BajaNomad - The real costs of foolish plans to 'secure' the border

David, I assume that since you are for Ted Cruz, you are also in favor of a big tax increase to pay for the massive expense of his border security and military build up plans?

Whatever it takes Monoloco! At east it will be spent to secure this country and make it safer place and not the other way around as it is being done now. A secure border and large military makes sense to me with what is going on in the world right now!

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 08:15 AM

David, I assume that since you are for Ted Cruz, you are also in favor of a big tax increase to pay for the massive expense of his border security and military build up plans?

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

ELINVESTIG8R - 3-29-2015 at 08:19 AM

David, I assume that since you are for Ted Cruz, you are also in favor of a big tax increase to pay for the massive expense of his border security and military build up plans?

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Of course I am happy to heap it on them if necessary to keep our country. If not, we probably will not have one to leave them!

Ateo - 3-29-2015 at 08:25 AM

"Securing the border" makes a great soundbite for politicians, but when we actually look beyond the rhetoric, much of what they propose is ridiculous and in the end just another empty promise. Ted Cruz is not stupid, and he knows none of this will ever happen, but it's surely good for a few votes.

EXACTAMENTE!!!

Boy will that get expensive when we decide to totally secure the Canadian border too! Then we will need to secure the West and East Coasts. Then we will need to secure from above (the sky - planes and drones) and from below (underground tunnels).

This is about as likely to happen as stopping the flow of drugs......

It's tax season...............when I cut my check to Uncle Sam, I think of all the stupid crap he's gonna spend it on. This issue being one of them..............

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by Ateo]

Gulliver - 3-29-2015 at 08:33 AM

The people who are 'out to get us', feel that way because we are clearly 'out to get them'. Our bloated and wildly out of proportion military presence overseas has repeatedly been the central cause of our unpopularity world wide.

You are right about Texas. Why we fought the civil war is a mystery. The South should have been allowed to sink on it's own. As far as I can see, everything South of the Mason Dixon line is Tobacco Road and everything East of Denver is big cities, corn fields and flying monkeys.

Left Coast forever!

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 08:42 AM

David, I assume that since you are for Ted Cruz, you are also in favor of a big tax increase to pay for the massive expense of his border security and military build up plans?

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Of course I am happy to heap it on them if necessary to keep our country. If not, we probably will not have one to leave them!

I think you are being a bit melodramatic there. Considering that we already have the largest and most powerful military on the planet, with the capability to completely annihilate any country that attacks us, who exactly is it that will make it so "we will probably not have one to leave them"? If our country is destroyed it is more likely to come from within than without, and will likely be related to fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable spending, of which, the defense/security budget is the largest offender.

ELINVESTIG8R - 3-29-2015 at 08:57 AM

David, I assume that since you are for Ted Cruz, you are also in favor of a big tax increase to pay for the massive expense of his border security and military build up plans?

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Of course I am happy to heap it on them if necessary to keep our country. If not, we probably will not have one to leave them!

You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I will not be changing mine anytime soon.

the defense/security budget is the largest offender???

durrelllrobert - 3-29-2015 at 09:15 AM

Let's see: Defense and Protection combined = 22% of 2016 budget; Welfare, Health Care and Pensions combined = 63%. Yea, I know that LIberlas believe that those are more important than Homeland Security and the military.

rts551 - 3-29-2015 at 09:26 AM

2016? didn't know we had a budget yet.

Author for the above numbers is Christopher Chantrill, a noted conservative writer.

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by rts551]

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 09:43 AM

Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert

Let's see: Defense and Protection combined = 22% of 2016 budget; Welfare, Health Care and Pensions combined = 63%. Yea, I know that LIberlas believe that those are more important than Homeland Security and the military.

Those simple pie charts leave a lot out. And yes some people have the silly notion that it's better to spend money on making our country more efficient, healthier, better educated, with less poverty, than projecting empire around the globe.

How Much Does Washington Spend on 'Defense'?
The nearly $1 trillion national security budget.

Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer May 22, 2012

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.

Recent months have seen a flurry of headlines about cuts (often called “threats”) to the US defense budget. Last week, lawmakers in the House of Representatives even passed a bill that was meant to spare national security spending from future cuts by reducing school-lunch funding and other social programs.

Mattea Kramer and Chris Hellman
Here, then, is a simple question that, for some curious reason, no one bothers to ask, no less answer: How much are we spending on national security these days? With major wars winding down, has Washington already cut such spending so close to the bone that further reductions would be perilous to our safety?

In fact, with projected cuts added in, the national security budget in fiscal 2013 will be nearly $1 trillion—a staggering enough sum that it’s worth taking a walk through the maze of the national security budget to see just where that money’s lodged.

If you’ve heard a number for how much the United States spends on the military, it’s probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That’s the Pentagon’s base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5 percent cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the United States spends on national security. Let’s dig a little deeper.

The Pentagon’s base budget doesn’t include war funding, which in recent years has been well over $100 billion. With US troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well. In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year.

Add in war funding, and our national security total jumps to $618 billion. And we’re still just getting started.

The US military maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons. You might assume that we’ve already accounted for nukes in the Pentagon’s $530 billion base budget. But you’d be wrong. Funding for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy (DOE), so it’s a number you rarely hear. In fiscal 2013, we’ll be spending $11.5 billion on weapons and related programs at the DOE. And disposal of nuclear waste is expensive, so add another $6.4 billion for weapons cleanup.

Now, we’re at $636 billion and counting.

How about homeland security? We’ve got to figure that in, too. There’s the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will run taxpayers $35.5 billion for its national security activities in fiscal 2013. But there’s funding for homeland security squirreled away in just about every other federal agency as well. Think, for example, about programs to secure the food supply, funded through the US Department of Agriculture. So add another $13.5 billion for homeland security at federal agencies other than DHS.

That brings our total to $685 billion.

Then there’s the international affairs budget, another obscure corner of the federal budget that just happens to be jammed with national security funds. For fiscal 2013, $8 billion in additional war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is hidden away there. There’s also $14 billion for what’s called “international security assistance”—that’s part of the weapons and training Washington offers foreign militaries around the world. Plus there’s $2 billion for “peacekeeping operations,” money US taxpayers send overseas to help fund military operations handled by international organizations and our allies.

That brings our national security total up to $709 billion.

We can’t forget the cost of caring for our nation’s veterans, including those wounded in our recent wars. That’s an important as well as hefty share of national security funding. In 2013, veterans programs will cost the federal government $138 billion.

That brings us to $847 billion—and we’re not done yet.

