This nation has exactly one fiscal problem.

[Scuba]

The utter lack of political will to tax the people who have all the money.

[dissentient]

1. It's certainly a big one

And the more the top percent get most of the wealth, the larger the gap will grow. It would take a courageous politician to change this trend, and courage has seemed to be missing from these politicians for a long time, at least, the mainstream ones.

Maybe the whole system with all the billions going in from corporate and wealthy influences has become hopelessly corrupt at this point.

[tnlurker]

2. K&R

[n2doc]

3. 2. The utter lack of will to challenge the MIC and wasteful military spending

We could probably get away with our current tax structure if we weren't trying to outspend the rest of the world's militaries 10x over.

[brer cat]

4. +1

And we keep giving them sh!t they don't even want to keep the corporate masters rolling in even more money.

[n2doc]

5. And in today's news

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026147491

[brer cat]

21. sigh.

Well, I can certainly give up my social security to help fund this; it's not like I need to eat or buy medicine.

[Enthusiast]

41. That's the plan.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Not that I disagree with what you have written; but, ...

my living in a town where the largest employer is a defense contractor ... there are a lot of non-corporate masters' jobs tied into keeping the corporate masters rolling in money.

[brer cat]

64. True. I had two brothers-in-law who were military,

and I appreciate that we need to have good defense. I do think we can do with much less, and I am especially critical of boondoogles like the F-35.

[BrotherIvan]

68. ^^This!^^

The Pentagon + Veterans (of which there will always be some services, but we keep making more) are 63% of the budget.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. With all due respect, 'fiscal' refers to both the spending AND

the taxing policies of a given state. In addition to a failure to tax the upper crust appropriately, there is a failure to spend wisely and humanely. When 1 in 5 children is going hungry at least once per month at the same time that 1% controls 40% of the wealth, something's rotten.

[HereSince1628]

10. But when the cost of feeding a child is consumed by bloated military spending

the 1% can't be blamed directly.

The immediate problem is defense/security spending that is many times greater than needed.

UNLESS WE ARE KLINGONS.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. Hence my reference to 'spending wisely and humanely'. A lot of

tentacles to this 'fiscal problem,' tax policy being merely one.

As I look back on my life, I alternately pat myself on the back for avoiding the whole MIC pit of corruption and chide myself for failing to get my share of the gravy train.

Oh well, at least I don't have the blood of innocent people on my hands. So there is that.

[HereSince1628]

16. I was 'gifted' with both VSR and VCR, so I can't claim to be free of the corruption

I can say that my interest was mostly serving when I was called so that no other person would be asked to fill my absence.

That's something many US political leaders of the past 45 years cannot say...

But it provides surprisingly little consolation even in a society as jingo-ized as ours currently is.

[KingCharlemagne]

18. I was born in 1960, so missed out on the Vietnam draft by a few years. 'VSR' and 'VCR'? Don't

recognize those acronyms.

I meant more that I did not go into defense contract-related work (the STEM fields) but instead chose, for better or worse, the humanities and social sciences.

[HereSince1628]

29. Vietnam Service Ribbon, Vietnam Campaign Ribbon

The Vietnam Service Medal/Ribbon (VSM/VSR) was awarded to any service member who served on temporary duty for more than 30 consecutive days, or 60 non-consecutive days, attached to or regularly serving for one, or more, days with an organization participating in or directly supporting ground (military) operations or attached to or regularly serving for one, or more, days aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations in the Republic of Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos within the defined combat zone (DoD 1348 C6.6.1.1.5. revised September 1996) between the dates of 15 November 1961 and 28 March 1973, and from 29 April 1975 to 30 April 1975.






The Vietnam Campaign Medal/Vietnam Campaign Ribbon was awarded to any service member who provided direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam armed forces for a period exceeding six months. This included personnel who served outside the geographic limits of Vietnam but whose service stipulated direct support of forces in Vietnam. The stipulation most often applies to members who performed Vietnam War support from Thailand and Japan

[KingCharlemagne]

30. Thank you for clarifying. I hardly think enlisted\conscripted troops or lower-level

officers deserve much scorn for the way KBR enriched itself and its shareholders through massive contracts to build the facilities at (IIRC) Cam Ranh Bay. (That was probably the Vietnam-erq analogue to the Caci and Halliburton plunder(s) of today, I'm guessing.) Also, I think KBR was acquired by Halliburton, thereby fully squaring the circle.

