VAT in the U.S.A.
 

The latest spending passed into law in the US, that is estimated by the current administration to guarantee health insurance availability to all because an estimated 15% of the population was uninsured because they either didn't want insurance or were not able to obtain insurance.

The CBO has declared recently that the US debt is unsustainable.

LINK:CBO chief says debt 'unsustainable' - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com


Many states are bankrupt and have huge budget deficits.

Some are not meeting budget deadlines because the inability to close the hole of state debt.

Many government programs and entities are or are close to bankruptcy.
Social Security is officially broke.

With only an estimated 47% of the US population paying federal income taxes,

LINK:Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance

Do you think a VAT (Value Added Tax) is coming for the US on top of existing local taxes?

LINK:President's panel may consider value-added tax - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency


As it is clear that government spending isn't being cut, what other alternatives are out there?

Are board members here of countries with VAT happy with it and feel it is fair to all citizens?

With all this good news coming in for the U.S.A., what are your feeling on a VAT Tax in addition to your current state taxes? Is this fair and would it work in the U.S.A.? Is it a good or bad idea? Why? If so when is a good time to start?

I am willing to pay more in taxes for more in social services. It's pretty simple. You provide me a public option for healthcare, I'll pay into the system. You provide my children with public schools, I'll pay into the system. You provide me with roads to drive on, I'll pay into the system. You create a social net for disability, unemployment, or retirement, and I'll pay into the system. Cops, fire fighters, national defense, here's some cash, now please pay those people.

I like taxes... as long as I am getting the social services that I'm paying for.

[From another thread]

You are off topic.


Any 4th grader could tell us that the debt is unsustainable; I dont need the CBO to tell me that.

hahaha.
I have the Brooklyn bridge for sale.
You interested?

So far the social servcies we have are having a great return investment.

How much VAT you willing to put up with. Note the VAT is for everyone, and it doesn't discriminate.

I just think it is interesting that you bash the CBO in one thread when they don't support your argument, but then quote them a day or two later when they do. That's all. I won't comment on it again.

I think so. I am not ready to give up a postal service, a 911 system, interstate highways, a National Guard as well as military, public education through high school, a prison system... are you?

I also said in that thread and another that they had only done a preliminary on the health care bill before the amendments and before it was finalized.

Frankly its true that the CBO hasnt got the greatest track record. They were nothing more than a pawn to get the bill passed with the house doble accounting.

Just today even they back pedal.
CBO Head: Something's Got to Give in Federal Budget - AOL News

Funny how they are all in a deficit though. hmmmm..
I think this goes beyond basic services... and you know it.

How about cutting unnecessary spending instead.

Ignore the numbers or blame Bush. It will eventually catch up with you. Hope you have a cushy gig outside the country.... we are in for rough ride comrade.

Say it with me now...

Mmm, mmm, mm! Barack Hussein Obama. He said we must be fair today. Equal work means equal pay. Mmm, mmm, mm!

I am all for cutting unnecessary spending. I am sure there is a ton that can be cut. I wish would would go through with the "no earmarks" policy. I know you think I am an Obama automatron, and that isn't the truth. We can play blame game, but it is more important to actually get things done than to point fingers.

There will be no VAT, it will be a career-ending move for any politician who supports it. We all can see how well the current VAT system in Europe is working, their current national debts vs GDP are worse than those we face in America. Greece is a primary example, VAT has done nothing to reduce debts, it has only encouraged governments to spend more.

Tsuwabaki, would you rather pay more in taxes for government services? Or would you rather pay less taxes so you could afford those services yourself, if and when you need them? For every $1 you pay in government taxes, you will be lucky if you collect 10 cents in benefits, whereas if you had your own money to spend, 100% of it would go toward your health care, retirement, or whatever. If you take it a step further, why collect any money at all for your work? Why not just give every penny you make to the government and collect whatever benefits they can afford to give you. You can be just as much a serf as those who existed in the middle ages.

The story about the fact that 1/2 of Americans pay no income tax is misleading. They still have taxes deducted from their pay each week, and the government earns interest on this money. They may end up paying no federal income tax after deductions and receiving their refund check, but they still pay for property tax, gas tax, utilities tax, sales tax, state income tax, and the usual registration and licensing fees. Any money that they don't spend in tax will be put back into the economy where a slice will eventually be taken by the federal government.

Obama will not be re-elected in 2012, and there will likely be a major shift in the elections in November. Rasmussen wasn't the only poll showing Obama's high disapproval ratings RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval Any serious talk of VAT will be held off until after the November elections, by which point there will be no mandate to pass it. The next administration will have to begin thinking about austerity measures to reduce the debt, tax increases have never worked.

again sorta not
 

New York Times
Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis
By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: February 13, 2010

Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November — three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety — a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards. -

Nothing to do with a Vat dude?

