What should we cut Social Security? Veterans Benefits?

If we don't cut any of these things than how exactly do you think we will balance the budget? How much money do you think Obama can get by raising taxes on the rich? Do you really think he can close a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit by raising taxes? "disaster like the BP spill" How exactly do you plan to prevent another spill like that? Do you think more taxes or more spending would have stopped the spill from happening?

To be a TSA security person you need a HS Diploma and you can earn $31,000 to $45,000 or more depending on location. http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=100504406&JobTitle=Transportation+Security+Officer+(TSO)&lid=316&rad_units=miles&brd=3876&pp=25&occ=4605&sort=rv%2c-dtex&jbf574=HSBC&jbf785=&vw=b&re=134&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y&caller=basic.aspx&ss=0&AVSDM=2011-06-27+11%3a11%3a00 To be a Private Security Guard you need a HS diploma and can expect to earn between $16,600 and $39,300. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos159.htm These are very comparable jobs considering these people bot help screen people before they enter an area. I think most people would agree that you could cut the TSA salaries and not hurt airport security. The wealthy tend to spend their money on expensive things. Several years ago the government decided to tax at a higher rate luxury items, to tax only the rich on things they don't really need. The tax drove several industries out of business because people no longer bought those items. The government later repealed the tax but the industries were gone. Early in President Obama's term he criticized the corporations that had corp. jets. Companies stopped or canceled their orders. The company that produced Corp jest cut 60,000 workers, and the companies that fitted and sub contracted the work on the jest also cut workers. I guess in both cases they "got" the rich. There are some things that can be done to get more from the rich. You could reduce the Capital Gains Tax and encourage people to invest and make more money and pay more to the government. President Reagan made the point when everything he made over $1,000,000 was taxed at 80% or 90% what was the incentive to work so he only made 5-6 movies a year and kept under $1,000,000 and lived nicely. the down side was the government was not making any more money from him and all the other people who worked in the production company also did not make any more money. The top tax rate was lowered to below 50% and now he was getting to keep more money so he made more movies and everyone who worked with him made more money and paid more in taxes (but a lower percent of their income). Taxing the rich in California and New York has worked great. They moved out and are now spending more money in another state. Companies are doing the same thing keeping their profits in countries with low corporate tax rates. If we reduced the Corp Tax to 20% or even 25% the government would be getting more revenue. It is simple math, do you want 35% of nothing or will you settle for 20% or 25% of billions? People and companies will move when the tax rate gets out of hand.

That must be the problem, the tax rate is too high, so GE just stopped making money or no they didn't pay them... Wait.. they made 10 billion and didn't pay any, guess it comes out to 0% of 10 billion. Now I got it, all that money they saved must have created US jobs at least 10 bil worth of taxable employment. No, because they reduced their US workforce by 34,000 in the past 10 years. Okay I'm gonna try and easier one. Oil companies don't pay taxes so we can have cheap gas to keep the economy from crashing and they are so clean the EPA doesn't even need to waste time on them. Yeah, that's it. Now to figure out the rest. We get rid of the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and all employee rights and benefits required by law. No more minimum wage, overtime, full time benefits, or any of those outlandish requirements that good countries to our south already did away with, especially Unions. If we get rid of any sort of regulations on businesses and they don't have taxes. Then they can hire workers for $2-$3/hour. This will not only be cheaper than Mexican labor but they will save on shipping, traveling, translators, and the outlandish cost of having to safely dispose of hazardous wastes. They'll then not only be able to bring back jobs to America, but they'll be able to market made in America products at competitive prices. So not only will all those workers making $3/hour increase our tax revenues, they'll be able to buy more goods further stimulating the economy. How simple is that? To think, governments used to just use an excise tax to inflate the cost of importing anything so cheap it would damage the locally established economy. Shame on them for trying to generate revenue by pretending to protect their local goods and labor from being undercut and put out of business.

If you look at history you will see that the income tax was sold to the American People as a tax on the very rich. It became a very good tool for collecting money, so good that they decided to expand it and apply it to more people. When FDR became President he decided to help the little guy by starting a with holding of money from each pay check so that people would not have to write a check to the government each quarter so that paying your taxes would be painless. There was a telephone tax that was a tax on the rich. There was a luxury tax on yachts. Why do I bring these up because every time ther is a movement to tax the rich it ends up either being passed down to the little guy or costs jobs. If the government puts a tax on the rich sooner or later it will apply to almost everyone who is working for a living. The government does receive Billions from oil Royalties, Alaska, which retained all mineral rights when they were admitted to the US as a state, paid each adult citizen over $3,000 a year from the Oil Royalties. The state is also fronting about $500 million to build a pipeline from Alaska. The bottom line is that President Obama has 2 of the 4 largest tax revenue years in our history. We do not have a revenue problem we have a spending problem. Every time the government (either party) gets more tax money they Increase spending. politicians are like a spoiled child who when you give them $10.00 and tell them to save $2.00 in the saving account they will spend the $10.00 and borrow from friends to buy what they want, then tell people thay will save more next week.

Right now you have less than 50% of the people paying taxes so lets just take all their moeny and see where we are in 6 months. I mean is 35% is a great rate and will increase the economy why not 50% or 90%and witch the economy skyrocket. I bet many people would like to see the high unemployment we had under President Bush and his tax cuts on the rich. What was the unemployment a record high of 4.5%. Even his ending number would look good now 7%. For years the Democrats told us that the Bush Tax Cuts were only for the rich. If you look at IRS tax collection tables you will see that under the Bush tax cuts the revenue to the government increase to the highest ever and who was paying it the wealthy. The poor enjoyed a 50% tax cut while the rich got a 3-4% tax cut. Why didn't the Democrats make that their first thing rescind the Bush tax cuts? They had the House and Senate and President, the Republicans could do nothing to stop them. Why didn't the do it when they could - because for years they had been lying to us about them.. If tax on the rich works why doesn't California and New York have the best economies in the nation and low tax states like Texas and North Dakota should be experiencing high unemployment and disasters for an economy?????

Bob, I am one of those that net pays no federal income tax. This is not because I am poor, it is because I am married, and have children. Why is it that don't pay any federal taxes Bob? Is this more political, or religious? History has shown us that increasing taxes, and then lowering them has helped spur economic growth. Look at Clinton, and Reagan. If the Bush years were so good they why is it that he only created a net 1 million new jobs, while Clinton created 22 million? If the Bush years were so good than how did we get to the lost economic decade? You can lower the tax rate for the poor by 100000%, my seven year old can tell you that you can't get lower than ZERO!!! I can tell you why they didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts, it is because the moved more toward the center. I am sure it had NOTHING to do with the fact that they are all rich, and it would increase their taxes. Greed isn't a republican, or democrat thing, it is a human thing. Bob, why are Texas and North Dakota doing so well? One word: Energy!!!! How many people do you know moving to North Dakota?