Why would they put that in there? They don't want the readers to "think" there actually is a simple anwser to this cluster f. But it did have "add a national sales tax" option near the bottom so we can have it all! lol.
Why would they put that in there? They don't want the readers to "think" there actually is a simple anwser to this cluster f. But it did have "add a national sales tax" option near the bottom so we can have it all! lol.
When will people figure out that we have to cut everything? Across the board cuts. It's going to hurt a lot of people, but if we don't it's going to hurt every body. You can't fix it by raising taxes. Cuts are inevitable, and we can't afford to pick and choose where we cut.
Cut everything, institute a Fair Tax, and let the chips fall where they may. Charitable organizations and friends and family will have to help the needy. A little blood letting is better than a total bleed out.
Cut everything, institute a Fair Tax, and let the chips fall where they may. Charitable organizations and friends and family will have to help the needy. A little blood letting is better than a total bleed out.
Interesting. Raising taxes is listed as something that will close the gap. Apparently, the New York Times has never heard of the Laffer Curve.
Even more interesting is that, under the conditions presented, there is no way to "win" without increasing taxes somewhere. I wonder if the NYT has an agenda or something.
Even more interesting is that, under the conditions presented, there is no way to "win" without increasing taxes somewhere. I wonder if the NYT has an agenda or something.
It's a bogus poll full of red herrings and phony options.
Nothing about cutting taxes across the board and eliminating or drastically reducing capital gains taxes to encourage growth, nothing about reducing stifling federal regulations and interference, and no real talk of spending cuts.
Nothing about cutting taxes across the board and eliminating or drastically reducing capital gains taxes to encourage growth, nothing about reducing stifling federal regulations and interference, and no real talk of spending cuts.
Yes, anyone who wants the government to quit doing something it never should have started doing in the first place, wants to throw poor people on the streets.
Yeah. I can feel the subliminal political message with every option I read. "See! See! We have to do these things if we want to fix the budget."
Seems like the only way to fix the budget is to be a liberal....
+1
I would start and be heavy on entitlements though and limit as many military cuts as make sense.
That's not the purpose of social security. You and I paid in to support those who were currently drawing social security. When you and I start drawing social security, that generation's work force will be supporting us.
It's the longest running and most successful ponzi scheme in the history of the world. If it weren't sponsored by the US govt, it's operators would be in prison.
The problem is that America has killed a whole generation of workers even before they were born and so we have a negative birth rate. There aren't enough workers entering the work force to support those who will be retiring.
I've looked at my proposed social security benefits. That's one reason I'm back in school to learn to support myself in a career I can do regardless my age.
There will always be social security. It will never fail. The govt will simply print more currency to make the payments.
Of course, in that scenario, the currency won't be worth much.
Similar threads
- Sale Price: 600$
