VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:55:51 08/28/11 Sun
Author: Paul Davis
Subject: Re: Well, you have a couple choices
In reply to: Greg 's message, "Re: Well, you have a couple choices" on 06:05:45 08/13/11 Sat


Hey Greg, glad to hear from you. I'm still in Iraq, getting a little tired of the place, I'll admit.

USACE had predicted the effects of a cat 5 hurricane back in 2002, there was a decision to ignore that came from the top. By 2005, the budget for USACE was cut by 50% from what they'd requested.

The usual statement about flood control measures promoting hurricane flooding refers to subsidence in the delta, well true enough, the whole delta is loose topsoil hundreds of feet thick, not fit to hold itself up. However, the "cure" for this is to let the city flood and deposit a foot of silt on the delta every year to build the top up as the bottom collapses slowly from its own weight. This would make the city unhabitable, so it's not a popular idea down there.

Well, subsidies, yes, I think a whole lot of them should be done away with. But most subsidies now go to giant business, and the benefactors of those campaign contributions fight like tigers to prevent the removal of any subsidy or tax break. With oil at 100$ a bbl, gas at record highs, and most who spoke being against further continuation of the ethanol subsidy, the House still voted to retain it. While we are at it, we need a new definition of "small" business besides the current one of "unincorporated". The Koch Brothers are not incorporated, take in billions per year, but are "small business" under the federal law and are so discussed in Washington. Yes, really. Next time you hear of a "small business subsidy" being attacked, check to make sure it's not going to billion dollar small business.

So many corporations pay no US tax at all, that it has become surreal. The number of corporations with negative tax is also unreal. Add in the corporations that pay a tax rate of less than 10% (and that double tax thing people keep bringing up - HA! - I pay my taxes so the landscaper I paid to fix my yard doesn't have to because the money I paid him with is already taxed? What's the difference? It's taxed because my payment is his income, and that's the same for him getting paid by me or Warren Buffet getting a dividend, their payment is his income.) and the total gets way up there, especially in terms of the really big fortune 500 monsters.

http://theweek.com/article/index/218534/the-controversy-over-taxing-corporations




>>
>>The Federal govt could quit supporting the states
>>altogether, cut the military by half, cut disability
>>and medicaid and stop the SSA COLA increases. They'd
>>also have to drop the USACE support of the Mississippi
>>and let the states worry about it, stop most dam and
>>flood controls too. Drop all disaster relief. And
>>quit giving money to agriculture.
>>
>>OFC, if they do all that, the economy will crash, but
>>the budget will be balanced without raising taxes.
>>Plus, there'll be a lot of floods and shipping will go
>>to hell in a haycart, but it seems to be what the Tea
>>Party wants to see happen.
>>
>>OTOH, they could raise taxes to the level of GDP that
>>they are running as outlay. Given three wars (or 2
>>and a half) it's actually quite low, only 23% for
>>Federal spending. They are taking in about 15% of GDP
>>in taxes and fees and etc., so that's quite a gap.
>>Trouble is, 30 odd years of Republicans saying over
>>and over "if you reduce taxes, you increase govt
>>income" seems to have a large number of people
>>convinced that this is true, even though history shows
>>it's not and that tax cuts generally do not stimulate
>>the economy in any real sense - at least not at the
>>levels of taxation present in the US since the 80's.
>>
>>We need a dose of realism in govt, and we ain't
>>getting it.
>>
>>
>>>Curious to see where we land. I think over the last
>>>few years we have been given plenty of warning to
>>>change course and fix things but those in charge are
>>>ignoring the things that they are doing that
>>>exacerbates the other things that are going on that
>is
>>>causing the economy to go belly up
>
>
>Some of the sarcasm concerning spending cuts is
>justified, but denying that the government is spending
>more than it's taking in, and continuing to ask the
>people to pay for it with first making a real effort
>to reign in that spending is ludicrous.
>
>It may come about that taxes will have to be
>increased. At the very least there should be a
>serious look at subsidies, various loopholes in the
>tax structure, and certainly in entitlements.
>
>BTW, a lot of the "flood control" measures in the
>Mississippi Delta region contributed to the massive
>flooding of New Orleans during Katrina.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.