House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

[Swift]

You know what, I just thought of another possible justification for the states having so much power in our constitution. All these federal spending programs that we have going on only make it that much harder to cut domestic spending and programs. Now, as was stated, when you cut a program an entire community can be effected. With more power with the states and less with the Federal, this would be much more limited. Too bad each president has forgoten that over the last 140 years or so.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Yeah, that's rough. It can be very rough for a particular community. But if we're ever going to get out of the whole that we're in, how can we do it by taxing more AND spending more?

Well one way to reduce spending while keeping the associated program and the jobs that come with it around, is making it so that it is more efficient. As John McCain would say, my friends we have some tough decisions to make. I prefer Obama's exacto knife over McCain's hatchet though.

With Barack's healthcare plan, he might be able to scrap some of Bush's bloated prescription drug plans. We pretty much need to attack entitlements and military spending in a very careful way. Before some people get all rabid on me for saying we should cut defense spending, McCain has even said it is necessary and he planned on doing so.

I'd be willing to bet we could trim 100 billion a year from the defense budget and still have the most formidable and battle ready military in the world.

Beleive me, if i had the answers I wouldn't be posting from Omaha, NE.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Well one way to reduce spending while keeping the associated program and the jobs that come with it around, is making it so that it is more efficient. As John McCain would say, my friends we have some tough decisions to make. I prefer Obama's exacto knife over McCain's hatchet though.

With Barack's healthcare plan, he might be able to scrap some of Bush's bloated prescription drug plans. We pretty much need to attack entitlements and military spending in a very careful way. Before some people get all rabid on me for saying we should cut defense spending, McCain has even said it is necessary and he planned on doing so.

I'd be willing to bet we could trim 100 billion a year from the defense budget and still have the most formidable and battle ready military in the world.

Beleive me, if i had the answers I wouldn't be posting from Omaha, NE.

Medicare, Medicaid, and DoD account for nearly half of our budget. As time goes on, that'll have to be cut in order to account for social security spending, which is why it's important to decrease the size of the US military and close a lot of the bases around the world (idealistically, all of the bases).

I don't know all that much about Bush's health care package, how much it costs annually, or if it could be trimmed. But cutting all the chaff counts. Unfortunately, government programs will end up taking a far backseat to SS in the ensuing 10-20 years. Smells like higher taxes to me.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Medicare, Medicaid, and DoD account for nearly half of our budget. As time goes on, that'll have to be cut in order to account for social security spending, which is why it's important to decrease the size of the US military and close a lot of the bases around the world (idealistically, all of the bases).

I don't know all that much about Bush's health care package, how much it costs annually, or if it could be trimmed. But cutting all the chaff counts. Unfortunately, government programs will end up taking a far backseat to SS in the ensuing 10-20 years. Smells like higher taxes to me.

I know people are going to think I'm a horrid person for this. But why is half of the federal budget healthcare insurance costs? Seriouisly? I mean if we weren't being taxed for that how much more affordable would private and/or gropu insurance be? I'm not saying that the federal governement shouldn't help in extreme situations. But half the budget! Wouldn't that pretty much mean we coud eliminate the income tax all together?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I know people are going to think I'm a horrid person for this. But why is half of the federal budget healthcare insurance costs? Seriouisly? I mean if we weren't being taxed for that how much more affordable would private and/or gropu insurance be? I'm not saying that the federal governement shouldn't help in extreme situations. But half the budget! Wouldn't that pretty much mean we coud eliminate the income tax all together?

No, medicare+medicaid+DoD. DoD by and far dwarfs the size of medicare and medicaid (by about 100 billion or so).

Tax revenue generates nearly 3 trillion dollars worth of money for federal government spending. If we were to eliminate all of that tax revenue, then all those governmental programs would have to find another source of revenue, which would mean government would levee taxes elsewhere.

[Photon1001]

^There's apparently some conflicting estimations on this:

Federal Budget Spending

The Federal Pie Chart

[Swift]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

No, medicare+medicaid+DoD. DoD by and far dwarfs the size of medicare and medicaid (by about 100 billion or so).

Tax revenue generates nearly 3 trillion dollars worth of money for federal government spending. If we were to eliminate all of that tax revenue, then all those governmental programs would have to find another source of revenue, which would mean government would levee taxes elsewhere.

Ok, then we could cut at least 25% off of everyone's income tax right now.

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^There's apparently some conflicting estimations on this:

Federal Budget Spending

The Federal Pie Chart

That's a nice antiwar website. Though the numbers look accurate. I have no problem with military spending. I do have a problem with wasteful military spending. I also don't care and think it's a good thing that we spend more on defense then all the other countries put together. That fact alone helps to keep us safe. But the military is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. I'm still trying to figure out the constitutional authority for Medicare and Social Security.