BTW, 'Peace!' and glad you made it back.

[HereSince1628]

31. When I was awarded those things they meant only that I was home "free"

and I walked off the plane rather than being carried in an aluminum box.

BUT, as they influenced V.A. determinations of eligibility for medical benefits they meant very much more 35 years later when it became quite clear that being home 'free' actually had its costs...

Dioxin, aka agent orange, is an enemy to life on the planet.

[KingCharlemagne]

32. Ah, geez, my Dad got 35% VA disability (I think) for his Korean War (Inchon) wounds, so

I know he would agree with you 1000% on that issue, although his was for the previous conflict.

[HereSince1628]

34. What will American people still be paying due to the sand land wars in 2030?

We have no way of knowing the long term cost of what the military did in exigency.

As a nation we don't really know what they did as a matter of exigency in this last go-round.

[KingCharlemagne]

35. The Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated a total bill (conservatively) of

$3 trillion when all is said and done for Iraq alone. Not sure if he's issued an estimate for the combined cost(s) of Iraq and Afghanistan. Raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it? Not on your life.

[Oldtimeralso]

55. Most people here are too young to remember

Taxes were raised in WW II and a 10% surcharge was put on all income taxes to pay for the Vietnam War.
The top tax rate until JFK was over 90%. What is it now 35%? The GOP has paid for war on credit that all of us now and in the future will pay for. How dare they offend the purchasers of their services!

[cstanleytech]

61. To be fair even if you raise the taxes on the weathly I doubt they could pay that much back either.

Mind you I am 100% in favor of higher taxes on them because the truth is they are "not" job creators, companies and businesses are and they are the ones that deserve any tax breaks though I would link how much of a break to how many of their employees earn 600% above the poverty line or less.
That way it would put a carrot out there so they dont pay their employees at or below poverty level wages like Walmart and McDonalds do.

[KingCharlemagne]

66. Definitely valid point(s) you raise about how taxing the rich may not raise enough to pay for the

combined costs of these wars. One thing among many that I like about Senator Sanders is that he has said "If you aren't prepared to care for your vets, then don't go to war." (Care for our vets is where much of the long-term costs will come for these imperial excursions.) The American people did not overthrow the illegal Bush regime, so the American public must now pay for the sins and crimes of said regime. That means me and it means you (and not merely Mr. Richie Rich). Even had we overthrown the regime, the obligation to our vets is a sacred one (at least in my universe) and we would still be on the hook.

[I hate liars]

7. Add budget deficit terrorism to the list

Here's a "new rule": Any wealthy person who demagogues the budget deficit must volunteer to be taxed at pre-Reagan tax levels to solve the problem.

[Ed Suspicious]

9. I like it. Welcome.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

8. K & R

[Bandit]

11. I can answer that in one word....Republicans

[FiveGoodMen]

12. Amen!

[abelenkpe]

13. K&R

[lark]

14. You are going in the right direction, but think the actual situation is worse than described.

It's not just a political unwillingness to tax the rich, it'd the idea that the rich are special and should have NO regulations, no responsibilities to the country or it's workers, and should pay nothing for all the government does for them while the middle and lower classes pay for everything. That's the real scope of the issue, sickening as it is.

[Dustlawyer]

25. It's that we allow the rich to legally bribe our politicians to get everything they want, to our

detriment. Then we sit around and wonder why things are so bad!

[appalachiablue]

50. +10. The glorification of the super wealthy in the US is widespread and disturbing,

like their entitlement and exception from paying more taxes and wages afforded by a rigged system. The corporate media fuels adoration of the rich and entertainment celebrities who actually make far less than the global level wealthy who fund think tanks, politicians and measures to protect their class's property and power.

Many now have no memory and are uninformed about how the wealthy were once taxed at a 70% rate and higher in this country pre-Reagan. During that time the rich continued to live well and they contributed to society as they should. Within my own family there were a few who were lower level well off, others middle class, some knuckleheads. The most profitable paid 90% and 70% taxes, employed workers who were unionized with benefits. The anti government, anti Washington sentiment of the last 30 years was unthinkable because of their respect, appreciation and loyalty to this country. During that era owners, workers and society here were much better off obviously.

