The tea party crowd seem mostly to be concerned not with tax rates or spending, but with banning abortion. Since January, there have been over 350 anti-abortion bills introduced in the US House.

During the election they seemed mostly concerned with abolishing the 14th amendment in order to get rid of "anchor babies". I guess they also forgot to read the part that gives all Americans "due process of law". Of course, reich wing loons not reading isn't anything new. I'm actually a bit sad they didn't stay committed to the idea, since this is the constitutional basis that the Supreme Court found that corporations are natural persons and are entitled to rights under the law.

Their other lofty idea is to get rid of the 16th amendment, which led to certain GOP candidates running in the Senate to essentially say, "vote for me, I'll take away your right to vote."

Of course, the Tea Party really was never anything close to what the reich wing media made it out to be. Now that the Koch's aren't funding their protests...

you keep knocking all the "liberal" ideas, lets here some of yours. maybe they're pretty good. what would you do to attempt to fix the current situation the country is in?  cut medicare, social security, etc? more tax breaks to create jobs? what are your thoughts on raising revenues and cutting spending?

lets keep the mud slinging to a minimum here, just looking to hear what kind of thoughts you folks have.

1. A fair/flat tax or national sales tax would shift the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class. A better idea would be to radically simplify existing tax code, but maintain the progressive tax brackets. Maintain current tax levels until we have a balanced budget, then begin cutting taxes across the board while maintaining a balanced budget.

2. Completely eliminate capital gains taxes. Capital gains that make up less than 30% of total income should be 100% tax exempt to encourage investment by genuine investors - ie not day traders or hedge funders. Tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax for all individuals deriving 30% or more of their total income from investment earnings.

3. Totally agree.

which WOULD include defense. Thoughts ?

First, the idea that the lowest income earners pay so little in taxes is actually a bit disingenuous. People don't even realize what we really pay in taxes in this country. We see the income tax because its right there on our pay stub. But we also pay a ton of nickel and dime taxes on everything from cable service, to gas and other products that are assessed additional taxes on top of sales tax. The poor are not exempted from these taxes, at least not many of them. If they pay for cable service, they pay the exact same rate as the wealthy. They pay taxes every time they guy gas, or buy cigarettes. When all taxes are taken into consideration, the poorest among us can still pay as much as 20% of their total income in taxes. Imagine paying up to 20% of your income in taxes, fees, surcharges etc, when you only earn $14K a year. Easy to see why the lowest income earners contribute such a tiny percentage of the overall tax revenues, yet still pay their fair share.

With regard to a flat tax system, first there have been several proposals, each structured slightly different, so its difficult to speak in specifics. However, most flat or fair tax proposals involve implementing a national sales tax, and eliminating the income tax system altogether. There are numerous problems with implementing such a system.

1. A national sales tax won't eliminate the IRS. Indeed, the IRS would either need to be massively expanded, or new agencies created. In addition to an agency dedicated to collecting the nat'l sales tax, every proposal includes some form of "prebate". Citizens would still declare their income to the IRS, and from that, the amount of their monthly 'prebate' would be calculated. More than half of all Americans would receive a monthly prebate check cover all, or a portion of, the taxes they would pay in a given month. No more sending out a refund check once a year, the IRS would now be tasked with sending out millions of checks every single month. The progressive tax system lives on! Errr, sort of.

2. Some proposals for fair or flat taxes make an attempt to account for income allocated to investments, but most don't. You are taxed only on the income you actually spend. So not only would the highest income earners see their taxes slashed  dramatically, dropping from as high as 38% down to 25%, a huge portion of their income would not be taxed at all. This is why a flat or fair tax would amount to a massive tax cut for the wealthy. Our gov't has proved unequivocally that they are incapable of reducing spending, so the massive drop in revenue would either need to be made up by lower income earners, or would simply increase our debt exponentially.

What? You mean that's not what there called? My fault, I meant tea party people
Fyi, there is no debate when all one side keeps saying is , "no, wrong, you guys don't know shit". Lol
Just a light ribbing on my part.
But seriously, would love to hear the ideas from the other side if the spectrum. If I already lost the debate, these must be brilliant ideas that I am just to dumb to see, so I personally would like  to be enlightened, cause as much as you may not agree, I am not a dem or rep, both sides have many horrible ideas, and a few good ones that I  do agree with.

1) Scrap our current tax code and adopt the Fair Tax
2) Cut capital gains taxes to encourage investment
3) Ease up all the regulations and allow for domestic fuel development and refinement to drop the price of fuel.

I don't see why there should be any sacred cows where it comes to budget cuts.

I guess my one thought about the Fair Tax...

