U.S. Eats Up Most of Debt Limit in One Day

[redrumloa]

U.S. Eats Up Most of Debt Limit in One Day

And some of you guys still don't get the Tea Party?

U.S. debt shot up $239 billion on Tuesday — the largest one-day bump in history — as the government flexed the new borrowing room it earned in this week’s debt-limit increase deal.

The debt subject to the statutory limit shot way past the old limit of $14.294 trillion to hit $14.532 trillion, according to the latest the Treasury Department figures, which are released on the next business day.

That increase puts the government already remarkably close to the new debt limit of $14.694, which means one day’s new borrowing ate up 60 percent of the $400 billion in new space Congress granted the president this week.

 

[Dammy]

I've noticed three general responses to those on the left to this looming financial destruction.

1. They don't understand how the current system works. All they know is the right has been yelling for years about the sky fallen and it hasn't and the elites of the progressives are charging forward like it doesn't matter, so why should it matter? Lemmings comes to mind.

2. Others think that the US DoD budget is a trillion dollars and could easily be gutted. Last I looked, it was $660B or $680B and that is with over $120B ($140B?) for Iraq and Afghanistan war supplement budget. Excluding the three wars (including Libya), we could drop it to about $500B and remain within a margin comfort zone as the majority of that budget is for retirees and future retirements and can't be cut with massive out cry.

3. The last group think its' because the Elites (surprise for them, most of the Americans on Forbes 400 belong/supports DNC) are not paying their fair share and the budget deficit (all $1.6T) would vaporize if they did so. Problem for them, you could have 100% tax on those making $100K or more and it still wouldn't be enough to close that severed artery.

I have two questions for those American Progressives. How much should the Elites be paying in total (income taxes (fed and state) plus Social Security and Medicare) taxes? If you were one of those Elites, would you pay that much or take your money and invest it in another country that would be easier to operate in and less taxes, and they actually want you there to create jobs and wealth?

 

[faethor]

1) The right has been in charge for the majority of these years. Yelling does squat! If they believed this why has the right been a willing lead participant for the last 3+ decades.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I've noticed three general responses to those on the left to this looming financial destruction.

But the left doesn't run anything. The left is unrepresented in any branch of government.

1. They don't understand how the current system works.

Do you? The system has been set up to be hard to understand and easy to misrepresent. It has been set up that way so that the people can be massively defrauded of the fruits of their industry.

2. Others think that the US DoD budget is a trillion dollars and could easily be gutted.

It COULD be easily gutted. Weapons buying could be stopped if the US wasn't fighting wars (but feeding weapons sales is one of the major purposes for war - can sell stuff if it isn't getting used up or blown up). The no-bid support contracts give the US nothing - absolutely NOTHING that regular recruits couldn't do for a fraction of the cost. The US doesn't NEED a thousand bases throughout the world (unless it really DOES control those foreign governments through "security" arrangements). It doesn't need the latest and greatest weaponry all the time. It is so far ahead of the curve that no-one is going to catch up. Almost everything that the armed forces touch is a waste. Take away half the money and you will see them become more efficient - the forces and the industries that hang off them ALL feed on the public teat. Keep cutting them a bigger cheque and they will keep spending (and wasting) it.

3. The last group think its' because the Elites (surprise for them, most of the Americans on Forbes 400 belong/supports DNC) are not paying their fair share and the budget deficit (all $1.6T)

Yes and no. The elites are the ones who are up to their noses in the fraud that is killing the world. Most of the money is legal but not all, clearly. Fraud is illegal, after all, but a sufficiently complicated fraud becomes hard to prosecute especially if the elites run the political system that would prosecute them (and they do). Not all of the elites that run the US economy are even American. Many foreign elites are involved too - because money and power don't stop at national borders any more. But the deficit is a strange beast and the debt even stranger because no-one, the elites included, could pay it back. It is a book-keeping fiction that is used to control the livestock. If I lent you 10 bucks but charged you 1000% a second in interest I would have no expectation that you would ever be able to repay that money but if you were dumb enough to accept the loan (or I hid the details of the interest rate in a "sophisticated" way (small print) then I could rely on state institutions to make sure that every penny you earned for the rest of your life came to me. That's the basic method by which the true elites run the world.