Taxpayers also fund pensions and other retirement benefits for non-veteran military retirees, which will cost $55 billion next year. And then there are the retirement costs for civilians who worked at the Department of Defense and now draw pensions and benefits. The federal government doesn’t publish a number on this, but based on the share of the federal workforce employed at the Pentagon, we can estimate that its civilian retirees will cost taxpayers around $21 billion in 2013.

By now, we’ve made it to $923 billion—and we’re finally almost done.

Just one more thing to add in, a miscellaneous defense account that’s separate from the defense base budget. It’s called “defense-related activities,” and it’s got $8 billion in it for 2013.

That brings our grand total to an astonishing $931 billion.

And this will turn out to be a conservative figure. We won’t spend less than that, but among other things, it doesn’t include the interest we’re paying on money we borrowed to fund past military operations; nor does it include portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are dedicated to national security. And we don’t know if this number captures the entire intelligence budget or not, because parts of intelligence funding are classified.

For now, however, that whopping $931 billion for fiscal year 2013 will have to do. If our national security budget were its own economy, it would be the nineteenth largest in the world, roughly the size of Australia’s. Meanwhile, the country with the next largest military budget, China, spends a mere pittance by comparison. The most recent estimate puts China’s military funding at around $136 billion.

Or think of it this way: National security accounts for one quarter of every dollar the federal government is projected to spend in 2013. And if you pull trust funds for programs like Social Security out of the equation, that figure rises to more than one third of every dollar in the projected 2013 federal budget.

Yet the House recently passed legislation to spare the defense budget from cuts, arguing that the automatic spending reductions scheduled for January 2013 would compromise national security. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said such automatic cuts, which would total around $55 billion in 2013, would be “disastrous” for the defense budget. To avoid them, the House would instead pull money from the National School Lunch Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, food stamps and programs like the Social Services Block Grant, which funds Meals on Wheels, among other initiatives.

Yet it wouldn’t be difficult to find savings in that $931 billion. There’s plenty of low-hanging fruit, starting with various costly weapons systems left over from the Cold War, like the Virginia class submarine, the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, the missile defense program and the most expensive weapons system on the planet, the F-35 jet fighter. Cutting back or cancelling some of these programs would save billions of dollars annually.

In fact, Congress could find much deeper savings, but it would require fundamentally redefining national security in this country. On this issue, the American public is already several steps ahead of Washington. Americans overwhelmingly think that national security funding should be cut—deeply.

If lawmakers don’t pay closer attention to their constituents, we already know the alternative: pulling school-lunch funding.

bajabuddha - 3-29-2015 at 09:47 AM

Plus, the Health Care (28%) includes the VA Healthcare System, which is the largest healthcare system in the Country. Statisticians can make up any numbers game to suit their needs.

David K - 3-29-2015 at 10:01 AM

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this and agree with the premise of the article.

Beyond that, I will NEVER, EVER vote for another president from Texas.

I thought Ted Cruz was born in Canada (to an American mother working there)?

Phil S - 3-29-2015 at 10:02 AM

Nothing mentioned here about the "Black Budget". Google it. Or Black Projects. Or Gov't building underground bases. None of that is shown in Military budgets or Defense budgets.

Here's some current data from the 2014 budget

durrelllrobert - 3-29-2015 at 10:31 AM

www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?
PDF of this Policy Basic (4pp.)
Updated March 11, 2015
In fiscal year 2014, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion, amounting to 20 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Of that $3.5 trillion, over $3.0 trillion was financed by federal revenues. The remaining amount ($485 billion) was financed by borrowing. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending each make up about one-fifth of the budget:

Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $851 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,329 to 39.0 million retired workers in December 2014. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.1 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.9 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2014.

Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies together accounted for 24 percent of the budget in 2014, or $836 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $511 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 54 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month provide health care or long-term care to about 70 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.

Defense and international security assistance: Another 18 percent of the budget, or $615 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Defense Department. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Afghanistan and other related activities, described as Overseas Contingency Operations in the budget, funding for which totaled $92 billion in 2014.

Two other categories together account for another fifth of federal spending:
Safety net programs: About 11 percent of the federal budget in 2014, or $370 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2013 and 2014 as the economy continued to improve.

These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing

assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis using Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that government safety net programs kept some 39 million people out of poverty in calendar year 2013. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 28.1 percent in 2013, nearly double the actual 15.5 percent.

Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached nearly $13 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2014. In 2014, these interest payments claimed $229 billion, or about 7 percent of the budget.

As the chart above shows, the remaining fifth of federal spending goes to support a wide variety of other public services. These include providing health care and other benefits to veterans and retirement benefits to retired federal employees, assuring safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, and investing in education, scientific and medical research, and basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports. A very small slice — about 1 percent of the total budget — goes to non-security programs that operate internationally, including programs that provide humanitarian aid.

While critics often decry “government spending,” it is important to look beyond the rhetoric and determine whether the actual public services that government provides are valuable. To the extent that such services are worth paying for, the only way to do so is ultimately with tax revenue. Consequently, when thinking about the costs that taxes impose, it is essential to balance those costs against the benefits the nation receives from public services.

Alan - 3-29-2015 at 10:43 AM

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Conservatives are spending their children's future? It was the current administration that has more than tripled the National Debt.

elgatoloco - 3-29-2015 at 10:55 AM

I fully support efforts of Texans to secede from the United States of America.

Cruz / Trump 2016!

wessongroup - 3-29-2015 at 10:56 AM

Bob, appears you have figured out the new "software" on posing ...

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by wessongroup]

durrelllrobert - 3-29-2015 at 11:02 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup

Bob, appears you have figured out the new "software" on posing ...

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by wessongroup]

Finally! Moved the cut/ paste from article to MS Word and edited out all the BN unrecognized punctuation then pasted onto my post one paragraph at a time.

Gulliver - 3-29-2015 at 11:26 AM

More listening to 'Faux News'.

Have another drink of cool-aid.

wessongroup - 3-29-2015 at 11:33 AM

Why don't you post a list of those "characters" which prevent posting :lol:

A real Catch 22 ...

norte - 3-29-2015 at 11:58 AM

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Conservatives are spending their children's future? It was the current administration that has more than tripled the National Debt.

Yup, I almost chocked on my oatmeal when I read that! Barry Obama has outspent ALL the previous presidents since George Washington, COMBINED!

