French jets protecting Libyan rebels

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Keep in mind that state and local taxes have exploded, so the overall burden on the taxpayer has actually gone up.

In addition, a statistic often cited is that 47% of individuals filling out a tax return do not pay a net tax, (i.e. people getting a "refund" that exceeds their withheld tax over the year). Therefore, a distinction needs to be made between taxpayers and tax return filers.

Those of us in the other 53%, getting taxed to death, are the suckers.

Also throw in the record deficits ($1.6 trillion per year) and debt ($14 trillion and counting), both of which must ultimately be paid by those same suckers, and you get an idea of how the taxpayer is the new permanent underclass and how the recipient class is the new nobility. We, the people who pay the bills, work for them. The government, the social program recipients (welfare, social security, SSI, etc) all get paid first, due to the withholding mechanism, and the "net" pay, ours, is the last to be paid. And according to every crying liberal, their confiscated share of our gross income is never enough and never will be

Joey, if you believe all of the above, then why in the world do you come on here supporting the very people that do that? Look back over the past 60 years. Stop listening to what politicos say, and watch what they do.

And no, there is no "recipient class" that's a new nobility. That's absurd (it goes back to Reagan's "cadillac welfare queen" lie) How can you make any cogent argument that is true? A seventy-year-old on social security and medicare barely staying alive? Choosing between buying food and paying their drug copay? A bare existence?

Half the wealth of this country is owned by 400 people. That is new. That is what has changed over the past 60 years. This country is wealthier than ever. Where is that money? Who has it? That is your "new nobility".

And some of those folks have just made kindergarten teachers out to be wealthy freeloaders living off the public and stealing your money. That's a good distraction, that story, something to get you riled and angry about, while behind your back they give themselves another tax cut and cut our revenue even further, while they scream the kindergarten teachers are the cause of making us go broke, and those teachers and starving 70-year-olds have to make up that deficit and stop stealing from us all!

I'd look closely at those "facts".

I wouldn't. I'd tell them to send me a budget that spends LESS than the revenue brought in, with the remainder going to paying down the debt. That, as I said in other posts on other occasions, should not be a controversial stand to take.

But it gets to the point when your revenue goes down, that you can cut expenses all you want, but now you are cutting into your food and shelter. You can't cut your way to financial health when your income is too small. Our revenues have been slashed in the past 15 -40 years. We need that revenue back.

So think, and look: where, in the past 60 years, has that revenue gone? Who has the money? Why, as our countries population and wealth has grown, has our revenue gone down, and our debt gone up? We should be rolling in money without having changed a thing over the years - we have millions more taxpayers and billions more in corporate wealth. Hint: it wasn't to the poor in government programs, nor to the middle class in tax cuts.

[joeydb]

Again with the 400 people nonsense? That's such a small number that someone should have compiled a list of names, net worth, and the total. An Excel spreadsheet would do nicely. I think that's a little too extreme of an estimate.

The solution is to cut taxes, and SLASH spending. First and foremost foreign aid. And "entitlements" -- it cannot be avoided. The "non-discretionary" spending of entitlements and interest on the debt is taking a larger and larger share of the pie and that cannot be sustained.

And I hope they DON'T raise the debt limit. And the new budget needs to cut 500 billion or more so we can "ease" down the $1,600,000,000,000 deficit. In a couple of years we can go positive and take in more money than we spend, and begin to retire the debt once and for all.

The first thing to cut is foreign aid? Are you f.ucking serious?

Foreign Aid is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. Cuts are going to have to be significant and they're going to cause pain to most Americans.

SSI, Medicare, National Defense. They all 3 need to be cut drastically and even then we're not guaranteed of getting out of debt outside of saying f.uck you China we'll kill all of you. Step, b.itch.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The first thing to cut is foreign aid? Are you f.ucking serious?

Foreign Aid is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. Cuts are going to have to be significant and they're going to cause pain to most Americans.

SSI, Medicare, National Defense. They all 3 need to be cut drastically and even then we're not guaranteed of getting out of debt outside of saying f.uck you China we'll kill all of you. Step, b.itch.

I agree, Foreign aid is a small part of the budget...it is fashionable to whine about foreign aid but hardly a significant part of the budget. SSI and Medicare is where the money is...the question is how cuts are made not where.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree, Foreign aid is a small part of the budget...it is fashionable to whine about foreign aid but hardly a significant part of the budget. SSI and Medicare is where the money is...the question is how cuts are made not where.

I disagree. I think the question is, "Why have we allowed our revenue to be slashed and hacked and given away, and why are we allowing it to continue to be slashed?"

