Bloomberg says six studies suck and Romney is full of stuff.

[Xavier_Onassis]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html

[Plane]

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners.

This estimate seems doubtfull to me, besides that , the alt min tax is starting to bite the middle class more every year too.

It nibbles the top till it reaches the middle.

[Plane]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/restoring-estate-tax-to-p_n_1904613.html

This guy says that rolling tax cuts back to the pre Bush level is needfull to avoid "decimation" of the government.

Hold on there buddy, to some of us 10% less government sounds like a good idea.

NOt mentioned at all in this article is that tax revenue of the scale enjoyed by Clinton will never ever be availible again. Too many of us are retired now, too few are young. The demographics that support giant government are on the wrong trend , we need a leaner govbernment such that our grandchildren will not be sold into the debt for the luxurys we enjoy presently.

Decimation , ok it is a start.
But there will have to be another decimation and one a while after that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one, not Romney, not Ryan, not Obama, not anyone is going to shrink the government by 10%.
Americans need to man up and pay for the government they need, which needs to be capable of controlling Big Business. This does not necessarily mean a larger payroll, but it does mean a more citizen-centered government that does not suck up to Big Business.

[Plane]

No one, not Romney, not Ryan, not Obama, not anyone is going to shrink the government by 10%.
Americans need to man up and pay for the government they need, which needs to be capable of controlling Big Business. This does not necessarily mean a larger payroll, but it does mean a more citizen-centered government that does not suck up to Big Business.

I told you about sequestration.

Here it comes.

The beauty part is that they can all deplore it, every single one of them can loudly deplore it.

Do you really think that the people of the US need a government that is larger every year foreever?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Do you really think that the people of the US need a government that is larger every year foreever?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being as the population is growing, I would imagine that we will need more cops, teachers, firemen and other types of government workers. We could get by without  so many military marching bands, and we hardly need both the Blue Angels AND the Thunderbirds. They could flip a coin to see which gets canned. Or they could make nice and SHARE. They are both on the same team, after all.

I am not for a big or a small government per se. I am for a government that has the power to prevent Big Business from taking away our freedoms and bilking us and getting away with it.

But NO ONE is going to shrink the government by 10%, no matter what they say. Anyone who says they will do it is ignorant of reality.

[Plane]

We are working twards a government that is a greater portion of a shrinking economy, it is a load on the people , why is a government better or worse than a business if it takes your money and limits your freedom? The government grows at a rate that has nothing to do with the rate of population growth.

Six of one meets half dozen of another.

Do you really think that the people of the US need a government that is larger every year foreever?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being as the population is growing, I would imagine that we will need more cops, teachers, firemen and other types of government workers. We could get by without  so many military marching bands, and we hardly need both the Blue Angels AND the Thunderbirds. They could flip a coin to see which gets canned. Or they could make nice and SHARE. They are both on the same team, after all.

I am not for a big or a small government per se. I am for a government that has the power to prevent Big Business from taking away our freedoms and bilking us and getting away with it.

But NO ONE is going to shrink the government by 10%, no matter what they say. Anyone who says they will do it is ignorant of reality.

You ought to read up on sequestration, NO ONE has to do it , it is already done.
Sequestration is an across the board cut that takes effect like an automaton, if Congress simply does nothing more.

Oh my and will every one of them deplore it!

I would like to know why the Blue Angels bother you , the government has thousands of less usefull and more expensive things that it runs for less public good will.

If you want to look up the cost of F-18s with blue paint on them and compare this to the cost of F-18s in grey paint , then you will know the real cost that you are complaining of. The Blue angels do not increase nor decrease the Navys inventory of aircraft , pilots or maintenience personell.

If you want to get rid of something useless , lets get rid of the Department of Education and the BATF, those cost more than the Blue Angels , Thunderbirds and Golden Knights by a large factor , but can hardly demonstrate as much utility.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Blue angels do not increase nor decrease the Navys inventory of aircraft , pilots or maintenience personell.

=------------------------------------------------
Yeah, right. They cannot be used for defense of this country. They are set up for stunts.

It is not the only thing that should be axed, but it is close to the silliest. Probably the huge number of military marching bands are sillier.

Again, NO ONE is going to cut the budget by 10%.

[sirs]

The Blue angels do not increase nor decrease the Navys inventory of aircraft , pilots or maintenience personell.
=------------------------------------------------
Yeah, right. They cannot be used for defense of this country. They are set up for stunts.

As Plane attempted to educate you on, the F-18's of the Blue Angels, and the F-16's of the Thunderbirds are no different then their counterparts located on U.S. Aircraft Carriers and Air Force bases across the globe.  They are not "set up for stunts", outside of their paint scheme.  They could fly any military mission, as required by the type of jet they are.  They have all the same avionics and radar.  The F-18's even have their arrestor hooks, that they all the navy versions have, for making carrier landings.  The only thing they're not carrying is military ordinance, such as guided missles or lasar guided bombs.  Outside of that, they are 99% identical to those that do defend this country, and can be used just as equally, once they're armed.

Upon further check, make that about 95% identical, as the nose cannon has been removed, and would need to be replaced to fire its "bullets", but its pylons for missle & bomb attachments remain

[BT]

As far as I know every government entity in the USA save for the Federal Government is required to balance a budget every year. I am sure there have been years where 10% cuts were standard operating procedure.

You mention cops and teachers, firemen etc as you protest a 10% cut at the fed level, yet those employees ate usually municipal or county employees. And i am sure their departments have faced staffing cuts these last few years.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, NO ONE, not Mitt, not anyone, os going to cut the government budget by 10%.

This will never, EVER happen.

Odds are, in the extremely rare case that Mitt is elected, after four years the government will be BIGGER and the debt will be larger.

[sirs]

Odds are, in the extremely rare case that Mitt is elected, after four years the government will be BIGGER and the debt will be larger.

While in this current reality, under current policy making, and currently elected President, we can BANK on 4 years of far BIGGER Government, and Debt we could only imagine.  Those odds being 100%

[Xavier_Onassis]

Imagine all you want, odds are you will imagine wrong.

Romney's tax plan cannot work, that is the bottom line.

[sirs]

I don't have to imagine anything, its happening before our very eyes.  And Romney's tax plan will work, because again, no imagining requird, we have history that has demonstrated precisely the incease in jobs & tax generating revenues when similar across the board tax cuts were implimented

HISTORY in this case, is the bottom line, not your 99% record of being wrong say so

[Xavier_Onassis]

As I recall, for Tinkerbell to fly, the entire audience has to believe in Tinkerbell. It is not like you can believe three times as hard and have the impact of three people.