The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
Under Republican President Eisenhower the Max Tax Rate was 90% on the Super-Rich (understand that the rate doesn't apply to all income - only that income above what would be needed to live better than 95% of population)
Under Republican Presidents Nixon & Ford the Max Tax Rate was over 70%
And we did well as a country
We must stop giving MASSIVE BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUTS to the super-rich.
The top 1% already has about 50% of the FINCIAL WEALTH of the country & the % continues to grow
People say we can never get out of this hole, but we've been in worse shape.
In CW debt was greater when compared to GNP, but Lincoln put into effect an Income Tax, Asset Tax, & Inheritance Tax which fell mostly upon the richest 10%. (Abe said they should pay more as few of their sons served in the war - much like Iraq)
WW 2 also put us in worse shape - but Max Tax Rate on Super-Rich raised to 70% - 90% & we got out of hole
BUT WE CAN'T DO THIS GIVING BILLIONS IN TAX CUTS TO SUPER-RICH
@DillonDee1 It looks good to me here. Remember the republican counter argument. That hurts small business because S-corporations pay taxes on the owner's income tax. I'm not saying you don't have an answer, but keep it handy.
@Newenlightenmentnow -- I've operated small businesses & most don't operate as S Corporations & "small'' businesses would not be impacted by the graduated schedule I proposed.
@DillonDee1 I agree with you, I honestly just wanted to see if you had a rebuttle. Actually, i'm interested in learning more about his. For example, one of the GOP arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts was that it would help small businesses. I am pretty sure this is bullshit, but I'd like more info. If you need more space to explain it, please send an email.
@Newenlightenmentnow -- I put the split on the super-rich at $400,000 & according to IRS only 1% of the population makes over $400k & many of those making that got it on dividends & interest.
Mom & Pop operations - so called "small businesses" -- don't typically make over $400k per yr.
@Newenlightenmentnow That's very true. I think people confuse revenue with profit. They also forget that a corporation, even an s-corporation, can pay it's expenses first, then pay taxes. So after (let's call Aunt Emma's market), Aunt Emma pays her workers, buys that new freezer case, etc, then only then does Aunt Emma pay taxes.
@DillonDee1 Well, you're absolutely wrong. Since the top 1% already pay 40%, you would bring in (at most) another 10%. The "rich" tax has failed in every single state that has tried it. For fiscal year 2011, the deficit would be 1.4 trillion vs 1.6 trillion. Wow! If we continue the mindset that we can solve our problmes by taking someone else's money then we're doomed.
In fact, we're past the tipping point already. We have no way of paying future obligations, currently at 122 trillion.
@smb12321 -- This is my proposal: 0 - $50,000 -- zero income tax, still pay soc sec Tax & w/ other Regressive Taxes (sales & prop & gas&+) so that about 20% of income will still be going to taxes $50k-$70k -- 25% $70k-$100k -- $35% $100k-$500k -- 45% $500k-$1mil -- 55% $1mil-$10mil -- 65% $10mil-$1bil -- 75% $1billion to $10 billion -- 90% This would get us out of the hole when combined w/ reasonable tariffs. This graduated tax is not too unlike what we've had in the past.
@DillonDee1 I know of no economist who thinks confiscating massive amounts of private capital will solve the debt problem or lead to prosperity. Families, businesses & states work within revenues. I don't spend & then wonder where the money will come from.
BO's budget assumes preposterous growth, end of the Bush "cuts" & wars, trillions in new taxes and STILL has massive deficits for eternity. Let's party & ignore the inevitable massive inflation, devalued dollar & end of the safety net.
@smb12321 Robert Bernard Reich tax the rich at high rates, in order to make it far more attractive to keep more money in their businesses, in production, in workers.
@Ishta5 Reich is honest in his views that the way to prosperity is massive confiscation of money from those who have it to those who don't (by force). There's something almost nostalgic about his brand of liberal capitalism. The problem is that we're addicted to the super wealthy since they effectively support the rest. What should be pointed out is that Gates or Buffet's wealth did not come from others getting poor.
@DillonDee1 So, in going from the 0% bracket to the 25% bracket, unless you make over 65 grand a year, you will be losing money from if you had stopped at 49,999. There is no income that leaves you with more money in the third bracket than in the second. In fact, at 71k, you're left with less than 49,999. YoIn the 4th bracket, you're still below the first until 110k.
So, people stop at $49,999, and pay Zero income tax. Where are we left? This is why a flat tax is better.
@DillonDee1 Okay. I sit confortably in my computer chair corrected. Thank you. However, you still haven't explained how this isn't a penalty to people who work hard and earn their money. Wealth is not distributed. It is earned. Am I seriously considered an old man when I remember a time when the American Dream meant being ableto earn your way, rather than it being handed to you on the sweat of another man's brow?
So, all men are created equal.... But, you want the law to discriminate. Funny.
@CaitiffFTW - I do believe in rewarding hard work, but the 400 ricshest Americans have more financial wealth than 1/2 of the US population.
And they don't get a paycheck every 2 wks.
They receive most of their income from Dividends & Cap Gain & Tax-Free Bonds. (Bush lowered tax on Dividends & CG to 15%. ) They pay a low Soc Sec tax rate, if any.
So overall they pay about 16-17% of income in taxes
@DillonDee1 No. I've said it before. I'm in favor of a flat tax. Tax every person equally, and then cut spending to meet the actual revenue. Michael Moore advocated taking every dime from those 400 billionaires, not seeming to get it that that wouldn't even cover the deficit from this year alone, much loss help with the actual national debt.
So, let's reach a middle ground. No brackets. Everyone pays 30% of their income. And, cut the goddamned spending.
@DillonDee1 There it is again, though. By changing the tax rates based on income, people are being discriminated against. "All men are created equal." How can we have equality when the law itself doesn't treat people equally? Your plan punishes people for earning money. Especially since the difference between the lines are arbitrary, at best.
30% for everyone is simple. No brackets. No limitations.
@CaitiffFTW - You misinterrupt Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, "All men are created equal"
Jefferson & Franklin had toured Europe & seen how 90% of the people lived in shacks as 10% of the population surrounded themselves with gold, jewelry, & servants.
They thought this was horrible & envisioned something different here
This is why they spoke of placing most of the tax burden on the rich & that ppl should be born equal - not w/ a huge inheritance.
@DillonDee1 In the "old days" folks stayed put. Today, those forced to "contribute" more to the black hole of increasing debt move (NJ, CA & MD are prime examples). As our economy becomes increasingly political, gov't action to counter recessions lose effectiveness.
Intervention increases with each recession with declining results. In our case, trillions in political favors & bailouts have resulted in massive debt, inflation and continued unemployment. Great job there!
So, extending the Bush tax cuts was thefault of theRepublicans, even though President Obama signed that extention, without a full vote being taken? Yes, blame Congressional Republicans for a Democrat Presidential order.
And, by the way, any votes that were done, such as when the House pased an extention, were done BEFORE the Democrats that lost in November left office. there was still a Democrat majority in both houses, and a Democrat in the White House.... But, it's the Republican's fault?
@CaitiffFTW And, while I'm on the subject, the CBO stated in a May report that the cost of Obamacare would be an extra trillion dollars over the next decade. Anyone? Top of your head? What's a trillion devided by 10? And, that's not even counting the severe frontloading of funds into Obamacare. That trillion dollar defecit is after using 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of product.
But, at least Obamacare is un-Constitutional. Thank you, Congress for not putting in a severability clause.
