Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Anila Arshad
1406 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
1076 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
atomheartmotherFeb 11, 2011
They're targeting police & fire departments? Good. .police and fire protection are best funded locally, not by the federal government.
FTA: "Republicans took control of the House by lying to the American people with promises to create jobs and help move the economy forward."
Not really. They also promised substantial cuts because they realize what the loons at politicsusa still can't seem to grasp: we've got a deficit of $1.4 Trillion.
And isn't it ironic that this very site was saying just a couple of months ago when the GOP took control, "See, they're not serious about cutting spending. They're not cutting anything." Then when Republicans actually do what they've promised too, politicsusa blows another shrieking gasket.
But I must say I'm really enjoying the tone and hysteria which permeates throughout the left-wing press these days. It's apparent that it's starting to dawn on them that their whole misguided, naive worldview is crashing down around them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rattelerFeb 11, 2011
Hey !!! I didn't know Sarah Palin had a Digg account.
Call me when you get back the $700 billion in deficit fund you gave the richest 2% by holding those you've already oppressed and robbed hostage.
auditortuxFeb 11, 2011
Yes, because the idea of the $700 billion was just so abhorrent when compared to the cost of extending the tax cuts for everyone else. At least the threat of a tax increase drove me some business...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 11, 2011
Newsflash genius...not taking peoples' money in the form of taxes does not cause deficits, spending trillions you don't have does. And who exactly is "oppressed" anyway? Half the nation pays no federal tax at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonFeb 11, 2011
"And who exactly is "oppressed" anyway?"
The people he wants to increase taxes on.
brsox2445Feb 11, 2011
Yea because they make so little money that they dont qualify. Are you aware that the income gap is larger than it ever has been?
Just in case you arent aware Obama has not raised taxes on the poor and in fact hasnt raised taxes on anyone. But of course the phrase "tax and spend liberal" seems to work excellently even though every single politician advocates for both taxing and spending. Trickle down economics is bulls**t and anyone who doesnt understand that and screams back to the hayday of Reagan will be truly sickened and disappointed when they find out that he neither lowered taxes or lowered spending. The tea party is trying to get back to the 1980s but dont even know what the hell was going on that they want to return to.
sattireattireFeb 12, 2011
Cops make so little money? I beg to differ. No education and get the same salary as someone who had aspirations to get an education to better their life.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
You must be talking about teachers, educated and very poorly paid. The only group I know of you could compare. Tax away, pay them more for that education.
linuxpersonFeb 12, 2011
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-claim-he-did-not-raise-taxes-rej
youareretardedFeb 12, 2011
I'm pretty sure Obama was referring to income tax.
linuxpersonFeb 14, 2011
I'm pretty sure you're an ignorant apologist.
“I didn't raise taxes once; I lowered taxes over the last two years.” - President Obama
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-he-lowered-taxes-over-past-two-y/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130171566311388.html
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-oreilly-no-new/2011/02/08/id/385384
Sites from every spectrum acknowledge that he said it.
planet87Feb 15, 2011
Of course the income gap is growing. Too many people get unemployment and that screws up the numbers. We're running a deficit of 1.6 trillion and still can't grow the economy.
ac3505Feb 11, 2011
Newsflash genius...One way to make sure that you're not spending money you "don't have" is to tax people. Shocking!
linuxpersonFeb 14, 2011
How do I go about taxing people to pay for my spending? The only options I have to reduce my deficits are to either work hard and get paid more, or cut my spending.
In most cases, cutting spending is the only option.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
So, you just like Corporate Welfare? According to the GAO most corporations in America pay $0 taxes. While using your roads.
linuxpersonFeb 14, 2011
CITATION NEEDED
u2canfailFeb 14, 2011
www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-taxes-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
It includes both foreign and domestic.
adaguyFeb 14, 2011
Double newsflash: NOT TAKING PEOPLES MONEY, WHILE CONTINUING TO SPEND DOES CAUSE DEFICITS.
If you don't believe me, ask "W"!
davidtcFeb 11, 2011
You do realize that just recently Obama went to the Chamber of Commerce and said he was willing to agree to business tax breaks for keeping jobs in America right? You know why? Cause he realizes that the business are doing what they are supposed to be doing, making profits and currently with the way they are taxed it is better to move the jobs overseas to make a profit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
armedrebelFeb 11, 2011
Obama wants to give tax incentives to keep jobs in the US. Republicans just want to give businesses money and expect them (or pretend to expect them) to use that money to hire people for jobs they don't really need. One of these methods work, the other is just a con game to give rich people more money.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
Right now, we have a tax incentive for companies to move jobs out of the country, that needs to be gone, yesterday.
rgb86Feb 14, 2011
I'm afraid I don't have the link anymore, and I'm not sure how true this is, but I recall reading that taxes in foreign countries aren't drastically different from those here, and sometimes higher. It's just that you can pay people next to nothing to get the same work accomplished, and don't have to worry about all that pesky stuff like safety regulations and paying for insurance and whatnot.
u2canfailFeb 14, 2011
rgb86, You are right, at least in some cases. Exxon, an American company, pays huge taxes to many other countries and not a dime to the IRS. By the way, their oil and gas leases cost them more too. /// Some Arab countries charge them according to what is produced by the lease. They still are ready to sign up.
And yes, safety regulations are awful and expensive, UNLESS you are the worker, or his/her family. Those environmental regulations only count for humans. I being human, like having a few in place. I drink water, and actually still breathe the air. I actually think my grandchildren will need those things too. I believe they will be human also.
