The shuttle program is nearly done anyway... There are many programs that are simply giveaways to large corporations, like the war in Iraq, in which Halliburton got lots of big fat no bid contracts. There are also many defence programs, particularly missile defense, which have started during the 1980s against the Soviet Union, which, without a Soviet Union around anymore, are useless. A space program is far more useful with regard to civil communications and weather and just plain scientific research.
US send money to ISREAL,IRAQ,AFGHANESTAN for killing people but inside USA people are dying because they do not have money.CUT it NOW .CUT some projects which is not nesessary in such a sitution such as SHUTTLE programs ......... .
My experience is that corruption does not pay in the long run. One earns a million dollars in an under-handed manner and puts it into a pocket that has a gaping hole in it. By and by it will catch up - even if it takes a quarter generation down the line.
One huge problem is: Many US government programs have already been cut to the bone. National parks, unattended. Very few people checking imports for possible contamination. The big waste is when the contractors get their hands on things, like when Halliburton got all those lovely no bid contracts.
One way is to raise productivity to cut costs and eventually reduce spending. so you can work towards a national surplus. It will be tough I know, but it seems to me that you are always paying for the spending of your great grand parents in yesteryears. Its nasty I think. Check your organisation's networth, has it been improving or has it been stagnant or dropping, and then question the effectiveness of your contribution - are you really worth what you are earning? If not then you are contributing to the national debt in a manner of speaking. Well that is how I see it!
Your first statement is clearly false. The US government has been raising its spending while cutting taxes since the 80s. And a progressive notion like getting corporations to pay more is a great idea, but welfare will always be necessary, as there will always be those unable to work, such as those whose jobs have been made obsolete, who need it. Giving corporations bigger tax breaks though? That does nothing. The ones that are profitable can afford to pay higher wages anyway, and the ones that are not profitable will still be going under. Just make the existing tax breaks conditional on the wages they pay. And if certain corporations need some form of rescue, then these rescue packages need to be also far more conditional than those in practise at the moment.
I don't mind paying more taxes, yes we are in the $200k plus bracket. I mind that my sister who is a widow and has grade school children and only makes $32k as a school teacher has to pay $12,000 a year for health insurance.
More taxes usually equals more goverment spending. The wealthy do need to help share some of the tax burden that the middle to middle upper class Americans are having to shoulder. The goverment needs to overhaul the medicare and welfare system in addition to shifting taxes. Additionally, I think it is possible to remove people from the welfare system if the goverment would work with corporations to raise wages while giving corporations bigger tax breaks so that they can afford higher wages. Well, anyway I'm no expert on the economy....it's just a thought.
If we raised taxes on those earning OVER $250,000/yr, we would eliminate most of our problems and free up "greed" politics. McSame rhetoric defeats this philosophy and continues deficit spending and DOOM.
The shuttle program is nearly done anyway... There are many programs that are simply giveaways to large corporations, like the war in Iraq, in which Halliburton got lots of big fat no bid contracts. There are also many defence programs, particularly missile defense, which have started during the 1980s against the Soviet Union, which, without a Soviet Union around anymore, are useless. A space program is far more useful with regard to civil communications and weather and just plain scientific research.
US send money to ISREAL,IRAQ,AFGHANESTAN for killing people but inside USA people are dying because they do not have money.CUT it NOW .CUT some projects which is not nesessary in such a sitution such as SHUTTLE programs ......... .
That is often the case. But not often enough. A lot of the people behind Enron were snapped up by those behind the subprime mortgage boom .
My experience is that corruption does not pay in the long run. One earns a million dollars in an under-handed manner and puts it into a pocket that has a gaping hole in it. By and by it will catch up - even if it takes a quarter generation down the line.
One huge problem is: Many US government programs have already been cut to the bone. National parks, unattended. Very few people checking imports for possible contamination. The big waste is when the contractors get their hands on things, like when Halliburton got all those lovely no bid contracts.
One way is to raise productivity to cut costs and eventually reduce spending. so you can work towards a national surplus. It will be tough I know, but it seems to me that you are always paying for the spending of your great grand parents in yesteryears. Its nasty I think. Check your organisation's networth, has it been improving or has it been stagnant or dropping, and then question the effectiveness of your contribution - are you really worth what you are earning? If not then you are contributing to the national debt in a manner of speaking. Well that is how I see it!
Your first statement is clearly false. The US government has been raising its spending while cutting taxes since the 80s. And a progressive notion like getting corporations to pay more is a great idea, but welfare will always be necessary, as there will always be those unable to work, such as those whose jobs have been made obsolete, who need it. Giving corporations bigger tax breaks though? That does nothing. The ones that are profitable can afford to pay higher wages anyway, and the ones that are not profitable will still be going under. Just make the existing tax breaks conditional on the wages they pay. And if certain corporations need some form of rescue, then these rescue packages need to be also far more conditional than those in practise at the moment.
I don't mind paying more taxes, yes we are in the $200k plus bracket. I mind that my sister who is a widow and has grade school children and only makes $32k as a school teacher has to pay $12,000 a year for health insurance.
More taxes usually equals more goverment spending. The wealthy do need to help share some of the tax burden that the middle to middle upper class Americans are having to shoulder. The goverment needs to overhaul the medicare and welfare system in addition to shifting taxes. Additionally, I think it is possible to remove people from the welfare system if the goverment would work with corporations to raise wages while giving corporations bigger tax breaks so that they can afford higher wages. Well, anyway I'm no expert on the economy....it's just a thought.
If we raised taxes on those earning OVER $250,000/yr, we would eliminate most of our problems and free up "greed" politics. McSame rhetoric defeats this philosophy and continues deficit spending and DOOM.
But only raise the taxes of people who make over $200k a year.