chuck
The rich pay taxes period, and yes they can get substanial deductions depending on how they spent or earned that money. But to have that article state they paid zero tax is absurd. We all pay taxes every day and so do they when the buy fuel, clothing, payroll deductions, etc.
I do admit that the current IRS thing is hokie and I'm in favor of a National Sales Tax to eliminate the IRS, this way everyone pays their fair share (yes even the people who are in the country illegally).
The US has 3.1 millionaires, to say 7,000 paid zero taxes, means that 99.75% paid taxes according to that web sites math. I'd take 99.75% all of the time. Again the current IRS tax system stinks and it is not fair.
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck, by tax cheats I hope you mean people are not paying taxes according to the law and not those paying taxes according to the current law. I would disagree with taxing companies based on revenue and not taking into account expenses. What happens when profits fall and companies struggle, like they are now? This will make matters worse and companies will be forced to cut even more jobs just to pay the tax bill. Furthermore, taxing companies is actually taxing the poor. If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them. A law of business is that they will always pass increased costs onto the next level down. That is unless you go totally communist and start controlling what business can charge for something.
A National Sales Tax is basically a consumption tax. It is not a progressive tax as it impacts lower income people much more than higher income people.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Jrlz: if I may use your quote
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: if I may use your quote. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
I can justify the oil depletion allowance. It is a form of depreciation built into the tax code. Also, billions in profits in a fiscal quarter is great, not terrible. Why is profit bad? Profit helps companies to grow, create more jobs, buy more equipment again creating more jobs, and pay dividends to share holders. An MFP dealer can use depreciation on their inventory. In addition at this time of year many companies will use the depreciation allowance to justify end of year purchases, hopefully giving the economy a boost. I wonder why the democrats did not change the tax code regarding the oil industry when they had control of congress and the whitehouse for the first two years of the Obama administration. They obviously want a target to beat up and create class warfare with rather than fixing what they say is a problem. How much tax revenue does the government make from the various taxes on oil? My guess is that it is also in the billions, may even be more than the oil companies make. Why is that not terrible? The government who had no hand in extracting and refining is profiting greatly, but that is ok?
Art my friend, if you'll trust the WSJ then go here: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20...n-50-million-a-year/
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
Chuck, that is a very Socialist answer. Are you suggesting that the Government should step in and dictate what a "reasonable" profit should be? If you were a stock holder of Exxon, you wouldn't be too pleased with that. Let' change the equation to percentage of profit. What percentage of profit is reasonable? Is 10%? Is 15%? According to Wikipedia, Exxon's revenue in 2011 was $486 Billion and their net profit was $41 Billion which makes their profit percentage a little over 8%. Take away ALL their profits and the price of gas goes down about $0.30/gallon (8% of $3.75/gallon). That doesn't seem extravegant to me no matter what we pay for gas. But, of course you take away the profit and Exxon might just go away. Then where would we be hmmm? By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon.
Hey Glory, that wasn't meant to sound socialist - socialist is like most other oil-producing countries Canada, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Lybia, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venuezela, Nigeria, Russia - where the oil production has been Nationalized. I just want to see Corporate tax rates of 35% be realized as they are on small businesses.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made. However, whatever they (or any company) pay in taxes will be passed on to you and I, the consumer.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
quote:How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made
What they DIDN'T pay in taxes went to the shareholders and what they DIDN'T pay in taxes is what I want to see changed.
I believe we need a constitutional amendment that would tie the hands of our elected officials as it pertains to budgeting. Tax increases alone will not solve our problems. The federal goverment needs to drastically reduce spending in addition to any tax increases. I hope, but know that our elected officials on both sides of the isles will not live up to this. Here are the brutal numbers: Our federal budget is 3.73 Trillion dollars. Roughly 1 Trillion of this does not exist, leading to defecit spending. If we let the Bush era tax cuts on incomes of $250,000+ expire that would generate 829 Billion, so we are still 171 Billion in the hole. If we increased corporate tax rates by 20% we would still be in the hole by about 120 Billion. Let's assume all of these tax increases do not negatively effect the economy, although it most certainly would, the federal government would have to cut somewhere around 700 Billion per year from it's budget to erase the deficits and begin to pay back the 16 Trillion we owe. It would take us about 20 years to pay of the US debt at this rate. I only wish we had some elected offical with the intestinal fortitude to propose such a plan. Painful yes, but we need drastic spending cuts to go along with any increased taxes. Anything less is just prolonging the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Do you think a Constitutional Amendment would do any good? The Constitution mandates a budget every year but there hasn't been one in four years.
Valid point. I think we need an amendment becuase no congress can bind future congresses, so even if we had a group of rational adults in and they passed commonsense budgets and laws, in 2+ years a future congress could undo the whole thing. Perhaps, as part of the amendment if congress and the white house failed to produce a budget all the law makers would not get paid, including thier staffs. Extreme, but I think we need something extreme if we are going to turn things around. If you ran a business like our federal government you would first be out of business and secondly be going to jail for accounting fraud.
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
Great point Art. The US Post Office is a case study on how the government should not run a business. The post office has a failing business model and has failed to adapt. For one, the drop in documents being mailed becuase of e-mail. How did they not see that one coming. Secondly, charging the same rate regardless of where you are mailing to, across the town or across the country and they charge the same. I think they are legally bound to this policy, but it should be changed. Go to a tiered system,something like breaking the countryies into regions and mailing from one region the the next would cost you more. How about getting into the e-commerce software business to facilitate on-line bill paying to replace the loss of bills being mailed. The opportunties are endless.