And for manufacturing in other countries, lead on toys and poison in milk, is just not what I want at my home.
chilidogsFeb 11, 2011
Moving jobs has significantly less to do with taxes than it does with the cost of labor and environmental regulation.
davidnivenFeb 11, 2011
True, but the extra taxes certainly don't help things, now do they?
linuxpersonFeb 12, 2011
Taxes and regulations have a direct and undeniable impact on the cost of labor. Cite one business owner who will state otherwise.
chilidogsFeb 12, 2011
Taxes and regulation don't have a direct affect on the cost of labor, both have a direct affect on doing business. It's not the same thing.
u2canfailFeb 14, 2011
What taxes? The GAO said, "3 out of every 5 US Corporations paid $0 taxes from 1998 -2005." And the number is going up. Big companies pay no taxes. I would bet without knowing you, you paid taxes every one of those years!
And just to eat in the USA, workers cannot survive on a Chinese wage. Not even a tent for shelter, is possible.
Now, we could start tomorrow, cut all costs in the USA by 3/4, so we could be on our way to compete, GOP. Just slash your salary, today. And 3/4 won't be quite enough, be prepared for huge cuts in the future too!
martybarbeeFeb 15, 2011
Actually moving jobs has more to do with greed than anything else. It's amazing what mis-information is dispelled amongst the population when you leave people to their own vices without equipping them with a little tool called information.
1) This all started when Reagan lifted the embargo. Now I am sure many of you have no idea what the embargo was. The embargo was a piece of legislation that prevented unfair trade practices. The embargo basically said if you wanted to import 50 billion dollars worth of goods to the United states, you also have to export a certain dollar amount from the United States.
2) The embargo also said that in order to do business outside of this country you would pay tariffs as a compensation for offsetting our economy when flooding our markets with goods that were manufacturered substantially cheaper.
3) The embargo also prevented loopholes that enabled foreign governments and countries from owning american interest. Some of you may recall when Mercedes bought Chrysler. Mercedes had no interest in Chrysler other than the tax advantage. The embargo would have prevented that. I can tell by reading some of the replies here some of you are a bit slow so I will break it down for you.
Before Reagan lifted the embargo Mercedes (Foreign Manufacturer) had to pay an import tax as well luxury tax which were considered tariffs. The dollar amount was in the billions. So once Reagan lifted the Embargo (For his rich friends / Campaign contributors) Mercedes like so many other companies rushed in and bought american manufacturing interest. This in turn insured that they would no longer have to pay the billions in taxes/tariffs
because we were now considered an american manufacturer. Keep in mind Chrysler was bought for substantially less than the tariffs that were imposed on these foreign traders.
4) The embargo lifting also enabled china, japan, korea, malaysia, and a host of other countries to become major players in the american economy.
5) Lifting of the embargo also enabled the rich to shut down their manufacturing here and open up in these small countries where they could make a lot more profit by employing people to work for a fraction of what the american worker was employed at. It also meant that they didnt have to give their employees benefits either. But as they manufactered cheaper they never took the price of the goods down. <---- Record profits.
Now I could go on and on, BUT! Some of you still won't get it. Instead you will continue pointing the finger in the wrong direction always to blame innocence on your plight in life. We as a country don't educate ourselves, we don't educate our children, and we don't know how to vote.
By the way, You guys can have that lesson for free. I'm charging the next go round. Lol... J/K
One more thing!
I think many of you are as sharp as a tack but too many of us walk around without a clue. This is a good thread.
Peace be good!
martybarbeeFeb 15, 2011
This is for the people in the cheap seats....
http://www.politicususa.com/en/regulate-conservatism
spectecjrFeb 16, 2011
@martybarbee - for a gentler, kinder intro to why lack of regulation is bats**t crazy, it's worth reading the book "The Poisoner's Handbook". Excellent read, great story, but what's amazing is the backdrop.
Thalium? That was great! It was in handcream. Sure, it'd make you slowly drop dead over a few months, but that was just a ... side effect.
Radium- again, face creams, medicines, health drinks... it'll just give you cancer very quickly.
Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" is also worth pointing out to people who like lack of regulation - it caused such an uproar that it contributed in part to the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act.
martybarbeeFeb 19, 2011
actually we need regulation. We actually need more of it. For instance the banks that put us in this situation are actually profiting from welfare recipients. It's shameful....
Spectecjr - Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lA016FzmYg
eraptorFeb 12, 2011
Obama is clueless when it comes to the economy because he keeps choosing the wrong economic advisers. Remember, he has been educated in law/politics, NOT economics/business.
As U.S. companies moving operations/jobs overseas, it's based upon the COST of labor and tax/regulatory evasion. If you think you can sustain your current lifestyle on $2/day, then keep championing the practice because that's where it will lead you. By the way, geographic labor costs are based upon the respective cost of living, NOT a desire for communism/socialism.
If you're lucky enough to have your own business or work for a large multinational, enjoy it while you can. Once American consumers are tapped out, your business and those inflated profit margins will collapse along with the U.S. middle class.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
GAO, said, "3 out of 5 American companies paid $0 taxes to the US from 1998 - 2005." How much lower can they get?
timedalkatFeb 13, 2011
I think he realized that they've got him by the balls. Sad, really.
rattelerFeb 11, 2011
"Fiscal Responsibility! Fiscal Responsibility! Fiscal Responsibility!