Short answer: Yes, I would.

Long answer: I believe in socialism. I don't believe it's a dirty word. I don't believe it is unfair to pay more into a system since I make more to help support those that make less. I am not interested in a social safety net because I need it now, but because I may need it in the future. I've spent short amounts of time jobless, in debt, even close to homeless (I had couches I could sleep on at friends' houses). If it had continued for more than the seven or so months I had of this, I would have eventually worn out my welcome, ran out of friends, and still been homeless, jobless, and in debt. I would have had no healthcare. I would have badly needed government assistance.

I was luckier than a lot of folks; at the end of 2007 this came to an end when I finally managed to get a teaching job. I have avoided most of the recession, paid off my debt, and even have a large savings/retirement/investment portfolio. But I strongly believe it was "but by the grace of God, there went I" moment.

It is a moral imperative for me to pay into a system that covers all a nation's citizens and protects them from becoming permanently unproductive. It is in everyone's personal interest to increase the total productivity of our population. The private sector will not do this as profits cannot be realised immediately, nor are individual firms interested in protecting employees of other firms, even if it will increase profitability for all. When the private sector refuses to do what is right, government must play referee.

Socialism is not communism. I am not supporting taking all my money; I want leisure activities, I want to acquire certain entertainment goods. For that reason, I find your argument about "from each what he can do, to each what he needs" spurious and irrelevant. Communism discounts the human need to make choices and to have personal property. Socialism establishes certain public property and benefits for common use, but it does not interfere with other forms of property. Socialism and capitalism can work together.

Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states?
Is the president and the current administration working toward this?

Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do.

Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?

I would say the former, but the former encompasses several competing definitions. My description of democratic socialism would fall among those definitions that are compatible with capitalism and do not remove self-determination or personal responsibility. Social safety nets are not hand outs. I am morally opposed to dolist socialism, even if done inside of a primarily democratic or republican form of government.

Yes, democratic socialism is hard to define.

I wonder why doesn't Obama run on this? He is always denying being a socialist this as ridiculous. Many say that anyone that calls him a socialists or holding socialistic ideals are insane haters. Do you think this is why Obama and his politics are not being accepted easily?

I mentioned also in the hope and change thread that "Socialism" isn't evil, it just something that American ideals do not value traditionally.

America is traditionally very concerned with a rugged, almost stubborn libertarianism. As if we would rather live out on a self-sufficent homestead than interact as components of a highly populated urban society. Thus, socialism, which appears to in some way, possibly encroach upon this pioneer spirit, becomes a dirty word that cannot be included in political discussions lest a a participant in said discussion completely closes down in reaction to it. If Obama ran on common sense capitalism compatible democratic socialism, all many of his opponents would hear is "socialism" and dialogue would cease.

We are, however, a highly populated urban society. Poverty, unemployment, unfair labor practices, and unsustainable business practices affect the productivity of everyone. National defense, public education, the interstate highway system, the postal service, medical and law enforcement personnel all aid productivity. A society that lifts individuals out of poverty or prevents individuals from falling into poverty due to uncontrolled debt, outrageous expensive healthcare, or unemployment will be a more productive society. More productive members of society, who do have access to increasing levels of discretionary income, create wealth and profitability by making spending choices on leisure goods and activities.

It's a win-win. It is not a threat to personal freedom or personal wealth.

The problem is that the majority of American people do not know what socialism is. Perception is reality, and now days he with the largest bullhorn wins.

Do you think the average American has a positive or negative image of socialism?

Socialism is the new Red Scare. "S" is the new Scarlet Letter. Being associated with socialism is the new beginning to the end of a political career.

But Obama is not a socialist. He isn't even as liberal as much of the left wants him to be. Many of the people who didn't support the recent Health Care Reform bill were against it not because it went too far...but because it didn't go far enough. Did the socialist president propose universal health care? No. Did the socialist president propose a public option (what many on the right call the first step to socialist health care)? No.

The head of the socialist party in America agrees:

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com

So I think these weighted questions like "What kind of socialist is the president?" can be cast aside with "When did you stop beating your wife?"

MMM, this is true. However, I vote democratic and voted for Obama largely because the direction that he is going is closer than the alternatives.

I am far more liberal than the President. I am far more socialist than the President.

I agree with you Tsuwabuki. So far it has been proven that I am far more liberal than the president, too.