@CaitiffFTW While I do agree with you when it come to the mandatory insurance clause, and the obscured amount of costs that are not noted. It will save us at least for the short term $145 billion over the next 10 years. I honestly believe that this is still going to be more beneficial for our society as a whole. Far to many children go without health care do to corporate greed, and negligence. It is estimated that around 9 million children in the US go without proper health care.
They haven't even agreed to 32 billion in specific cuts. Ryan allocated 1.055 T to non-discretionary spending down from 1.087 T. What exactly they have cut has not been specified so it is likely that it will be far less than 32 billion.
@oJKBo lol cutting your income is the same as spending on top of that there still spending with a lower salary oh and we lose health care and social security out of it. So we spend 300B+ to move backwards to a state where things were failing and they have no idea of what to do they don't even have their own plan they want to implement.
@oJKBo By not taxing the rich the government loses out on funds that it has already accounted for beforehand. Which adds to the deficit. They then try to balance the budget by kicking the middle class back down into the poor houses.
@oJKBo Sure, if you want to call feeding the poor, and elderly wasted spending. Let's not forget about the major education overhaul this nation needs. It is pretty sad that we have to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of educated people.
@edeal86 *sigh* feeding the poor and elderly--not the job of the government, but the job of private charities. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. If states want to use their money to provide welfare for the poor in their state that's their business. In education, our country spends more for less results. And of course, as rather than letting the poor choose better schools for their children we make it so only the rich can.
@oJKBo Feeding the poor, and the elderly has always been a major part of the government. No charity organization could ever manage what social security or medicare does on a daily basis. It is human nature, which is far to greedy to ever fund such a charity project. As for schools, we need to improve our education system, and facilities. As well as give subsidies to hard working individuals that otherwise can't afford to go to decent colleges.
@edeal86 actually it hasn't. America was once a place where people were taken care of by themselves or by the voluntary assistance of others. And there are a multitude of charity hospitals and clinics that don't turn away patients. Social security--haha ponzi schemes are illegal, just not for the government. No we don't need federal student loans to send kids to college. College isn't a right and the government has no right to take money from other's and loan it to college hopefuls
@oJKBo Such vague conceptions from the past could never be held to the ever changing future. If we didn't have social welfare we would still have the poor houses, and sweat shops of the early 1900s. Such change is needed in order to have a benevolent society. Higher education leads to a much more profitable market, giving promising young individuals money is an investment I am willing to make. The OASDI was never meant to be used the way that it currently is......but republicans like to con.
@edeal86 why not just make a new constitution then? If the libertarian like philosophy of the enlightenment is too old to have a 'benevolent' society, why not go with a more modern one? Perhaps one where man's rights come from government and include all sorts of things. You may be willing to help a young person go to college, but you and the government don't have the fucking right to force me to help. But of course--if the rich get richer, the poor MUST get poorer
@oJKBo The constitution was designed to be vague so that it could progressively evolve over the era's. The constitution empowers the government. Thus the government empowers us with rights. If the rich keep receiving personal income tax breaks(bush tax cuts) then the middle, and lower class will always become poorer. Since we are the ones balancing the budget. Hence we need to eliminate tax breaks for not only the rich, but for international corporations as well.
@edeal86 no, the constitution wasn't designed so that 200 years into the future people could change the whole thing. it was specific in the duties it granted to the government--it restrained the government from infringing on rights that man is born with. "government empowers us with rights", what a saddeningly absurd and incredibly statist statement. I don't even know how to respond to your last sentences. You clearly have subscribed to the most persistent economic fallacy of all time
@oJKBo What does government empowered rights have to do with an economic fallacy? You honestly don't know what you are talking about. With out a government to enforce laws do you honestly think people would respect rights that we are born with? And to that I must ask, what are the rights we are born with? Are we able to marry who we want? Do we all have equal rights? Honestly, stop trying to merge your religious biases with policies that govern. The world doesn't work that way.
@edeal86 the most persistent economic fallacy of all time is the idea that wealth is like a pie--if one person gets more everyone else gets less. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. Yes, man has the right to marry another woman (or man).
@edeal86 haha merging my religious biases with policies that govern, funny seeing as i'm an atheist, but still rights are inherent and can only be infringed upon by government. A right is the moral sanction of a positive-- a freedom to act on one's own judgment, for one's own goals, by one's own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to one's neighbors, one's rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his or her rights.
@oJKBo Such a belief is naive. No one is born equal, whether it be genetically, financially, or by morality. You are right to say that you are born with your own persona that can make its own choices. But just because you want to choose, or fulfill your own desires. Don't feel that the other people around you will acknowledge the rights that you feel that you are born with. We are a selfish race, and we are even worse without order, or government. That is why I call your belief naive.
@edeal86 You're right, how can one man born deaf, blind, dumb, and mute be equal with a man born fit and strong. However, all men are born with equal rights. I have never advocated a society without a government. I have only advocated for a government which protects its people from others, foreign or domestic.
@oJKBo That is true but it adds more to the deficit, remember the tea party and the republicans keep preaching that they are concern about the deficit, but if they are not willing to cut defense spending and stop the bush tax cuts, they will be adding much much more to the deficit, now you tell me does that really sound like the GOP is concern about the deficit, i am waiting to see the so call tea party march against a bigger deficit now lol
@ddman10001 it doesnt--if government spending is 10 and it's revenue is 9, there's a deficit. However, if the government cuts its revenue to 6 but cuts its spending to 5 it's in the green, no deficit. I agrree the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expired, however i also think an incredible restructuring of our tax system is necessary. Also, defense spending can be cut, but it will take more than defense cuts to really shrink the deficit and pay off our debt.
@Andy180084 haha Yep time for a real third party... or fourth or what ever... real action = real results. Truth=happiness.. althought it could scare a few... like the Billionares and stuff.
They could cut the budget by not giving Israel any more money, getting the fuck out of Iraq already and pulling out of Afghanistan, but that would mean less money for defense contractors and war profitiers, and the Republcorp would never do that. The assholes are getting too rich off your money, and there's no incentive for them to get their heads out of the endless money-trough.
@spinnersmetal because money isn't the only reason people vote. There is foreign policy, domestic policy, taxes, health care, social security, and many other topics that people vote a certain way. Some, not even religion people, don't like abortions, and to them that is the number one issue. Some people vote republican because they don't like the idea of limiting power of the people for gun ownership. So there is more than just taxes.
Thom Hartman calls the GOP the santa claus party who give tax cuts and tax cuts and that is why they always run up such huge debt. If there were any true conservatives left they would be so appauled by the republican party that these ass hats would never hold office again.
@myxoluser Resource based economy while good on paper, fails to deal with scarcity. The same issue that communism had. We basically have a resource based economy, in the very sense that as things get produced more and more, we end up with more supply, therefore cheaper cost and poorer people can afford it. There was a time when only the rich had a telephone, now i see bums with cell phones.
Actually with the rise of technology and AI robots, us "humans" can have an world where money, greed, war, & old superstitions no longer exist. No more slave jobs just to make to rich, richer. Everything on this planet is equally available to ALL and the planet preserved. In the coming decades or centuries, we as humans and Earthlings will need to put our petty differences aside and come together for the good of ALL. Because just maybe, we aren't the only ones out there.
