just prove that the usdebtclock.org numbers are incorrect. that's all you have to do, then i might spend some time finding more legitimate sources.

the um, 47% are paid out of US tax dollars? at most they're doing a kick back to get that money. the 33% are still paying their bills.

I have no idea what you just said, dibs.

100% of the population pays taxes all the time.


Everyone who purchases anything - even food stamps, with which you purchase food at a grocery store like anyone else - pays sales tax. Everyone who receives a paycheck pays payroll and FICA tax. Everyone who owns a car pays the various car taxes [license, smog, drivers license cost] even if they're out of a job. Everyone who drives pays the road taxes. Etc.



Not everyone pays income tax, yes - because you need an income above about 55 grand to pay an income tax.. and yet the median income in the US is under 50 grand. "The 47%" applies only to income tax - and NONE of the other types of tax, of which the above is only a partial list.

i explain it simple. hmm, how i explain it simple to people who don't know anything about physics and can't understand that there is no action without a reaction.... meh, prove that this site: http://www.usdebtclock.org is providing incorrect information, and i will find more legitimate sites to demonstrate as to why you should pull your head out of your ass.

i know that i'm in the Red, and people will starve to death because i don't make money fast enough to pay their bills. how many of y'all's people are out there trying to make money to feed them?

meh, i'm a bit impatient and tempermental. just part of my nature. anyway, you have 72 hours to provide information as to why i should ignore http://www.usdebtclock.org before i deliberately troll you about it.

Entitlement spending will sink the US on debt if it's not reigned in. We can assage some of this by rewriting and simplifying the tax code to make it more efficient. However, to help stave off debt disaster we need to tackle the real causes of high healthcare costs (read real healthcare reform), we need to eliminate ineffective federal aid programs, and we need to have a civilized discussion about what spending is most important to Americans.

The do nothing Democrats will be proven wrong in time because even if they took it all from the most wealthy, it would still not be enough to pay for their entitlement spending. If they choose to not engage in real discussion, then in time the debt will mount and the nation will be forced to face far more devestating consequences.

The same old tune Republicans will be forced to not just cut taxes, but to take a hard look at expenses and revenues. They will have to approach decreasing the tax burden from the angle of decreasing the cost of paying taxes. It's time to end the incentive of companies to use tax loopholes. If they are unwilling to take a real hard look at everything, then this nation will fall victim to its debt.

I know I'm right and I know that I'd be proven right if I didn't care enough about this country to prevent the crisis I see coming. Time will prove me right if nothing is done to solve America's spending problem.

In short summary: We don't need politicians in Washington, DC. anymore. We can't afford to keep sending politicians to Washington. We have to start sending statespeople to Washington and we don't have a lot of time to do it.

1) What are the debt's top line items? Wars do cost money (oddly you cite this as all Republican, given even VP Biden voted for both of these wars). Tax cuts don't cost more in spending so they're not "debt." They do deprive of you of revenue. Again, none of these three are the top drivers of our debt. If debt problem was only a tax cut and two wars then we wouldn't be talking about entitlement reforms or sequesters. You do realize this, right?

Two, Republicans didn't control Congress from 06-08 and the Senate was controlled by Democrats from 01 (June)-03 lest your forget Jim Jeffords party switch. During the entire time, the Republicans never came close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, much different than 2008-2010.

2) If Republicans were the problem then why didn't the Democrat-controlled government pass a budget resolution after April of 2009? The Republican House doesn't come about for another nearly two years. So, what, now? The evil Republicans were at fault before they even had enough votes to filibuster? C'mon this is a laughable argument.

Republicans didn't comprimse. How do you think we came to the Budget Control Act of 2011? It certainly wasn't with White House guidande. You ought to read Woodward's new book if you have a free moment. It's the White House that actually impeded House and Senate action. And not once, but on several occassions. More recently we could talk about PDUFA passage.

The crux of your argument is the Republicans aren't acting as a blank check for the Administration. And, you're right. The key fact you leave out is how Republicans win office in the first place. They promise not to be a blank check for an Administration that had rammed through an extremely unpopular program that effected one fifth of the economy.

Finally, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are offering solutions to our spending problem. You keep depicting it as a problem of revenue. But it's like saying the solution to helping a gambling addict is simply to help them find a higher-paying job. I don't think they will be able to reduce taxes to the extent they claim, but I do think the problem is less revenue-centric and more containing a spending addiction that well exceeds reality (namely through entitlements and defense).

The solution offered by Obama-Biden--if you can call it a solution given the promises they made, four years to fix it, and their utter lack of any leadership during the debt ceiling debate--doesn't curtail the long-run spending problem. We're on an unsustainable path. I'm not even sure their premium support model plan will work, but it's a lot more realistic than claiming we'll magically find savings in a program to keep it working.

[quote poster=Unsympathetic; 20614; 381599]Dibs: Income tax is not the only tax that exists. Your numbers are.. deeply flawed.

A short list of personal taxes other than income tax are: payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, FICA (social security tax), excise tax [paid by everyone who uses gasoline], inheritance tax, transfer tax, and road tax [paid by everyone who uses a highway such as I-95 or bridges such as the Ben Franklin Bridge into southern Jersey].

Note that "the 47%" pay a much, much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the super-rich. [/quote]

They also receive a higher percentage of their income back in tax deductions. The point being that any tax becomes regressive if doesn't directly correlate to income at all times, but that goes without saying.

My issue is two-part. One, the notion advanced by some here is that under the current model we can simply tax the "rich" more and redistribute it to the poor or to the deficit. The reality is that the constructs of our current tax system mean you're effectively hitting more than half of America's small businesses by pursuing this model. Where is the calls for a total reform of the system to separate out types of income?

Two, simply taxing more isn't addressing the underlying problem of passing entitlements/wars/whatever spending you want to talk about (and it's definitely bipartisan here). If you're treating the symptom and not the disease than you're not solving anything. Worse, during a time with high unemployment you're jeopardizing your health.

What's sad is how Obama really derailed the grand bargain that Boehner and Reid were so close to striking. It was a $4-6 trillion deal that would have used a blend of revenues, spending cuts and serious entitlement reforms. Call Bob Woodward a liar, but I tend to believe him over Obama.

I have three words for this...

9.............9.............9