With the results of these elections it seems obviously clear that Americans want as much for "free" as possible. My question is when is enough. We are already running a trillion dollar deficit every year. We can not continue doing this. The threat of sequestration has many people claiming it will kill the US credit rating and is going to be very bad for the economy. OK great, but even if sequestration is implemented we are still going to be running large deficits. So when is government deficit spending going to dawn on people to be bad.

I think sharing military resources between our allies can result in smaller defense spending similar to what Britain and France are doing. I think it will take some serious negotiations, but it can happen. The most recent stand offs in Congress met with the Dems saying raise taxes, cut military spending and all will be good. The military actually does something. The person sitting on the couch with their Obama phone, collecting welfare adds nothing to the economy, and serves no purpose for the national economy.

So my question to the liberals on this board is when is enough? How do you propose to balance the budget. Understand that even if you raised the tax rate on the 1% to 100% that wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget. Also if you did raise the taxes that high and cut military spending you wouldn't be able to balance the budget, unless you completely gut the military to the point that we wouldn't be able to raise a national defense force, like Japan.

 

I'll offer a serious answer.
Leadership on both sides is determined to play a game of 'chicken'.
Maybe sequestration is the first step to our only way out of this.

The way I understand how it works, if I could not balance my own budget, using sequestration I would remove 10% of the light bulbs from my house, buy 9 eggs instead of a dozen, cancel my newspaper on Tuesdays and Fridays, stop washing waxing the bed of truck and just clean the cab forward.

Basically across the board I have to cut spending without regard to my preference or whether it was smart or made any sense.

Of course some mandatory spending would be exempt, like mortgages, ins, etc...
just as Military pay is exempt from sequestration.

 

Ok, but you did not answer the question. I do agree that generally that is how sequestration is supposed to work. I think the only thing I think is different is the Republicans took it in the shorts. Their high value programs were hit hard , while many of the entitlement programs were barely touched, but either way that was not the question.

The question is when is enough? In a Democrat utopia, when can they say great the government has achieved what we want. Is it when all of the poor in the world are no longer poor? Is it when all of the poor in this country are no longer poor? Is it when the country is unable to pay for anything because everything is paid for through debt and nobody will lend to us anymore? Is it to have everyone to have a goat in the back yard?What is the goal?

To turn the question around in my view the Conservative end game is to have as many people gainfully employed in the private sector and supporting themselves through their own labors as possible. Not supporting themselves through government giveaway programs. To provide safety nets for those who truly cannot take care of themselves because of some mental or physical defect. To provide short term assistance to those who are having a bit of trouble and promote policies that limit a person's ability to stay on government assistance programs as a way of life. To provide for a strong national defense program so nobody in the world will think of trying to attack this country. None of this really matters since it was made very clear that the American people don't want this. I'm more asking so I can try to set myself up to be able to retire after about 70 years labor.

So what is it you Liberals? What is your end game? What is your goal?

 

As to 'how much is enough' to expect someone to pay in taxes, I don't think the libs have thought that through.

To them, it is perfectly fair for the government to take a second bite at the apple (by taxing investment income; some want to do that at the same % as your salary).

And a 3rd bite of the apple (large estate or 'death' tax).

Oh, and why not pay SSI and medicare on the 2nd and 3rd bites, too, and eliminate the cap on SSI.

Figure in their dream world, 35% to 40% fed tax on income, 5% state income tax, 35 to 40% investment income tax, and 35 to 40% death tax. Plus your usual ssi, medicare and SDI taxes. Don't forget propery taxes and state sales taxes, too. Maybe another 5% of you annual income form all sources. I'm sure plenty of libs would find those numbers fair.

 

Really? Not one liberal is willing or able to explain what your end goal is? Wow that leaves me to believe that you really don't know what your end goal is. You don't know what you would consider success or you are not willing to reveal what your idea of success is. That tells me that it will never be enough. That means liberals will continue going down this path until the country is completely bankrupt and there is nothing that will change their mind. I'm going to assume that the goal isn't to bankrupt the country, only keep doing "good works" until the country can no longer borrow any money to pay for anything. That sounds an awful lot like what many liberals are accusing Bain capital of doing to unsaveable companies.

 

No they are out spending more free money. When it runs out they will be here to answer you .

Jeff

 

There will never be enough. The stated goal is to make everything "fair" for all people. We all know how well that worked out under the old commie regimes. The real goal is to promise enough free stuff to gain total domination of the political system and use this position of power to make a ton of cash.

 

It is not a case of there will never be enough, it is more so this is not part of the "Forward" plan.

I never saw on the MSM, any plan from a Liberal Congressional candidate or the newly elected POTUS.

No "finish line" when taxes are at a max, and at that point something needs to change with spending.

BTW : Great analogy on Bain vs the current administration's method of spending. I don't know why I never caught that before, but it does sound a lot like the sound bite the media gives people to repeat about Bain : "load them down with debt and walk away with big profits".

 

A quote from a book I read a long time ago comes to mind," Four legs good two legs bad"................may be worth going back and reading it again.

 

I am no expert in politics...just a college student...but I don't understand democrats at all. Seems like a lot of my generation is on the liberal side of things. More people are "in the cart" instead of "pulling the cart" meaning no one wants to contribute to the government they are just concerned with what they can get out of the government. Eventually our country will find that we can't support this ideology. Unfortunately many people (specifically minorities) depend upon a well fare based society and our country is becoming more and more "diverse" if you will. They multiply like flies and can't support it so they depend upon the government. I don't mean to sound racist by any means, it is simply the way it is (at least for the most part). People CHOOSE to be dependent upon the government, it is not chosen for them. I know several people including a Vietnam refugee who came from literally nothing, not even a dollar and ended up being Vice President at Motorola. People are lazy and want government help. Simple as that.

I am currently getting my Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering, its definitely one of the toughest degrees out there and I work my *** off in school. When I get a good job and make decent money the last thing I want is to pay for your "free handouts"...I will be more focused on saving up for my F-250 haha!

 

A good write up from a Brit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...d-America.html