Re: 10 reasons your taxes are going up No matter who's elected president, the debt party's over

In article <a1nvu3ps0m802opn6deeo6e44nmi0e3l5q@xxxxxxx>,
El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 08:15:32 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"mg" <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:51e7eb41-1978-4edd-be1d-4f71d935d8bc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 29, 11:10 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:44b55fbe-36f5-4ccd-a1c8-bbf997b1e58f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Mar 28, 11:51 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:40aa2410-119c-455b-998e-e52113861d4a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

On Mar 27, 11:22 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3a0bbe81-91ec-496c-a2c7-31691f19c221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
m...
On Mar 26, 11:25 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Here is a novel idea, how about reducing spending?

I doubt if it's possible to reduce spending enough to even put a
small
dent in the national debt, but I'm all ears if you have any
suggestions.

Simple, just spend less. If you wanted to, can you reduce the
amount
you
spend, I can, why can't the government? As for your comment that
it
is
not
possible to reduce spendign enough to even put a small dent, I
simply
do
not
understnad how you can make the statement, unless you are
"assuming"
that
spending cannot be reduced.

Philosophy is easy. Reality is hard. Gimme some numbers.

It is not philosophy, it is what you and everone else does everyday of
the
week. "If" Joe Sixpack continues to spend more than they earn, they
will
go
deeper and deeper in debt until someday, Joe Sixpack will find he
cannot
keep up with servicing the debt, and will be forced to declare
bankruptcy.
Your question is based on the assumption that "if" there is a Joe
Sixpack
that is slowly digging a bigger and bigger hole for themselves, I
should
have a specific answer to how he should reverse the trend. But, you
do
not
even HAVE TO go into a whole lot of details to answer your question.
All
they need to do is not continue to spend more than they receive. How
they
do that is up to them to decide. I am not about to tell them how they
should achieve that goal. They are the ones who we elected to do that
job,
and I am not about to tell them how they should do that.

Sometimes Mr. Joe Sixpack finds that he simply cannot find feed his
family or pay his house payment and utility bills on the salary he
makes. In that case he often increases his income by putting his wife
to work and getting a second job, etc.

Yep that sometimes does happen



No matter what Joe Sixpack does, though, he will, at some point,
probably sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and total up his
bills and income and do some arithmetic using real numbers and what
Joe Sixpack is eventually forced to do is exactly what the Republicans
don't want to do. They don't want to have to look at the actual
numbers.

And what has the democrats done? Do what Joe Sixpack would do, or do
what
politicians do?

The subject was whether we could cure the nations deficit/debt
problems by cutting spending. Now you want to change the subject to a
discussion of which political party has been more fiscally responsible
in the past. If that's a subject of interest for you then you might
want to create a new thread. My specific, however, is in discussing
what is going to happen as a result of the huge Republican national
debt.


I just respond to what the last comment was on a thread. Besides, we ae not
going to arrive at a consensus, no matter how much we talk to each other.
Because you seem to refuse to accept the idea that deficits are caused by
spending more than you receive. You just want to talk about the revenue
side, and not the spending side.

Quite right, Jerry, and history and current events have shown that
increased revenues are never the answer. Spending will always rise to
meet and exceed revenues. The only way to control spending is to
decrease revenues. France, with a tax rate 50% higher than the United
States, in 2007 ran a deficit as a percent of GDP which was higher
than the United States, and France has a pension system that is in
worse shape than Social Security. Another interesting statistic is
debt (rather than deficit) as a percent of GDP. The United States is
in better shape than high tax countries like:

France
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
UK
Italy
Germany
Canada
Austria
Switzerland
Netherlands

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7418283
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank
.html

Pay no attention to morons like MG. I plonked him long ago. He is a
drooling socialist and by definition, beyond reason.

Comparison Of National Infant Mortality Rates: 1999
Comparison of national infant mortality rates, in 1999 (horizontal bar
chart): Deaths per 1,000 live births--Hong Kong, 3.1; Japan, 3.4; Sweden,
3.4; Singapore, 3.5; Norway, 3.9; Finland*, 4.2; Denmark, 4.2; France,
4.3; Austria, 4.4; Germany, 4.5; Czech Republic, 4.6; Switzerland, 4.6;
Spain*, 4.9; Italy, 5.2; Netherlands, 5.2; Canada, 5.3; Greece, 5.5;
Ireland, 5.5; Belgium*, 5.6; New Zealand, 5.6; Portugal, 5.6; Australia,
5.7; United Kingdom, 5.8; Israel, 5.8; Cuba, 6.4; United States, 7.1.
*Rates are for 1998; data for 1999 unavailable.
.

Relevant Pages
Loading