The rise of oligarchy and decline of the great American middle class in the last 35 years is difficult to see and very dangerous. I am profoundly concerned for the future of younger generations and the health of the planet.

[MadDAsHell]

17. We should all be taxed more. A lot more. To the tune of like 75% of income.

I don't know why everyone is so obsessed with only taxing one part of the population. Instead of agencies having to beg for money, think of the depth and breadth of services that could be provided if the powers that be had 75% of every person's income at their disposal.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Okay, THAT was funny....

Nice imitation of a Conservative Think Tank talking point,....born from a session where they're serving gin.

[MadDAsHell]

39. Nice snark, but I'm dead serious. There's an awful lot that needs to be paid for in this country...

as I mentioned in my other reply. Infrastructure, healthcare, research, etc.

Are you saying everyone else should pay but you're too good to contribute to that?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. I'm saying the rich are way richer than you think....

That, and they've gotten away with not putting back for so long they've let America fall behind and they don't CARE.

Major infrastructure spending has been put off for so long by the Right Wing mantra "We're broke!" that it's become EMBARRASSING.

Oh, and it's not up to US to pay for it. Not on 40 years of stagnant wages while the rich are rolling in dough.

[malokvale77]

59. Seriously?

I just received my W2s in the mail yesterday. I made a couple of bucks over $11,000 last year. You think 75% of that should go to the IRS.

[ErikJ]

23. Progressive from 0 to 90% is much better.

Like it was in the 1940's to 70's. And Cap Gains should be treated like regular income. Why should the lazy leisure class be taxed only 20% while working class taxed much more.

90% keeps the capitalist greed and political influence in check and the money flowing for a better economy for all , rather than to Swiss bank accounts.

[MadDAsHell]

38. Why not just 90% on all of us? There's healthcare to be provided, roads/bridges to be fixed, etc nt

[ErikJ]

48. There was plenty of revenue to do that in 50's 60's etc when

the progressive 0 to 90% tax rate. Do u really think a person making $20 k per yr should be taxed $18K of that? Do u think $2000 is enough for rent and groceries?
Most of the top 1% in the 90% tax rate would keep their income below that bracket and plow it back into the company rather than Swiss banks.

[appalachiablue]

51. Correct. Many top wealthy were taxed 90%, put money back into grow their companies which benefited

workers, communities and society overall. And the rich still lived a very comfortable lifestyle as I know from some in my family who prospered and paid higher taxes in the 40s-70s. Almost all of this has been forgotten thanks to right wing media and free market ultraconservatism since Ronald 'Dutch' Reagan. This country has been on the decline ever since and it pains me as I've said in this thread and others on DU. I remember a different America very well.

[byronius]

63. +1

[7962]

46. So if you make min wage, you think the govt should get 5.00+ of that per hr?? nt

[Codeine]

74. Just stop.

It's not fashionable to be that transparent.

[ErikJ]

19. And lots of their loot goes to buying our government

and voters so that political will wont develop.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Actually, it's poor people who will throw a punch at you if you suggest raising taxes on the rich.

[HughBeaumont]

36. Well, it's because THEY'RE going to BE that very rich person one day, dontcha know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth

Michael Moore:

Academy Award winning American filmmaker, author, and liberal political commentator Michael Moore is vocal in his opposition to the Horatio Alger myth. In 2003, Moore remarked, "So, here's my question: after fleecing the American public and destroying the American dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it's because we're still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all."

Harlon L. Dalton

(snip)

Dalton also believes that the deep appeal of the Horatio Alger myth is that it allows and even pulls people in the direction they want to go. Psychologically, the Horatio Alger myth opens many doors. When the odds are stacked unfavourably, one often has to convince oneself that "there is a reason to get up in the morning".[7] Dalton also asserts that the myth serves to maintain the racial pecking order. It does so by mentally bypassing the role of race in American society, by fostering beliefs that themselves serve to trivialize, if not erase, the social meaning of race. The Alger myth encourages people to blink at the many barriers to racial equality (historical, structural, and institutional) that litter the social landscape and believe that all it takes to be successful in America is initiative, persistence, hard work, and pluck.