For what, more unemployed or lost their full time work (thanks to Obamacare), more on food stamps, the world is falling apart, people who have just run out of unemployment are now being used to show a lower unemployment rate, since they are off the list now and NOT because they have jobs. The country is more polarized, less transparent, lost the greatness we once had, and for what?

for what? A very long war (wars) and a lot of border patrol looking at a fence.

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 01:19 PM

Well, at least you are willing to pay for it. Most of the conservatives I talk to are happy to just put the expense onto their children and grandchildren.

Conservatives are spending their children's future? It was the current administration that has more than tripled the National Debt.

The fact is both parties spend like drunken sailors, I kind of remember a lot of Republicans also voting for TARP and the other bank welfare programs, sure Republicans talk about cutting the deficit and smaller government, but they'll put every dime they save and more, into more military spending, more war, and other ill conceived crap like a double border fence thousands of miles long, and all of it while lowering taxes on the 1%. Wait until interest rates inevitably rise, the interest on all that debt will go through the roof. I'm not going to defend Democrats, many of them also voted for Bush's wars, DHS, corporate welfare, and lots of other things we don't need, but the idea that it is only the Democrat's fault that we are so far in debt, is just absurd. They should all be held accountable, but as long as the corporate media and the politicians can keep convincing the voters that it is all the other side's fault, we will never move forward. Gridlock is what they want, it insures that the moneyed interests who own the politicians and write the legislation will continue to control the agenda. Oh, and by the way, much of the debt expansion is due to the continuing costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other programs started under Bush, like the medicare prescription drug benefit, DHS, and the costs of taking care of the 70% of veterans from those wars who are claiming some sort of disability. The US budget doesn't get reset every time a new party takes office.

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by monoloco]

wessongroup - 3-29-2015 at 01:50 PM

Dittos ... "Guns and Butter" for the past 50 plus years

[Edited on 3-29-2015 by wessongroup]

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 04:12 PM

100 ways Republicans are just like Democrats:

http://ivn.us/2012/11/06/100-ways-republicans-are-just-like-...

monoloco - 3-29-2015 at 05:28 PM

Wars were not our choice... but necessary. Did you forget what happened on 9-11-01? We were united as a country then... the Dems voted for the war (before voting against, ala Kerry). What a bunch of hypocrites!

National defense is the #1 purpose of the government. Did any of you read the constitution or pass Civics in high school?

Of course when I went to school, there was a flag and we said the Pledge every day and sang patriotic songs once a week. Now, it's probably a Hope and Change Obama poster and slogans from Karl Marx on the wall?

The war in Iraq had absolutely ZERO to do with 9-11, and the war in Afghanistan almost zero. We can see now how they both worked out, and we are not one bit more secure because of either of those wars. The only ones who benefited were the corporations who supplied them and the politicians, on BOTH sides of the aisle who collect contributions from them. By the way, I have read the constitution, but I must have missed the part that declares our military is to be the world's policeman.

Hook - 3-29-2015 at 08:02 PM

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this and agree with the premise of the article.

Beyond that, I will NEVER, EVER vote for another president from Texas.

I thought Ted Cruz was born in Canada (to an American mother working there)?

Maybe he was, I dont know.

But he is still FROM Texas, at this point, seeing as he is a Senator from the Great State of Texas.

It's a prejudicial remark on my part, no doubt, about a Texan for president. But history can't be ignored.

Hook - 3-29-2015 at 08:33 PM

I remember civics, David.

But we are at a point where we aren't providing for the common defense in a manner that allows for promoting the general welfare of the country.

Our best "weapon" is no longer military might, though we certainly have the military might necessary. No, our best weapon is how we can control countries through economics, vis a vis, embargoes and currency and commodity manipulations that weaken their currencies.

I think the world is much safer than it has been in its entire modern history, anyway. When 50-85 million people are killed in a six year period like 1939-45, it's hard to take these Middle Eastern skirmishes as a real threat to us.

But, hey, when you have friends in the military/energy complex, you have to promise them work to get yourself elected. That's what Texans running for president seem to do..........or at least that's what ends up happening. With the single biggest border with Mexico, think how many Texas businesses would benefit from this hair-brained plan of Cruz's.

Besides, it wouldnt have taken a single extra cent of spending to prevent 9/11, if persons higher up in the FBI had just listened to a Minnesota FBI agent's plea to serve search warrants on Zacarias Moussaoui. The whole plot would have been uncovered, at that point.

I am no conspiracy theorist. I think it was just incompetence or even dereliction of duty by higher ups in the FBI.

motoged - 3-29-2015 at 08:59 PM

Come on you guys....do a minute's worth of research

Cruz was born in Canada to a mother from USA and a father who was from Cuba, and Teddy has renounced his Canadian citizenship (good riddance to a goof).....so much for being against immigration reform :rolleyes:

His father is a crackpot preacher:

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/the-most-controversial-things-ted-cruzs-dad-has-ever-said#.xyVLprNR6m

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/2013/10/ted-cruz-father-is-a-rabid-right-wing-preacher-what-more-do-you-need-to-know-about-the-why-of-the- shutdown/

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this and agree with the premise of the article.

Beyond that, I will NEVER, EVER vote for another president from Texas.

I thought Ted Cruz was born in Canada (to an American mother working there)?

Gulliver - 3-29-2015 at 09:52 PM

I'm 71 and I can faintly remember when the republican party was a respectable organization with candidates who stood for reasonable things. What happened?

I'm not carrying any water for Obama either. I think he's a right wing corporate tool who is just fine with crap like NAFTA. But these weird 'conservative' people who are in the news now are just that, weird.

Timinator - 3-30-2015 at 05:34 AM

As a Conservative, I say secure the border. We're a country not a welfare state for the world. I'm not anti Mexico either, quite the contrary. There is no country anywhere in the world, including Mexico with open borders, healthcare, education, ect., all for free if you can illegally get into the country. This is plain and simply wrong. The US can't afford it, and shouldn't have to. Mexico is the problem, it's economic system is the problem, it's politicians are the problem. The fix, isn't illegally migrating to the US, finding an illegal job there, and sending your money back to Mexico. The Mexican people, both living there and in the US don't want to be part of the US, they want to be citizens of Mexico. That in itself should shed some light on those of you who feel open borders are good thing. But then again, 50% of you are on some type of government handout program so it's not surprising you're backing the golden goose.

I'm fine with Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, or Carly. All are for The Fair Tax, something our country needs desperately. If, for no other reason than to take all politicians out of the taxation process.