We live now in an era where 9 out of 10 political talk shows are from a conservative perspective, so that is a lot of hours in a day of not only promoting conservative agendas but also distinguishing themselves from each other, so the more outlandish a talk show host is, the more attention he gets. The rhetoric what should have ended at the election now just flows and flows and political election cycle becomes endless.

Intelligent political debate is healthy any time, but now we are accustomed to one-way speech, and with the glut of "news sources" available it is easy for me to get my "news" from people that tell me what I want to hear.

Did FOX News report that in a recent poll they did showing the President and the IRS were considered more favorably than the Tea Party movement?

Fox News' Shocking Results

No, they didn't. That would go against their reporting of how popular the Tea Party movement is. A 24 hour news cycle means a LOT of reporting and a lot of repeating. (How many times did FOX News "report" the Joe Biden f-bomb?)

I'm confused.

Is Obama a socialist or isn't he? According to Tswabuki, a proclaimed socialist, he agrees in the above responses that the president and the administration is working toward socialism and that is why he votes the way he does.

When I asked "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?"

And it was answered. Why isn't he a socialist then?

If not, Tsuwabuki, do you believe the President is still a socialist after your previous posts I highlighted above?

What I'm reading is he has socialist agendas, but he isn't a socialist.
----------------


Now with this being said MMM: "Socialism is the new Red Scare. "S" is the new Scarlet Letter. Being associated with socialism is the new beginning to the end of a political career."

Yes I agree American fear this. Why are Americans afraid of this? Do you believe that Americans dis-taste for socialism only lies in relating it to Marxist-Socialism and other -isms?

MMM, to be fair Obama had only been in office 3 months when that article was written; well before this rolla coaster took off.

I think Obama is personally not a socialist. But that isn't what I thought you were previously asking.

I think his policies are as far as he can go to not alienate people like me who are and yet not risk losing votes of independents, or more conservative members of our own party. I do think some of the policies, such as healthcare, are headed that direction, and that the Obama administration as a whole, just as previous Democratic adminstrations, has a progressive and socialist "taste" to it.

Interesting.


So it tastes like it, but isn't quite a socialistic agenda.
When does it become a socialistic agenda?
I'm missing the line where he could be called a socialist and a progressive.

It seems to me that the media and the adminsitration itself refuses to call themselves that only because they know that they haven't got a chance to run in the U.S.

You should be.

He isn't.

But when you listen to enough entertainers like Glenn Beck that will scream Obama is a socialist until he cries things become...confusing.

I see. Now Tsuwabaki is your guru.

I answered that question above. Sadly, I am not your socialist guru, so my responses are ignored.


What are these socialist agendas?

Either Obama is a "do-nothing president" or he is carrying America to a "socialist utopia".

It can't be both. But I understand why you are confused, Clint. Because these conflicting messages that the right wing talking heads toss out simply don't add up.

----------------

The "rolla coaster" took off long before he took office, but I think I already answered this question.

I don't listen to Right Wing radio or watch Right Wing TV any more than I have to, but I do know that in the simplest terms this equation is pounded out again and again:

Obama = Socialism = Bad

Say it enough times and it starts to become true in people's minds. Again, your confusion is understood, because this equation doesn't add up.

Tsuwabaki, I didn't think Clint was really wanting to play this "game" but it is the latest distraction of the alienated right: let's get people to call Obama a socialist.

You got hooked.

I never called Obama a socialist. I called myself a socialist.

Clint, Obama has to throw us a few bones. That's why we voted for him. If he doesn't, he will lose our support. That doesn't make him a socialist, it just makes him accountable to those who elected him. His public position as President, and his personal, internal beliefs as Barack Obama, will, and should be, sometimes at odds.

LBJ voted against integration as Senator because the people of Texas who voted him into that position were against integration. As President, he realised it was the liberal wing who had elected JFK, and thus himself, and so he pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, again, doing the will of the people who put him into office.

I like to think it was his views as Senator that were not his personal views, but it could have been the other way around. It doesn't matter. If you're elected, you work for the people who elected you. As President, you try to work for everyone, but you tend to side with the agendas of the people who voted you in over the agendas of those who did not.

Obama is not a socialist. He knows I am. He knows I was a delegate. He knows I represented hundreds or thousands of other voters who elected me as a delegate and hold views similar to mine. If he wishes to avoid a primary challenge like Carter got from Teddy Kennedy, then he needs to make sure we damn well get those bones. Nothing says a party must back the sitting president. Carter nearly lost, and it weakened him, that it was a pretty large reason he lost a second term.

Understand?

