What I don't like about that is that you and I, probably, will be taxed on 100% of our income, because we spend it all. Someone else, who makes a lot of money, may on spend, and be taxed on, half of their income. I can't say that it's good or bad, it just makes me uncomfortable.

And there you go with your selective reading again. I would rather have a discussion about the issue. You'll note that TW is discussing the issue rather than insulting the other poster now. With that I'll walk away from what will be pointless bickering with you.

I think you need to be specific. How much income and what tax rate, specifically?

The very least amount necessary to cover the expenses. Of course, those expenses should be lowered as we cut unnecessary programs and fraud, waste, and abuse from the budget. I'm fairly certain I've convered that somewhere.

Good answer lookout. That's the best possible answer at this juncture. No one knows what the expenses will be, nor what the revenue will be. Living within our means is the goal here, and I believe that should be undertaken from BOTH directions.

Related, but also bothering me---

I hear lots of conversations about taxes. And two very common themes are debt reduction and revenue neutrality. These two ideas are not interchangeable. They're different. And anyone, even Paul Ryan, who suggests that our debt reduction can be achieved by revenue neutral actions alone is wrong. Our government needs revenue. To suggest otherwise ridiculous. And our debt can not be retired without increasing that revenue.

Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone points out that Lookout might be the problem around here... and he posts that the discussion is over.

Reminds me of this conversation, where you were a hammer.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=3...age#post386109

I'll give you an autograph but I will not give you any scraps of my hair or fingernails regardless how much you stalk me. It is flattering though.

Edit: I've now gone back and re-read that 3 1/2 year old thread and I got a good chuckle. Spexx, in that thread you had established some nebulous value as "enough" but you wouldn't say what "enough" was. In this thread I have repeatedly stated I don't know what the "number" should be as I'm not the guy who has torn apart all the raw numbers. I do believe the clearly addressed the concept though and you're just playing another of your passive aggressive games. It really is pretty funny that in a thread where you're being an ass you link to a 3 and a half year old thread where you were being an ass. Probably not the strongest case you could have made in your favor.

DNA "sample"?

...in the mouth?

I will not buttfuck him in the mouth.

:corn:

I can't wait till the Demoncrats re-propose a VAT and try to blame it on the Republickins. God Damm Fools..........

On the positive side, everyone would have an incentive to save.

Both sides of the equation have to be dealt with to get our debt under control. Nobody is going to like what has to be done, so it is up to voters to elect adults and vote like adults even though our pet ideologies are violated.

Case in point. Pete's company had a stake in this but building stuff the Pentagon doesn't want isn't how you balance a budget. Defense contractors have been brilliant in spreading contracts out across congressional districts, an almost perfect scheme.

The bill takes a step toward reviving an extra engine for the next generation F-35 fighter plane despite objections from the administration and Gates that the engine is not needed.

The Pentagon recently notified General Electric/Rolls Royce that it had terminated its contract and work was stopped a month ago, saving $1 million a day. The company said last week it would spend its own money to build the engine.

The bill would force the Pentagon to reopen competition for the engine if defense officials have to ask Congress for more money so Pratt & Whitney can build the chosen design.

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., called the effort a "back-door way" of getting the engine back in.

Yeah, entirely different.

That GE/Rolls Royce engine for the strike fighter is a freaking vampire that will not die. It is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. Every congressperson who voted in favor of reviving it is working at odds with the American taxpayer.

Pratt and Whitney won the competition. They got the contract. The military does not want or need the extra engine. You see, they've already got one.

I'm not even convinced we need this new fighter at all, but if we are going to get it, at least do it in a smart way.