[Edited on 3-30-2015 by Timinator]

grizzlyfsh95 - 3-30-2015 at 08:57 AM

:lol:

I'm not carrying any water for Obama either. I think he's a right wing corporate tool who is just fine with crap like NAFTA. But these weird 'conservative' people who are in the news now are just that, weird.[/rquote]

Mexitron - 3-30-2015 at 11:31 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Gulliver

I'm 71 and I can faintly remember when the republican party was a respectable organization with candidates who stood for reasonable things. What happened?

I'm not carrying any water for Obama either. I think he's a right wing corporate tool who is just fine with crap like NAFTA. But these weird 'conservative' people who are in the news now are just that, weird.

Eisenhower was my kind of politician (in fact both parties wanted him to run for their ticket, which tells you also how strangely left the Dems have come since). It seemed as though politicians of that era cared more about the country as a whole, rather than the Repubs now protecting the rich and Dems protecting the poor.

elgatoloco - 3-30-2015 at 11:37 AM

Now, it's probably a Hope and Change Obama poster and slogans from Karl Marx on the wall?

Sounds just like an 'opinion' your hero Micheal Savage would share. :lol:

mtgoat666 - 3-30-2015 at 11:49 AM

National defense is the #1 purpose of the government. Did any of you read the constitution or pass Civics in high school?

where does the constitution say national defense is the "#1 purpose" of government?

motoged - 3-30-2015 at 11:51 AM

As a Conservative, I say secure the border. ......But then again, 50% of you are on some type of government handout program so it's not surprising you're backing the golden goose.
[Edited on 3-30-2015 by Timinator]

Tim,
How do you come up with that 50% statistic?

Would the border protection business be part of what you are calling a government handout? Is the military budget and the corporations contracted to do its dirty work (e.g. Academi [Blackwater], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi ) part of that Golden Goose of which you speak?

SFandH - 3-30-2015 at 01:26 PM

Another statistic to keep in mind, according to the article in the first post, and I have read it elsewhere:

45% of the people in the US who do not have the correct documents crossed the border legally, with a visa in hand. They overstayed their visas. Building walls and lining the border with police will not fix that.

Heavily penalizing businessmen and private citizens caught hiring undocumented workers would be a BIG step to fixing the problem.

Timinator - 3-30-2015 at 01:28 PM

Just about anywhere you look, you come up with right at 50%. Where are you looking and not finding it? Quick search brought up these three.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/almost-half-of-all-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/02/weve-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/02/weve-...

As far as the border; I'd have our military along it "training" along with our National Guard. Not to shoot, but to repel by the simple means of their presence. It works without any problems whatsoever all over the world.

As far as who's paying for it; well, with a democrats in office and higher taxes, less jobs, lower wages, etc. It's tough for businesses to open, and new business to open at all. I know, I've owned several. Again, the Fair Tax takes all taxes and the corruption that comes with them away from Politicians. Zero corporate tax would make the US the premier place for any company to open, relocate or expand to. With zero corporate tax, you'd have 13 trillion dollars that's sitting in offshore accounts come back into US banks so they can lend to.... businesses, homeowners, entrepreneurs, etc. With money so tight (again Democrats), there is no money out there for anything or anybody, unless you're so well off you don't need or want it. That's why we're at basically zero growth and we'll stay that way until taxes are lowered and people go back to work. The problem isn't the rich like democrats what you to believe, it's no jobs for the poor so they can start their climb to being self reliance. There isn't going to be jobs EVER as long as Obama or Hillary are President. Yea, you can point to Bill's term and it's growth, but Bill was brilliant, he left everything in place, he didn't change a damn thing that Reagan and Bush1 put in place, he just road their coat tails. There isn't a single piece of legislation he passed that changed anything business wise, he left it all alone. He did put in place the last pieces of the puzzle that started the Democrat Housing Crisis during Bush2 though! That was completely and totally all Democrats, the whole way. There are Youtube videos of Bush2 describing what was going to happen to the housing market and all the democrats called him racist! Just so damn dumb.

[Edited on 3-30-2015 by Timinator]

wessongroup - 3-30-2015 at 01:55 PM

"Heavily penalizing businessmen and private citizens caught hiring undocumented workers would be a BIG step to fixing the problem."

Additionally ... linking those that provide "funding" to those same business through commercial loans and/or real estate secured loans ... would slow it down a bit too ... ya know, placing liability on the Financial/Insurance Industry :biggrin:

Follow the money ... typically works very well in our current system

Spot on ... Tim ... regarding Clinton's part in the Housing mess ... He picked up after the Savings and Loan mess ... with Congress coming out with all the New Laws and Reg's governing ... Lending on SFR and Commercial ... that lead ultimately to the financial melt down ...

Someone finally had to start making "payments" ... much like what all will be facing going forward ... here in the United States based on the Astronomical Level of National Debt we have incurred over the past 6 or so years ... someone has to pay

Still would have rather seen the United States take the same course as Iceland .. they didn't die and would appear to be doing OK without going into terrible long term debt to cover the Financial Industry Losses ... over their lack of management and acceptance of Fiduciary Responsibilities which one incurres as a lender ... like it or not

[Edited on 3-30-2015 by wessongroup]

Timinator - 3-30-2015 at 01:59 PM

A guarded border would stop the illegal immigration problem. Or at least cut it back so dramatically that it could be managed by our Immigration department.

Again, I'm not against anything Mexico, if the Mexican people wanted it, I'd like to see Mexico become the next few states. But, they don't. They want to be Mexican, not a US Citizen. 13+ million of them, in our schools, hospitals, jails, etc, that really don't want to be citizens is a PROBLEM.

mtgoat666 - 3-30-2015 at 02:31 PM

"fair tax" :lol:

another pipe dream of the rich to force a regressive tax on the poor and middle class!

bledito - 3-30-2015 at 04:22 PM

would be better to secure mexico's souther border and annex mexico. stop the flow from central america to mexico and beyond.

Timinator - 3-30-2015 at 04:25 PM

[/rquote]

"fair tax" :lol:

another pipe dream of the rich to force a regressive tax on the poor and middle class!
[/rquote]

Yea, I can see you've read both books on The Fair Tax and are on top of your game.

So, the poor should blindly support whom? Who exactly has their best interest at heart? We've had 8 years of Democrats controlling at least 2 of the 3 houses, how's that worked out for the poor? Have you ever happen to look at what the Bush Tax Cuts did for unemployment and tax revenue generated (until the Democrat Housing Crisis)? Look it up smart guy then show me how any program ever passed or pushed by Democrats employed as many people or generated as much tax revenue or growth in GDP?

monoloco - 3-30-2015 at 05:36 PM

You would probably be surprised to know that I support eliminating corporate taxes, it's much more efficient to tax the owners/shareholders of corporations than to tax corporations. A progressive income tax makes sense, it is counterproductive to tax people at the poverty level, but the tax code needs to be simplified. Take away most of the deductions, loopholes, and subsidies, tax investment income and labor at the same rate, (income is income) and drastically lower the overall tax rates.

