1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

If you could choose where your tax dollars went...

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by genuinemommy, Nov 24, 2014.

  1. Stan

    Stan Resident Dumbass

    I'd go with Junior college free, I'd also insist that trade are taught there. High School qualifies you to do virtually nothing, these days.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    First, it's not a lot. I paid just under $4,000 in taxes last time. I suppose I'd put it towards things I use, as a way to help pay my share. So I guess that means infrastructure, health care, etc. Maybe a bit towards defense and security. A bit towards administration or whatever. Ideally, I'd want some to go towards education and social welfare, too.

    I suppose, like me, they'd direct it towards things they use or otherwise see value in.

    Not on an individual level, but general statistics would be nice to see.

    Probably not. It might be a different story if the income gap wasn't so bad to begin with.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. genuinemommy

    genuinemommy Moderator Staff Member

    Junior college is free, if you attend before you're 18. Wish more parents of high school students would be told that. It's completely possible to skip stressful AP/IB courses and instead take a few night courses to complete your associates at the same time you graduate high school. This is an especially valuable route for those who choose early on to go into a specific high-skill trade like airplane mechanics.
  4. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Foggy Bottom
    Realistically, there is not a lot of wiggle room in the federal budget, given that 2/3 of all spending is mandatory spending/entitlements (Medicare, Social Security and smaller entitlements like veteran benefits, etc) and another 5% is interest on the debt.

    And we do need to dedicate some of the rest to debt reduction as we just passed $18 trillion in debt.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    And yet, they just passed a Trillion plus budget last night. - Link

    AND it is only an extension to September...and doesn't include the DoD and other security related matters (because the GOP wanted to hold off that portion to "debate" immigration)

    Y'think they don't know how to spend well???
    Friggin' idiots. :mad:

    And we're just happy they passed something and didn't shut down the government...
    We've got great standards.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Foggy Bottom
    The DoD appropriations bill was passed separately earlier this weekend.
    Senate approves $585B defense bill | TheHill

    It is down a bit from the highs of the Bush administration but still is more than half of all discretionary spending which is outrageous.

    And the overall annual deficits have been decreasing as well as a result of the sequestration....a terrible way to make public policy by cutting all programs by a given percent rather than based on the effectiveness of programs or waste/fraud/redundancies, etc.

    Followed by this fiasco of an omnibus spending bill.

    Yes, we have a dysfunctional Congress and both parties share the blame.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    I wonder how many more Abrams tanks we bought that the Pentagon doesn't want?? :rolleyes:

    Thanks for the heads-up...it's hard to keep track. (and I'm into this shit...unlike much of the population)

    It's like thieves prowling thru your house while you try to get a good night rest or are zoning on TV.
    Ignorance is not bliss.
  8. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    The Windy City
    Yup. I have long since concluded that virtually everyone in Congress and in the White House-- and maybe half the Supreme Court-- are a bunch of thieves, swindlers, liars, and plutocratic lickspittles: all the bought dogs of corporate interests.

    The only reason I still vote is to try and minimize the damage. I no longer believe that there will be more than the occasional random individual elected to national office who is actually reasonably honest and interested in true progress and effective governance.
  9. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist

    One of the pieces of the DoD bill that just makes me nuts is a piece where they are giving sacred Indian lands to a mining company, Rio Tinto.
    The fact that Iran owns 15% of the company isn't really on my radar.
    It's that they are going to strip mine an area that is has been sacred to the Apache for generations.
    John McCain is largely responsible for this cluster.
    This is the kind of thing I sure as hell would not support and would love to see a line item veto passed.

    Defense Bill Passes, Giving Sacred Native American Sites To Mining Company

    • Like Like x 2
  10. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    A line item veto...and a balanced budget amendment

    John Kasich's crusade

    And while I admire his endeavor...and I do,
    I worry much at the same time of the abuse that either new power may allow...or limit may trigger.

    Like the current overuse of the filibuster. (and that they don't even have to do it...it's now implicit, just the known threat of it makes it a supervote automatically)

    Give a politician a chance...and one of them will figure out a way to fuck it up.

    Sad that we even have to get to this.
    But then again, that's why the American Founding Fathers rebelled...and ended up with this Checks & Balances system.
    They didn't trust anyone, including themselves.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2014
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Foggy Bottom
    I dont particularly like either a line item veto or balanced budget amendment.

    A straight line item veto is unconstitutional and even if enacted through a constitutional amendment puts too much power in the executive branch. What might work in theory would be a process where if a president is opposed to a particular provision of a bill, he (she) signs the bill w/o that provision, which is sent back to Congress for an up or down vote. But this could lead to endless single provision votes and more gridlock.

    Balanced budge amendment restricts the ability of the government to respond to economic cycles. A better solution is more multi-year budgeting with revenue and spending targets over time (3-5 years) rather than every year.

    If we had a balanced budget amendment today, the government would not fund much beyond the entitlements and interest on debt w/o huge tax increases (tax on the top alone would not do it).

    But I dont know how to instill more fiscal discipline in politicians in the pockets of big money interests rather than "we, the people."
    • Like Like x 1
  12. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    It's like trying to tell older kids to do the right thing.
    Stop getting into trouble, get your shit together and stop asking for money. :rolleyes:

    BTW...we were right on the Congressional funding excess in the DoD. - The Pentagon Can Have Whatever It Wants. As Long As It's Not Less Money.
    It's a running joke.
    I wonder when they'll finish their audit finally???
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    I'm hoping that Bernie Sanders comes out with a balanced budget that he would like to see. I think that if he is going to be the smart alternative to Hillary, he had to take a page out of Paul Ryan's and Rand Paul's playbook and detail down to the city level, where money would be spent and whose money is going to get cut. With a lot of focus on the white working class and poor people along with minorities, immigrants, and outsourcing to foreign workers which neither party is really addressing. Except the Republicans say that tax cuts will help create jobs because it will trickle down.

    Now, any candidate can get around the balanced budget thing by saying that since Clinton had a surplus, as long as the government can get to that again with their policies, everything will be fine. Well, until AM radio and Fox News starts wanting the government to give back "their" money as Bush tax cuts since they overpaid because the government had a surplus one year. Yet, no one stood up to them and wanted the national debt paid down, or to repair infrastructure, or push new R&D.