I have two questions for those American Progressives. How much should the Elites be paying in total (income taxes (fed and state) plus Social Security and Medicare) taxes? If you were one of those Elites, would you pay that much or take your money and invest it in another country that would be easier to operate in and less taxes, and they actually want you there to create jobs and wealth?

The elites create jobs but the workers create the wealth - and if those elites then take the wealth that the workers made - who needs them?

 

[Dammy]

1) The right has been in charge for the majority of these years. Yelling does squat! If they believed this why has the right been a willing lead participant for the last 3+ decades.

I think you need to go review US government history and get back to us. I am awfully amused that you are covering up the finger prints of the Democrat Party like they had nothing to do with this.

 

[Dammy]

But the left doesn't run anything. The left is unrepresented in any branch of government.

I will presume you are talking about the Canadian government because if you are referring to the US government, you are delusional.

The elites create jobs but the workers create the wealth - and if those elites then take the wealth that the workers made - who needs them?

Those with money (the number of true elites are rather small and in the real world, its mostly non-elites) to pay people to work to create wealth. It was their investment, their risk, why is the government at the threat of a gun taking their rewards away? Why are you so upset about people making money on their investments which is produced by hiring people that want to work at an acceptable wage?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I will presume you are talking about the Canadian government because if you are referring to the US government, you are delusional.

You are delusional - or you don't know what the left is. Either way - name calling isn't an argument but I see that you don't really like to make arguments.

Those with money (the number of true elites are rather small and in the real world, its mostly non-elites) to pay people to work to create wealth.

Yes, the number of true elites in the world is small. That's why they are elite.

As to paying people to work to create wealth (and that is right - the people who do the work create the wealth) - money is just a promise of something in the future. There is no reason to use a promise owned by someone to do the work. People can lend themselves the promise of future reward and they do all the time. There are other ways to structure deals, make those contracts and promises etc that don't require borrowing "money" from some individual.

The problem is that those with money don't want people to make those other arrangements because then it would undermine their power. However, there is no law that says you have to pay for something with money. The law is that if you are owed a debt and someone gives you dollars to settle that debt you are not legally allowed to refuse that form of payment.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Why are you so upset about people making money on their investments which is produced by hiring people that want to work at an acceptable wage?

What is "acceptable"? People want to work for a living. Sometimes they must work for much less, and the fewer people that hold the majority of the money the lower that less will be. In the labour market the world is approaching monopsony.

 

[cybereye]

What is "acceptable"? In the labour market the world is approaching monopsony.

There will never be monopsony if you said "world" and "labour" together. That like saying there will never be war. People will find or fight for the need.

 

[faethor]

I think you need to go review US government history and get back to us. I am awfully amused that you are covering up the finger prints of the Democrat Party like they had nothing to do with this.

Hmm reading history and I can't seem to find a "Democrat" Party. Now while I've critized the Democratic Party many times I think you need to read up on the Republican Party finger print. Reagan triples the Debt. GWB doubles the debt. And yet somehow Republicans are the debt saviors? Pshaw.

It was their investment, their risk, why is the government at the threat of a gun taking their rewards away? Why are you so upset about people making money on their investments which is produced by hiring people that want to work at an acceptable wage?

In another thread you posted about the problem of public workers paid more and with greater benefits than their private worker counterparts. So really you're criticizing the have slightly more and bringing them down. While you support over the top wealth continuing.

What's wrong - Well read a bit of Jefferson and you'll learn that at least that founder viewed the ultra wealthy a problem in any nation as creates an aristocratic class. This class then compounds enough money that it controls the government instead of the people, which the government is to be representing. This is one reason Jefferson was against inherited wealth.