Wait!!! Pay for the services I get a disproportionate use of!!!! f**k That!!!"
It's not paying for Medicare and Medicaid that is breaking America... it's using them to pay a "for profit" health care system.
Make the health care Industry non-profit, and force it to focus on keeping people well, with what we pay now American's would probably never die.
That's just spending the money we alreay have on the people who pay it in, instead of those who figure out how to take it out.
Wanna help small business? Single Payer Health care. Complete coverage for everyone without profit means these companies no longer have to micro manage health costs. Huge savings to a small business.
Of course the problem is the Insurance industry is too big to fail. Meaning they bought so much political influence that now they can buy Billions in taxpayer money to get rid of they own risk mismanagement.
That's a solution to the biggest chunk of the deficit problem. Once the medical industry is re-aligned as a public service, like the military has always been, costs will plummet and care quality will sky rocket until we can actually reduce the spending and tax burden.
But no. Republicans will never allow that.
youareretardedFeb 12, 2011
You would think that republicans, who want to do so much for businesses big and small, would be for a single payer health care system. How much do companies spend for their employees health care?
chilidogsFeb 12, 2011
I'm really not sure why they want to deny Americans healthcare. I don't believe that cons deliberately want to hurt labor but they make it harder and harder to make that argument every day.
davidnivenFeb 13, 2011
I don't care if government involves itself in healthcare. I just want the States to do it, not the Federal government per the 10th Amendment. One size does not fit all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
Actually, I think they do want to hurt labor.
eraptorFeb 13, 2011
David,
What difference does it REALLY make whether the money comes from state OR federal coffers? That 10th amendment argument you're making appears to be an effort towards splitting hair while making NO difference in the end.
Is it that you oppose a redistribution of state resources? If so, where should we draw the line...taxes?, commercial activity?, etc.
spectecjrFeb 16, 2011
@davidniven - presumably you would be ok with states who currently pay more to the fed than they get back in resources backing out of the system then?
I'd be fine - I live in Washington. We'd be better off, in fact.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ve-tax-dollars.jpg
martybarbeeFeb 15, 2011
I don't think they want to hurt labor. I think they want to help their rich friends and hurting labor is just part of the collateral damage. I also think the funniest and shamefully the saddest thing to see is a working class stiff that defends a party that is totally against his or her interest.
u2canfailFeb 15, 2011
Absolutely, and think of the pay raise they can give their employees! Average cost for insurance is $1000 a month, that is raise to your income is $12,000 a year Americans!
*Oh, one small problem, the CEO gets his cut of the money first.
planet87Feb 15, 2011
Sarah was a governor and mayor... She didn't have any votes on the national tax cuts... but I'm sure your way too stupid to know that.
eraptorFeb 12, 2011
@atomheartmother,
Why not. Let's adopt your Alfred E. Newman approach, "What me, worry?".
The next time your house is robbed or catches on fire, you'll have to resolve the problem yourself. After all, if you don't want to pay for municipal services, you shouldn't get them.
Imagine the anarchy that would erupt if wealthy enclaves suddenly lost their municipal protections. After living in several third world countries, I'm well aware of the consequences of your fiscal austerity. When the austerity measures take full effect, you won't feel so bold or disrespectful towards your country's infrastructure needs.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
* PS you can not use municipal water either, ( more taxes), to put out that fire, dig your own well.
atomheartmotherFeb 14, 2011
Don't be an idiot. No one's advocating for NO government, simply limiting the size of it.
Your "all or nothing" argument is a red herring.
eraptorFeb 14, 2011
What's your definition of "small"? Remember, the U.S. is a BIG country.
I don't think you understand the real impact of the spending cuts you're championing. I hate wasteful spending too, but the proposed cuts and "slash and burn" tactics amount to abject insanity.
By the way, as someone who has worked with the federal government in the past, I'm well aware that bureaucrats tend to make the most painful spending cuts possible in order to foment significant public opposition. As such, pay attention to the government programs that aren't touched because they'll be the ones most precious to THEM, not the country.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
And for the moment your local, and STATE is cutting too. So, you want to raise taxes locally, to maintain your police and fire departments, or you just do not need them anymore? Please tell US!
The Federal money, helped get poor communities up to standards, helped with training, and new technology, and funded much of the rural equipment for volunteers. Those funds I know, probably did not help you. No crime scene at your house, yet.
We can always let others go without. It just means more crime will be coming to your neighborhood soon. The GOP JOBS PROGRAM!
atomheartmotherFeb 14, 2011
"And for the moment your local, and STATE is cutting too. "
Right. That's called reigning in spending when you're broke, and it's got to apply to everything. No money means no money...why's that so hard for you to figure out?
u2canfailFeb 14, 2011
And I guess for you, it was it the stimulus that caused their deficits too?
No, it was not out of control spending, it was a greedy Wall Street and failure of the government to protect all of us citizens and other businesses from that greed. Rate junk AAA and sell it, then gamble with investors money until you fail.
Reigning in spending is a short term solution, for a much larger problem. I really believe in pay as you go. I think I pay very little in taxes for what I have in return. I am surprised how many do not think that is true. The roads, schools, police, fire, legal system, food safety, goodness me, I cannot get those on my own.
