http://www.nbcnews.com/business/49-7-million-americans-poverty-census-bureau-says-1C7073315?gt=43001 Will never understand the re-election
Absolutely cater to them. But..... If the wealth of the nation is comprimised; then there will not be enough to give out "hand outs". It's a two edged sword.
so you expect people to turn down free stuff because there might not be any in 20 years? not gonna happen
I don't disagree with you there. Absolutely they will take whatever the government will hand them. I am saying that the concept is fine until the money runs out. Then economic collapse and extremely high inflation will occur. See Carter's presidency.
and when the money runs out there will be even more poor people... what we need to do is try and to find a balance with budget cuts EVERYWHERE, and try to not get to that point
This is mainly why I am so butthurt about Obama's win. It's not because a democrat won. It's because Obama's administration doesn't balance the budget.
I've said for quite some time the only way out of this hole is large tax increases. I'm only fine with it if the burden is across the board as its the only way people will realize how much their entitlements actually cost them. You should probably know I'm in favor of a flat tax rate across the board. The problem with this line of thinking is like increasing the credit limit on one's credit card or getting a raise at work...you'll have more but you'll probably spend more.
But Romney wanted to decrease taxes by 20% across the board. So according to you, Romeny was not going to get us out of this hole either.
I am in favor of paying more taxes ONLY IF the added amount is applied to the deficit, period AND ONLY when the Gov cuts spending by a large percentage. Otherwise, they are like six year olds at a candy store, no matter what you give them it is never enough..
There is another angle to it though. His plan was to lower taxes and inject investments. The extra investments would generate more revenue. Too high taxes will take investments elsewhere; which will decrease bulk revenue streams. It's like the saying in sales. "Would you rather have 80% of $5,000 or 15% of $100,000?"
his belief isthat if you lower taxes, big money creates more jobs. More jobs means more tax payers etc etc etc
I think he would be more prepared mentally to deal with the impending crash and deal with the crisis. Also, Romney seemed more amicable to reach across the table and work with democrats. What I saw from Obama/Biden and the democrats are people who won't work with the other side to get anything done. Its been proven on the debt ceiling and the budgets.
How many presidential canidates have promised to reduce or not raise taxes as part of their presidential campaign and stuck to that? I think the country's number one concern was the economy and basically voters said they don't beleive Romney could do what he promised he could do.
The trickle down theory does not work. It wad a fine idea when first proposed but it has sense then been pretty well exposed that in tough econimic times the wealthy aka the job creaters, save more and spend less. Also a flat tax accross the board makes no sense. The wealthy can afford to pay a higher % and be fine then a middle class family. Lowering the richs taxes before they get any tax breaks and upping the middle classes so they both pay the same % has never made sense to me. We need to close the loopholes in our tax system and figure out a way that the rich and cooperations cannot hide money overseas before we do anything. Also would many people be opposed to a less then 1% tax added onto to every purchase that goes straight to paying off the deficit Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
see, thats where you are off the mark.. we want to believe it was all based on well thought out ideals and arguements it was won based upon who will do the most for me..