@myxoluser Okay, maybe you know more than the hundreds of other people i have asked, so lets give it a whirl. How do you handle people who want to live near a park? you have 10 lots of land, you have 30 people who want it, how do you decide? You only have so much shoreline, not everyone gets a beach home. What about new technology, the new 16 core proc computer comes out, who gets the first model or do you have to build millions before you release.
@myxoluser Don't get me wrong, the idea is great on paper, things like bananas can be almost completely automated, but as it gets more automated, the price drops. How do you handle the cost of intellectual property? gadgets. What if i invent a really cool invention, you see it and want one, do i HAVE to give it to you, even though I am not marketing it? There are a lot of holes if you start to look at current economic problems and realize there is no solution for it.
The GOP can't make all the cuts they pledged because Obozo is POTUS right now. When Palin becomes POTUS she will make even more cuts than what the rest of the GOP propose and she WILL balance her budget in her first year! She WILL create surpluses in her 2nd year and surpass Bubba's surpluses during her 2 terms! Cenk has just uttered a bunch of BS for it is the libs and the DEMS that are spending this country to bankruptcy! Only President Palin will save this country from its debt!
@ecwaufisxtreme. The GOP can't make all the cuts they pledged because it's impossible. They knew it when they made the promise and they know it now. Nobody especailly that bimbo Sarah Palin can make $100 billion in cuts without bankrupting America. And even if it was possible to make $100 billion in cuts Palin is too stupid to figure out how to do it. She'll never be President.
@cne08 Kind of dense aren't we? If the rich tax cuts cost 4 times as much as the Republican pledge. Then wouldn't cutting the rich tax cuts comply with the republican pledge?
@cne08 Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me you're nor seriously alleging that cutting $100 billion from a deficit of 1.65 trillion (at best) will bankrupt the country. Get a dictionary. Bankruptcy is caused by spending too much (1.65 trillion) - not cutting a measly 100 billion. Jesus, how wacky can it get?
@cne08 -- youi're right - they can't balance the budget with spending cuts, especially if they refuse to cut the military budget by at least 35%
We don' t have so much of spending problem as we have a revenue problem - the result of cutting the tax rate on the super-rich so drasticially that they're paying the lowest rate ever & less than the middle class.
reptards always fail, democraps always fail, we need stronger liberal's, 2010 never passed the 2011 budget almost unheard of so the current budget is 2010's plus the passed tax cuts, added up epic fail. Obama a socialist, I'm the socialist I'd take 90% of your cash after 1 million dollars and corporations over1 billion profit 90%, but it's that money that buys politics
I hated to lose Keith Olberman from mainstream media. Havings said that, Cenk should take Keith's spot, having his own show. He's worked very hard for it, and he deserves it. Go Cenk !!!
remember there is only a budget for the masses, money is easy to print they can print unlimited money but for more control u gotta get the masses on their knees so u create lies....
We could also reorganize the services into two separate and distinct branches: Land Forces (Army/Marines) and Sea & Air Services (Navy/Air Force) which would eliminate all of the unnecessary base duplication and create regional command centers for all forces.
And we could roll homeland security into defense thereby creating a single department which would be responsible for all defense both internal and external.
It could be called the department of Civil Security & National Defense.
@Hammerfall794 The Marines and the Navy ARE the same branch, and rely on one another intimately to function. Bases are already often shared as well, though are usually designated by their "dominant" branch.
Messing with the military is huge fail, basically. Leave it be, cut out all these Homeland Security freaks. And put FEMA back where they belong, responding to natural disasters. They've been a natural disaster themselves since Bush put them under terroristic operations.
In Canada they unified their forces 40 years ago and their armed forces seem to be working just fine.
We need to reform the military and bring down all of the wasteful spending and get rid of the unnecessary bases.
Combining the forces into two branches (or even one branch with different divisions) which would be under the control of one HQ which would also be responsible for all ancillary operations would cut military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.
@Hammerfall794 We're not Canada. Also, do you have any idea how small their military is compared to ours? (Not insulting them, its just a fact.)
There are plenty of ways to end wasteful spending without restructuring a successful military system. For one, stop producing hardware that is out-of-date before going into service just because a senator got parts made in several different states. Bell helicopters are TERRIBLE machines, constant breaking. Sakorski (sp?) is far superior & cheaper!
@Hammerfall794 Also, you can't run several different missions with different purposes with one HQ. The Navy/Marine mission is not the same as the Air Force or Army missions. The whole concept of separation is to provide MORE efficiency and control, as well as provide a more diverse troop system.
Its just not going to happen. There are far better things to do than mess with the military branches.
@DeadlyChinchilla Yeah, Canada has a small army. Why? Because they're not willing to start a war over Opium in Afghanistan, nor a war over Oil in Iraq, nor are they willing to apply political and military pressure through Colombia for Cocaine.
@grimordwow What a bunch of biased BS. Bush's wars were stupid, every idiot knows that much. (Every idiot but him, of course.) Canada has a smaller army because they have a smaller POPULATION, numbnuts. They also don't provide military assistance to their allied nations on request, as we do with ours.
You would effectively disband our current military because you don't like their *orders*? From CONGRESS? A new military structure won't effect change if these are your real complaints.
@Waage83 The majority of nations we are in, be it diplomatically or militarilly, we are there by request. Germany, South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, these are just a few where they benefit from our military presence and ANNUALLY repeat the request that we stay. Or did you think we occupy the world by force, like the rest of the anti-US herd claims? Easy train to jump on.
@DeadlyChinchilla So who are you helping to defend Germany from? Denmark or are the EVIL Romans coming back to take away the land of the Germanians? Oh Maybe the French.
Any no i am not a anti-American in any way i do make fun of you guys a lot, but that is becaus you guys do a lot of stupid shit.
Well if you want to waste a ton of money protecting a country to weak to fight i guess that is your business.
Canada is renound for using it's armed forces for peace keeping (a concept which was created by a Canadian diplomat no less)and fighting justifiable wars which is probably why they are so highly respected the world over.
While we use our military power to bully and abuse smaller countries into doing what we want them to do and make them do it by force if necessary.
Canada also raised larger all volunteer armies during both world wars than we did.
@DeadlyChinchilla in some cases you have Both Air Force and Navy Deployed alongside Marines and Army personal in Iraq for instance along with National Guard for Ground operations that have nothing to do with the Air Force or the Navy so the traditional roles of these branches is changing as well so a change in how there organized might save millions there is always room for improvement the US military is far from perfect one could always do better but the main problem is Defense spendingCONT
@phoboskitty In SOME cases, yes. In MOST, no. Role changes does not create an over-encompassing change on the whole. Marines are still amphibious assault and deployed for combat roles, the Army is still the occupying force, the Air Force is the air support to the extraneous brances, and the Navy covers the amphibious combat and travel needs of the Marines. These are interlocking but separate roles. "Room for improvement" from you, who don't even understand global needs, is pointless to say.
WHY dose the US navy need 11 carrier groups? to support 11 super carriers? the US could easily deal with Half that number, few other countries want to or can afford to maintain that many they cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, whats the point of them? oh wait some Senator lives in a state where they build them and that corporation has bought said senator, this is the main reason the US spends SO MUCH on Defense, its not for ANY other reason
@phoboskitty Riiiight. You clearly don't understand the concept of situational awareness, or combat deployable readiness. With 11 carriers we can patrol oceans far beyond our borders, giving not only a fast response to situations across the globe but offering security to our allied nations. If you don't understand the "point" of being able to stop a North Korean invasion of the South (as is just one example), then you don't understand military readiness whatsoever.