And with some items, those spending cuts, will not really help the problems at hand. They cost almost as much as they save. Lay off workers, save salary, and benefits. Now, that laid off person is on employer/state funded unemployment ($$$). In some states they qualify for food stamps or other assistance($$$). Then they default on the mortgage, property tax income is gone($$$). Then there is the sales tax money they generated by spending in the community ($$$) If that person was a firefighter and homes burn, more tax income losses. Then there is health, no care is free, only on the taxpayers. ($$$) Now, how much did you really save? By a study here, less than $9,000 saving is a high guess, for a $30,000 worker, if you are lucky. * and we can't calculate all these expenses accurately for that ex wage earner. 1 person employed, has such a ripple effect on local business and tax collection.
The problem for the GOP is, you cannot have it both ways. All spending is not bad. All problems are not overspending. Some problems are lack of supervision, and those, cost the citizen the most.
Cuts today could actually cost you the future. Education is bad, companies will not come. Crime is high, no one wants to live there. A mix of cuts and spending is reasonable. But that takes taxes. And we are back to the problem again.
What actually caused the problem and what are the solutions? I do not even see that discussed as an issue, and that bothers me most.
atomheartmotherFeb 14, 2011
Well the Stimulus caused $800 billion in deficits in one fell swoop; there's no denying that. And although you're correct in that the Wall St. meltdown was the result of governmental failure to regulate and do their job (which is why it amazes me that people put so much faith in Washington still), the huge deficits are not directly related to that failure.
"Reigning in spending is a short term solution, for a much larger problem."
Howso? The debt is at 14+ trillion and the deficit is over a trillion. You'd have to raise taxes 50% across the board to rectify that, and doing so would send the economy into a tailspin. No one's claiming that "all spending is bad" but when we're borrowing and printing money at the rate we're doing so it has got to be dealt with.
"Cuts today could actually cost you the future. Education is bad, companies will not come. Crime is high, no one wants to live there."
We spend more per student than just about any other country in the world. More money for education will not mean better-educated students, nor do more cops necessarily mean safer neighborhoods.
u2canfailFeb 15, 2011
But we do not spend that extra education money on hiring the best people as teachers, it is spent on the FACT that the cost of "being in the USA" is expensive. Buildings, land, electricity, etc.
spectecjrFeb 16, 2011
The Stimulus might well have cost $800B in deficits, but corporations weren't hiring - they were sitting on piles of cash and hoarding it.
Would you prefer stronger corporate regulation to force them to hire more people? Force more hiring in the US rather than offshoring of jobs? What's your preferred solution here.
Note that "everyone fend for themselves" is not a solution when the system crashes like this.
adaguyFeb 14, 2011
I once dated a woman who had been married three different times, but she was still a virgin at the age of 46.
I once asked how a woman, as pretty as her, remained a virgin throughout three marriages and 27 years of adult life.
She told me that her first husband was killed in an armed robbery as he was checking them into the mote on their wedding night. She later married a man who was in his 50’s, but due to previous prostate problems, he was impotent. They remained married until he died when she was 35.
Her last husband was a republican congressman, and she was married to him for 9 years. When I asked her why they never consummated their marriage throughout those years, she responded, “all he ever did was sit on the edge of the bed and talk about how good it was going to be!”
u2canfailFeb 14, 2011
too funny
adaguyFeb 14, 2011
True story!
planet87Feb 15, 2011
Buried for being right... as usual. Hard to call politicus left wing press though. Definitely left wing... but more like trash instead of press.
spectecjrFeb 16, 2011
Actually the big problem was that during the election cycle they refused to list the cuts they were planning - just saying "Oh we're going to do cuts".
This is a great way to get people to vote for you - be non-specific before you do something, because you know they're going to balk once you explicitly lay out what you're going to do.
It was lame. A few months of "Oh, we're going to cut things! and stuff! and increase jobs!" with ZERO specifics. Not exactly considered governance.
ghengiskhan1Feb 11, 2011
The reader understands that there is nothing that can be cut that will not cause someone, somewhere to bellyache about it right? We are talking about cutting funds to someone, somewhere and they do something that, in their mind, is supremely important.
So, lets not cut anything. Lets keep spending more and more money that we dont have. Lets borrow more money from the Chinese and pay them back with interest. Bad things never ever happen when you spend money you dont have forever. It never catches up to you, just ask all those people that lost their houses, credit, jobs, cars, and other toys when the markets crashed in 08. They will tell you that nothing bad happens when you live beyond your means.
entroperFeb 11, 2011
I agree with the viewpoint presented in the article, but the way it's presented is pretty s**tty. This is exactly the kind of fear-mongering that the left complains about (rightly so) when the right does it.
The argument shouldn't be "OMG they want to cut the Fire Department!" because that's no better than the opposing side's argument of "OMG they want to cut our national security!" when we propose defense cuts. The argument needs to focus on what we're getting out of programs and what those programs are costing us, and we need to consider Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense. All four of those individually cost more than all non-defense discretionary spending.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
"we need to consider Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...."
I can almost WRITE the Politicususa response to THAT one....
entroperFeb 11, 2011
Couldn't we all. But let's focus on being constructive. ;)
davey914Feb 12, 2011
As long as it doesn't make Boehner cry.
ghengiskhan1Feb 12, 2011
I will set my sarcasm aside and say that I wholly agree with you.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
End the war. End of problem. Extra $$$ everywhere.
crapolatimeFeb 11, 2011
Hey lets make the people in the Red States pay taxes, instead of them getting all that Welfare.