Alan - 3-30-2015 at 06:23 PM

I believe the 50% he referred to was the 50% of Americans that pay $0 federal tax. The one's with no skin in the game. The one's that can now just continue to vote in those who promise to increase their benefits instead of merely increasing their opportunities.

All these programs starting with LBJ's War on Poverty that began with such noble concepts, have had devastating unintended consequences and have become dismal failures. After trillions of dollars the poverty rate in the US is now higher than when LBJ made his proposal. Politicians on both sides continue to just throw money at it without any accountability. Who evaluates what programs have been successful and warrant continued funding and what programs need to be defunded? All of these programs that were intended to provide a much needed Hand Up have morphed into becoming Hand Outs.

I am an advocate of securing our borders just as I advocate everyone locking the door to their house. I am not racist or anti-Mexican and I live in Baja 6 months a years. When I am here I adhere to their laws.... all of them. That includes visas, fishing licenses, boat permits and taxes.

Securing our border must be a two prong approach; secure the border AND prosecute those who hire and exploit illegals. AFTER the border is secure we need to reform our immigration policies.

Deport the current 12 million illegals? That is obviously a logistical impossibility. Those that demand that of those who seek to represent them are delusional. Provide them with work permits so they can come out of the shadows for now and openly contribute to our society. After a one-time amnesty for crossing, deport ALL those who break our laws and keep them on an "undesirable list". AFTER the border is truly secure Documented Workers could apply for citizenship in accordance with our future policy.

DavidT - 3-30-2015 at 08:51 PM

Fred On Everything

How Long America?
In Which the Unthinkable is Thunk
March 29, 2015

Is it possible for the United States to break up, either de facto or formally?

I wonder. The country is not a happy place. Today it is more consciously and resentfully divided, politically, regionally, racially and by sex and class than perhaps ever before. The rich prosper and the middle class sink. Three major racial blocs eye each other with fear and hostility. The hard left controls the media and government against the desires of much of the country, enforcing social engineering that is deeply disliked. Feminists make war on men, and destroy the schools and universities. Washington is widely loathed. Rules, laws, and regulations never voted on grow ever more burdensome and intrusive. Many quietly want out. The question is how to get there.

A breakup will not come by armed secession. We tried that, with poor results. It will come, if it does, by gradual degrees, by inadvertence, by quietly ignoring the central government, by incremental defiance. This has begun. Whether it will continue remains to be seen.

It is not clear that the feds could prevent it. How powerful, really, is Washington? Consider. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, yet Colorado and Washington state made it legal, and got away with it. The feds did not arrest the governors or send troops. Since then, Alaska and Washington DC have legalized weed. Other states seem poised to follow. Unless Washington does something dramatic and soon, the states will learn that they can simply ignore the feds.

Who might like to secede? Most conspicuously, Latinos. In four states—California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico—Latinos either have or will soon have a demographic majority, which means that eventually they will have a voting majority.

This doesn´t mean that white and brown will be locked in mortal political combat. In much of the country Latinos and whites get along reasonably well. It means that Hispanic influence, already potent, will become more so. It may (or may not) mean that Latinos, like blacks, will clump together in such numbers and concentrations that they will have little contact with whites and little incentive to assimilate. Why would they? They like their civilization, food, music, and culture. What they want in America is prosperity.

To generalize but not, I think, excessively, Hispanics have more in common with Mexico that with Washington. Whites in many Western states have little in common with Washington and the Northeast.

Now, here things become interesting. Illegal immigration is, clearly, illegal—yet a black President and attorney general, probably from racial hostility to whites, are doing all they can to increase the Hispanic population of the US. But how could any President stop it? Too many interests have a stake in continuing it. Building a fence along the border is fantasy, as is revoking birthright citizenship. The influx will continue, and new children will not be deportable. They will eventually vote.

The consequence, now inevitable, is that the Southwest will become more Mexican than American. The larger a minority population, the harder to make it do things it doesn’t want to do.

California now issues driver’s licenses to illegals. The police are not allowed to ask about status of immigration. There is talk of allowing illegals to vote in municipal elections, which will speed Mexicanization. These and similar measures come close to making them citizens of California, while not of America.

The drip-by-drip empowerment of Latinos advances apace. The New York Times: “LOS ANGELES — California is challenging the historic status of American citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries...and to open the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers’ licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states ….”
Yep.

New York ponders a similar law.

Defiance of federal law grows common. For example, “Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) says Chicago is the friendliest immigrant city in the nation since they, “made sure that we no longer cooperate with immigration authorities when it comes to the deportation or separation of our families.”

A US congressman, and a US president, defy federal law. This is an ungluing of note.

What can Washington do if states and regions simply go their own way? If large numbsr of people stop paying income taxes, say? One tax evader can be arrested. Fifty thousand cannot. A problem for the feds is that if a state’s police decline to enforce federal laws, the feds have to do it themselves, and they don’t have the manpower. Passive resistance is hard to prosecute, gradualism offers scant pretext, rising generations seem less concerned about immigration than their elders, and a forcible response from Washington would entail frightful political risks.

So as the Fatal Four southwestern states become ever more Latino, what if they de facto eliminate the border with Mexico? They wouldn’t describe it that way. They probably wouldn’t describe it at all. They would just ignore sovereignty. In a globalizing world, the very idea of sovereignty seems less important that it once did. I will guess that the young, who will one day be older, care less than their elders about national identity.

How then would Washington enforce its will? Send the Army? Bomb Los Angeles? Them as has the numbers gets their way. And are getting it.

The result could easily be a de facto integration with Mexico—businesses operating on both sides of the border as if there were no border, a completely free flow of people, and the like.

In the past the rock-solid unity of the United States existed because people wanted it. The foundation was a largely uniform white, Christian, European culture which no one thought about because there was no reason to think about it. Minorities were minor enough that they had to conform to the dominant culture. People shared ideas of morality, education, crime, music, religion, dress, manners, and patriotism.

That unity is gone forever. The old, functioning system has been replaced, not by another functioning system, such as that of Japan, China, or Korea, but by civilizational chaos. A law of human behavior is that people want to live among people like themselves. Another is that they do not like being ruled from afar by people they detest. Who likes Washington today?