According to Dalton, there is a fundamental tension between the realization of the American Dream based on the Alger myth and the harsh realities of a racial caste system. Obviously, the main point of such a system is to promote and maintain inequality. Conversely, the main point of the Alger myth "is to proclaim that everyone can rise above her station in life. Despite this tension, it is possible for the myth to coexist with social reality. Not surprisingly, then, there are lots of Black folk who subscribe to the Alger myth and at the same time understand it to be deeply false. They live with the dissonance between myth and reality because both are helpful and healthful in dealing with ‘the adverse events of life. Many Whites, however, have a strong interest in resolving the dissonance in favor of the myth. Far from needing to be on guard against racial "threat[s] or challenge[s]," they would just as soon put the ugliness of racism out of mind. For them, the Horatio Alger myth provides them the opportunity to do just that."[7]

The myth suggests we are judged solely on our individual merits, in turn implying that caste has little practical meaning, apart from race-based advantages or disadvantages. Generally Whites are more successful than African Americans, as they are facilitated by their preferred social position, while African Americans believe that they can "simply lift themselves up by their own bootstraps." It is in America's national interest, Dalton believes, to give the Horatio Alger myth a rest, because it is a myth that assures us we can have it all, when in reality, "we live today in an era of diminished possibilities."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. This is also why there is a spike in suicides amongst males in their mid-fifties....

They have been convinced of the whole "winners and losers" myth and realize they are NOT going to be rich after all, look back on their life and reflect on where they went wrong and can't face the idea that they are a "loser" (Especially if they are a right-winger who never admits they're wrong).

That, and they're suddenly aware that they are invisible to young women.

[AgingAmerican]

24. And we waste half our budget on military

nt

[SheilaT]

26. As others have mentioned, our ridiculous and out of control

military budget is also at fault.

The underlying problem, however, is that too many people haven't a clue exactly what taxes are for, and what they do. For a couple of generations now people have been bombarded with the message that somehow all taxes are bad, although military spending is good. The classic Tea Party ignorance is shown in the "Keep your government hands of my Medicare" signs.

I've been saying for some years now that this country is already on the downward slope of its power and greatness, only no one can quite tell because we still have such a huge military presence around the world. I believe we will ultimate bankrupt ourselves because of this. The final collapse, when it comes, will be swift and ugly.

[Scuba]

71. We didn't win the arms race, the Soviets just lost first.

[unhappycamper]

72. Yup, we outspent them.

St Ronnie's B-2 bomber was a shining example of a MIC gone horribly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2

Program costs and procurement

A procurement of 132 aircraft was planned in the mid-1980s, but was later reduced to 75.[30] By the early 1990s, the Soviet Union dissolved, effectively eliminating the Spirit's primary Cold War mission. Under budgetary pressures and Congressional opposition, in his 1992 State of the Union Address, President George H.W. Bush announced B-2 production would be limited to 20 aircraft.[31] In 1996, however, the Clinton administration, though originally committed to ending production of the bombers at 20 aircraft, authorized the conversion of a 21st bomber, a prototype test model, to Block 30 fully operational status at a cost of nearly $500 million.[32]

In 1995, Northrop made a proposal to the USAF to build 20 additional aircraft with a flyaway cost of $566 million each.[33]

The program was the subject of public controversy for its cost to American taxpayers. In 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) disclosed that the USAF's B-2 bombers "will be, by far, the most costly bombers to operate on a per aircraft basis", costing over three times as much as the B-1B (US$9.6 million annually) and over four times as much as the B-52H (US$6.8 million annually). In September 1997, each hour of B-2 flight necessitated 119 hours of maintenance in turn. Comparable maintenance needs for the B-52 and the B-1B are 53 and 60 hours respectively for each hour of flight. A key reason for this cost is the provision of air-conditioned hangars large enough for the bomber's 172 ft (52.4 m) wingspan, which are needed to maintain the aircraft's stealthy properties, particularly its "low-observable" stealthy skins.[34][35] Maintenance costs are about $3.4 million a month for each aircraft.[36]

The total "military construction" cost related to the program was projected to be US$553.6 million in 1997 dollars. The cost to procure each B-2 was US$737 million in 1997 dollars, based only on a fleet cost of US$15.48 billion.[3] The procurement cost per aircraft as detailed in GAO reports, which include spare parts and software support, was $929 million per aircraft in 1997 dollars.[3]

The total program cost projected through 2004 was US$44.75 billion in 1997 dollars. This includes development, procurement, facilities, construction, and spare parts. The total program cost averaged US$2.13 billion per aircraft.[3] The B-2 may cost up to $135,000 per flight hour to operate in 2010, which is about twice that of the B-52 and B-1.[37][38]

[99Forever]

27. Oh, there's the will to it...

... but the 1% purchased from the corrupt scum we call politicians long ago and keep it buried so deep it's right next door to Hell.