The Blue States are tired of supporting your sorry Red ass's.
atomheartmotherFeb 11, 2011
States pay taxes? I thought individuals do...but you're right those on the dole (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat) should have at least some skin in the game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 11, 2011
What he was saying is that blue states pay more in federal taxes and red states take more. There are many reasons for this but I suspect that the primary cause is that high population, wealthy, urban areas tend to be liberal while low population, lower income areas tend to be rural and conservative. The point is that if federal funding of police and fire services primarily benefits red states.
http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/
myoung6923Feb 11, 2011
Sorry - but it's the red states that suck up the lion's share of welfare money
you lose
BluntzworthFeb 11, 2011
I agree and disagreee.
While the "Blue States" do pay more in taxes to the Federal Government than they get back in funding, I am happy to provide for my fellow Americans. I would want them to do the same for me if I needed it. It is called being a good countryman.
armedrebelFeb 11, 2011
It's just ironic that the people who bitch and moan about the most about government spending are the ones who receive the majority of it. The ones who are okay with government spending as they realize it's necessary for a healthy country and economy receive lower amounts.
yibbutkeenFeb 11, 2011
Well, for example, South Dakota receives far more than it puts in. State population is under 800,000. Big costs, interstates (more miles per capita), farm subsidies (need to be overhauled) and various native american programs (talk about a boondoggle of fraud waste and abuse - in spite of all the money spent some of the 10 poorest counties in the entire country are native american populations) . Also medicare, (the states share is the 2nd largest expense, just under education, which between the two are iirc over 80% of the state budget).
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
Alaska is a much better example. Fewest citizens, huge federal money, and then Palin.
BluntzworthFeb 14, 2011
For sure. There is a lot of irony in politics in this country.
chilidogsFeb 11, 2011
That's fine. What I have a problem with is cons bitching about taxes when they are the one's benefiting.
rattelerFeb 11, 2011
A-f**kin'-Men!!! It's hilarious that the people who complain most about the taxes are the one who pay the least and use the most services.
If the money put out by the states only went to the state that put it out... in New York City and California we'd have backup clones in case we were accidentally killed, and most red states would be unpopulated.
auditortuxFeb 11, 2011
"If the money put out by the states only went to the state that put it out..." we wouldn't need a federal government because there would be no United States of America.
atomheartmotherFeb 11, 2011
One of you is plenty, thanks.
auditortuxFeb 11, 2011
Or how about we just make everyone may a minimum tax rate... say 1% of income? That would do a lot to even that out.
But I do have a question... adjusting for cost of living across the nation, what is the actual tax burden of certain areas? For example, it costs more to live in NYC than it does in Omaha. $100k a year for an individual in Omaha is a great salary and affords an upper middle-class, comfortable lifestyle. In NYC, not so much.
u2canfailFeb 13, 2011
You have a point. I actually hate all the Corporate Welfare. GAO said, " 3 out of every 5 american companies paid $0 taxes from 1998 - 2005." And that number get larger every year. Why, do they use our roads, water, fire, police? Also, big business gets huge tax breaks for coming into an area. Yes, it brings jobs. But they leave another city, that gave them those same incentives. The other city, just lost that revenue, that was to adjust for the incentives given to the corporation. Why? Then there is my favorite. Other than the Packers, most teams are huge money business. Why do the taxpayers, pay for them to have a place to work, stadium? My company is small, I pay rent or buy a place to work. Most large companies do the same. One group is special? Small business creates more jobs than large companies, yet no incentives are there for them. How is it, they manage? We have been shooting ourselves in the foot for years with this game. The help for your community is short lived and may in the end, hurt your town (Wilmington).
reaper527Feb 16, 2011
"You have a point. I actually hate all the Corporate Welfare. GAO said, " 3 out of every 5 american companies paid $0 taxes from 1998 - 2005." And that number get larger every year. Why, do they use our roads, water, fire, police?"
worth mentioning, those 3 out of 5 people probably paid taxes at the state level, which is what would be funding roads/water/fire/police in their area.
u2canfailFeb 16, 2011
I doubt it. Most States and local governments give big companies HUGE TAX BREAKS (corporate welfare) for years to come. It does bring on jobs. (* and those small companies close and send those jobs away without penalty). But it is a fact, small business, with none of those tax breaks, create more jobs?
auditortuxFeb 11, 2011
Maybe the author should realize that what the Republicans are targeting, as per their campaign pledges, are "non-defense, discretionary spending." That automatically excludes the defense budget. Now I do agree that we need to cut some of the Pentagon's funds if we're going to make a lasting impact.
Second, they keep harping on "oil companies" and the "giveaways" to the companies. I hate to break it to you, but those aren't budget items like HUD, EPA, etc. Those are actually items in the tax code (I believe he is thinking of various accounting methods oil companies can use for drilling, subsidies, etc). If the author would like to get into reforming/cleaning up the tax code, I have a feeling there would be few people that would disagree. Only that we use our tax code for social engineering (tax breaks to create jobs in certain industries on the corporate level, promote home ownership/mortgage debt on the personal side).
As a final point, perhaps all this regulation needs to be reviewed on a grand level. As Obama himself noted, different types of salmon are under the purview of different agencies. Public companies answer to several as well (SEC, FTC, Department of Commerce). Perhaps it might be a good idea to eliminate/merge some of these and let the government become leaner, but more efficient. Less regulation is not bad if you're in an overregulated environment. But I don't think the author believes that there is any possibility of that. This is where reasonable people just agree to disagree. But to paraphrase Obama for the Republicans, "They won."
flinxFeb 11, 2011
Uh...why exactly should the Federal government fund local police and fire? Or local anything for that matter?