Redrumloa in one thread critized the creation of McJobs. Well the Republicans are a victim of their own success. They had problems with upper middle class and union workers. So those jobs are gone. In it's place McJobs are created. -- Republicans you got what you wanted. Now you're unhappy? I'd say Whyzzat. Except we know why. You can't see past the nose on your face.

 

[Dammy]

You are delusional - or you don't know what the left is. Either way - name calling isn't an argument but I see that you don't really like to make arguments.

Then why are you making delusional statements about the left not being represented in the US Government? The Executive branch is solid left, so are government workers who are the only growing union population in the US. Until this past January, the Left has controlled both the US House and Senate for the past four years. Total of the past seventy years, about sixty of those, the House has been controlled by the left. Senate isn't too far off from those numbers either. DoJ is a mixed bag of progressive, moderates, and conservatives.

Yes, the number of true elites in the world is small. That's why they are elite.

We can agree on something then.

As to paying people to work to create wealth (and that is right - the people who do the work create the wealth) - money is just a promise of something in the future. There is no reason to use a promise owned by someone to do the work. People can lend themselves the promise of future reward and they do all the time. There are other ways to structure deals, make those contracts and promises etc that don't require borrowing "money" from some individual.

Money is time. That is why it's awful for high taxation because we spend apart of our limited time on this Earth to work, government is taking that period of time we worked away for their own needs. If the individuals can work an create money on their own, why aren't they self employed and gain from fruits of their own labor? Oh wait, government wants to take that away too via taxation and regulations.

The problem is that those with money don't want people to make those other arrangements because then it would undermine their power. However, there is no law that says you have to pay for something with money. The law is that if you are owed a debt and someone gives you dollars to settle that debt you are not legally allowed to refuse that form of payment.

Unless you are the government, then you can. Try paying off a few thousand dollars of debt to the government with pennies and see how well that goes.

 

[Dammy]

What is "acceptable"? People want to work for a living. Sometimes they must work for much less, and the fewer people that hold the majority of the money the lower that less will be. In the labour market the world is approaching monopsony.

Acceptable is what the market will bear to purchase a product or service. If you limit that too much, then people will go else where to have that product or service created. Money is mobile, the worst you make the conditions for it to be generated, the less there will be. Typically a government will tax something they don't want and spend money on what they want more of. Prime example is the government's wishes to tax wealth generation to spend more on welfare. Guess what this will lead less of and more of?

 

[Dammy]

Hmm reading history and I can't seem to find a "Democrat" Party. Now while I've critized the Democratic Party many times I think you need to read up on the Republican Party finger print. Reagan triples the Debt. GWB doubles the debt. And yet somehow Republicans are the debt saviors? Pshaw.

Lets' look at it first, all but one of Reagan's budget was smaller then what passed the Democrat controlled House and the last two years, Democrat controlled Senate and House. Tip O'Neal called each of Reagan's budgets DOA. If you want to blame Reagan, look at the numbers, he wanted less then what he got by the hands of Tip O'Neal. Bush was a disaster, no doubt about it as he raised the US debt by $4T over his eight year term. Obama, OTOH, has already spent $5T and the idiot Republicans just allowed him to spend another $2.4T in debt that Nancy Pelosi said would last about 18 months. Obama has a very good chance of spending $8T in debt in four years or about a total close to $18T by 2012. You want another term for Obama?

In another thread you posted about the problem of public workers paid more and with greater benefits than their private worker counterparts. So really you're criticizing the have slightly more and bringing them down. While you support over the top wealth continuing.

US Government workers are earning TWICE what the private sector is earning. Yes, I have a problem with that. Private sector is attempting to generate wealth while those government employees generating zero wealth while leaching from the sector that is generating (or attempting to) wealth. I don't know why you hate the wealthy that much, you are supporting a party that is being manipulated by those very same people.