With the bottom 50% of hosueholds only payiong 3% of the taxes, I would say they are petty much getting a free ride and its time THEY stepped up and carried some of the responsibility.

The Fair Tax would do just that.

That is common with my lib friends. They have never heard of any of the ideas.

Here is one. Less insurance for minor matters.  You don't pay to insure your windshield wipers. You don't have insurance on you toilet from getting stopped up.  All of these things could be insured.  Of course, you could insure a flat tire, but in the long run, it would cost everyone more.

Small things, like flu shots should never be covered unless there is true need.  Even then, the vast majority of working people could afford the cost of a flu shot.  

The entire trend of Obama care (and the way that "single payer"m works) is to "cover" that stuff so it is "free."  In fact, the more you remove from the public arena, the more it gets cheaper.

Here is the irony.  This type of thing has been discussed a million times, and not one of my lib friends ever heard of the idea.

Another idea.  School vouchers. The president set up a commission to study vouchers in D.C.  THis own appointee concluded the system was working.  They are going to scrap it.  

Vouchers in D.C. SAVE money. It costs D.C. over $12,000 per student.  A person can get a voucher for $8K.  Every student who gets a voucher saves the tax payer $4K, and the vast majority are going better for the voucher.

Want more?"

1. issue with fair/flat tax: how many tax accountants and attorneys, anyone involved in taxes (a lot of people) would lose there jobs? or how many more agencies like the irs would be created to collect the tax.  if its a sales tax, i would see a lot of people scamming the system, cause it is easy to do. for example, liquor store owners usually claim a loss for the first 5years, because they can, even though they are making a profit doing sales under the table.  lots of issues with it.  wouldn't it be great if we could just try out the various ideas for one year each and somehow get credible data in that one year  for each idea to see what actually works. i know, now that is a fantasy.

2. that i would be in 100% agreement with!  maybe tweak the numbers a bit, but the idea is solid.  

3. Not sure about this one.  i personally believe a vehicle that can get 100miles/gallon has already been invented, but never saw the light of day cause well, a hell of a lot of people would lose a hell of a lot of money, so, bury the idea.  i say we just sacrifice Arizona and cover it with solar panels lol. i would think that idea would be as popular as drilling in our own back yard.

looks  good with these scholarships/vouchers. i have a question, so $8000/student....49million kids in grades k-12, current education budget is around 800-900billion (fuck thats a lot. if that money were going to the right places all our kids would be geniuses!). if it were to be a voucher system where people get the voucher from the government, how would this be funded?

It costs the gov $8K per student to give the parents vouchers under that program.  (Every program differs)  However, if they don't give the parent a voucher, it costs the Gov $12,000 to put him in school.  It may cost a lot go give everyone 8K, but it still costs less than spending 12K. If you have 1,000 fewer students, you don't need the same number to teachers, administrators, janitors, cooks, books, counselors, toilet paper in the bathrooms, food in the cafeteria, and everything else that you would have spent on the student that is no longer there.

If the current system gets 12 million to educate 1,000 students, and you change it to give 500 vouchers, at 8K, you would not need the same amount to educate the remaining 500.  You would need 6 million, and spend 4 million on vouchers, for a savings of 2 million.  (Obviously, the more students the more you save.  If DC has 100,000 students, multiply accordingly.)

There is a second saving that is more important.  Obama's appointee concluded that the kids were getting a better education.  You not only save millions of dollars, you save the lives of kids.

Look at the low income kids that go to the school that Obama's daughters go to.  It was a life saver.  But of course, it is only a couple low income black kids.  The unions are threatened. Dump the program.

well i would really like to see medicaid cut and cut hard along with other welfare programs.  i hate that so many people get on those programs and just stay on there cause its free money to them. anyone know a statistic for how much money is spent on welfare to people who don't need it and are just lazy?    

defense should be cut by more then 10%.

and school spending should not be increased on a year over year bases(at least thats the way its done in california). I don't believe the prop to keep spending the same when the state makes no money didn't pass, and only raise funds when the states revenue exceeds its expenses, its just common sense.

That's my left handed way of agreeing with you.

As I said, !0% would be a good "start". The is much in our defense budget that is redundant, and a lot that is just plain unnecessary, Defense could be cut by much, much more without sacrificing national security. Lets face it, with the strongest Navy in history, and enough nukes to end the world a thousand times over, no one is invading the US.

While agree with all your points about hidden taxes, it is the tax rates on income we are debating. I disagree with your "fair share" conclusion however. If you REALLY want to be fair, have EVERYONE pay 24% of their income in taxes

Make 10,000, pay 2400
Make 100,000, pay 24,000
Make 1,000,000, pay 240,000

So explain to me what is not fair about this flat tax approach??