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
drug war funding... but you can bet your sweet ass that that funding wont be touched
davidtcFeb 11, 2011
I'm guessing the drug war is a federal thing, not a local thing. Pretty sure flinx made the local point clear too.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
except the federal government gives money to the state and local coffers for the drug war
davidtcFeb 12, 2011
So it is funded by the federal government no?
brucealmightyFeb 11, 2011
To some extent it's a matter of subsidizing services and infrastructure which help provide for "the common good". Like, the Feds pay the lion's share of most road projects....even tho they are inherently local improvements.
chilidogsFeb 11, 2011
Federal money is used to insure compliance in lots of areas. They want certain standards. In my field we are regularly audited by the state to make sure that we are in compliance with federal standards so that the state can get funding. It's a good thing. It's how you enforce that accountability that people are always talking about.
duncan202Feb 11, 2011
So basically take money from a state's citizens and then strong arm them into compliance in order to get some of it back.
chilidogsFeb 12, 2011
I'm not talking about compliance on the part of citizens, I'm talking about compliance on the part of state agencies. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
duncan202Feb 12, 2011
So am I. The money is taken from people of the states, and then used to coerce the states to comply with Federal wishes. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
panther45Feb 11, 2011
Rob from the poor and give to the rich.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
gotta help those poor, poor oil companies. they are really taking a huge hit in this recession
/s
auditortuxFeb 11, 2011
Funny, I didn't realize that by stopping the funding for all these programs for the "poor" that they would be sending dividend checks to the "rich." Cool, where do I get on this gravy train?
Or we could reform the tax code... its been over 20 years since the last one...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinskiaFeb 11, 2011
And anyone who knows the history of Fire Departments will know that the most "conservative" county in the country was where public fire departments start: Cincinnati.
mlw4428Feb 11, 2011
When your focus is for the top 2% of the population (those who can afford private security and fancy fire suppression systems and can afford to rebuild their home after a fire) then I suppose you could see how police and fire departments are just money wasted. f**k the average joe, let em have guns so they can wipe all the rest of the poor people off the map. Cardboard houses are cheap, f**kers.
bdbrFeb 11, 2011
Politicsusa articles are so busy venting anger than they do a terrible job of making a point. It's a fair argument that they're not touching defense or anything that might cut into oil production, but the point is buried it in a lot of name-calling and vitriol. Who writes these articles, high school students?
Any why is the title focused on police & fire? Most of that is federal assistance to local law enforcement. If you're going to make that argument, rather than saying the proponent "deserves to be victimized", why not explain why it should be from federal funds rather than state & local (already the majority of such funding)? Perhaps a better argument is that it doesn't really cut peoples' taxes at all - just transfers them to another collector. But no, instead he goes on an imaginary vision of public uprisings.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Isn't Obama already cutting defense spending? Didn't he say so in the SOTU?
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
People. You are burying a fact.
bdbrFeb 12, 2011
This is correct; I don't know why people are burying you. Here's the quote: "The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without."
Hopefully he's talking this year. It seems like every time Obama talks of budget cuts, it's always some day in the future.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Im trying very hard not to hate on the GOP too much. They, I hope, are trying their best. I just wish that instead of cutting important jobs they would just support a bill that restricts American companies from sending too many jobs overseas, then it would help employment here, people would have more money, more taxes, and more people could keep their jobs.
reaper527Feb 16, 2011
saying "don't ship jobs overseas" doesn't actually do anything though. you have to look at WHY companies are shipping jobs overseas.
all that prohibiting this would do is cause companies to close as they will become uncompetitive. if you don't want jobs being shipped overseas, break up the destructive unions, such as the UAW which already destroyed detroit, and will be given another chance to see if it can actually put detroit out of business this time.
linuxpersonFeb 11, 2011
Of all the things to criticize the GOP for, this is NOT one of them. Buried.
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
You're saying there's no reason to criticize the GOP for cutting funding for things that create and maintain jobs, keep us safe, and make us independent, while leaving the largest expenses--and bleeding ulcers on our economy--untouched?
Sure, maybe you don't completely agree, and you see that some amount of cutting in all departments is necessary (I do, too), but to say that this is not a reason for any sort of criticism is quite short-sighted.
youareretardedFeb 12, 2011
I believe that the republicans believe the nations safety should be the federal governments job. Kind of odd though as that promotes a larger federal government.
Why help fund local security/safety when you can just have DHS do the job? /s
martybarbeeFeb 14, 2011
Maybe they should start cutting the budget with the pay raise they gave themselves.
rgb86Feb 14, 2011
I know it's easy to be idealistic when you're not in the hot seat, but I honestly do believe if I were somehow elected to that position, I would actually propose a salary cut. It's easy to live a rather comfy lifestyle making less than what they make now, just not an extravagant one.