Another possibility of secession lies in the South. Mississippi, the darkest state, is thirty-seven percent black. Although we are not permitted to say it, the racial hostility of blacks toward whites is intense. While whites will (now, anyway) vote for a black candidate over a white—which is how we got Obama—blacks vote as a bloc for black candidates. (If memory serves, Obama got 93% of the black vote.)

Should the black percentage in Mississippi grow to a tipping point, then, when whites bail out (which is usually what happens though we are not supposed to say this either), the state would become a self-governing country within a country—dependent on federal subsidies, yes, but having no loyalty to or culture in common with white society. It would not, methinks, feel an urgent need to obey federal laws.

Tell me I’m crazy. But wait twenty years.

Anyone interested in what Mexico is and is not would do well to read Manana Forever by Jorge Castañeda. Not a puff book, just accurate.

http://fredoneverything.net/Secession.shtml

yellowklr - 3-30-2015 at 08:54 PM

Repeal Obamacare and build the wall!!! A country has to secure its own border.

Next say NO to Hillary

motoged - 3-31-2015 at 12:18 AM

Lots of hatred going on here..... :no:

Sounds like some white guys don't like sharing their pie.

JoeJustJoe - 3-31-2015 at 03:15 AM

Why isn't this thread in the OT?

It's comical to me to see all this old conservatives, nativists demanding a wall on the US/Mexico, border, while they themselves live in Mexico, and many of them are living in Mexico, illegally.

As someone pointed out, most Mexican immigrants, just overstay their visa. So a wall won't stop them.

Others have pointed out that the US government should just crack down on the big businesses that hire undocumented Mexican aliens.

Are you people that naive to really believe the US government is really going to heavy fine these big businesses and small businesses that hires these Mexican workers without papers?

Well, I recall the Bush administration used to have a few token busts, to pretend they were doing something, but Bush Jr really didn't crack down. And don't get me started on Reagan, Mr Amnesty, and a great Mexican immigration President. Of course Reagan didn't really like the Mexican workers, but his buddies in big business sure did.

In fact I think Obama, has deported more undocumented Mexican aliens than both Bush and Reagan combined.

Illegal Mexican immigration is only important a few months to a year before election time. This issue is red meat for the ultra conservative base, where many ultra conservatives are xenophobic , especially in the deep south where racism is alive and well.

Come a few weeks before election time, this immigration issue is way down the list as an important issue, and isn't even talked about, especially with the growing amount of Latino voters who view attacks on Mexican undocumented immigrates as nothing more than open hostility on all Mexicans. ( they don't buy the argument, it's only the illegal Mexican immigrants they don't like. )

Big business especially in the agriculture, construction, and service fields loves Mexican workers, with or without papers. Big business with deep pockets, have the politicians ear, and that includes both Republicans and democrats. Nobody is going to really care what some xenophobic ultra conservatives wants who votes republican, and perhaps has his panties in a bunch because he heard some Mexicans talking Spanish in the US. The tea party people will get lip service, and that's all

low cost approach to securing the border?

durrelllrobert - 3-31-2015 at 08:11 AM

The US still has tons of banned scatterable land mines they need to get rid of. Cost of scattering them along the border would be minimal with a small additional cost to post the "Danger Mine Field" signs (in Spanish of Course). If they run out of mines just the signs should be enough. :lol:

BajaDanD - 3-31-2015 at 09:30 AM

I think we should build all federal prisons along the border and also state prisons for the states that share the border with Mexico. build enough of them to cover most of the border area. Patrol the rest of the border. use the prisons to process anyone caught crossing illegally into the US and also for holding areas to process illegals before deportation.

Ateo - 3-31-2015 at 09:46 AM

What an insane world some of you live in...............

mtgoat666 - 3-31-2015 at 09:47 AM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaDanD

I think we should build all federal prisons along the border and also state prisons for the states that share the border with Mexico. build enough of them to cover most of the border area. Patrol the rest of the border. use the prisons to process anyone caught crossing illegally into the US and also for holding areas to process illegals before deportation.

there appear to be many gringos violating mexico's immigration laws. perhaps it would save money if the USA and mexico built a shared prison at the border to imprison gringo and mexican immigration violators, eh?

Timinator - 3-31-2015 at 10:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Lee

Wow, you guys have been busy! Lot's and lot's of innuendo and what if's passed on as facts.

As far as a "progressive" tax, that's exactly what shouldn't be. I believe in just the opposite; a regressive tax. The more you make, the less the percentage of what you make get's taxed. I make the money, why should the government get more of it because I may have worked harder and longer than others around me, or moved to where jobs were, or struggled and got myself an advanced degree. Why would that ENTITLE the government to more of what I make? I believe there should be limit to what they can take. Again, I believe in the Fair Tax which would end this. Taxed only when you buy goods or services. Everybody, even the poor need to "feel" the tax, we don't bring up our kids any differently we teach them responsibility. Paying a fair share is a responsibility.

The "rich get richer" that's complete crap. Maybe the ultra rich, those .02%, but everybody else is just trying to keep what they have. You don't like all the poor around? Quit voting for Democrats. Besides, the US "poor" aren't poor at all, they're the most spoiled, pampered bunch of moochers in all of history. They have MORE THAN 98% of the people on earth, all provided to them for free from that PROGRESSIVE tax you Democrats keep pushing for "equality". You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You do realize that income inequality is the highest since the robber baron era? It certainly doesn't seem like the high tax burden is negatively affecting the 1%.

Income inequality isn't the problem. Like I said, the poor in the United States are "richer" than 98% of the rest of the entire world. I think everybody should have a chance to be, or become as "flush" as they have the drive and ability to achieve to. Bigger government/Democrats keep the poor poor and keep the rich/donors rich. Democrats in the 60's and 70's used to say "there are too many poor in our society", and went about screwing things up completely, wasting trillions of other peoples money on programs that have kept the poor at a level almost impossible to break out of. Now, Democrats say "their are too many rich" and are at it again spending other peoples money to enrich their own agendas and again creating more and more barriers for people to enrich themselves. Government and it's policies are the problem, not high achievers and producers. By high achievers and producers, I'm not talking about all the Democrat bankers and money brokers that were bailed out with....other peoples money.

Coockeyed politics explaining why the border is not secure? You must be a Republican since everything is the Democrats fault?

Republicans and Democrats: dweedle dumb and dweedle dee. Same old BS that just keeps coming around.

When will Al Gore and global warming be mentioned?

