31
   

How will we pay for it all?

 
 
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 07:15 am
My question is for folks who always oppose raising taxes. I'll admit I don't like paying a lot of taxes either. But who is going to pay for our wars, our aging infrastructure, our social security promises? Do you think it is ok to pass this burden on to our children, grandchildren and, at this rate, great-grandchildren? Help me understand.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 31 • Views: 10,866 • Replies: 134

 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 07:17 am
Lower taxes and reduced spending equal increased revenues.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 07:18 am
@H2O MAN,
Show me.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 07:21 am
@H2O MAN,
I assume you mean revenue to the government because increased revenue to the people is not going to take care of a crumbling infrastructure , healthcare for the poor and an educational system that makes sense much less a safety net for the elderly unless you expect the average citizen to cough up out of their pockets voluntarily for that kind of thing beyond their own self interests.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 07:52 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
I really was hoping for a somewhat technical argument. Maybe the right people just haven't come along yet.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:08 am
@FreeDuck,
I thought the plan on Social Security was to keep slowly reducing benefits.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:17 am
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I assume you mean revenue to the government...


Why would you assume?

Of course I'm talking about the money that our government takes in.
Lower taxes result in increased revenues to the federal government.
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:19 am
@FreeDuck,
Trick question I submit.

There is NO WAY to PAY for EVERYTHING these politicians promise.

Forget wars, there should be no "wars" and this war has been a gigantic clusterfuck. In a perfect scenario, Iraq should repay us for the cost (yea right!).

This Govt has to be realistic on it's priorities and promises. Neither candidate will ever admit that we can not pay for Univ. Healthcare, rebuild infrastructure, social security etc....

A radical reorganization of priorities has to occur and Obama is NOT the person to install as leader. We need someone who has the balls and foresight to reorganize the priorities.

Not sure if McCain is the person, but with a choice of only 2, he is in a better position to say "NO" to certain things than Obama.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:20 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Lower taxes result in increased revenues to the federal government.

Let's reduce taxes to zero, then, and our government will be rolling in it!

Or the government could give money away and then have even more money!
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:30 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Lower taxes result in increased revenues to the federal government.

Let's reduce taxes to zero, then, and our government will be rolling in it!

Or the government could give money away and then have even more money!


Our government does give money away, just to the wrong people and causes.

Of course your "zero tax rate" is just stupid. How would you provide any services and protect our country with zero dollars?
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:33 am
@H2O MAN,
Can you back this assertion up? I really want to know if there is any validity to it.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:37 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Trick question I submit.

Do tell.

Quote:
There is NO WAY to PAY for EVERYTHING these politicians promise.


I'm not asking about political promises. I'm asking about running the country. I admit I'm starting from a basic assumption that we need to 1) pay our debts, 2) make good on our promises, 3) pay to maintain and improve our infrastructure (roadways, schools, etc...). Certainly if you disagree with any of these then you will not be able to answer my question.

Quote:
Forget wars, there should be no "wars" and this war has been a gigantic clusterfuck. In a perfect scenario, Iraq should repay us for the cost (yea right!).


Too late. We're already committed. We have already acted. We have to pay for it. This isn't a perfect scenario.

Quote:
This Govt has to be realistic on it's priorities and promises. Neither candidate will ever admit that we can not pay for Univ. Healthcare, rebuild infrastructure, social security etc....

A radical reorganization of priorities has to occur


And what should those priorities be? How much will they cost? How will we pay for them?

Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:44 am
@FreeDuck,
Sometimes, you just have to go back to the basics in order to rebuild.

Infrastructure, defense. Those 2 basics functions are required by a Federal gvt.

If the citizens want to expand on that to provide for certain social welfare programs, fine.

But to ask a citizen HOW we are going to pay for all the things McCain and Obama promise, is misplaced. Ask THEM how they are going to pay for it. If they are honest, they will say, WE CAN NOT.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:50 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Sometimes, you just have to go back to the basics in order to rebuild.

Infrastructure, defense. Those 2 basics functions are required by a Federal gvt.


I would add that we have to pay our debts as well as make good on promises (social security) that citizens have already been taxed to pay for. Given that, the question remains, how do you pay for all that without raising taxes? We're talking about 2 wars! And if McCain gets elected, maybe 3.

Quote:
But to ask a citizen HOW we are going to pay for all the things McCain and Obama promise, is misplaced.

That's not what I asked.
Woiyo9
 
  4  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:52 am
@FreeDuck,
I submit then we cancel all foreign aid, and eliminate social welfare programs for US citizens who are able to work. Eliminate all funding of any program to illegal aliens.

Care to add to the list?
H2O MAN
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 08:55 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

I really want to know if there is any validity to it.


Google "lower taxes - increased revenues"
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 09:00 am
@Woiyo9,
Aha, Libertarian paradise.

Ayn Rand would be so pleased.

BBB
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 09:06 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Enjoying your ignorant Liberaltard bliss BBB?
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 09:08 am
@Woiyo9,
Go for it. None of those are on "the list" we're talking about.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 09:09 am
@H2O MAN,
Do you mind not leaving your verbal droppings in my thread? I'm interested in your argument but not in your insults.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How will we pay for it all?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 03:30:59