@DeadlyChinchilla WHY dose the US navy need 11 carrier groups? to support 11 super carriers? the US could easily deal with Half that number, few other countries want to or can afford to maintain that many they cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, whats the point of them? oh wait some Senator lives in a state where they build them and that corporation has bought said senator, this is the main reason the US spends SO MUCH on Defense, its not for ANY other reason
You know shame on all the people who think Cenk is selling out, listen to him here. His emotion is back, he's starting to feel comfortable on his show and they are even giving him Soundclips. Keep bringing the Truth Cenk!
I love how he tells out the truth just straight out like that, as if he was yelling it into the GOP's face, I like it! I'd dare any GOP politicians to try and shut him up, I DARE THEM! Same goes for Beck, Limbaugh, and all the Faux News cronies.
Boehner: "We are gonna cut the deficit and the debt and we wanna make sure we do it off your back. Because (sniff) in a free market society like America (sniff), Corporations are more important than people." :')
@CalexanderJ If Cenk was working for Fox News, then Fox News would definitely fire him for Telling the Truth, but since he works on MSNBC, there is no reason the MSNBC Execs to fire Cenk.
Yay, lets vote for the party that wants to "cut" the deficit by repealing you healthcare, taking away your social security, giving tax breaks to the richest, most profitable people and repealing "job killing" regulations so private company's can cut your job to make more money and provide you with unsafe products that have been manufactured in the most harmful but most affordable way...in China.
Totally agree with ya Cenk. If only America used a fraction of entertainment industry money to education? Can you imagine? An educated America? Scary thoughts.....
@Tent316 Sorry didnt word that corrwectly. I saw an article that said entertainment industry is huge (hundreds of billions of dollars), to entertain America and education spent by Government is only like 30 billion (something like that). But yea.
I think that $368B should be written $368,000,000,000 so the less math inclined people will REALLY get an idea HOW much money we are talking about - or even better- every time a big number like that is thrown around - divide it by the number of people in the country and say "that equals XXXX per person, man, woman, and child", that will make more people realize that astronomical numbers with which we are dealing!
@TurMoiL911 Don´t worry! It will trickle down! For example, I gave my hooker an extra nickle with my tax savings. How generous am I? God, I should get some sort of award or something.
This has been flagged as spam show
The ONLY way to bring jobs back to America is to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr.
This is the only way we can compete with China. Paul Ryan and my fellow republicans need to act on this now. Employers also should not have to carry the burdern of paying for health care either. Go get em Paul!
GOPkicksbutt 10 months ago
Under Republican President Eisenhower the Max Tax Rate was 90% on the Super-Rich (understand that the rate doesn't apply to all income - only that income above what would be needed to live better than 95% of population)
Under Republican Presidents Nixon & Ford the Max Tax Rate was over 70%
And we did well as a country
We must stop giving MASSIVE BILLION DOLLAR TAX CUTS to the super-rich.
The top 1% already has about 50% of the FINCIAL WEALTH of the country & the % continues to grow
DillonDee1 1 year ago
People say we can never get out of this hole, but we've been in worse shape.
In CW debt was greater when compared to GNP, but Lincoln put into effect an Income Tax, Asset Tax, & Inheritance Tax which fell mostly upon the richest 10%. (Abe said they should pay more as few of their sons served in the war - much like Iraq)
WW 2 also put us in worse shape - but Max Tax Rate on Super-Rich raised to 70% - 90% & we got out of hole
BUT WE CAN'T DO THIS GIVING BILLIONS IN TAX CUTS TO SUPER-RICH
DillonDee1 1 year ago
We need to go back to a REAL graduated income tax like we've had for most of the last 75 years. I'd suggest something like this:
up to $400,000 - super-rich would pay same tax rates as middle class
$400k to 600k - 50%
$600k to 800k - 60%
$800k to $1 mil - 70%
$1 mil to $1 bil - 80%
Over $1 Billion in income per yr - 90%
This would solve our budget problems.
DillonDee1 1 year ago 2
@DillonDee1 It looks good to me here. Remember the republican counter argument. That hurts small business because S-corporations pay taxes on the owner's income tax. I'm not saying you don't have an answer, but keep it handy.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow -- I've operated small businesses & most don't operate as S Corporations & "small'' businesses would not be impacted by the graduated schedule I proposed.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 I agree with you, I honestly just wanted to see if you had a rebuttle. Actually, i'm interested in learning more about his. For example, one of the GOP arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts was that it would help small businesses. I am pretty sure this is bullshit, but I'd like more info. If you need more space to explain it, please send an email.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow -- I put the split on the super-rich at $400,000 & according to IRS only 1% of the population makes over $400k & many of those making that got it on dividends & interest.
Mom & Pop operations - so called "small businesses" -- don't typically make over $400k per yr.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@Newenlightenmentnow That's very true. I think people confuse revenue with profit. They also forget that a corporation, even an s-corporation, can pay it's expenses first, then pay taxes. So after (let's call Aunt Emma's market), Aunt Emma pays her workers, buys that new freezer case, etc, then only then does Aunt Emma pay taxes.
Newenlightenmentnow 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Well, you're absolutely wrong. Since the top 1% already pay 40%, you would bring in (at most) another 10%. The "rich" tax has failed in every single state that has tried it. For fiscal year 2011, the deficit would be 1.4 trillion vs 1.6 trillion. Wow! If we continue the mindset that we can solve our problmes by taking someone else's money then we're doomed.
In fact, we're past the tipping point already. We have no way of paying future obligations, currently at 122 trillion.
smb12321 1 year ago
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 I know of no economist who thinks confiscating massive amounts of private capital will solve the debt problem or lead to prosperity. Families, businesses & states work within revenues. I don't spend & then wonder where the money will come from.
BO's budget assumes preposterous growth, end of the Bush "cuts" & wars, trillions in new taxes and STILL has massive deficits for eternity. Let's party & ignore the inevitable massive inflation, devalued dollar & end of the safety net.
smb12321 1 year ago
@smb12321 Robert Bernard Reich tax the rich at high rates, in order to make it far more attractive to keep more money in their businesses, in production, in workers.
Ishta5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ishta5 Reich is honest in his views that the way to prosperity is massive confiscation of money from those who have it to those who don't (by force). There's something almost nostalgic about his brand of liberal capitalism. The problem is that we're addicted to the super wealthy since they effectively support the rest. What should be pointed out is that Gates or Buffet's wealth did not come from others getting poor.
smb12321 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 So, in going from the 0% bracket to the 25% bracket, unless you make over 65 grand a year, you will be losing money from if you had stopped at 49,999. There is no income that leaves you with more money in the third bracket than in the second. In fact, at 71k, you're left with less than 49,999. YoIn the 4th bracket, you're still below the first until 110k.
So, people stop at $49,999, and pay Zero income tax. Where are we left? This is why a flat tax is better.
CaitiffFTW 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW == DO YOU UNDERSTND HOW OUR TAX BRACKETS WORK?
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW - Let me put it another way.
$373,650 si where you enter the 35% tax bracket this yr.
If you make $375,000 - about what will you tax rate be?
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW -- you still dont undeerstand how the tax brackets work, do you?
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@DillonDee1 Yes, I do. 100% - 35% = 65%
55 * .75 = 41.25
So, for making 5 grand, a person is penalized $13,750.
75 * .65 = 48.75
For making 75 grand a year, getting into the third bracket, you are punished $26,250.
I will grant, however, that I should have said "second bracket" instead of "first" when talking about the fourth bracket.
