There is only about 140 million jobs in the U.S. now.

There used to be 149 million, but Obamao got elected the first time.

It doesn't matter what the heckbunkers lie about ...as long as they

can sway opinions around them with the lies.

Since heckbunkers have no principles in life - the ends justify the means.

(btw, heckbunker and your little flea, woodpecker - Maxine said 170 million...

and that is 30 million more than 140 million. Just so you don't have to

have somebody help you figure it out.)

ah....I've done my good deed for the day.

@fairhooker11 said:

LOLOLOL !

170 million dollar .er... JOBS! GONE!

Look at the woman behind her in blue's face when she says that.

TO GOVERN IS to choose. By missing Friday’s deadline for averting $85 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts to defense and domestic programs, Congress and President Obama have chosen not to govern. Instead, each side has concluded that its interest lies in letting the “sequester” proceed as scheduled — and then trying to win the political blame game.

By Editorial Board, Published: February 28

This abdication is bad public policy.

First, it’s never wise to cut spending without discriminating between the necessary and the wasteful, or without regard to the short-term effect on economic growth.

Second, despite the hype about fired teachers and paralyzed meat inspections, it remains true that, by packing the cuts into a relatively few programs over the next half-year, sequestration destabilizes federal agencies — and the lives of dedicated workers who face significant furloughs and loss of pay. This is especially dangerous with respect to the Defense Department, whose leaders have repeatedly warned that national security is at risk.

And third, for all the disruption, sequestration will do little to solve the country’s long-term budget problem, which can be addressed only through a combination of significant entitlement and revenue-raising tax reform.

The blame game’s ultimate loser is as unpredictable as the precise level and location of damage from the sequester. House Republicans irresponsibly refuse to entertain a sequester-avoidance deal that would include any new tax increases above the $600 billion (over 10 years) they grudgingly allowed to prevent the “fiscal cliff” on Jan. 1. Furthermore, the House won’t even vote on a replacement package of spending cuts, as it did in 2012. Meanwhile, the proposed solution of Senate Democrats — a tax hike on income above $1 million — was calculated more to cast Republicans as defenders of the rich than to become law.

A bill by Republican Sens. James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.) would have given Mr. Obama a freer hand to decide where the budget ax should fall, thus mitigating the harm to national security and other public goods, at least in theory. It also failed; the White House had threatened to veto it anyway, saying that $85 billion is still too much cutting, which the GOP bill would skew in favor of unneeded defense items — and the GOP was just trying to “shift the focus away” from its refusal to compromise. No doubt the White House didn’t want to “own” potentially unpopular specific cuts any more than the House GOP does. (Two Democrats, including Virginia’s Mark R. Warner, voted to proceed on the bill.)

Washington has reached a strange place indeed when the opposition party offers the president more control over spending — and he refuses it. Apparently, in addition to its policy objections, the White House figured that a softened sequester couldn’t force Republicans to accept a long-term deal including higher revenue. It’s a gamble that the worse things might get now, the better they will get later. A strange place, and a sad one.

@legacy-fan said:

Well as I stated in the other thread - since we aren't looking at a reasonable solution for our illegal immigrant problem, this will allow them to contribute to the pie they currently eat from.

That's not really much of an argument for switching to a national sales tax. After all, they're already contributing billions in FICA taxes and state taxes and gas tax and all the rest. And in the case of FICA, they're paying into Social Security and never going to get that back. It's something like $12 billion a year.

And we are looking for reasonable solutions to our illegal immigration problem.

But I'm with you, but only in a sense. I'm for national sales taxes, but not as a way to completely eliminate the income tax.

@the-cysko-kid said:

You know who needs to pay taxes? The military. They're operating well over capacity last I heard (at least the navy is) and they're income isn't taxed. I wasn't complaining when I was in, but really its not paying your fair share.

The military does pay income tax unless you are in a combat zone. Get your information straight. I ought to know, I spent 22 years in. Not only that, I had to pay Ohio income tax the whole time I was in even though I didn't live here. Thankfully, they have stopped that practice now.

So don't mistake me for someone who enjoys paying taxes, and thinks the way we do it is perfect. I'd rather do it another way too. I just don't think a national sales tax is the way to go.

She just wouldn't buy that new car, or a 300.000 dollar motor home.

But, go after the rich with it, mo money to buy votes with. Got it.

I say, a flat tax is the way to go. It would be FAIR across the board. And, if you only make 20 grand a year, the

tax would be little. Why is that so hard for some to get?

If you have someone who is a single parent with two kids who only makes $26,000 a year, they're not going to be paying any income tax. They'll be paying payroll taxes, state taxes, gas taxes, and a host of others. But she's likely exempt from income taxes because she doesn't make enough.

Now replace the income tax with a federal sales tax on everything she buys. Does her tax bill go up or down? Obviously, it goes up. And this is how the tax burden gets shifted to people with lower incomes. This is why it's regressive.

Now, some people, like Steve, thinks this gives her some skin in the game and makes her a better citizen somehow. I've never understood how that works. I don't see how it changes her behavior at all, except that it takes more money out of her pocketbook than she otherwise would have.

The idea that if you take someone who pays a bunch of different taxes, but doesn't make enough to pay the income tax, and then you make them pay the income tax, or a federal sales tax, that this somehow transforms their behavior ...I just don't get it. And if the idea is that now we'd have more people who were "involved in paying for their own benefits, et cetera, they might think harder about the taxing and spending" is just poorly expressed angst.