Actually, I'm a Conservative. Don't confuse me with a Republican.

Probably your worst nightmare too because I'm a Atmospheric Scientist who worked not only on the original data for the Global Warming models but also on parts of the Models themselves. I can absolutely guarantee you the data used in the Models isn't correct, in fact, only the one hour averages of the raw data is still around, all the original data is GONE. Can't be checked or validated anymore because it never met any of the original QA/QC to begin with! It's a complete scam. The Models/Math were tweaked to give the results that the EPA wanted which kept my boss and all of us employed. Ever wonder why the Models have never predicted a single year of warming correctly in the last 20 years? Come on, you must have at least asked yourself that? I'll tell you this, there is NO WAY, even today, that ANY type of temperature probe can be out in the environment for extended periods of time to accurately measure temperature to the degree necessary to measure GLOBAL climate change. It can't be done and isn't being done by anyone. There would need to be thousands and thousands and thousands of these across the globe and there isn't. Argue all you want, the science doesn't exist yet.

dtbushpilot - 3-31-2015 at 10:20 AM

Now you've gone and done it Tim, they are going to start calling you names now....

monoloco - 3-31-2015 at 10:34 AM

What the hell does global warming have to do with border security?

Timinator - 3-31-2015 at 10:57 AM

Quote: Originally posted by dtbushpilot

Now you've gone and done it Tim, they are going to start calling you names now....

It's OK, facts are facts. I don't mind educating a few people, all you can do is tell them the truth.

Ask the EPA for the QA/QC data for the GW data set. You'll never see it or get it. It may even have been erased or destroyed because it will completely disqualify the data. Of all the atmospheric data that can be taken, accurately measuring temperature is by far the hardest. So many things affect temperature at any single location. It's practically impossible to measure it without affecting it, much less make sure nothing within 100's of yards every changes throughout the years. Not to mention, every station ever located by the EPA, or with EPA money, went to the lowest bidder as did the company's who perform the QA/QC on the instruments. It's the nature of the game. If we can't do it here is the US, exactly who is doing it accurately all over the world?

Oh, the Fair Tax would be the best thing that ever happened to the poor and the entire middle class. Actually, the ultra rich who have 100x more stuff than everybody else would be paying 100x more in taxes for it. It's not a perfect tax, but it's better than what we have and, again, it's take politicians out of the tax game. That's should be enough for every voting person in the country to back a candidate who's for it.

durrelllrobert - 3-31-2015 at 11:07 AM

Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I know it doesn't apply to earnings but ....

monoloco - 3-31-2015 at 01:12 PM

Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert

Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I know it doesn't apply to earnings but ....

Yep, and it places a greater burden on the low and middle class because they spend a much higher portion of their incomes on consumables (basically, every penny they earn that doesn't get spent on food) than the wealthy, who can afford to hoard their wealth, or spend it abroad. A consumption tax is the least fair of all tax schemes.

mtgoat666 - 3-31-2015 at 01:33 PM

Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert

Isn't the 16% VAT that rich and poor alike pay on everything they buy in Mexico (including gas, water and electricity) sort of a flat tax? Yea, I know it doesn't apply to earnings but ....

it is amusing that consumption tax advocates call their tax scxheme the "fair tax." fair? :lol:

income tax is the only "fair" tax because it is based on ability to pay the tax. perhaps the progressive income tax is fairest of them all :light:

the consumption tax advocates argue for something like a 30% or more tax on goods. you baja ex pats would be ahead of the curve, because the replacement of income tax with consumption tax would mean the middle class and rich would all start buying houses and luxuries overseas to avoid the consumption tax at home. and overnight bartering would become king and a large black market would begin for most goods and services.

Mexitron - 3-31-2015 at 01:34 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

most all of the western world has progressive income taxes, don't know why middle and upper class gringos are so selfish they continue to harp about their lower class (their servants) paying a lower tax rate,...

Not necessarily:

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-n...

How Sweden fights inequality — without soaking the rich

"There seems to be an obvious solution to rising inequality: higher taxes. But there's an inconvenient fact here. The way most advanced, industrial countries have made real gains on inequality is through relatively regressive taxes that fund programs that reduce inequality. In fact, America's tax system is already unusually progressive by international standards. Our ongoing research suggests that this unusual relationship is not a coincidence.

The countries in northern Europe that have made the biggest strides in reducing economic inequality do not fund their governments through soak-the-rich, steeply progressive taxes. Instead, they have broad-based taxes that ask all workers to contribute to a generous welfare state. Countries with highly progressive taxes that disproportionately hit the rich — like the United States — tend to have the stingiest welfare states.
The figure below makes this point clearly, showing that the more progressive a country's taxes, the less the country does to reduce inequality.

In this chart, redistributive effort refers to percent reduction in the market Gini coefficient — a useful measure of inequality. Household tax progressivity measures how much more (or less) of the tax burden falls on the wealthiest households, compared to households at the middle and the bottom. Both measures are from the OECD.

There's a reason governments in nations with highly progressive taxes end up spending less to combat inequality — those taxes raise relatively little revenue for both economic and political reasons. For instance, the highly progressive taxes in the United States have fostered intense backlash from powerful economic elites, pushing high-earning individuals and firms to find loopholes and lobby for top-end cuts.

The reason Northern European countries with more regressive taxes achieve such high levels of labor market equality, despite less progressive tax systems, is that they spend money on increasing the skills and earning power of low-end wage earners. Countries with the lowest levels of inequality have learned that policies to cultivate skills for all workers and to achieve full employment policies can accelerate economic growth while also reducing inequality. Large investments in human capital reduce societal conflicts over the distribution of resources, even while expanding the economic pie......." --more of the article at the link--

monoloco - 3-31-2015 at 01:37 PM

You do realize that income inequality is the highest since the robber baron era? It certainly doesn't seem like the high tax burden is negatively affecting the 1%.

You are correct. It is not negatively affecting the 1%. It is negatively affecting the 99%. It is keeping jobs and investment overseas. I would prefer a Flat Tax. Allow each state to specify a subsistence level based on cost of living for each area and that would be the standard deduction for all in that area. Anyone who's income is at or below that level would not be subject to taxation. A flat rate would be incurred on any and all income above that level regardless of the source of that income. A 10% tax will impact me just as much as a 10% tax would impact a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet.

I am sickened by the Democratic Party selling their platform of "soft bigotry" that people are too stupid to care for themselves and must be taken care of by the government. We now have generations of Americans that have come to believe this and as a result see no future for themselves and believe they don't have the ability to better their station in life. This soft bigotry has robbed Americans of their aspirations.