<Harp sound of begin flash back sequence>

clintjm:"Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states?
Is the president and the current administration working toward this?"

Tsuwabuki:"Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do."

<So here we establish you believe the president and current administration are working toward socialism. This is why you vote the way you do.>

clintjm: "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?"

Tsuwabuki: " would say the former, but the former encompasses several competing definitions". . . . "If Obama ran on common sense capitalism compatible democratic socialism, all many of his opponents would hear is "socialism" and dialogue would cease."

clintjm: "I'm confused. Is Obama a socialist or isn't he? According to Tswabuki, a proclaimed socialist, he agrees in the above responses that the president and the administration is working toward socialism and that is why he votes the way he does. When I asked "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?" And it was answered. Why isn't he a socialist then?
If not, Tsuwabuki, do you believe the President is still a socialist after your previous posts I highlighted above?
What I'm reading is he has socialist agendas, but he isn't a socialist."

Tsuwabuki: "I think Obama is personally not a socialist. But that isn't what I thought you were previously asking. I think his policies are as far as he can go to not alienate people like me who are and yet not risk losing votes of independents, or more conservative members of our own party. I do think some of the policies, such as healthcare, are headed that direction, and that the Obama administration as a whole, just as previous Democratic adminstrations, has a progressive and socialist "taste" to it.

<Here we establish that you don't think he is personally a full blown Socialist. But you think his policies are as far as he can (meaning he would like to go all the way), without alienating independents and democrats.>

clintjm: "Interesting. So it tastes like it, but isn't quite a socialistic agenda. When does it become a socialistic agenda? I'm missing the line where he could be called a socialist and a progressive. It seems to me that the media and the adminsitration itself refuses to call themselves that only because they know that they haven't got a chance to run in the U.S.

<Harp sound ending flash back sequence>

My question still stands. *Where is the line drawn of being a socialist or not? There seems to be some unwritten line that me and people like me are missing that distinguishes him from being a socialist. You said this is why you vote the way you do when asked if the president and this administration is moving towards socialism. As you are a proclaimed socialist who believes in socialism, I thought there would be no one better to get this information from.

Like many, MMM is frothing at the mouth at everyone someone calls this administation and president a socialist, yet you are here saying his policies, that are socialist enough to vote for him, but you don't think he is a socialist.

You speak to the seperation of personal beliefs and his view as Senator. Also siding with those as much as possible to serve those who elected him.

Tsuwabuki: "His public position as President, and his personal, internal beliefs as Barack Obama, will, and should be, sometimes at odds."

So which side is which? Is his personal beliefs socialistic, or his public position? You said "I think Obama is personally not a socialist."

When does it become a socialistic agenda? I'm missing the line where he and many parts of the administration could be called a socialist

I hear you on WHY he doesn't run in office on it, but if socialism/socialist is not an evil word or bad (I don't think you are evil or bad), then why wouldn't you call him a socialist, or why can't I call him a socalist. What has he not done policy/agenda wise or when stating his personal beliefs to not carry that title.

This is very interesting to me as I rarely find anyone from the U.S./ American who believes in the socialsm (I assume you believe in democrartic socialism vs Marxist socialism) that doesn't find the current sway in Obama and politics Socialistic. They only say it isn't socialist agenda because it would not get the votes or support the majority of the American public.

You got the bones, but what is missing that would satisfy?
As quoted you admit he and the adminstration is moving toward a democratic socialism. Thus I'm looking for that line.

If I missed quoted you or you would like to retract or change anything, please include it.

VAT tax.
There I said it. I'm on topic.

It's simple really. I am a socialist. It doesn't matter if Obama is or not (and he's not). What matters is the policies are closer to what I want than John McCain's policies would be. Even the Republicans have some policies that are socialistic- National Defense being the big one.

Yes, the Obama administration is headed more in a socialistic direction than the alternative administration would be. That doesn't mean the administration is "socialist."

What exactly is your point?

Apparently this topic was never about the VAT tax, but about getting people to call our president a socialist.

A meaningless and distracting exercise which I will no longer participate in.

Nice work, Clint.

Mission accomplished?

Yes I agree. They are heading the socialistic direction; enough where you "vote the way you vote".

According to you, I guess there isn't that one policy or agenda that isn't strong enough or that doesn't allow Obama and the adminsitration to be labeled a socialist. Dispite the "taste" of their agenda. I suppose I'll never know what that line is that prevents me from calling him a socialist. Maybe that line doesn't exists.