That single mother is likely fairly stuck in her station in life, with few opportunities for real advancement. That's the reality. If she's suddenly starts paying additional federal taxes, it doesn't suddenly make her more qualified, or educated, or virtuous. It just makes her and her children less financially secure.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.

I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.

As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.

Spend a larger portion of their "income" being the operative word. The "wealthy" rarely have an income. And thats why they arent paying taxes on it. It's not til you start heading into the "top 10%-4%" category (small business owners) where you see this "upper class" as they are incorrectly referred to as relying on income. Which they routinely give over half of it back every year in taxes.

Here's how the burden shakes out per the CBO:

And here's what Americans will be paying come April 15:

How will this shift the burden if they're already paying 10%? The answer is, it wont.

Cysco, actually that's just kind of a pay cut for military right?

Since it comes out of tax revenue anyway it would just add paperwork to a reduction in pay.

WSS

@legacy-fan said:

Regarding the financial caste system/ political horseshit statement:

No more "championing the middle class" or "party of the wealthy" campaign pandering bullshit that doesn't do anybody any good. That disappears when everybody starts paying the same. No more taxation without representation.

I don't think that gets rid of any of that, even a little bit, nor do I worry so much about its existence.

Everyone pays the same amount of tax dollars with a regressive tax. Therefore, people with a lower income pay a larger percentage of their income under this type of tax. The Internal Revenue Service provides this example: If the tax amount is $2,000, a person who earns $10,000 a year pays 20 percent of his income to pay the $2,000. A person who earns $50,000 pays 4 percent, and a person who earns $100,000 pays 2 percent of his income to pay the $2,000.

Regressive Tax Examples

An example of a regressive tax is the sales tax. Money spent to buy essential and nonessential items that have a sales tax of 7 percent, for example, hits those with a lower income harder than it hits higher-income individuals. Fees are another example of a regressive tax, because lower-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income for them. Examples are toll roads, licenses, admission to museums and parks, and parking. A third example of a regressive tax is an excise tax, which is a tax on the production or sale of certain commodities such as alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, gasoline, air travel and telephone services. Excise taxes are typically hidden taxes because they are incorporated into the price of the commodity without consumers' realizing it.

@legacy-fan said:

Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?

Lets start there.

It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).

They spend a greater portion of their income than the wealthy.

I'm not saying anything revolutionary, my brother. Sales taxes are regressive. If you take away the income tax and switch to a national sales tax of equal revenue you're going to have made a huge shift in who pays the taxes in the country, and how much. Now, you can argue that this is a better system because everyone is paying the same rate, and that makes it "fairer" in your estimation. What you can't argue is that it's not going to shift the burden off the rich and on to the poor and middle class. It is going to do that.

As of now, you seem to think that it won't, or weren't aware that it does this. Perhaps you wouldn't think it was such a good idea if you realize that it does. Because it does.

No more "championing the middle class" or "party of the wealthy" campaign pandering bullshit that doesn't do anybody any good. That disappears when everybody starts paying the same. No more taxation without representation.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

National sales taxes have some positives, but I wouldn't want to do it in the way you describe because it'd be hugely regressive. It shifts the tax burden on to the lower and middle classes, and off of the people who can most afford to pay it. Unless you're proposing some ways to mitigate that then all you're doing is figuring out a new way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and on to the poor and middle class.

And how it would eliminate the "financial caste of our country" or "political horseshit" I have no idea. You'll have to explain. You're talking about the battle over tax rates? We don't have an income inequality problem because we have an income tax, and we'd have an even bigger income inequality problem if we shifted to a national sales tax. We'd be making that problem worse.

Again, we've talked about this before, but the reason the tax code is screwed up isn't because we have different rates. The reason the tax code is screwed up is because of the other 900 pages of complexity. The rate structure isn't the complicated part.

But in general I'm all for shifting taxes away from things like income and investment and on to other things. I'd prefer pollution to consumption, but could get on board for both. It depends on how you do it. Right now, this is really just being proposed by Republican Governors as a way to shift the tax burden off of the wealthy, which is the reason they get up in the morning.

Hang on. Are you suggesting the lower & middle class spend more than the wealthy?

Lets start there.

It's a 5% increase on what they're already buying (maybe with more disposable income than they currently have).

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Here are the tax loopholes and how much they cost. See which ones you want to eliminate, or trim. Pretty soon you'll see why Romney and Ryan wouldn't name which ones they wanted to trim - because they're all popular.

Good, you agree, you can't cut most or all of those. All have benefit that impact other areas.

You have to cut spending....the Federal Government is a sham.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Steve, you have to stop saying stuff that isn't true:

"These clowns, your clowns in particular, don't want any restrictions on spending ever for any reason."

This. Is. Not. True.

Go look at what's being proposed and come back to me. Or go look at the deal that was very close to being signed between Obama and Boehner.

The rest of it is more proof that I'm right. You have completely lost your mind, and see everything through this warped "Obama is an evil and power hungry sociopath" lens, just like the most clueless Bush-hater from 2005. Congrats.

Come on man, you sound like a idiot, and I don't think you are.

All the President proposes is tax increases but willy worms around when it comes to cutting spending.

Tax all the rich people making more than 100K a year at 100% and your still not going to balance anything.

Oh, by the way....100k a year isn't rich.

because of the sequester that hasn't even happened yet...

the sequester he wanted because he...

wanted to release all the illegals?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/26/illegal-immigrants-released-detention-centers-sequ/