Jrlz: I like your thoughts on how to solve the budget issues and if your number are correct and valid your solution would work with one small addition. You state letting the Geo Bush Tax Cuts expire and raise Corp taxes we could get to a shortfall of $120 Billion. I'd suggest that if we reduce the Defense budget by 16% Voila, balanced budget. Of course we could restrict the Defense spending to the TOTAL of the next five largest spending countries in the world and save over $300 Billion additional - that would hammer away at the debt too. I said it was easy but we need compromise; not so easy. US Postal Service privatized? Who'd deliver all that junk-mail in my mailbox?
the defense spending does a lot for the economy and their are many jobs attached to the spending, I fear a large cut will put many many civilians out of work, and not only the ones that work for the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Companies like Lockheed, GE, Tyco, etc.
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
I was in Arizona for a dealer meeting two years ago. Phoenix to Tuscon. I was very surprised by how much military I saw there alongside the touristy routes and remember thinking what a big impact it must have on the general economy.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
quote:
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
Not only that, but when I go the post office, I guess they put all of their intelligent people on the routes, cause most (not all there are some good ones) of the people inside are really really dumb and slow.
Art, dig a little deeper in your research of the USPS and you'll find that they DO NOT receive taxpayer money. The only reason they are financially in trouble is because Congress in 2006 required them to PAY FORWARD 75 years worth of Retirement and Medical benefits for future retirees to the tune of $5.5 BILLION per year for the next ten years (ending in 2016). Now I ask are FedEx or UPS or your dealership's Principals ORDERED to pay forward future retiree benefits for 75 years? Operationally the USPS turns a profit every year. Is there waste - sure there is but Congress is the problem. We call them lawmakers but what we need are fewer laws (take a year off WITH PAY, we'll even save money).
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
Chuck:
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
Art, I am a veteran of Vietnam conflict (USMC) and a member of Veterans for Peace. I've had three bumperstickers on my car since 2004, "Bring them home NOW", "...and this time take care of 'em when they get here" (custom made) and "Another Veteran against War in Afghanistan" - I wish your son well and hope he takes his glove (and a spare) and a bat and ball with him - that's diplomacy. Don't worry about China they've tried to get into Vietnam twice in recent years, they can't . . . it is not the same China army MacArthur fought.
My hat's off to you for serving, I was a few years to young for the draft.
I also served in the Army (but was never deployed) and am for a sensible cut in the military budget.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
In June 2016, it must be embarrassing to be personally associated as a Republican. Donald Trump is so associated with vague taking points and un-veted out political positions that he cannot possibly win the general election regardless of how dumb his "favorite" Americans are.
I understand that American politics is based upon tribes that will always vote for their political affiliation but this election season will feature the permanent demise of the last eight years of the obstructionist Republican party.
Who could possibly vote for a party that knowingly and permanently damaged the credit worthiness of the USA?
Donald Trump's unfavorability level is at 70%, the highest since announcing his presidential campaign, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
According to the new Washington Post/ABC News survey, 7 out of 10 American adults have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican presumptive presidential nominee. That's a significant reversal from a few weeks ago when Trump's polling seemed to be trending upward. Just 29% reported having a favorable opinion of Trump in the new poll. Among Hispanic respondents, that number is 89% unfavorable.
The fact that the democrat and republican parties are essentially the same these days are an incentive to shake things up with Trump. The latest congress was elected to stop Obamas shredding of the Constitution, and they have done nothing. Might be time for a businessman to eliminate some of these massive federal agencies and put us on a more fiscally responsible track. Trump has stirred up a hornets nest with immigration, we cant continue to have open borders. The media propaganda machine and foreign donors will fight hard for their bought and paid for candidate Hillary.
Are you implying that the for the first time in many election cycles that the Republican/ NRA party will have less money to spend on media than the Democrats?
Fox, CNN, CBC, BBC, Reuters, CNBC, TSN
The world press is reporting great concern over the possibility that Trump could become President.
I checked Snopes.com on 7/6/2016. They have nothing on this but they are decidedly left leaning so they may never verify it. Here is where a large part of the National Debt is.
We all know this but need to be reminded! It's your and my dollar.
Just Perks?
Salaries for Personal Secretaries for the U.S.A. President's wives
This will get your blood circulating! Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower:--- One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Total number of Personal Staff Members paid by Tax Payers.
Jackie Kennedy: -------One
Lady Bird Johnson-----One
Pat Nixon ----------------One
Betty Ford----------------One
Rosaline Carter: --------One
Barbara Bush: ----------One
Hilary Clinton: ----------Seven
Laura Bush: --------------One
Michele Obama: --------Twenty-two
Michele Obama's personal staff:
One.. $192,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two.. $160,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three..$133,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four.. $122,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five.. $120,000 - Winter, Melissa (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six.... $110,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven.. $104,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight.. $95,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine.. $90,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten.. $85,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven.. $84,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $82,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
Thirteen.. $80,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
Fourteen.. $77,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen.. $72,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $70,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen.. $65,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen.. $63,000 - Tubman, Samantha a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $60,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty.. $56,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One.. $55,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two.. $55,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Total $2,075,200 in annual salaries -
all for someone we did not vote for and apparently have no control over.
5 are Muslim and 13 are African-American that's 18 out of twenty two .
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created
such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One on all ALL Trips, Europe included.
As of 11/15/2015 the Obama Family has spent over 1.3 Billion dollars on personal family trips.
They were personal not political or Government related.
Copyright Canada Free Press:
Yes. The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because America
no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might
be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama if any of them
published this