CaitiffFTW 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW - ok, let's review how tax brackets work.
If someone earns $375,000 they've entered the current 35% tax bracket, but you don't just multiply by 35.
Here's calculation: $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50 (on 1st $8,025 they pay the same tax rate as poorest person)
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
etc.
No one actually pays 35% Fed Inc Ratte - it is always somewhat less
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@DillonDee1 Okay. I sit confortably in my computer chair corrected. Thank you. However, you still haven't explained how this isn't a penalty to people who work hard and earn their money. Wealth is not distributed. It is earned. Am I seriously considered an old man when I remember a time when the American Dream meant being ableto earn your way, rather than it being handed to you on the sweat of another man's brow?
So, all men are created equal.... But, you want the law to discriminate. Funny.
CaitiffFTW 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW - I do believe in rewarding hard work, but the 400 ricshest Americans have more financial wealth than 1/2 of the US population.
And they don't get a paycheck every 2 wks.
They receive most of their income from Dividends & Cap Gain & Tax-Free Bonds. (Bush lowered tax on Dividends & CG to 15%. ) They pay a low Soc Sec tax rate, if any.
So overall they pay about 16-17% of income in taxes
Meanwhile you pay around 22-35%
Is this really fair?
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@DillonDee1 No. I've said it before. I'm in favor of a flat tax. Tax every person equally, and then cut spending to meet the actual revenue. Michael Moore advocated taking every dime from those 400 billionaires, not seeming to get it that that wouldn't even cover the deficit from this year alone, much loss help with the actual national debt.
So, let's reach a middle ground. No brackets. Everyone pays 30% of their income. And, cut the goddamned spending.
CaitiffFTW 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW -- you are right - it takes about 30% in taxes to pay for higways, bridges, schools, defense, etc.
But we know the poor can't pay 30%
So to keep it simple, maybe -
Rich - 60%
Middle - 30%
Poor - 0%
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@DillonDee1 There it is again, though. By changing the tax rates based on income, people are being discriminated against. "All men are created equal." How can we have equality when the law itself doesn't treat people equally? Your plan punishes people for earning money. Especially since the difference between the lines are arbitrary, at best.
30% for everyone is simple. No brackets. No limitations.
CaitiffFTW 11 months ago
@CaitiffFTW - You misinterrupt Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, "All men are created equal"
Jefferson & Franklin had toured Europe & seen how 90% of the people lived in shacks as 10% of the population surrounded themselves with gold, jewelry, & servants.
They thought this was horrible & envisioned something different here
This is why they spoke of placing most of the tax burden on the rich & that ppl should be born equal - not w/ a huge inheritance.
You are no Thomas Jefferson
DillonDee1 11 months ago
@smb12321 - you're mistaken - every time we've run up a huge war debt (EXCEPT iRAQ)WE RAISED THE TAX ON THE RICH'
THEY DIDN'T LEAVE THE COUNTRY... THEY DIDN'T STOP WORKING, UNEMPLOYMENT DID NOT GO UP, BUT REVENUE WENT UP AND WE GOT OUT OF THE MASSIVE DEBT.
DillonDee1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DillonDee1 In the "old days" folks stayed put. Today, those forced to "contribute" more to the black hole of increasing debt move (NJ, CA & MD are prime examples). As our economy becomes increasingly political, gov't action to counter recessions lose effectiveness.
Intervention increases with each recession with declining results. In our case, trillions in political favors & bailouts have resulted in massive debt, inflation and continued unemployment. Great job there!
smb12321 11 months ago
Cenk, run for congress.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
So, extending the Bush tax cuts was thefault of theRepublicans, even though President Obama signed that extention, without a full vote being taken? Yes, blame Congressional Republicans for a Democrat Presidential order.
And, by the way, any votes that were done, such as when the House pased an extention, were done BEFORE the Democrats that lost in November left office. there was still a Democrat majority in both houses, and a Democrat in the White House.... But, it's the Republican's fault?
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW And, while I'm on the subject, the CBO stated in a May report that the cost of Obamacare would be an extra trillion dollars over the next decade. Anyone? Top of your head? What's a trillion devided by 10? And, that's not even counting the severe frontloading of funds into Obamacare. That trillion dollar defecit is after using 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of product.
But, at least Obamacare is un-Constitutional. Thank you, Congress for not putting in a severability clause.
CaitiffFTW 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW While I do agree with you when it come to the mandatory insurance clause, and the obscured amount of costs that are not noted. It will save us at least for the short term $145 billion over the next 10 years. I honestly believe that this is still going to be more beneficial for our society as a whole. Far to many children go without health care do to corporate greed, and negligence. It is estimated that around 9 million children in the US go without proper health care.
edeal86 1 year ago
@CaitiffFTW Nope, I just blame lobbyists, and corporations for buying out our politicians.
edeal86 1 year ago
I thought of a silly rhyme
Socialism...redistributing wealth for the needy.
Capitalism...redistributing wealth for the greedy.
It's too damn true not to say@@@
Territomauvais 1 year ago
Full of FAIL xD!!!!!
Territomauvais 1 year ago
lmao at the giant red X!
i f**king love this guy! and he's on now weekdays at 6?
FTW!
jad3948 1 year ago
They haven't even agreed to 32 billion in specific cuts. Ryan allocated 1.055 T to non-discretionary spending down from 1.087 T. What exactly they have cut has not been specified so it is likely that it will be far less than 32 billion.
mrgravyx 1 year ago
the republicans want communism for the rich, and fascism for the middle class.
crackerz99 1 year ago
Cenk is a retard. A tax cut isnt spending, it's letting people keep more of their money. Spending is spending.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo Are you stupid? How do you expect the government to function without tax money?
hiitsmcjosh 1 year ago
@hiitsmcjosh are YOU stupid? way to throw in a straw man there, too.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo lol cutting your income is the same as spending on top of that there still spending with a lower salary oh and we lose health care and social security out of it. So we spend 300B+ to move backwards to a state where things were failing and they have no idea of what to do they don't even have their own plan they want to implement.
Rasonok 1 year ago
@Rasonok lol you're not even worth arguing with
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo lol is it sad that I feel the same way.