[Photon1001]

Yeah, its a confusing one. From FindLaw:

Social Security Act Cases .--Although holding that the spending power is not limited by the specific grants of power contained in Article I, Sec. 8, the Court found, nevertheless, that it was qualified by the Tenth Amendment, and on this ground ruled in the Butler case that Congress could not use moneys raised by taxation to ''purchase compliance'' with regulations ''of matters of State concern with respect to which Congress has no authority to interfere.'' 545 Within little more than a year this decision was reduced to narrow proportions by Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 546 which sustained the tax imposed on employers to provide unemployment benefits, and the credit allowed for similar taxes paid to a State. To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were ''weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,'' the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the ''general welfare'' clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation ''to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,'' 547 since state unemployment compensation payments would relieve the burden for direct relief borne by the national treasury. The Court reserved judgment as to the validity of a tax ''if it is laid upon the condition that a State may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power.'

[link]

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

That's a nice antiwar website. Though the numbers look accurate. I have no problem with military spending. I do have a problem with wasteful military spending. I also don't care and think it's a good thing that we spend more on defense then all the other countries put together. That fact alone helps to keep us safe. But the military is explicitly spelled out in the constitution.I'm still trying to figure out the constitutional authority for Medicare and Social Security.

So spending more than the rest of the world combined on military spending isn't wasteful? Liechtenstein doesn't even have a military, but they aren't any bit less safe than the U.S.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

So spending more than the rest of the world combined on military spending isn't wasteful? Liechtenstein doesn't even have a military, but they aren't any bit less safe than the U.S.

Not in and of itself. But I'm sure there are some 2,000$ hammers that we could do without.

Who ever heard of Liechtenstein? Do they have some other alliance with a country that does have a military? Or is it that there is nothing in Liechtenstein worth the effort. Except for the people of course.

Seriouisly, everyone wants to get into, take advantage of or destroy the USA. We need to have an incredible military ready to meet the challenges.

[Photon1001]

Last I heard, Liechtenstein had put itself up for sale. But seriously, everyone? Really, everyone? I know we have enemies, but certainly not everyone. I kind of doubt its really a case of the USA vs the entire rest of the world...

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Not in and of itself. But I'm sure there are some 2,000$ hammers that we could do without.

Or some billion dollar bases.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Who ever heard of Liechtenstein? Do they have some other alliance with a country that does have a military? Or is it that there is nothing in Liechtenstein worth the effort. Except for the people of course.

Nope, no alliances.

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Seriouisly, everyone wants to get into, take advantage of or destroy the USA. We need to have an incredible military ready to meet the challenges.

And why is that, couldn't it possibly be because of the military?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Last I heard, Liechtenstein had put itself up for sale. But seriously, everyone? Really, everyone? I know we have enemies, but certainly not everyone. I kind of doubt its really a case of the USA vs the entire rest of the world...

I said everyone wants to destroy us, get into this country or take advantage of this country. Why would we not need a the superior military force on the planet?

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I said everyone wants to destroy us, get into this country or take advantage of this country. Why would we not need a the superior military force on the planet?

How are they going to take advantage of the country? I was emphasizing the DESTROY part as it is slightly more pressing.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Or some billion dollar bases.

What's wrong with bases? From a tactical military perscpective?

And why is that, couldn't it possibly be because of the military?

Actually, that would be because of the people in charge of the military.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

I said everyone wants to destroy us, get into this country or take advantage of this country. Why would we not need a the superior military force on the planet?

Again, everyone? Do you really think its a case of the USA vs the entire rest of the world?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Again, everyone? Do you really think its a case of the USA vs the entire rest of the world?

Basically, except for a few exceptions. Not that I'm paranoid and think all other countries want us dead. Somply that even before Bush we had a lot of anger against us and it's nice to ahve the Military there to sober up militant dictators. Do you think Akmandinajad would still be doing nothing if it wasn't for the US military.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

What's wrong with bases? From a tactical military perscpective?

Does the average person view them from a tactical military perspective? Would you be happy with foreign bases on American soil, how about on "Holy" soil?

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Actually, that would be because of the people in charge of the military.

The military is still the means.

[Photon1001]

Akmadinajad is not the leader of Iran. I also don't think Iran would gain much by attacking the US. But that's not the point, you said everybody. Iran is not Portugal, or Costa Rica, or Figi. Is Figi going to come and invade California?

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Akmadinajad is not the leader of Iran. I also don't think Iran would gain much by attacking the US. But that's not the point, you said everybody. Iran is not Portugal, or Costa Rica, or Figi. Is Figi going to come and invade California?

Are you upset because people called you out in the thread about the budget and Clinton?

Hmmm..well. Lets see. I still think it's pretty much us vs them. But not everyone. Man, remind me never to say anything without a 50 word explaination to go with it.

We do have some strong allies though. But I think the bases around the world are a good thing.


I know Akmadinajad isn't the leader of Iran, but he is a major part of the leadeship and heates Israel and America.