What's wrong - Well read a bit of Jefferson and you'll learn that at least that founder viewed the ultra wealthy a problem in any nation as creates an aristocratic class. This class then compounds enough money that it controls the government instead of the people, which the government is to be representing. This is one reason Jefferson was against inherited wealth.

Redrumloa in one thread critized the creation of McJobs. Well the Republicans are a victim of their own success. They had problems with upper middle class and union workers. So those jobs are gone. In it's place McJobs are created. -- Republicans you got what you wanted. Now you're unhappy? I'd say Whyzzat. Except we know why. You can't see past the nose on your face.

So what is the left's answer? Complete destruction of the capitalism? Even the last true communist governments have had to resort to allowing capitalism in order to survive. I really want to hear what the left has to say on how to rescue America. Let's hear it.

 

[cybereye]

Money is time.

I am enjoying Dammy and FluffyMcDeath's arguments. Both of them are wrong and right. I will stay out of the arguments because there are so many variables in theory. I just wanted to make a small correction before FluffyMcDeath comment about money. Time is a commodity, not money. Money is an idea of value of the commodity.

 

[faethor]

Lets' look at it first, all but one of Reagan's budget was smaller then what passed the Democrat controlled House and the last two years, Democrat controlled Senate and House. Tip O'Neal called each of Reagan's budgets DOA. If you want to blame Reagan, look at the numbers, he wanted less then what he got by the hands of Tip O'Neal.

BTW the President has final veto. If Reagan was against this it was his responsibility to send it back. He failed to do so. I don't care if you want to consider this action inauthentic, lack of ability, or just poor it doesn't matter. It's the Republican legacy to own.

Bush was a disaster, no doubt about it as he raised the US debt by $4T over his eight year term. Obama, OTOH, has already spent $5T and the idiot Republicans just allowed him to spend another $2.4T in debt that Nancy Pelosi said would last about 18 months. Obama has a very good chance of spending $8T in debt in four years or about a total close to $18T by 2012. You want another term for Obama?

I agree Obama's problem is continuing to follow the right-wing spending agenda. The amazing thing is people forget about the plans from the Republican alternative, McCain. McCain wanted to spend even more even faster. In fact I recently posted a recent rant from McCain who was standing for increased spending.

Problem here is a crappy two party system. 1 more choice than a communist state. Your choices were a bad Obama or worse McCain. Well, one had to pick the best of the bad choices.

US Government workers are earning TWICE what the private sector is earning. Yes, I have a problem with that.

The problem was caused by gutting the private sector. Replacing higher paying union middle class jobs with Wal-Mart part time jobs. The problem is under compensation of the private workforce. And this was the Republican direction for the last 30+ years.

And clearly not all jobs pay more in the government. Private contractors in Iraq would earn 10x what a solider was for doing the same job. Bush outsourced collectors for the IRS. Salaries went up. Collection per dollar spent went down.

Private sector is attempting to generate wealth while those government employees generating zero wealth while leaching from the sector that is generating (or attempting to) wealth.

Teachers are a huge, huge contributing force to generate wealth in our society. They get paid way less than football players, who generate no wealth. They suck it out of society. You are daft if you really believe the Presidents of companies contributed enough to warrant on average 23% wage increases while the workers contributed 0%, what they got. You are seriously daft that a woman who has a master's degree makes less and equivalent to a man with a bachelor's degree. We are clearly NOT a society where contribution is recognized by an equal income.

How about this for private sector workers. Make $50K working a construction site and pay 30% in taxes. Make $150K in derivatives trading and pay 15% in taxes. The higher paid worker contributes less of his body, less % tax, and has a longer working lifespan. Come on wake up!

On I don't know why you hate the wealthy that much, you are supporting a party that is being manipulated by those very same people.

