Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Yeah, he promised to end welfare for millionaires too. But that doesn't answer the tax cut question if Romney does it.

 

It was designed to protect the American people. Right now the US is being invaded by Mexico in a 21st century style of imperialism, pillaging us for hundreds of Billion$$$ by way of remittances and human services us paying their poverty bill).
To protect us form this (Ie. to do what it was designed to do) it needs much more money (ICE and border patrol agents, the Mexican border fence, immigrsation courts & jails, etc). Hence, we need to restore our normal taxation. Simple enough for a child to understand.

 

FALSE !!!

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.5 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $4.8 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $1.2 Trillion, or about one fourth of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 3/4 of their income.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

 

FALSE !!! America's number 1 nuclear threatening nation is PAKISTAN. This is why thousands of US troops are fighting there, and in Afghanistan, and why about 2000 have died there. Time for you to start living up to your display name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan–United_States_skirmishes

 

Then you have "Absolutely" NO CLUE as to what is going on there.

 

You just presented the finest example of how to ruin an economy I've seen yet.
Do.Not.Want.

YOu do not steal money from people because YOU cannot balance your budget

There's a simple test for "Is this proper?"
If you can't do it to a neighbor, then the government can't do it. So, I can't go to my neighbor and say "Fred, things aren't going well, and I need another $10,000. SInce you have it, I insist you give it to me so I can pay my bills."
You'd be laughed at, and if you were serious, you'd be arrested for attempted theft.
So, if you mess up the budget, then say "Oh, I messed up. You have to pay," then you know that you are advocating for criminal action.

 

What I am advocating for is a simple restoration of America's NORMAL taxation, which has been in effect for most of the past 95 years. If you have a problem with that, and are capable of stating WHY, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels talking jibberish.

 

What American imperialism ? Where ? How ?

 

Sure it's been done dozens (probably thousands) of times. And each and every time, it's a pile of horsemanure.designed to protect the greedy rich from paying a proper taxation.

The wealthiest 20% of the US households are set to receive about $6.5 Trillion in personal income this year, half of all national personal income. Their average tax burden is around 26%, or about $1.7 Trillion. This leaves them with $4.8 Trillion of disposable income each year.

The current budget deficit is around $1.2 Trillion, or about one fourth of the disposable income of the wealthiest. They could be taxed enough to eliminate the budget deficit and still receive 3/4 of their income.

If you want stats they are at census.gov and bea.gov

As for cutting social programs, suppose YOU are injured in a car accident (it could happen any time), and are paralyzed from the neck down. Want to check into the social programs that would currently cover you ? For how much ? And for how much, if they were reduced as you advocated ?

 

If you had read what I wrote, I was only naming a few small things we could do to make our budget at least more sensible. I'm not ignoring anything. There's a LOT that needs to be done.

 

Excellant Idea. We should be taxing the rich to pay for these programs. This guy shows us how it will work. Start watching at 2:20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

 

On the contrary, I know what I'm talking about.

 

There's a difference between a nation threatening us and a nation actually being a threat. Pakistan is not in any way a threat.

 

Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberia, all the little islands we own, soon to be Iran, etc.

 

Pakistan is the # 1 nuclear threat to America. It is the # 1 nuclear threat of all time against America. It is the # 1 threat to America of any way, shape or form, ever. If the fragile Pakistani government falls to the loony Islamist majority, and it's held in place in large part, by the presence of US troops in AFghanistan (like Diem in Vietnam in 1956), 100+ nuclear warheads become the possession of those Islamist loonies, whose 1st mission is the total destruction of Israel and the USA. They then would have the means to do it. The nukes could be shot from cargo ships just a few miles off the US coastline, and annihilate the US permanently. What do you think almost 2000 US troops have given their lives for over there ? Camel hair suits ? You are clueless.

 

Iraq, while often referred to as an oil grab, hasn't yielded oil to the US. You know of exactly where and how we got any / Let hear it. Imperialism is pillaging (AKA looting) So where's the loot, dude ? The Iraq scenario may not be quite over yet either. In fact, it might be just beginning. Could turn out that without US troops in Iraq, it's left vulnerable for iran to take over along with its largest unproven oil reserves in the world, which would strengthen Iran and make it a more fomidable enemy of the US (and just about everyone).

Liberia ? Not much going on there ? Little islands ? Not much imperialism. Nowhere near as much as the imperialism that Mexico and other countires are inflicting upon the USA.

 

How is Pakistan not a Nuclear threat to the U.S.?

 

Put it like this. If I were a top bracket person, I would be perfectly happy with netting $100K/year.

 

Who said this should be a time of "lowering taxes" ? Quite the contrary, all the criteria is crying out for restoration of the higher top bracket taxes of the past 95 years.

 

Do you expect your missle defense system to be 100% effective ? If you do, and it's built on that basis, with the removal of troops overseas, and one US city gets obliterated, what do you say to the families of the millions of US citizens killed ?

 

Of course it is. He's living in dreamland.

 

Pakistan is the # 1 nuclear threat to America. It is the # 1 nuclear threat of all time against America. It is the # 1 threat to America of any way, shape or form, ever. If the fragile Pakistani government falls to the loony Islamist majority, and it's held in place in large part, by the presence of US troops in AFghanistan (like Diem in Vietnam in 1956), 100+ nuclear warheads become the possession of those Islamist loonies, whose 1st mission is the total destruction of Israel and the USA. They then would have the means to do it. The nukes could be shot from cargo ships just a few miles off the US coastline, and annihilate the US permanently. What do you think almost 2000 US troops have given their lives for over there ? Camel hair suits ? You are clueless.

Realize also that by having thousands of US troops in Afghanistan, not only are they able to attack targets in Pakistan (on the ground or with drones) but they are in place to move into Pakistan to secure the nukes if/whenever the Pakistan govt falls.

 

Dude, you better move to Canada while you have the chance.

 

There is no such thing as eliminating the deficit. If you give politicians more money, they will simply spend more. The deficit will increase no matter how much money you give to congress to spend. Its ability to spend is infinite. Oh, and don't give me government information. I believe nothing the government tells me.

 

You topped off this ludicrous post with a real doozsy. Praising Gary Johnson shows how little grasp you have on American politics. Luckily, Johnson's awful positions (a 43 percent reduction of all federal government spending, an immediate end to the War in Afghanistan, and his advocacy of the FairTax) won't become law, and he being a Libertarian (small govt Republicans who want to do drugs), won't become president.

As for the rest of your rambunctious ramble, it never touched why US troops are in Afghanistan, so I'll fairly, safely assume like all the other clueless ones here, you don't know any more than they do.

Pakistan is the # 1 nuclear threat to America. It is the # 1 nuclear threat of all time against America. It is the # 1 threat to America of any way, shape or form, ever. If the fragile Pakistani government falls to the loony Islamist majority, and it's held in place in large part, by the presence of US troops in AFghanistan (like Diem in Vietnam in 1956), 100+ nuclear warheads become the possession of those Islamist loonies, whose 1st mission is the total destruction of Israel and the USA. They then would have the means to do it. The nukes could be shot from cargo ships just a few miles off the US coastline, and annihilate the US permanently. What do you think almost 2000 US troops have given their lives for over there ? Camel hair suits ? You are clueless.

Realize also that by having thousands of US troops in Afghanistan, not only are they able to attack targets in Pakistan (on the ground or with drones) but they are in place to move into Pakistan to secure the nukes if/whenever the Pakistan govt falls.