Budget Cuts ? UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER

Hemp, Bob. Hemp.

 

When are our elected representatives going to be more fiscally responsible with the Peoples' money? They should be actually solving our modern social dilemmas in modern times, for their goodly wage and goodly benefits.

 

After Bob's hemp posts (showing the effects of being a stoner) legalization gets to be a tough sale to make.

 

The Wikipedia article never addresses public funding, of courts of fraud, prison cartels, surveillance cartels, foreign aid, or how hemp is illegal, since it competes with timber and oil, which as Andrew Mellon and W.R.Hearst probably made payoffs, to FDR and Congress, and all kinds of other media, which aren't suspected of making payoffs, to FDR and Congress, in the 1930s, to buy the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, to prevent hemp from becoming the number one cash crop, in the world, right as a hemp processing machine was featured, in Popular Science.

Hemp yields 25,000 market-leading products, not just a drug. THAT is why hemp is a Schedule I CS, and crank, crack, smack, and George Zimmerman's Adderall are all Schedule II CS. FDR sold out! So the entire GDP is distorted, by drug war related corruption.

There isn't just a lousy $6.7 billion dollar tax base, in hemp. Have a clue.

Hemp yields fuels, paper, cloth, food, building materials, etc. There are a LOT more billions, involved in marijuana, since the hemp plant is deflected, from resource, to contraband. Wikipedia is part of the problem.

 

Cutting social spending instead of our War on Drugs only proves that we should be requiring religious morals tests instead of drug tests since those of that point of view only sacrifice the end to the means, contrary to the "dictates of plain reason and legal axioms".

 

Budget cuts aren't going to close the gap, either.

I think we ought to just print off $15,000,000,000,000 in crisp new $20s and pay off the debt. All that printing would attack each existing dollar equally and the debt would be paid off. Voila!

 

It was just one study on some aspects of marijuana that affect our economy. But, that still doesn't answer the question of why our own elected representatives are willing to engage in the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws; merely to sacrifice the end to the means, contrary to the dictates of "plain reason and legal axioms" under our republican form of Government.

 

I like my idea better.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

Statement makes no sense. Of course I (actually we the people) want him to pay for infrastructure repairs. Why not ?

And did you read the infrastructure links ? It's a lot more than "improving". Millions of lives can be lost in one of them. In the other, 20 million people and half of California would have to shut down for 3 years or more. Please know what your talking about.

 

I won't watch t because it's 9 minutes long. Try condensing the main message of it into an ordinary post, and you might get more takers.

 

You're the clueless one if you think they're not.

 

It was "settled" in post # 153.

 

"...gaining indirect control over the political or economic of other areas."

ie. looting, pillaging, plundering. All of the above.

"Sure, Iran could take over Iraq now, thanks to us weakening their power. Funny thing, that."

But they couldn't if our troops were still there, get it ?

"It's still imperialism."

You haven't shown how. As for the small quantity, as my old physics professor used to say : "Qualitatives measures are created by quantitatives measures."

Quite a few countries are imperializing the USA, MOST OF ALL, Mexico. It's obvious you have NO CLUE what's going on. This link will explain it to you. After reading it, you shouldn't be ignorant any more. (you never heard of remittances or anchor babies ?)

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...xican-invasion-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

 

They could nuke the USA from cargo ships a few miles off our shores. You need to do more reading before coming into a forum like this. You're lost.

 

1. That wasn't the question.

2. That doesn't bring millions of dead people back to life, does it ?

 

I don't, because its a manipulation of words trick. Nobody looks for the all the previous spending to be covered in one year, but it could well be covered over the course of a few yearS. We're coming off of 30 years of severe UNDERtaxation which no one (except Bill Clinton slightly) has rectified. Not likely to see that get repaired in one year.

 

Umm, better watch again. If we take ALL the money, from the rich and the corporations its not even enough to pay for the spending in ONE year. Raising taxes wont help. We need to cut spending down to the bare bones!

 

The problem is you never suggest cutting the right things. It's ironic because you only suggest cutting what is seen as Democrat "waste" and then ignore or outright defend Republican waste.

I want to cut both.

 

No, "indirect control" is putting puppet governments in power, like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan (among others). You gain no control, direct or indirect, through pillage/plunder.