It's simply a numbers game. Tax 2% of the population a bit more. Really they earned 23% more money is 2% more really asking for much. And as a result it employ 10% more people. And they get off of the unemployement and contribute more physically and financially to society. Republicans bitch about 40% of Americans not paying taxes. That's because they don't have anything to pay taxes on. As the saying goes you can't get blood from a turnip.

So what is the left's answer? Complete destruction of the capitalism? Even the last true communist governments have had to resort to allowing capitalism in order to survive. I really want to hear what the left has to say on how to rescue America. Let's hear it.

Scare tactics in it's finest. You Banana Republicans act if it's an either or choice of total capitalism or total communism. There is never been a true capitalist society and it'd be just as flawed as a true communist society.

The best system we've seen in the history of the world is one of mildly to medium regulated capitalism. When the rules are flung wide open we see things such as the Banking problems around the world. When too much regulations exist the same sorts of things happen. When huge inequities exist in a society things bad things will happen. Take Egypt for a good recent example. If we moderate the difference in wealth we create a society of more haves that rises all boats. It's been done before -- Go check out the US and how we dug out of the Robber Barron Era. We have nearly if not more inequities between the haves and the have nots.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I said: "You are delusional - or you don't know what the left is. Either way - name calling isn't an argument but I see that you don't really like to make arguments."

Because you said: "I will presume you are talking about the Canadian government because if you are referring to the US government, you are delusional."

So you replied:

Then why are you making delusional statements about the left not being represented in the US Government? The Executive branch is solid left, so are government workers who are the only growing union population in the US. Until this past January, the Left has controlled both the US House and Senate for the past four years. Total of the past seventy years, about sixty of those, the House has been controlled by the left. Senate isn't too far off from those numbers either. DoJ is a mixed bag of progressive, moderates, and conservatives.

Which pretty much proves what I said. What is the point of this?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Money is time.

Oh, but if it was. Then everyone would make "1 hour" for each hour of work, no matter who they were or what they do. But that would be a little too egalitarian, even for me.
No, money is not time. Money is a thing of value or a representation of value backed by an authority or faith. Money is what you want or what you hope someone else wants. Money can be almost anything that people agree on, including shells, metals or very very large rocks.

However, there is no law that says you have to pay for something with money. The law is that if you are owed a debt and someone gives you dollars to settle that debt you are not legally allowed to refuse that form of payment.

Unless you are the government, then you can. Try paying off a few thousand dollars of debt to the government with pennies and see how well that goes.

OK - ANYONE can refuse thousands of pennies. There have been several updates to legal tender laws to prevent people using the legal tender law to protest - however, the principle exists in law. You may not refuse a settlement of debts denominated in the legal tender of the land. Here is the wikipedia entry for legal tender.

 

[Dammy]

BTW the President has final veto. If Reagan was against this it was his responsibility to send it back. He failed to do so. I don't care if you want to consider this action inauthentic, lack of ability, or just poor it doesn't matter. It's the Republican legacy to own.

That's fine, we can agree on level grounds that the POTUS is responsible during their term. Obama gets full blame for this never ending Depression.

I agree Obama's problem is continuing to follow the right-wing spending agenda. The amazing thing is people forget about the plans from the Republican alternative, McCain. McCain wanted to spend even more even faster. In fact I recently posted a recent rant from McCain who was standing for increased spending.

Problem here is a crappy two party system. 1 more choice than a communist state. Your choices were a bad Obama or worse McCain. Well, one had to pick the best of the bad choices.

Problem is of course, McCain wouldn't have borrowed $5T in less then three years nor would he have likely have borrowed a total of about $8T during his single term. The conservatives disliked McCain and failed to come out and vote for him as the polling data showed. Only reason I voted for the RINO is because of his VP choice, else even I wouldn't have voted for him.

The problem was caused by gutting the private sector.

True

Replacing higher paying union middle class jobs with Wal-Mart part time jobs. The problem is under compensation of the private workforce. And this was the Republican direction for the last 30+ years.

