Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan

[regexcellent]

Why not do both, because just doing one or the other isn't going the fix the deficit.

Sure it can. The deficit can be completely eliminated with the elimination of most of our entitlement programs.

[kentonio]

Honestly, the simplest solution might be to have a twenty year limit on ANY spending, and require a full reconsideration of all budget items from scratch every twenty years or so. But that would require actual work on the part of our congressmen and women =/

That's a great idea, as long as there is some protection in place to avoid a rare but extremely partisan congress from being able to radically change provision of vital services just because they happen to be in power when the budget time comes along.

[Asher]

No sane person looks at a 0.82% tax rate for an incredibly wealthy person and thinks "yes, that seems about right".

Just putting that out there.

[Hauldren Collider]

Budget time comes along every year. All spending is authorized in appropriations legislation that happens on a fiscal year basis. We don't spend money for multiple fiscal years at once.

xpost

No sane person looks at a 0.82% tax rate for an incredibly wealthy person and thinks "yes, that seems about right".

Just putting that out there.

Unless that sane person can do math and realizes that the tax is already hitting their income elsewhere. Note this requires the same abstract thought that demonstrates the fungibility of Albertan oil.

[regexcellent]

The senate hasn't passed a budget in...how long now? Three years? More?

[Asher]

Sure it can. The deficit can be completely eliminated with the elimination of most of our entitlement programs.

By entitlement programs, you're obviously referring to the Department of Defense?

[Hauldren Collider]

By entitlement programs, you're obviously referring to the Department of Defense?

Cutting DoD wouldn't fix the deficit. Military spending hasn't grown in real terms, while medicare is legislated to grow without bound.

[kentonio]

Note this requires the same abstract thought that demonstrates the fungibility of Albertan oil.

Dude, you really should concede Asher that oil fungibility argument, he's been kicking your ass with it for what seems like months now.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, kentonio doesn't understand it either, despite Jaguar and Kuci's valiant efforts. This is to be expected, I suppose.

[regexcellent]

Obviously not. Completely eliminating the military or even every single program besides entitlements would not get rid of the deficit. There aren't cuts to the military that we could make at this point which would make a serious dent in the long-term fiscal health of the country, not while entitlements consume more money than federal tax revenues and continue to grow.

(x-post to asher)

[snoopy369]

Plenty of fiscal conservatives, myself included, would be happy to support reductions in defense spending, along intelligent lines. Unfortunately, that's one of the hardest things to get congresscritters to agree to, as already proven by their unwillingness to cut programs the Pentagon has itself suggested cutting, due to their local effects...

[Asher]

Unless that sane person can do math and realizes that the tax is already hitting their income elsewhere.

Except for when it's not, which a sane person can discover by doing some basic research.

Note this requires the same abstract thought that demonstrates the fungibility of Albertan oil.

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself by bringing that up?

In numerous threads now you've cowered with your tail between your legs whenever I enter this debate (undoubtedly hoping KH or Kuci comes riding to your rescue so you can parrot 'QFT' after). Even if you google the subject, you'll find that egghead academic economists with no foot in the real world will say oil is entirely fungible, while economists who actually live and work in the field will demonstrate otherwise.

You do not understand the oil industry, and frankly you never will.

[Tupac Shakur]

Last I checked, the US' economic growth outpaced Canada's...except our government isn't ridiculously in debt, doesn't carry obscene deficits, and Canadians are healthier and happier.

If Canadians are so happy, why do all the ones who are worth a **** leave the country?

[Guynemer]

Sure it can. The deficit can be completely eliminated with the elimination of most of our entitlement programs.

That'll never happen, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the only thing the majority of Americans agree on in wanting to cut spending is foreign aid, which accounts for less than 1% of the budget, but our dumbass country thinks is somewhere around 10%.

Americans are big ****ing babies. We want it all--big ass military, roads, law enforcement, health care, social security, etc.--and don't want to pay for ****. We all have to pay for it--all of us. Denial of this is tantamount to a nationwide suicide pact.

[regexcellent]

Dude, you really should concede Asher that oil fungibility argument, he's been kicking your ass with it for what seems like months now.

Jaguar, line 1!