You're missing the point. The point is this policy of interventionism is what made Iraq weak enough for Iranian takeover in the first place.

I did show how. I gave several examples, followed by a dictionary definition of the word. If you knew anything about those countries and our involvement with them (and I know you do), you'd know exactly what I'm saying. So I'm just going to chock it up to you being deliberately obtuse.

Crazy xenophobic conspiracies are crazy xenophobic conspiracies no matter how pretty you dress them up.

 

Lol they can't do that at all, especially if we brought every ship we had home to defend our own waters.

 

Your question was whether or not I believed it was 100% effective. I answered that.

Well, no, but aggressive actions cause aggressive responses. And you'll never 100% stop every threat to America.

 

But only if you off-set the cuts with raised revenue.

Besides, you're only addressing half the problem.

 

If you're referring to the federal budget, then no. The budget has not been reduced at all. Any plans to reduce it are just plans to reduce the rate of increase.

That is a very facetious argument. Here's why:

1) Saying that taxes for the highest tax bracket was never lower than 70% is not correct. In fact, if you bother to take the average from 1913-2011, it is 59.2%, the median is 69.1%. So if your argument is that the median was 69% or the average was 60%, then that would be correct. But trying to make claims like "the top US tax rate was never less than 70%" is just blatantly misleading. And then going on to say ", and varied up to 94%", as if the low was 70% and the high was 94% is just blatantly picking your data points. The fact is that the period you're referring to is from 1936-1980, a little less than half the years represented. And in all the years outside that range, the highest tax rate only goes over 70% in a breif period from 1918-1921 [SUP][1][/SUP]

2) Using just the percent taxed on the highest tax bracket ignores the fact that the highest tax bracket has changed constantly in the last century. If you bother to take the average of the highest tax bracket from 1913-2011, it is $641,098, the median is $283,000.

3) But the amount set for the highest tax bracket is also misleading because it needs to be adjusted for inflation. If you bother to do that, you get $8,314,000 for the average, $1,345,000 for the median. This is using the CPI which may or may not accurately reflect inflation depending on who you ask.

4) Even if you bother to alter the argument so that you now also state that taxes should be raised, and the maxmimum tax bracket should be moved so that it is more representative of the average and/or median over the last century, this ignores the demographics of the top income earners. The term "very rich" and an income over $1,000,000 do not necessarily go hand in hand. For instance, if you have 1 billion dollars, and you use it to buy and sale stocks, the money you make from this does not count as income. As it turns out, the majority of the wealthy are earning more of their money in capital gains than income. [SUP][2][/SUP]

5) So here are the propositions, raise the income tax for the highest tax earners up to its historical (1913-2011) median of 70%, and raise the highest tax bracket to $1,000,000 - which is less than the average or median for that time frame. If you check the receipts for 2009 [SUP][3][/SUP], you'll see that by doing this, you should expect to get an increase of an additional ~700 billion. Unfortunately this falls well short of the 2009 deficit of ~1.4 trillion. [SUP][4][/SUP]

6) I know you mentioned closing loopholes, but you did not mention what loopholes, or what percent of the taxable income of earners making over $1,000,000 is being siphoned off by these loopholes. I guess the proposition is that closing loopholes would bring in the rest of the ~700 billion needed.

7) By enacting a plan consistent with #5, it would greatly incentivize even more high income earners to be driven toward capital gains earnings, diminishing the returns of such a course.

I find the movie star reference grossly misleading. [SUP][5][/SUP] Movie stars earning $100 million in a year is way above the average even among highly paid actors.

As for budget hikes, the trend for the last 50 years has been to increase the budget regardless of what the economic situation is. [SUP][6][/SUP] I mean, at any point in that graph do you see a real decrease in government spending? It might flatten out in a few places, but really, it just goes up and up and up. If history illustrates anything, all we can really expect by increasing revenues is to increase the amount of money Congress is willing to spend.

 

Bold post! Great job for standing up in what you believe in. You are a great American. I'll share a quote I came up with personally. "The rich person with 4 houses is complaning about not having enough money to hire more workers. Cut that rich persons taxes and they will buy a 5th house, it's why they have 4 houses already."