national sales tax? VAT

[cebeu]

This s*** Administration just gets more comical every day. It's as if these [well-educated, at least on-paper] wad-gobblers have never even been exposed to the concept of economics. I'm so f****** sick of the trash in leadership positions in this country I just can't stand it.

"Hope and change, eh?"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...2W09rQuHKPJx4J

SOURCE: NY Post

Volcker quote; "If, at the end of the day, we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes."

The tax has long had backing from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who last year said it is "on the table..."

[Irving]

It'd be okay if
1) They didn't place BOTH the VAT AND the sales tax
2) The government wasn't already so large.
3) Dupe post


But really, the government is too large. The answer isn't raising taxes it is government lay-offs. We aren't really in a position for that though.

[Hoosier]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!

[al_g]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!

With two exceptions I agree that not only do we need a balanced budget but a reasonable budget to pay down the deficit.

My two exceptions are in cases of formally declared war and during recessions. Most economist agree that deficit spending by the government has a very positive effect.

[SNAFU]

My favorite part of History

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h640.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/C00625...volution.shtml

[Elhuero]

for real change to come to the government American people will have to, by the thousands and tens of thousands, truly understand the second amendment and put it into practice.

it ain't about hunting and target shooting.

[BPTactical]

We really must bring taxes up to pay for what we're spending. I mean, rather than deficit spending. I think there should be a law that requires revenue to exceed expenditures. Surplus to pay down the debt until it's 0, then build a buffer, then set revenue to match expenditure.

It would have the advantage of requiring bills that are passed to provide a means for being paid for. This would get people to understand the only way to lower taxes is to have either a smaller and/or more efficient government. Maybe if they know that X/Y/Z spending program means they must fork out more money, they'll be less open to the idea.

But I doubt it!

Have you noticed with this Admenstruation that they are obsessed with how they can raise more money?

Somebody needs to consider spending less.............


Just a thought

[Hoosier]

Have you noticed with this Admenstruation that they are obsessed with how they can raise more money?

They should be obsessed with raising more money. The last administration should have been. I can't find the number ATM, but it's something like 13% of our budget goes to service the debt. And the situation is getting worse. The last administration to actually lower the deficit was Clinton, due mostly to the first internet bubble.

The only way to do it is to reduce expenditures and/or increase revenue.

We have some even larger "bombs" in the system, like the fact that surplus income from social security that should have been invested or at least kept, was spent. So at some point in the not too distant future, there will be more people wanting their social security benefits than there are people paying in to cover it.

H.

[ARLover]

The last administration to actually lower the deficit was Clinton, due mostly to the first internet bubble.

H.

Also by reducing the size of our miltary.

I got this from a websight, I don't know who wrote it.

"In less than a three-year period under Clinton, America's military manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll by Clinton, some 286,000 (or 90 percent) were military cuts. Over the entire course of the Clinton years, the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. Moreover, the Administration enacted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually."

I will post the web sight in a minute.

[Marlin]

Also by reducing the size of our miltary.

And, CIA,, FBI,, et al...