A specific ? for TEA partiers and right wingers

[RRB]

As liberal as I am, I find myself agreeing with the libertarians here.  As a liberal, I oppose the use of tax dollars to fund government spending for the purpose of the government spending money on government.  In other words, our defense spending seems to benefit the government.  Where I split with libertarians is that I WANT govenment to tax me for purposes of the people and business.  A single payer healthcare system would benefit all of us.  A war oversees benefits only those involved in the defense industry.  They tell me that I NEED protection, however the largest military in the world ought to be protecting me by its pure existance with no need to invade any country.  I don't need to be taxed to keep me safe from terrorism past good security at home.  I stand a better chance getting killed by a car getting my mail than by a terrorist.  National healthcare would be the biggest shot in the arm for business who would no longer need to budget for healthcare.  In time the cost of healthcare unchecked will surpass the value of the average employee.  Where will we be then.

And for those of you who don't trust the government to provide your healthcare, just remember that they can suposedly protect you with the most advanced military in the world, but for some reason can't give you am MRI or a CAT scan!!!!!!!!!!!!  Makes no sense.

[RRB]

Oh yeah, one more thing.  The TEA baggers are nothing more than an example of the media wanting to go find a group of people holding signs and get us all excited.  During the Bush days they made it look as if every liberal in America was camping out at Crawford.  Now they find TEA baggers.  I realised my side was being chumped at the time, now it is the rights turn to figure it out.

[Smash255]

Well, they havent gone into effect yet, except the pesky cigarette tax under SCHIP.  They start in 2011.  Here's Obama's 2009 budget, prepared by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

so none of the taxes of the vast majority of the tea partiers are gonna be raised thanks for making his point.

Incorrect: The effects of these tax raises will effect the vast majority of working tea partiers.  Many small businesses may gross $250,000 under the owners name, and taxes are based upon gross earnings, not profit.  Say a small business makes $300,000 a year.  $50,000 of that is profit and the rest goes to operating costs (labor, materials, rent, utilities, etc.).  The owner of the business will have to cut employees and cut costs just to keep his business alive. 

BZZZZZ WRONG

Witty comeback.  He provided substance (and correct information).  Got any of your own?

Yes, the IRS, kind of disagrees with his post about what is taxable income for a business......  rent, labor, materials, etc are all deductable. 

[dead0man]

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us.

"strongly doubt" will do wonders for Poland when there are T-90s in Warsaw.  Yeah, the US probably won't be invaded right away if we cut our military by 90%, but the world would be a totally different place and there would be invasions.  I agree, it's not the US's job to play "world police" and I agree, we should cut our military budget by many many billions, but 90% is, as I said, insane.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I insinuated the biggest military spender is the only country that can't be invaded I apologize.  I don't think I said that though.  The PRC spends a LOT on their military (they are a clear number 2)...but not to keep from being invaded (externally).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Your point? I strongly doubt anything bad would happen if there were countries that spent more on their military than us.

"strongly doubt" will do wonders for Poland when there are T-90s in Warsaw.  Yeah, the US probably won't be invaded right away if we cut our military by 90%, but the world would be a totally different place and there would be invasions.  I agree, it's not the US's job to play "world police" and I agree, we should cut our military budget by many many billions, but 90% is, as I said, insane.

     The 90% figure was more an example of something to bring us into a range comparable to that of other big-spending nations than a serious suggestion, though I also think Barney Frank's 25% is somewhat on the small side from the perspective of someone who does not want the United States to be capable of invading other nations. After all, we avoid other governmental ills by denying the government the power to perpetrate them; why shouldn't imperialism be treated the same way?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I insinuated the biggest military spender is the only country that can't be invaded I apologize.  I don't think I said that though.  The PRC spends a LOT on their military (they are a clear number 2)...but not to keep from being invaded (externally).
[/quote]

     You didn't say it, though it was the impression I got since being outspent by a few other countries in that department isn't something that I see as a significant concern & I did not see the need to bring it up.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Tea buggers would be for taxes if Obama/dems wanted to increase tax cuts.   

No, they'd be for much more tax cuts and would claim that Obama/dems were socialist for proposing such puny tax cuts