And seriously, Social Security is just fine for the next 27 years, and has to be left out of this talk about "sky is falling, we need cuts immediately!" It's completely wrong to put Social Security into the same basket as the budget deficit and with Medicare, foreign aid, our defense budget, etc. Social Security needs to be addressed alone - NOT lumped into the general budget deficit.

This country is in trouble. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We have never had more money. But we don't take care of our citizens as well as most other civilized first world countries do, by a long shot.

We have some of the poorest education, the poorest and unhealthiest citizens, millions don't have any regular health care at all, our elderly starve to buy medicine and our retirements are at poverty level compared to other first world countries.

If our America's attitude is going to be, "Hey - you are responsible for yourself, we should not let our government do anything for citizens other than hold a standing army", fine - but that sure as hell isn't what the Founding Fathers signed on to when they started this country.

[jms62]

How about getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. That will save a cool 25 BILLION each month.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

How about getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. That will save a cool 25 BILLION each month.

I agree.

How about we also have the top 10 wealthiest corporations in the country not pay zero income tax, too? A little 0.25 percent tax on those profits would take care of much of our "deficit".

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

I disagree. I think the question is, "Why have we allowed our revenue to be slashed and hacked and given away, and why are we allowing it to continue to be slashed?"

And seriously, Social Security is just fine for the next 27 years, and has to be left out of this talk about "sky is falling, we need cuts immediately!" It's completely wrong to put Social Security into the same basket as the budget deficit and with Medicare, foreign aid, our defense budget, etc. Social Security needs to be addressed alone - NOT lumped into the general budget deficit.

This country is in trouble. This is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We have never had more money. But we don't take care of our citizens as well as most other civilized first world countries do, by a long shot.

We have some of the poorest education, the poorest and unhealthiest citizens, millions don't have any regular health care at all, our elderly starve to buy medicine and our retirements are at poverty level compared to other first world countries.

If our America's attitude is going to be, "Hey - you are responsible for yourself, we should not let our government do anything for citizens other than hold a standing army", fine - but that sure as hell isn't what the Founding Fathers signed on to when they started this country.

I think we pretty much agree, but cutting SSI and Medicare benefits to the most wealthy would certainly help a lot. My concern has always been that when it comes time to spread the suffering, it never extends beyond the middle class.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I think we pretty much agree, but cutting SSI and Medicare benefits to the most wealthy would certainly help a lot. My concern has always been that when it comes time to spread the suffering, it never extends beyond the middle class.

Yeah but then the wealthy won't have enough money for charities that focus on population control.

Priorities!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I think we pretty much agree, but cutting SSI and Medicare benefits to the most wealthy would certainly help a lot. My concern has always been that when it comes time to spread the suffering, it never extends beyond the middle class.

I'm all for raising the Social Security ceiling from $103,800 to $200,000 or $250,00, but I have a severe problem with any "financial test" for people to get their Social Security back out, based upon their income at retirement and taking into consideration retirement income from other sources.

I'm completely against that. There should be no test for receiving SS. You pay in, you get out.

Because you worked hard and made more money in the end than the other 98% of people, why should you be denied Social Security at retirement?

If we need more revenue to make it work in 27 years, then let's raise the ceiling just a little now, make the whole fund flush for decades to come, and even be able to increase benefits to everyone!

Why in the world don't we do that? Rather than looking at cutting benefits or raising the retirement age on the vast majority of recipients, those who make very little and have paid into it for 20-30 years already. That makes no sense to me at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Again with the 400 people nonsense? That's such a small number that someone should have compiled a list of names, net worth, and the total.

They have.

So I don't have to cut and paste and copy from multiple sources and citations, you can just read it directly, yourself.

Just enter this phrase into your google search bar:
400 richest people own wealth

The solution is to cut taxes, and SLASH spending.

So, you are not going to think about the points I tried to make. Okay.

But how in the world is your advice supposed to work? "The solution is to cut taxes, and SLASH spending".
You are advising we cut our revenue, and slash our spending? At the same time? How will we pay off our deficit?

If you are working 40 hours a week, and can't pay your bills, you cut your expenses - but the solution is NOT to also ask your boss to cut your work income to only 30 hours a week! That's crazy, Joey - think about it. Shouldn't we try and ask for some overtime to help pay off our bills? Not ask to cut our income further?

"Boss, I'm having some financial troubles at home. My wife and I have huge medical bills from the birth of our baby last month. It's put us thousands in debt, and we might lose our house now because we can't pay our mortgage and the hospital bills at the same time. Can you cut my income, please? We already have stopped buying formula and diapers, but we need more help. If I work 1/3 less, will your company grow so much that you can then give me a raise and I'll make more money?"

The above has been the GOP financial plan for our government since Reagan.