*quality discussion *money

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Adding video to channels (Money) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Not in favor of reducing military spending to that level. We need to decide what our military strategy is going to be, and then see how much that will cost to implement, not the other way around. Just cutting military spending and then making them make due will cause screw ups in actually withdrawing troops from various conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. We need to reduce defense spending, but that's not the right way to do it.

But I'm completely in favor of taxing Wall Street transactions. It would help to curb actions people take on Wall St. that does society absolutely no good such as stock speculation and micro-trading. Absolutely the right thing to do.

What is sad is that less than 1% of America will not give this the light of day.

In Australia, The idea of a budget reply is to do whatever you like. It doesn't matter as it has no value except to win votes. I have never seen an oppostion budget that has actually been implemented. Anyway, it looks like our target here of getting back to surplus to 2013 is pretty good.

Knowing the US people, they would never stand for in principle a reduction in military spending in a general sense. If they said, cut certian new technology programs back that would be implemented insted, then that would have a better chance of getting through the public. Investment in infrastucture is ALWAYS in these kinds of things.

The tax breaks endings for the top-end is simply vote-grabbing. Can't they get these top guys to be involved in fixing certain issues instead. That would be a new idea: anyone earning over $10 million in a single year needs to fix a component of the total system that would have indirect symetary in their field: "You! Mr Gates! You now have to fix the transportation system!" They have to use their own money, and don't have to pay any tax.

>> ^silky:

In Australia, The idea of a budget reply is to do whatever you like. It doesn't matter as it has no value except to win votes. I have never seen an oppostion budget that has actually been implemented. Anyway, it looks like our target here of getting back to surplus to 2013 is pretty good.
Knowing the US people, they would never stand for in principle a reduction in military spending in a general sense. If they said, cut certian new technology programs back that would be implemented insted, then that would have a better chance of getting through the public. Investment in infrastucture is ALWAYS in these kinds of things.
The tax breaks endings for the top-end is simply vote-grabbing. Can't they get these top guys to be involved in fixing certain issues instead. That would be a new idea: anyone earning over $10 million in a single year needs to fix a component of the total system that would have indirect symetary in their field: "You! Mr Gates! You now have to fix the transportation system!" They have to use their own money, and don't have to pay any tax.


Ironically, that would also allow them to create jobs with the extra money they are not getting taxed, something the propaganda machine always says happens with that money. It seems like your suggestion would be common sense, and I always kind of hope to read stories about the good things they are doing in this regard. However the stories are usually always the opposite, they use their money to meet their own ends; e.g. Bill Gates is a supporter of Atmosphere scrubbing, so he's spending money to ensure pollution can continue as per normal, and he thinks we'll just be able to release other chemicals to scrub CO2 out of the air.