Rasonok 1 year ago
@oJKBo By not taxing the rich the government loses out on funds that it has already accounted for beforehand. Which adds to the deficit. They then try to balance the budget by kicking the middle class back down into the poor houses.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 funds that are often used and allocated in bullshit ways
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo Sure, if you want to call feeding the poor, and elderly wasted spending. Let's not forget about the major education overhaul this nation needs. It is pretty sad that we have to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of educated people.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 *sigh* feeding the poor and elderly--not the job of the government, but the job of private charities. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. If states want to use their money to provide welfare for the poor in their state that's their business. In education, our country spends more for less results. And of course, as rather than letting the poor choose better schools for their children we make it so only the rich can.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo Feeding the poor, and the elderly has always been a major part of the government. No charity organization could ever manage what social security or medicare does on a daily basis. It is human nature, which is far to greedy to ever fund such a charity project. As for schools, we need to improve our education system, and facilities. As well as give subsidies to hard working individuals that otherwise can't afford to go to decent colleges.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 actually it hasn't. America was once a place where people were taken care of by themselves or by the voluntary assistance of others. And there are a multitude of charity hospitals and clinics that don't turn away patients. Social security--haha ponzi schemes are illegal, just not for the government. No we don't need federal student loans to send kids to college. College isn't a right and the government has no right to take money from other's and loan it to college hopefuls
oJKBo 1 year ago
@edeal86 "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."--James Madison
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo Such vague conceptions from the past could never be held to the ever changing future. If we didn't have social welfare we would still have the poor houses, and sweat shops of the early 1900s. Such change is needed in order to have a benevolent society. Higher education leads to a much more profitable market, giving promising young individuals money is an investment I am willing to make. The OASDI was never meant to be used the way that it currently is......but republicans like to con.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 why not just make a new constitution then? If the libertarian like philosophy of the enlightenment is too old to have a 'benevolent' society, why not go with a more modern one? Perhaps one where man's rights come from government and include all sorts of things. You may be willing to help a young person go to college, but you and the government don't have the fucking right to force me to help. But of course--if the rich get richer, the poor MUST get poorer
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo The constitution was designed to be vague so that it could progressively evolve over the era's. The constitution empowers the government. Thus the government empowers us with rights. If the rich keep receiving personal income tax breaks(bush tax cuts) then the middle, and lower class will always become poorer. Since we are the ones balancing the budget. Hence we need to eliminate tax breaks for not only the rich, but for international corporations as well.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 no, the constitution wasn't designed so that 200 years into the future people could change the whole thing. it was specific in the duties it granted to the government--it restrained the government from infringing on rights that man is born with. "government empowers us with rights", what a saddeningly absurd and incredibly statist statement. I don't even know how to respond to your last sentences. You clearly have subscribed to the most persistent economic fallacy of all time
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo What does government empowered rights have to do with an economic fallacy? You honestly don't know what you are talking about. With out a government to enforce laws do you honestly think people would respect rights that we are born with? And to that I must ask, what are the rights we are born with? Are we able to marry who we want? Do we all have equal rights? Honestly, stop trying to merge your religious biases with policies that govern. The world doesn't work that way.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 the most persistent economic fallacy of all time is the idea that wealth is like a pie--if one person gets more everyone else gets less. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. Yes, man has the right to marry another woman (or man).
oJKBo 1 year ago
@edeal86 haha merging my religious biases with policies that govern, funny seeing as i'm an atheist, but still rights are inherent and can only be infringed upon by government. A right is the moral sanction of a positive-- a freedom to act on one's own judgment, for one's own goals, by one's own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to one's neighbors, one's rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his or her rights.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo Such a belief is naive. No one is born equal, whether it be genetically, financially, or by morality. You are right to say that you are born with your own persona that can make its own choices. But just because you want to choose, or fulfill your own desires. Don't feel that the other people around you will acknowledge the rights that you feel that you are born with. We are a selfish race, and we are even worse without order, or government. That is why I call your belief naive.
edeal86 1 year ago
@edeal86 You're right, how can one man born deaf, blind, dumb, and mute be equal with a man born fit and strong. However, all men are born with equal rights. I have never advocated a society without a government. I have only advocated for a government which protects its people from others, foreign or domestic.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo That is true but it adds more to the deficit, remember the tea party and the republicans keep preaching that they are concern about the deficit, but if they are not willing to cut defense spending and stop the bush tax cuts, they will be adding much much more to the deficit, now you tell me does that really sound like the GOP is concern about the deficit, i am waiting to see the so call tea party march against a bigger deficit now lol
ddman10001 1 year ago
@ddman10001 it doesnt--if government spending is 10 and it's revenue is 9, there's a deficit. However, if the government cuts its revenue to 6 but cuts its spending to 5 it's in the green, no deficit. I agrree the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expired, however i also think an incredible restructuring of our tax system is necessary. Also, defense spending can be cut, but it will take more than defense cuts to really shrink the deficit and pay off our debt.
oJKBo 1 year ago
@oJKBo
its called opportunity cost, and it has the same impact.
pyr666 1 year ago
Full of Fail! LOL
Luchynski08 1 year ago
Democrats-party of big government. Republicans= the party of bigger government.
19TEC85 1 year ago
Republicans = Works Only for rich people
MrWowme 1 year ago
Deadlychinchilla! Fuck Off!
TheFunkadelicFan 1 year ago
Republicans produce excuses.
Democrats produce results.
Richardgwm 1 year ago
@Richardgwm in my opinion its democrats produce excuses, republicans produce failure.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 haha Yep time for a real third party... or fourth or what ever... real action = real results. Truth=happiness.. althought it could scare a few... like the Billionares and stuff.
WorldDebater 1 year ago
@WorldDebater honestly any party will be corrupt, the republicans beloved founder george washington was right.
Andy180084 1 year ago
They could cut the budget by not giving Israel any more money, getting the fuck out of Iraq already and pulling out of Afghanistan, but that would mean less money for defense contractors and war profitiers, and the Republcorp would never do that. The assholes are getting too rich off your money, and there's no incentive for them to get their heads out of the endless money-trough.
Now look sad and say "Republicans"
FuckYouLetMeLogIn 1 year ago
You can't fix a debt problem without first cutting spending, but if there's nothing to CUT anymore, then you gotta raise your income.
Normal people do this by getting another job.
Governments do it by raising taxes.
EziekielNightwind 1 year ago
Cenk can totally replace Keith Olbermann
ClintSevilla 1 year ago 4
@ClintSevilla Perfect timing is perfect.
RedandWhiteGuerilla 1 year ago
Why does anyone vote for republicans that isn't in the top 1%? How can these people be so fucking stupid.
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
@spinnersmetal because money isn't the only reason people vote. There is foreign policy, domestic policy, taxes, health care, social security, and many other topics that people vote a certain way. Some, not even religion people, don't like abortions, and to them that is the number one issue. Some people vote republican because they don't like the idea of limiting power of the people for gun ownership. So there is more than just taxes.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
Elbow from the sky.
Diatonic5th 1 year ago
Really? only a 8% decrease, that's just under Richardson's Sales Tax. TYT should start a petition on what needs to get cut in the economy.
Zeldagigafan90210 1 year ago
Get em Cenk!!!
nmorrison62n 1 year ago
"Full of fail" the perfect description of the Republican political base.
Tounushi 1 year ago
Thom Hartman calls the GOP the santa claus party who give tax cuts and tax cuts and that is why they always run up such huge debt. If there were any true conservatives left they would be so appauled by the republican party that these ass hats would never hold office again.
Dahgrostabphri 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE VENUS PROJECT DOT COM
myxoluser 1 year ago
@myxoluser and THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT DOT COM
lockeseven7 1 year ago
@lockeseven7
That 2.
myxoluser 1 year ago
Redistribute wealth for the rich and cut programs for the middle class. Thats GOP 101! Damn right on.
We "need" a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SAVE THE PLANET SAVE OURSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
myxoluser 1 year ago 14
@myxoluser Resource based economy while good on paper, fails to deal with scarcity. The same issue that communism had. We basically have a resource based economy, in the very sense that as things get produced more and more, we end up with more supply, therefore cheaper cost and poorer people can afford it. There was a time when only the rich had a telephone, now i see bums with cell phones.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@bluefootedpig
Actually with the rise of technology and AI robots, us "humans" can have an world where money, greed, war, & old superstitions no longer exist. No more slave jobs just to make to rich, richer. Everything on this planet is equally available to ALL and the planet preserved. In the coming decades or centuries, we as humans and Earthlings will need to put our petty differences aside and come together for the good of ALL. Because just maybe, we aren't the only ones out there.
myxoluser 1 year ago
@myxoluser Okay, maybe you know more than the hundreds of other people i have asked, so lets give it a whirl. How do you handle people who want to live near a park? you have 10 lots of land, you have 30 people who want it, how do you decide? You only have so much shoreline, not everyone gets a beach home. What about new technology, the new 16 core proc computer comes out, who gets the first model or do you have to build millions before you release.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@myxoluser Don't get me wrong, the idea is great on paper, things like bananas can be almost completely automated, but as it gets more automated, the price drops. How do you handle the cost of intellectual property? gadgets. What if i invent a really cool invention, you see it and want one, do i HAVE to give it to you, even though I am not marketing it? There are a lot of holes if you start to look at current economic problems and realize there is no solution for it.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
@myxoluser Sounds like you've watched Zeitgeist. Gotta take that stuff with a very very large pinch of salt.