I see a lot of history about the parties being written and how they don't run on socialism because they would never get the votes (enough to take power). I accept that. What I don't accept is not being to call him and his administation what it is, socialists. You vote for him because he is moving towards socialism, yet refuse to label him that without being able to draw me that line.


clintjm:"Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states? Is the president and the current administration working toward this?"
Tsuwabuki:"Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do."

Yet we can't label him a socialist because he isn't socialist enough by some measurement or some political line that can't be drawn or labeled? Can he be labeled a socialist if he got the U.S. a healthcare public option? Does there need to be more wealth distribution? Caps on how much wealth one can obtain? What is it.

We seem to have come to an impass. And that is fine. Of course we will never see him and the administration labled as so blatenly in the media other than commentary shows because we can agree that would be death for this administration.
Thats fine. I know not to expect that. But if I walk out the door now and walk down the street and ask the average person if they could define socialism, and if they could, would they call Obama and his adminsitration Socialists? They would say yes and could tell me why. You admit in this thread the president and his adminsitration are moving toward this. Yet that doesn't make him a socialist? Sorry... that is hypocrisy.

Calm down. It's a proven fact that the CBO is only accurate when a Republican is president or when it suits certain talking points. Weird phenomenon not yet understood but foxnews is investigating. Take heart!

I can actually agree with that.
Scary.

That would mean the CBO is off their rocker about the health reform bill.
I only wish they were about the debt of the U.S. be unsustainable. But as I said, a child can do the math on that.

Clint,

You want to boil things down to black and white, socialist or not socialist. When, in fact, government, by its very existence, already has socialist properties.

You're acting as if socialist policies did not already exist in previous administrations, including GOP administrations.

You need to learn to separate political compromise from personal labels.

I live in Canada. Our health care is free. I am sooo glad its free. My grandpa lives in the states, when he had a heart attack, he had to pay befor they could even help him. He doesn't have insurance.

Im not sure how our tax system is broken down, I belive its one tax we pay and the goverment splits it up into the different systems. I think its great that USA is going to do this. It will really help a lot of people. Everyone should have the right to live and get help.

The USA is not "going to do this" nor anything close to it.

The healthcare reform was a lie.

Could have swore I saw on the news that It was in voting and obama was gonna sign it. They were interviewing people who were "excited for it to happen" and people were talking about "when" it happens, not if.

I think VAT is going to be pushed rather that cutting spending.

This answers it all:

Question posed to Obama's Town Hall Charlotte, NC

"Why are you raising taxes more when we are over taxed as it is?"

"Well lets talk about that...." (He babbles on for 17 minutes still unable to answer the question).


VIDEO LINK: Hannity (Fox News) 17minutes summarized:

Obama Tongue-Tied Over Agenda on Yahoo! Video


Morning Joe:
(Despite the MSLsd digs of "It is the Republican's fault for not bringing 'what is it going to cost' instead of going at reconciliation!")

VIDEO LINK: Yahoo! Video Detail for Video: Obama uncomfortable explaining health care taxes

It is going to hit the middle class. It is going to go down from there.

"INDEXING DOWN PEOPLE! You are broke"

The guy in the on the left looking like he just came off the street replies:

"But you're going to live in a country where healthcare is free!"

Huh?


oh the buyer's remorse of the progressive Dems.

The health reform bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president sadly is not universal health care, like you enjoy in Canada.

VAT not off the table
 

VAT Not off the table by any means:

Key Player on Debt Commission Says VAT in the Mix

"Additionally, in an interview with CNBC, President Obama did not flatly rule out a VAT tax in the future, calling the levy a "novel" idea that had worked in other countries. Obama said he would prefer to focus first on reducing spending and said his strong preference is to sheild the middle class from tax increases"

""I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value added tax," Obama told CNBC. "That is something that has worked for some countries, it's something that would be novel for the United States. Before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are. My first priority is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that as opposed to figuring out how much money can we raise and then not having to make tough choices on the spending side."

This at the same time many state are raising taxes in a budget deficit.

Oy...when I'm 50, I just want to get an angioplasty without worrying about the cost. And worrying about the cost will ultimately be the death of me. >.0 ack.

Government is too big, the US is based on the idea that you succeed or fail on your own merit, government won't help you much either way. Aside from granting you the freedom to succeed or fail.

I could do with less mail, mostly just junk they send me anyway.

Government's job is to defend the border's, maintain roads and bridges, act as ref between states. Also to creat treaties with world powers. It is not government's job to help you retire, help you when your sick or help teach your kids anything.

Get rid of social security, welfare, puplic school, medicare, and medicade. That's over half the yearly budget right there. Harsh? certainly, but it's American. This country became great without all that excess bagage, it needs to get rid of it now.