What is most deserving of cutting, though, is of course the largest section of the budget: defense. We don't have to cut it to zero, but how on Earth can you sit there with this financial hemorrhage taking up nearly half your budget and nitpick over items that account for less than a percent? Yes, everything needs to be scrutinized, but those things that provide jobs and education for the citizens--and taking some of the smallest portions of money--should be the LAST thing on the chopping block, not the first.
martybarbeeFeb 15, 2011
You do know that 70% of congress members and house members are millionaires right?
rgb86Feb 15, 2011
I know, and it's kind of sickening, but whatever. I was just saying that it's easy to criticize the actions of others when you're not the person responsible for making decisions (though I still believe I could stand up for cutting my own salary if I were grotesquely overpaid at the expense of taxpayers).
armedrebelFeb 11, 2011
The constitution never mentions police for fire protection. Thus, they should be private sector where they belong.
chilidogsFeb 11, 2011
/s?
If not then that is retarded.
armedrebelFeb 11, 2011
/s. Thank you for noticing.
dividebyoFeb 11, 2011
the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare...
kinda sounds like what police and fire protection does, at least to me.
davidnivenFeb 11, 2011
That has to do with government in general, not specifically the Federal government. The Constitution, per the 10th Amendment, is about the States too, not just the Federal government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Just a point. That's the preamble ... and frankly, you could use that to argue that the government ought to provide everyone with a free burger on Thursdays.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
Except a burger would be unhealthy, so that's not quite promoting a person's welfare, is it? :-P
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Who says a burger is unhealthy?
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
I dunno, just about every doctor, nutritional specialist, dietician, etc.?
That's not to say they aren't tasty, and better than starving, but your average burger is anything but healthy.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
You have a bun. You have some hamburger. Maybe a slice of tomato, onion and some lettuce.
There's nothing unhealthy about that.
Eating 6 a day would be unhealthy, but there's nothing unhealthy about a burger.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dividebyoFeb 12, 2011
I have to agree with quirk here... the burger itself may not be bad, its the overindulgence... if you want to extrapolate that out to the government, then supporting various functions of the government is fine, its perhaps the overindulgence of certain areas that need to be looked at... personally, I think first looking at areas like maybe the defense budget make more sense than proportionally tiny things like the government's support of police and fire.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Ok... correct me if I'm wrong but didn't OBAMA ALREADY say in the SOTU that we are cutting the defense budget?
rgb86Feb 14, 2011
You guys seriously can't see anything wrong with a greasy, fatty piece of meat? No wonder America's waistline is increasing. :-(
dividebyoFeb 12, 2011
make mine a bison burger and you're on!
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
I need to try bison. I've heard it's good.
chilidogsFeb 12, 2011
You could make whatever argument you want but I don't think many people would agree that it doesn't give the right of the federal government to help fund police and fire. That was the question.
duncan202Feb 11, 2011
The supreme court has declared, long ago, that no actual Federal government powers are derived from the preamble.
dividebyoFeb 12, 2011
no, the preamble is an overall descriptor for the rest of the document - sort of like a mission statement for a corporation maybe? How the corporation (government) then goes about achieving the mission statement (preamble) is where you get the powers from the Constitution.
Are you trying to say that since the preamble doesn't have specific powers, that none of the rest of the Constitution (the explanation of the preamble if you will) has any powers either?
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
No...that is NOT what Duncan is saying. It's not what I am saying...
we are merely pointing out that it's the PREAMBLE...NOT the Constitution.
duncan202Feb 12, 2011
No, I'm saying "promote the general Welfare" does not grant the Federal government any power, and that all actual powers are enumerated IN the actual body of the document. In order for the government to claim something is constitutional, they have to show which Article applies and can't just point to the preamble as validation.
ramfire98Feb 11, 2011
"sounds like what police and fire protection does, at least to me"
Last time I checked, the Fed didn't support these (unless there is pork involved to pay the Union a-holes). Local municipalities do.
dividebyoFeb 12, 2011
ummm, if the federal government doesn't support them, how is the GOP trying to cut the funding to said (non) support?
wuwei26Feb 12, 2011
Think you might have a more positive view\experience with police than many but like your basic point...
theswashbucklerFeb 11, 2011
The Constitution doesn't mention aircraft carriers or tanks either, guess the feds can't get any of them either.
armedrebelFeb 11, 2011
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, people.
dividebyoFeb 12, 2011
sorry man, it's difficult to tell sometimes, as some of the responses to my own comment show... switching my Digg to an up...
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
It seems to me like the right wing wants to create a country in which armed uproar is the goal by creating a society in crisis and by putting more people into poverty and misery.
The problem is that the end result may not be one they like to see and they may find themselves on the wrong side of the barrel!
brsox2445Feb 11, 2011
You say "police and fireman", they hear "socialist blood suckers".
After all the free market decided that a fire should take place and we should let the free market take care of the fire.
anachronusFeb 11, 2011
"Kill jobs and poor people" hyperbole?
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
Cutting funding that pays for people's jobs? Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of job-killing.
Cutting funding for the forces that protect us domestically, without whom we could suffer numerous fatalities, not to mention cutting health benefits for people relying on aid because they don't have enough money to pay on their own? Yeah, that sounds like killing poor people.
Agreed, it's a bit over the top to go around shouting that line, but it is fundamentally correct.
glassagateFeb 11, 2011
"Pay and Spray" all over again?
hillsfarFeb 11, 2011
Question: Why is the Federal government funding state and local police and firefighters? I thought our state and local taxes paid for that.
This is a legitimate question. I'm less of a fan of Republicans in general than I am of Democrats (I did vote for Obama), but I also believe state and local governments should be self-funded. (I also believe our Federal government should be self-funded, rather than borrow like a drunk, but that's another story.)
