- Agriculture.com Community
- Announcements & Forum Help
- Farm Business
- Young & Beginning Farmers
- Cattle Talk
- Crop Talk
- Hog Talk
- Machinery Talk
- Machinery Marketplace
- Shops, buildings and bins
- Ask the SF Engineman!
- Computers & more
- Precision Agriculture
- People & Rural Life
- Ag Forum
- Women In Ag
- Agriculture.com Blogs
- Your Farm in the Future
- Women in Ag: Lisa Foust Prater
- Women in Ag: Brenda Frketich
- Women in Ag: Anne Miller
- Women in Ag: Jennifer Dewey
- Women in Ag: Talkin' Turkey with Lara Durben
- Women in Ag: Heather Lifsey Barnes
12-11-2012 02:08 PM
Produced some lively discussion thats for sure.
So Pal what is your solution to the mess we find our country in. Any ideas?. Seriously Hypothetically if the President called you up one day and said Pal fix this mess where would you start?
12-12-2012 02:07 AM
First, I don't have easy answers like some because modern economies are complex. Slogans and labelling people is just inadequate. And I don't want to start a political thread that should be on the catchall Forum. I'll say a few things because you asked and I won't defend them because i don't want to add more politics to the Marketing thread than we already have. It's sort of pointless.
I am one who definitely believes the tax structure needs an overhaul. I do believe in a progressive tax. It is rediculous that unearned income should be taxed at a different rate than ordinary income such as wages. The bogus idea that tax cuts based on deficit spending to 'finance' them is a 'good thing' is corrupt. If upper income levels are going to pay lower marginal taxes than the middle class due to accounting games and loopholes designed by those who can pay people to design those games then we have a corrupt tax structure - so let's fix it.. The great periods of American growth did not depend on this kind of flim flam. Too much of the burden has been shifted to the middle class and small business.
I've been reading that every war until Irag was more or less payed for AT THE TIME by tax increases and/or debt in the form of bonds specifically for those causes, including under Bush I and Johnson.. until Iraq - which was off budget and on the credit card - and then we CUT taxes!. Crazy! If it's important enough to fight it's important enough to finance. You can't have your cake and eat it too - and that's what's been going on. Lala land is not a substitute for prudence. You'll never pay for substantial wars by the time they end but there is no reason to go behind the eight ball by pretending we can start paying dividends at the same time! Simply dimwitted. A superiority complex under these terms is wishful thinking.
I have a lot of opinions but I won't change anyone's minds here and it's not really why I am on here. I reserve the right to react to anything if i think I should - and I'm not always a good judge of that mark - and probably others here aren't any better.
12-12-2012 03:36 AM
I find it interesting that you believe that LBJ paid for Vietnam on a "pay as you go" plan with tax increases.
It seems to tie in with your beliefs that farm businessmen that do not support federal intervention in farming via direct payments and subsidies, as well as not supporting other aspects of a bloated government, should not take the federal subsidies themselves but should instead pay their full share of taxes so that guys with a purer view of socialism, such as yourself, can continue to take the subsidies.
Never argue with the logic of a liberal.
12-12-2012 09:02 AM
The 'two wise men' comment made me laugh out loud. It reminded me, of our Church's little play that they put on with the Youth Group. The kids get to do most of it, and adults fill in some of the blanks. For several years, we had the same 3 adults come visit the baby Jesus, who were nicknamed the 'Three Wise Guys'. If you ever met them, You'd know just what I mean.
12-12-2012 11:19 AM
to fund at least in part the viet nam war.
I beleive it was a surtax on top of income taxes. A $1000 tax bill would have a $100 surtax added to it. That is if my memory of it is correct.