[ladjf]

28. You are correct. The question is, why are they unwilling to tax those

who are grabbing all of the money for themselves?

[Adam051188]

33. give it time

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Sancho]

37. My one disagreement is the size of our military budget...

Since WWII we have started wars and spent more than any moral or reasonable society should even imagine.

We may not even need all those taxes. I say we need to quit feeding the beast!

[Enthusiast]

40. I agree with one exception. There is far too much military spending and waste.

We might get by on these meager revenues except for the for-profit military.

[valerief]

45. That's money that goes back to the rich. nt

[colsohlibgal]

42. Pretty Much

It's been full bore class warfare in reverse since Ronnie, the B Actor, took over. He cut the top marginal rate basically in half.

It's never been so much a spending problem outside defense spending, it's been a revenue problem. You see folks with 900 million just cant get by with 680 million or whatever.

But impoverish enough people and they usually rise up, like Greece now. Though obviously we are overwhelmed with confused people here who seem slow on the uptake, maybe some day enough will see things as they are, not as what Rush and Sean and Glenn babble on about.

[appalachiablue]

54. +10. The day RR was elected and Carter was defeated I was absolutely stunned, and I didn't even

know yet how Dutch's ultraconservative policies would damage this country. It was the reality that an old, painted, 2nd rate H.wood actor and the likes of Nancy Davis were elected to the highest office in this country. I was in shock. The Inauguration that January, 1981 that brought hoards of loud, demanding mink coated, big haired Texans and wealthy backers in limousines that swarmed the city, showing up in museums, public places and restaurants is something I'll never forget. This country hasn't been right since.

[hifiguy]

56. i was not surprised in the least that Raygun won

But i had a sick feeling on 1/20/81 that the America in which I grew up was about to become a thing of the past. And it surely did. Raygun was the beginning of the end for the US.

[appalachiablue]

58. You knew more than I did, but we agree how his election was a hard turn to a very different

America for the worse. We are still in that era, but I hope I live to see real movement toward in healthier nation sans oligarchic rule. I appreciate your comments, only wish you'd be a little more direct- a joke, of course, astute is good.

[Flatulo]

43. Like most profound truths, this will not be widely spoken. nt

[valerief]

44. If all the soldiers went on strike, the rich wouldn't have a fighting chance.

But brainwashing is too powerful for that to ever happen.

[tclambert]

47. If taxes on the 1% doubled, they'd still be rich.

If taxes on the poor doubled, they would still be poor, so poor they might starve, yet the government wouldn't get much more money.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner

The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. Lord Acton

[TBF]

57. I'd say two -

1) Tax high-income individuals, CAPITAL GAINS, and corporations

2) Spend what you bring in WISELY. In my situation fortunate enough to have decent income. We don't mind paying the outrageous student loans or the taxes. But enough already with the military budget. Stop killing people and spend it on free health care/education instead.

I'm sure others could add a few to this list but these are the 2 major problems I see.

[ChosenUnWisely]

62. We don't have a fiscal problem we have the EXACT same problem that the Founding Fathers had

Undue corporate influence in Government. Hence the direct action of the Boston Tea Party.

This is nothing new folks.

[rhett o rick]

65. Well said. It's time to kick some 1% ass. nm

[AZ Progressive]

67. This tells you all what you need to know

Even 39.6% (what it is nowadays) is low

[blkmusclmachine]

69. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/The_Pentagon_January_2008.jpg

[silvershadow]

70. Now that we are here, we really have no choice unless we start shutting down

government and turing out the lights. Like I said in another post elsewhere, "they" have had 14 years or so of unabated tax cuts. They should have plenty stashed away. Now it's time for at *least 14 years of help on a similar and massive scale to help what the PTB euphemistically refer to as the "middle class" (in other words, the poor).

[raccoon]

73. I'd say another fiscal problem is spending WAY too much on the MIC. nt