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
Well, the war on drugs is certainly a federal matter. It is enforced by local officers, but it is still federal, and as such receives federal money. Another example would be border enforcement.
As for firefighters, that issue is less clear, but at least as far as police are concerned, there are a few pretty obvious reasons for federal funding.
youareretardedFeb 12, 2011
Aren't national parks considered federal land?
rgb86Feb 12, 2011
Ahh...quite right! Thanks.
Can you think of any other uses for federal firefighters?
hillsfarFeb 14, 2011
The Forest Service has its own firefighters.
canadianmacfanFeb 11, 2011
It's about time that those socialist institutions are cut back!
/s
thecoolestguyFeb 12, 2011
Leftists at politicususua prefer the US to go bankrupt.
martybarbeeFeb 17, 2011
What are you talking about? The US has been bankrupt for years. They just haven't admitted to spending all the money. What do you think a deficit is? And what do you think the debt is? They are two different things and we have both of them.
Try to keep up!
Secondly there is a thing called divide and conquer for which the rich have been pretty successful at. This is how it has been working so far. The first thing they do is know that their power is under attack, then they form a strategy to retain that power. The first thing they do is come up with some malicious name of slogan to name the opposing force and tell you that they are to blame for your lot and life. Then they tell you to hate them. And the gullible follow suit.
Next is the Mis-direction. While they have you hating on someone else who has no more than you and pretty much faces the same issues you do, They figure out a way to sell you the fighting tool to fight off this person that has done nothing to you. Now while they have you fighting amongst yourselves they are racking up huge profit.
Next is the technique of buying passage. Buying passage is the skillful art of buying political influence with the profits made from your gullibility. With these profit they contribute tons of moneys to candidate they feel they can persuade to vote in favor of a bill that will make them even more profits. In the meanwhile you are in the trenches calling someone you don't even know a lefty or a righty or whatever.
Next is the Parlor Game. The Parlor Game is when a politician votes for something he or she knows is morally wrong only to insure campaign contributions from those who have bought rights of passage from contributing to that politician's campaign. Now the parlor game starts when the politician tells you it is the fault of the lefty/right why your lot in life is so bad.
Try to keep up now!
Now Rupert Murdoch is laughing his buns off and racking up profits while masterfully keeping you at your neighbors throat. American Paper execs are laughing all the way to the bank while you spend the last few dollars you have buying picket signs for pro-choice or pro-life. There's a pattern here. Some of you just have to learn to keep up.
I'm not going to blame anyone for what i have or don't have in life but myself. We live by the decisions we make. Whether it's at the voting booth or in the semi privacy of our own homes. I say semi privacy because they are working to take that away from us as well. I am an american and for me to think that someone who has an opposing view to mine is anything less is neanderthalian at best.
Every one wants clean drinking water for their families. Not just lefties and not just righties. Everyone wants to be able to send their kids to college. Everyone wants a good job with some decent benefits. But somewhere along the lines many of us have been marginalized into thinking this other broke guy is why my life is in the toilet and he/she has no more power than you do.
The reason the US has it's financial woes is because of bad representation. No more and no less.
Keep Up!
190273Feb 12, 2011
These liars are out to get you and me. All cuts are against the middle class & poor. Not a single cut was made to oil companies, corporations and defense budget.
user500Feb 12, 2011
Fireman: Sorry Ms. we didn't have money to buy a new fire truck and our current one broke down a mile from here. You cant buy a new house because they cut your social security and cant offer you emergency housing as that's gone too. Wouldn't kill myself though as there is no money for burring you. Also don't forget to thank the GOP/Tea Party for the savings from these minor cuts you'll save $8 in taxes in 2040, if they don't give the money to Israel to kill brown people.
Lady: I'm 85 now I cant wait until I'm 114.
Fireman: Good news is Guns are still cheep and plentiful and I here prisons these days are nice and plenty of folks to talk too. All you have to do is walk into a bank and point your gun at the teller and say "give me your bailout."
ren1999Feb 12, 2011
That's right. The Republicans added $30,000 to the yearly tax returns of every rich person and must sacrifice Police, Firemen and Teachers' jobs in order to do that.
We told Republicans to create jobs not cut them! Look what they are doing. Our streets are unsafe and a classroom will have 60 students who will fall through the cracks leading to the further demise of the U.S.
martybarbeeFeb 14, 2011
It's amazing to see all the different derogatory comments about the republiCANTs but the fact of the matter is who put them in there? For some strange reason Americans never learn their lesson. Time and time again republicans have shown that they care nothing about YOU. But many of you continue to vote for them. Amazing!
If you are not in the top 3 percent you are not a republiCANT.
If your children go to a public school, you are not a republiCANT.
If you go to work everyday because you HAVE to put food on the table, you are not a republiCANT.
If you are trying to figure out how to afford college for your kids, you are not a republiCANT.
Now I could go on and on but many of you will continue to vote against your own interest and when life deals you lemons you will always find someone else to blame.
I'm just sayin!
ferretmanFeb 14, 2011
What a slanted, incomplete article.
The items being removed from the budget were the TEMPORARY monies that were supposed to be used to help hire new officers and the like. They were never supposed to be permanent, and stopping these funds isn't "targeting them for cuts".
Police and fire are *local* responsibilities, not federal ones.
reaper527Feb 16, 2011
fta:
"Rogers is a filthy liar."
nothing like professional unbiased journalism!