Why do we continue to fight over how to divide up the pie when our focus should be, "How can we bake a BIGGER pie"?

A rising tide raises ALL ships.

Do you really think that a 10% tax will affect a guy making 20 million a year the same as a guy making 20K? You don't have to look too deep into economic figures to see that the increase of wealth at the top hasn't translated into more jobs or a rising income for the middle class, because while incomes of the 1% have risen dramatically, the real incomes of everyone else have actually declined. So the idea of the "rising tide lifting all boats" has proven to be a failure. As to your point about business moving offshore, I agree, and that's why we should eliminate corporate taxes, and capture the tax from the shareholders.

[Edited on 3-31-2015 by monoloco]

It's a lot fairer than our current tax structure. Everyone should have some skin in the game. Why should Warren Buffet be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary because our system forces him to manipulate his income sources in the most advantageous means available. Our current structure is killing the lower and middle income class and even worse by it's very nature it is setup to punish success and reward failure by simply increasing taxes on the wealthy to provide benefits to the poor. It sounds good in theory but it isn't working. Herman Cain's proposal of 9/9/9 had a lot of merit unfortunately his silly slogan made it sound like he was running a special on his pizzas.

It's not the progressive income tax that is the problem, it's the thousands of pages of deductions, subsidies, and loopholes, which predominately favor the rich because they are the ones with the lobbyists to get them inserted in the tax code.

wessongroup - 3-31-2015 at 01:43 PM

It is pretty simple ... just saying

[Edited on 3-31-2015 by wessongroup]

Timinator - 3-31-2015 at 02:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

Good article and write up. I've always thought a regressive tax was much more fair. Coupled with strides to educate workers and not welfare recipients is always a good thing.

JoeJustJoe - 3-31-2015 at 02:11 PM

[/rquote]You are correct. It is not negatively affecting the 1%. It is negatively affecting the 99%. It is keeping jobs and investment overseas. I would prefer a Flat Tax. Allow each state to specify a subsistence level based on cost of living for each area and that would be the standard deduction for all in that area. Anyone who's income is at or below that level would not be subject to taxation. A flat rate would be incurred on any and all income above that level regardless of the source of that income. A 10% tax will impact me just as much as a 10% tax would impact a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet.

I am sickened by the Democratic Party selling their platform of "soft bigotry" that people are too stupid to care for themselves and must be taken care of by the government. We now have generations of Americans that have come to believe this and as a result see no future for themselves and believe they don't have the ability to better their station in life. This soft bigotry has robbed Americans of their aspirations.

Why do we continue to fight over how to divide up the pie when our focus should be, "How can we bake a BIGGER pie"?

A rising tide raises ALL ships.

Oh my God, a "flat tax!" You hear about flat taxes in every republican primary, since ultra rich fat cat, Steve Forbes was pushing for a flat tax since he ran in the GOP primary and lost.

A flat tax, and a flat Earth, is the same type of thinking, it's backyard thinking, and only favors the rich, especially the ultra rich. There is a reason why Steve Forbes, and republicans push the "flat tax,' because it allows the rich fat cats to really make out like bandits.

Already a rich fat cat like Mitt Romney pays less income taxes than a ditch-digger or his secretary. If the secretary makes about $50,000 dollars, she pays taxes at a 25% tax rate. Mitt Romney who makes most of his money from investments and capital gains, for years has been getting away with only paying a 15% capital gains rate! I think finally now if you're very rich, capital gains will be taxed at 20% but that's only for the ultra rich.

With a flat tax, Mitt Romney would pay zero capital gains tax. How fair is that?

Of course if Romney goes to "Home Depot" and buys a bag of fertilizer, he will pay the same 10% on taxes as the ditch-digger, when he also buys that bag of fertilizer, but as it is, already, the ditch-digger pays more in taxes as a percentage basis, than a fat cat like Romney.

What happens to the home deduction that middle class tax payer really likes? It goes away, just like charity deductions goes away. This is why GOP Presidential candidates that push the flat tax, also just goes away, because they usually lose early in the GOP primaries.

A flat tax will never happen in the USA, it's so unfair to the middle class and poor it's not even funny!

There are also about 20 countries around the world that do have a flat tax, and I don't think, even one of those countries is successful with a flat tax.
__________________________________________

Flat Tax Will Benefit Only the Rich

Conservative politicians support tax increases. Not for their wealthy donors, but for the poor and middle-class Americans who would pay more under the so-called "flat tax" proposals that were touted by Dick Army and Steve Forbes in the 1990s and are gaining currency again.

America has a progressive personal income tax, meaning it applies higher tax rates to the well-off and lower tax rates to the less well-off. Any proposal to adopt a single tax rate somewhere in between the existing highest and lowest rates would result in tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the poor.

It gets worse. Flat tax proposals would exempt investment income, which largely goes to the rich. Our personal income tax already taxes capital gains and stock dividends at lower rates than wages, which mostly benefits the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. Rather than eliminating these and other special breaks, the flat tax proposals would expand them into one big exemption for investment income.

Some wealthy people already disguise their income as capital gains in order to benefit from the lower tax rates. These shenanigans would be even more common if the tax rate on capital gains and dividends was reduced to zero percent.

read the rest here:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-a-flat-tax-a-good-idea/...

[Edited on 3-31-2015 by JoeJustJoe]

Alan - 3-31-2015 at 03:05 PM

Why would you suggest that investment income would be exempt? What I suggested was a flat rate on ALL income regardless of source and a 10% corporate tax would bring money and jobs back home which would provide opportunity once again.

SFandH - 3-31-2015 at 03:09 PM

and a 10% corporate tax would bring money and jobs back home which would provide opportunity once again.

seems like we're almost there:

big profitable U.S. companies paid just 12.6% of their reported worldwide profits in federal income taxes in 2010, a study released today by Congress’ Government Accountability Office shows.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/07/01/gao-big-c...

SFandH - 3-31-2015 at 03:29 PM

Steve Forbes flat tax plan:

"In 1996 he supported a flat tax of 17% on all personal and corporate earned income (unearned income such as capital gains, pensions, inheritance, and savings would be exempt.) However, he supported keeping the first $33,000 of income exempt."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes

One issue I see with plans like these is that if you're making 33K then no taxes but if you make 34K you pay 17%. That doesn't make sense. A progressive tax rate schedule really is the only system that makes sense to me. Details of course are debatable.

[Edited on 3-31-2015 by SFandH]

Lee - 3-31-2015 at 03:38 PM