Not true. High end union paying jobs evaporated because they drove up the costs so high it was not sustainable. UAW has shown this to be very self evident. I will point out the only growning union sector is government employees which are paid by taxation. Worse yet, regulations have strangled the very idea of friendly business environment. If anything, it is now a anti-business environment and few are stupid enough to create more jobs in such an environment. If the people are sitting on their hands and not investing their capital to make more jobs, who is going to hire all those people? Here is a Democrat Business man explaining his POV:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ess_responsible_for_this_fear_in_america.html

And clearly not all jobs pay more in the government. Private contractors in Iraq would earn 10x what a solider was for doing the same job. Bush outsourced collectors for the IRS. Salaries went up. Collection per dollar spent went down.

Yes, US military is under paid. Lets look 2008 numbers: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart and specifically the average Fed Worker's benefit package is $41K vs Private Worker's $10K, yet the little guy is paying taxes to the government employee who is making how much more then him when combining pay and benefits? This is the reason why FDR was so against unions for government employees. The only way to pay those high salaries that the unions will get is by raising taxes on the little guy which creates anger. It's one thing to demonize fat cats for not paying their workers enough, but it's another to demonize tax payers for not paying enough when they are making half as much.

Teachers are a huge, huge contributing force to generate wealth in our society. They get paid way less than football players, who generate no wealth. They suck it out of society. You are daft if you really believe the Presidents of companies contributed enough to warrant on average 23% wage increases while the workers contributed 0%, what they got. You are seriously daft that a woman who has a master's degree makes less and equivalent to a man with a bachelor's degree. We are clearly NOT a society where contribution is recognized by an equal income.

How about this for private sector workers. Make $50K working a construction site and pay 30% in taxes. Make $150K in derivatives trading and pay 15% in taxes. The higher paid worker contributes less of his body, less % tax, and has a longer working lifespan. Come on wake up!

It's simply a numbers game. Tax 2% of the population a bit more. Really they earned 23% more money is 2% more really asking for much. And as a result it employ 10% more people. And they get off of the unemployement and contribute more physically and financially to society. Republicans bitch about 40% of Americans not paying taxes. That's because they don't have anything to pay taxes on. As the saying goes you can't get blood from a turnip.

Scare tactics in it's finest. You Banana Republicans act if it's an either or choice of total capitalism or total communism. There is never been a true capitalist society and it'd be just as flawed as a true communist society.

The best system we've seen in the history of the world is one of mildly to medium regulated capitalism. When the rules are flung wide open we see things such as the Banking problems around the world. When too much regulations exist the same sorts of things happen. When huge inequities exist in a society things bad things will happen. Take Egypt for a good recent example. If we moderate the difference in wealth we create a society of more haves that rises all boats. It's been done before -- Go check out the US and how we dug out of the Robber Barron Era. We have nearly if not more inequities between the haves and the have nots.

Problem is for your Progressive ideaology is that it doesn't look that good when you look at things close up. Teachers, like the average in WI making over $100K (pay plus benefits) yet the student testing results are horrific: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g and the teachers deserve more in this depression? 49% of US tax payers pay ZERO income tax, yet the top 10% tax payers paid 70% of the taxes, is that fair? Why are the rich paying that much yet the bottom are paying nothing, shouldn't they be paying something since they get the majority of those tax paid services and payments?

What should those earning $250K be paying in total (Federal and State) taxes? I'm not talking billionaires, they know how to limit taxes and move stuff offshore to countries who want their money and their companies which provide jobs, just the owner of a McDonalds or a lawyer or a Dr. How much of their income are you entitled to?

 

[faethor]

That's fine, we can agree on level grounds that the POTUS is responsible during their term. Obama gets full blame for this never ending Depression.

Since this began prior to Obama's swearing in and prior to Obama's budget it's fair to share the blame. I'd argue even if the President did the most good in 2 years it's fairly difficult to fix 30+ years of bad decisions that came before.

Problem is of course, McCain wouldn't have borrowed $5T in less then three years nor would he have likely have borrowed a total of about $8T during his single term.