DirectInjected 1 year ago
@myxoluser
communism still doesnt work
pyr666 1 year ago
@myxoluser
The planet doesn't need saving, we just have to stop hurting it.
...but lets argue about politics! :)
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
rich suck
myxoluser 1 year ago
@myxoluser feel free to stay broke, i am sure they won't care.
bluefootedpig 1 year ago
Cenk deliviring the goods!
darkmagnifico 1 year ago 2
Right On Cenk!!!!
Getting Even Better Day by Day!!!!!!!
Thank you again, keep it up!
RBLA818 1 year ago 34
We should change the names of the parties...Rich Party and Poor Party.
Because that's the truth of the matter.
MobRulesNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The GOP can't make all the cuts they pledged because Obozo is POTUS right now. When Palin becomes POTUS she will make even more cuts than what the rest of the GOP propose and she WILL balance her budget in her first year! She WILL create surpluses in her 2nd year and surpass Bubba's surpluses during her 2 terms! Cenk has just uttered a bunch of BS for it is the libs and the DEMS that are spending this country to bankruptcy! Only President Palin will save this country from its debt!
ecwaufisxtreme 1 year ago
@ecwaufisxtreme Save that comment. Practice a stand-up routine with it. You will be HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE.
grimordwow 1 year ago 3
@ecwaufisxtreme. The GOP can't make all the cuts they pledged because it's impossible. They knew it when they made the promise and they know it now. Nobody especailly that bimbo Sarah Palin can make $100 billion in cuts without bankrupting America. And even if it was possible to make $100 billion in cuts Palin is too stupid to figure out how to do it. She'll never be President.
cne08 1 year ago 6
@cne08 Kind of dense aren't we? If the rich tax cuts cost 4 times as much as the Republican pledge. Then wouldn't cutting the rich tax cuts comply with the republican pledge?
edeal86 1 year ago
@cne08 Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me you're nor seriously alleging that cutting $100 billion from a deficit of 1.65 trillion (at best) will bankrupt the country. Get a dictionary. Bankruptcy is caused by spending too much (1.65 trillion) - not cutting a measly 100 billion. Jesus, how wacky can it get?
smb12321 1 year ago
@cne08 -- youi're right - they can't balance the budget with spending cuts, especially if they refuse to cut the military budget by at least 35%
We don' t have so much of spending problem as we have a revenue problem - the result of cutting the tax rate on the super-rich so drasticially that they're paying the lowest rate ever & less than the middle class.
DillonDee1 11 months ago
reptards always fail, democraps always fail, we need stronger liberal's, 2010 never passed the 2011 budget almost unheard of so the current budget is 2010's plus the passed tax cuts, added up epic fail. Obama a socialist, I'm the socialist I'd take 90% of your cash after 1 million dollars and corporations over1 billion profit 90%, but it's that money that buys politics
sx200ser 1 year ago
Absolutely.
BobFromMich 1 year ago
I think we should be happy they failed to cut more, since they prefer to cut into social programs which are direly needed in this jobless 'recovery'.
ultrapirtle 1 year ago
I hated to lose Keith Olberman from mainstream media. Havings said that, Cenk should take Keith's spot, having his own show. He's worked very hard for it, and he deserves it. Go Cenk !!!
Pedroskini 1 year ago
remember there is only a budget for the masses, money is easy to print they can print unlimited money but for more control u gotta get the masses on their knees so u create lies....
tharealest62qb 1 year ago
@tharealest62qb
"money is easy to print they can print unlimited money"
physically, sure. but seeing as how that would rape the economy, it really doesn't DO anything.
pyr666 1 year ago
Cenk with the elbow from the sky ! I fuckin' love it.
RustyCyler 1 year ago 2
Cant wait the next American revolution and see these scumbag politicians hanged.
pololopo23 1 year ago
What about Rand Paul's badass 500 billion in cuts Cenk?
brokenbrainz1 1 year ago 6
@brokenbrainz1 Insignificant rare cranks and quirks come and go. So there is one republican who believes in balanced budgets. Wonderful.
coosoorlog 1 year ago 2
OMG all of my votes until now have been garbage!!!!!
EsCurve 1 year ago
Maybe the Republicans are confusing bull-shit with the budget? Actually they seem to into a lot of bull-shit about the budget.
menthol5 1 year ago
Get 'em Cenk!
DylanW3 1 year ago
Exposing these fucks for the amoral money hoarders they are.
Raelsatu 1 year ago
oh 100 billion ?!?!?!?!?! i can cut 5 times that in one stroke of a pen, $500 billion off the defense budget.
803brando 1 year ago 4
@803brando
How about $800 million off of defense? the military can still function just fine on $4-500.000.000.
We spend more on weapons soldiers and war than China does and their army is five times the size of ours
Hammerfall794 1 year ago
@Hammerfall794 I know first hand how inefficient our military is with spending. It's disgusting.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
We could also reorganize the services into two separate and distinct branches: Land Forces (Army/Marines) and Sea & Air Services (Navy/Air Force) which would eliminate all of the unnecessary base duplication and create regional command centers for all forces.
And we could roll homeland security into defense thereby creating a single department which would be responsible for all defense both internal and external.
It could be called the department of Civil Security & National Defense.
Hammerfall794 1 year ago
@Hammerfall794 The Marines and the Navy ARE the same branch, and rely on one another intimately to function. Bases are already often shared as well, though are usually designated by their "dominant" branch.
Messing with the military is huge fail, basically. Leave it be, cut out all these Homeland Security freaks. And put FEMA back where they belong, responding to natural disasters. They've been a natural disaster themselves since Bush put them under terroristic operations.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla
In Canada they unified their forces 40 years ago and their armed forces seem to be working just fine.
We need to reform the military and bring down all of the wasteful spending and get rid of the unnecessary bases.
Combining the forces into two branches (or even one branch with different divisions) which would be under the control of one HQ which would also be responsible for all ancillary operations would cut military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Hammerfall794 1 year ago
@Hammerfall794 We're not Canada. Also, do you have any idea how small their military is compared to ours? (Not insulting them, its just a fact.)
There are plenty of ways to end wasteful spending without restructuring a successful military system. For one, stop producing hardware that is out-of-date before going into service just because a senator got parts made in several different states. Bell helicopters are TERRIBLE machines, constant breaking. Sakorski (sp?) is far superior & cheaper!
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@Hammerfall794 Also, you can't run several different missions with different purposes with one HQ. The Navy/Marine mission is not the same as the Air Force or Army missions. The whole concept of separation is to provide MORE efficiency and control, as well as provide a more diverse troop system.
