 years? A presidential budget he tells the party to vote against? You sure do like to make fun of the people who swallow "truth" from Glen Beck, but your not using your own brain to break ranks with those who are doing absolutely nothing useful in governing this nation. Your throwing out the fairness talking points and getting defensive instead of just looking at the facts and (likely) coming to the conclusion that most people in this nation are moving to - that those in government (regardless of "side") are more of the problem than the solution.

Seriously, stop defending the indefensible, and lets start talking solutions. And sorry, an tax increase that pays for 11 hrs of government (with untold economic consequences to boot) isn't any kind of a solution.

There is something systemically wrong when 93% of the wealth created goes to 1% of the population. They're not doing 93% of the work, they're not contributing 93% of the improvements in standards of living, they're not 93% smarter than everyone else. I dare say they didn't even create 93% of that wealth. It's an indictment of a system that's rigged against those without means, and is set up to prevent upward mobility. America is the land of opportunity? Not so much. Social mobility is greater in Europe now than it is in America.

There's a lot of people with kids in school and people who use public infrastructure that will benefit from governments who can adequately provide these things.

Taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000 a year is a lot different than taking 20% of the income of the guy who makes $10,000,000.

Why does the government spend more than it takes in? Could it be that money coming in the door has declined? Since we're getting caught up in "your side, my side" why is it that "your side" refuses to see both sides of the equation and thinks that the answer to everything is cut, cut, cut. Cut spending on women and children, cut taxes on the rich who are paying lower rates of taxes than they have in decades.

Oh please. You're not the model of bipartisanship fairness that you'd love to make yourself out to be.

Do I have to address every single thing that everyone in every thread ever posts? I don't think so.

No, they have a side when they parrot the ideas and talking points that their chosen "side" puts out, without regard to truth, fact, or depth of analysis.

My chosen party, he says. That's rich.

Disagreeing with the Democratic Party's actions doesn't make you a Republican or amenable to their ideas. If you could think of things from a standpoint that isn't so caught up in duality, you may understand my position a bit more. Your facts aren't facts and you're so turned around to the point that you're misunderstanding and misusing terminology.

And a tax cut is the solution. Screwing over the ever increasing ranks of the poor (and they're only poor because they're lazy, doncha know) is the solution. Quit bowing at the altar of Grover Norquist.

And you want to lay the budget passing problem at my feet? Republicans throw in some of the most egregious garbage into the budget, and then complain when the other side balks and tries to pin it on them. It doesn't work that way, bubba.

Do a bit of light reading of last year's budget, and you may come up with some startling revelations.

SUCK ON THAT, POOR PEOPLE. Spend, spend, spend, more, more, more and then complain about poor people getting healthcare. Oh yeah, if this doesn't pass it's not because Dem's found it distasteful, it's because they hate America.

"Got-dang right! MORE MONEY FOR GUNS, LESS FOR DIPLOMACY! YEEEEEEAAAAH! Ain't that America?"

Oh and the riders are great.

The "Screw You Michelle Obama" rider: You know, the one that would help provide fresh fruit and vegetables to school kids. Heck no, we spend too much. Screw the kids and screw the vegetables. More guns, please.

The "Make sure we cover up any evidence that anything Obama passed is doing any good for infrastructure, so we can keep using the 'omg no shovel ready projects!' line"

After reading that list of riders, you're going to seriously criticize the Dems for not passing that? That's not a document outlining principles of responsible and even handed bipartisanship and compromise, that's what Rush uses instead of Viagra.

That is the "free market" or Capitalist system at work, far from perfect, creates systemic inequality, but to paraphrase Winston Churchill: "It is the worst economic system, but better than all the alternatives" .

Trying to increase tax rates on the rich up past a certain point is useless since it is too easy to shift income and taxes to offshore tax havens/low tax jurisdictions so you actually wind up losing tax revenues.

Raising taxes on capital gains (which is what the Buffett rule in fact proposes) also does not make sense (past a certain point) since it would cause capital to again flee to no/low tax jurisdictions. The federal long term capital gains tax rate in the U.S.A. which has hovered between 15-20% is actually within international norms, in Canada it is between 19-25% depending on the province.

A flat tax of 20%, which many people see as an ideal, is actually no simpler than the current system (sorry Neal), since you still have to define what is the "income" subject to the tax. For example what do you do about business expenses, business losses, charitable donations, etc. Sharp tax lawyers/accountants would quickly drive this down to a much lower effective rate. :D

Having said all that, there would be room to increase overall tax rates by a few points which can be done by either raising rates or closing loopholes. You guys will have to do something eventually about your deficit.

20% for somebody having less than 1000 dollars per month, and a family, is much.

20% for a multi-millionaire is something he does not even feel. You cannot drive more than one Ferrari at a time, you cannot live in more than one villa at a time.

For the same reason I argue in favour of financial penalties for offences no longer being set as total numbers, but in percentages from the offenders income. You ride your car, and exceed the speed limit. You're an ordinary man with a usual income, and you have family - those 200 dollar (or whatever your fees are :) ) are just this: 200 dollars, and might hurt him. The millionaire driving a Ferrari and while sleeping earning 100,000 per month just from his stocks - for him 200 dollars mean nothing. The punishing value, the aversive stimulus or pain from the penalty, is not the same for both men. The one may cry in financial agony - the other is just laughing, and just jumps the traffic light after the cops let him go, just to show them how little he cares for their little papers leaflets.

However, there are limits to taxation, of course, there must be. Some British known name - forgot who it was, some film actor I think - said that once you need to give away more than 49% of your incomes to taxes, SS and such things, it is time to leave the country. I would agree with what direction he aims at. I see a limit somewhere in the low 40%-range for non-average high incomes. I simply feel like that if you work, the majoirty of your income should be yours, that'S why I see those 50% indeed as the adamant barrier.

The socialist candidate in France, Hollande, who seems to be able to defeat Sarkozy so far, wants a 75% tax on the wealthy. That is insane. (He also means plenty of finacial misery for Germany, over his ideas on how to run the Euro crisis.) Hollande already has ruined French economy once, under Mitterand. Obviously the French have forgotten that.

In Germany, real net loans for employees - by real buying power - have dropped over the past 20 years, while the overall total costs Germans had to pay to the state and social wellfare, have reached an all-time high last year. Never has Germany earned so much in taxes. And never has it made so many debts, I think.

The European social wellfare state model has failed. It has become unaffordable. Politicians try to hide that from the public - at the price of delaying action and thus increasing the damage. Ifd there is any action left that would help.