I'm doubtful as weeks before the raising of the debt ceiling McCain asked for exactly that.

The conservatives disliked McCain and failed to come out and vote for him as the polling data showed. Only reason I voted for the RINO is because of his VP choice, else even I wouldn't have voted for him.

Didn't McCain get more votes than Reagan? It wasn't a failure of 'conservatives'. It was a failure of the Republican party whose demographic tends to be white, old, and male. If the minorities and women can be encouraged to vote they don't vote Republican. This is why Republicans front policy after policy to prevent voters. See Wisconsin for a recent good example. Republicans demand photo ID then shutdown the photo ID stations in areas that are predominately Democratic. Republicans ran candidates as Democratics trying to upserp the possibility that the white old foggy might lose.

High end union paying jobs evaporated because they drove up the costs so high it was not sustainable. UAW has shown this to be very self evident. I will point out the only growning union sector is government employees which are paid by taxation.

This is because Republicans demanded this higher middle class workers to take hits. To support this they promoted policies which increased the benefits to move the jobs out of the nation.

If the people are sitting on their hands and not investing their capital to make more jobs, who is going to hire all those people?

And this is exactly right. The collection of wealth at the top has enabled them to sit on their wealth. Instead of investing, instead of giving back, they collect and sit. This IS the problem in the economy. There is plenty of money it simply has to start flowing again.

The only way to pay those high salaries that the unions will get is by raising taxes on the little guy which creates anger. It's one thing to demonize fat cats for not paying their workers enough, but it's another to demonize tax payers for not paying enough when they are making half as much.

An interesting concept. And since the fat cats who aren't paying enough to workers have excess they can invest in creating opposition to the middle-class. Keep the lower 2 class fightings, reap the benefits all the way to the bank. THIS is the problem.

49% of US tax payers pay ZERO income tax, yet the top 10% tax payers paid 70% of the taxes, is that fair?

Cleary not. So how you want to get money, property in the heands of the lower 49% so you actually can tax them something? Would it not benefit society to pay them more, tax them more, and drive them off the gov checkbook by raising their living standard?

Why are the rich paying that much yet the bottom are paying nothing, shouldn't they be paying something since they get the majority of those tax paid services and payments?

3 words - blood, turnip, can't. Seriously how corrupt is your idea. The family next door is out of a job and needs income to feed themselves. They barely make it month to month. Yet you want them to pay the gov the benefit they need? Have you ever taken an accounting class? When the balance sheet is 0 you don't have anything more. If they did they wouldn't need to seek aid.

What should those earning $250K be paying in total (Federal and State) taxes? I'm not talking billionaires, they know how to limit taxes and move stuff offshore to countries who want their money and their companies which provide jobs, just the owner of a McDonalds or a lawyer or a Dr. How much of their income are you entitled to?

This idea is too corrupt. It's clearly not 'their income'. They make their income inside a society. They use public resources to do so to varying degrees. It's the benefits of society that enable them to generate an income. There needs to be payments to run a civilized society. And of course if there was no society one wouldn't need an income. Seriously tell me how you make an income without society?

My personal take is there should be a minimum living wage set. Above that level is when taxes start kicking in on a sliding slope. If I were to make a 23% raise I'd not bitch about it being reduced to 15% because of taxes. Afterall, I'm better off than I was prior. In addition, we should give benefits to US based companies and charge foreigners higher accesses and fees to our society. Afterall they are benefiting monetarily from our society. They are taking our money to claim it to be their money and then input it into their society. You lose your money to China by enabling China a benefit over US companies to doing business within our society.

There's also another way to take money other than taxes. That is inflation. How much income are you entitled to punish not just the wealthy but everyone with that?

 

[Robert]

the Left has controlled both the US House and Senate for the past four years.

That old language barrier again. What you see as 'The Left', those of us outside the USA see as quite a bit right of centre.