Its just not going to happen. There are far better things to do than mess with the military branches.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla Yeah, Canada has a small army. Why? Because they're not willing to start a war over Opium in Afghanistan, nor a war over Oil in Iraq, nor are they willing to apply political and military pressure through Colombia for Cocaine.
grimordwow 1 year ago
@grimordwow What a bunch of biased BS. Bush's wars were stupid, every idiot knows that much. (Every idiot but him, of course.) Canada has a smaller army because they have a smaller POPULATION, numbnuts. They also don't provide military assistance to their allied nations on request, as we do with ours.
You would effectively disband our current military because you don't like their *orders*? From CONGRESS? A new military structure won't effect change if these are your real complaints.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla They also have a smaller PERCENTAGE of their POPULATION in their army, numbnuts.
CelphProclaimed 1 year ago
@CelphProclaimed Yes, thats part of my point, you idiot. Smaller population = smaller army. Can you not read?
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla Okay do tell dodo head what allied Nation have requested American military?
Waage83 1 year ago
@Waage83 The majority of nations we are in, be it diplomatically or militarilly, we are there by request. Germany, South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, these are just a few where they benefit from our military presence and ANNUALLY repeat the request that we stay. Or did you think we occupy the world by force, like the rest of the anti-US herd claims? Easy train to jump on.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla So who are you helping to defend Germany from? Denmark or are the EVIL Romans coming back to take away the land of the Germanians? Oh Maybe the French.
Any no i am not a anti-American in any way i do make fun of you guys a lot, but that is becaus you guys do a lot of stupid shit.
Well if you want to waste a ton of money protecting a country to weak to fight i guess that is your business.
Waage83 1 year ago
@grimordwow
That's true.
Canada is renound for using it's armed forces for peace keeping (a concept which was created by a Canadian diplomat no less)and fighting justifiable wars which is probably why they are so highly respected the world over.
While we use our military power to bully and abuse smaller countries into doing what we want them to do and make them do it by force if necessary.
Canada also raised larger all volunteer armies during both world wars than we did.
Hammerfall794 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla in some cases you have Both Air Force and Navy Deployed alongside Marines and Army personal in Iraq for instance along with National Guard for Ground operations that have nothing to do with the Air Force or the Navy so the traditional roles of these branches is changing as well so a change in how there organized might save millions there is always room for improvement the US military is far from perfect one could always do better but the main problem is Defense spendingCONT
phoboskitty 1 year ago
@phoboskitty In SOME cases, yes. In MOST, no. Role changes does not create an over-encompassing change on the whole. Marines are still amphibious assault and deployed for combat roles, the Army is still the occupying force, the Air Force is the air support to the extraneous brances, and the Navy covers the amphibious combat and travel needs of the Marines. These are interlocking but separate roles. "Room for improvement" from you, who don't even understand global needs, is pointless to say.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
WHY dose the US navy need 11 carrier groups? to support 11 super carriers? the US could easily deal with Half that number, few other countries want to or can afford to maintain that many they cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, whats the point of them? oh wait some Senator lives in a state where they build them and that corporation has bought said senator, this is the main reason the US spends SO MUCH on Defense, its not for ANY other reason
phoboskitty 1 year ago
@phoboskitty Riiiight. You clearly don't understand the concept of situational awareness, or combat deployable readiness. With 11 carriers we can patrol oceans far beyond our borders, giving not only a fast response to situations across the globe but offering security to our allied nations. If you don't understand the "point" of being able to stop a North Korean invasion of the South (as is just one example), then you don't understand military readiness whatsoever.
DeadlyChinchilla 1 year ago
@DeadlyChinchilla WHY dose the US navy need 11 carrier groups? to support 11 super carriers? the US could easily deal with Half that number, few other countries want to or can afford to maintain that many they cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, whats the point of them? oh wait some Senator lives in a state where they build them and that corporation has bought said senator, this is the main reason the US spends SO MUCH on Defense, its not for ANY other reason
phoboskitty 1 year ago 2
@Hammerfall794 yeah, im more in line with cutting defense completely in half.
803brando 1 year ago
@Hammerfall794
size really doesnt mean much of anything.
as demonstrated in the middle east on multiple occasions, russia during the world wars, and many more times throughout history.
pyr666 1 year ago
You know shame on all the people who think Cenk is selling out, listen to him here. His emotion is back, he's starting to feel comfortable on his show and they are even giving him Soundclips. Keep bringing the Truth Cenk!
Tales23 1 year ago 3
@Tales23
I love how he tells out the truth just straight out like that, as if he was yelling it into the GOP's face, I like it! I'd dare any GOP politicians to try and shut him up, I DARE THEM! Same goes for Beck, Limbaugh, and all the Faux News cronies.
NaziGOPBallmer 1 year ago 3
@Tales23 true that, i was a little worried at first and i think msnbc was too, but now we're getting the good ole TYT Cenk back
sjraiders50 1 year ago
Boehner: "We are gonna cut the deficit and the debt and we wanna make sure we do it off your back. Because (sniff) in a free market society like America (sniff), Corporations are more important than people." :')
biggydx 1 year ago
Cenk needs to stop screaming at his audience...
rbrtchng 1 year ago
@rbrtchng Q.Q
IceSlushi 1 year ago
Damn Cenk, they're going to kick you off tv if you keep telling it like it is.
CalexanderJ 1 year ago 6
@CalexanderJ If Cenk was working for Fox News, then Fox News would definitely fire him for Telling the Truth, but since he works on MSNBC, there is no reason the MSNBC Execs to fire Cenk.
EvilFingers 1 year ago
Yay, lets vote for the party that wants to "cut" the deficit by repealing you healthcare, taking away your social security, giving tax breaks to the richest, most profitable people and repealing "job killing" regulations so private company's can cut your job to make more money and provide you with unsafe products that have been manufactured in the most harmful but most affordable way...in China.
RogueAutomotive 1 year ago 117
@RogueAutomotive We are becoming more and more like China in fact
psychokillercrab 1 year ago
TYT wasn't playing when they announced "We're coming for you"
Chubearishere 1 year ago 2
Republicans...what else is new.
a1q2s3 1 year ago
Totally agree with ya Cenk. If only America used a fraction of entertainment industry money to education? Can you imagine? An educated America? Scary thoughts.....
Tent316 1 year ago
@Tent316 Sorry didnt word that corrwectly. I saw an article that said entertainment industry is huge (hundreds of billions of dollars), to entertain America and education spent by Government is only like 30 billion (something like that). But yea.
Tent316 1 year ago
I think that $368B should be written $368,000,000,000 so the less math inclined people will REALLY get an idea HOW much money we are talking about - or even better- every time a big number like that is thrown around - divide it by the number of people in the country and say "that equals XXXX per person, man, woman, and child", that will make more people realize that astronomical numbers with which we are dealing!
CigarStudLasVegas 1 year ago 4
Republicans fail at math and legislation.
DrewDude09 1 year ago
Bah! Maths r fer teh smaret .
danmarg83 1 year ago
i like cherry pah
insertnamehereKJK 1 year ago
Late to the party.
therealcharismatron 1 year ago
poop
insertnamehereKJK 1 year ago
The only thing Republicans want to cut are taxes for the rich.
TurMoiL911 1 year ago 142
@TurMoiL911 Don´t worry! It will trickle down! For example, I gave my hooker an extra nickle with my tax savings. How generous am I? God, I should get some sort of award or something.
leptonsoup337 1 year ago
@TurMoiL911
And Socal Security and Medicare and Welfare , etc..
sheepthing 1 year ago