French jets protecting Libyan rebels

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

And pass a law that our theiving Presidents can not borrow from it.

[SOREHOOF]

Didn't SS pay out more than it took in in 2010? How is that solvent. The tax cuts create more revenue for the Govt. FACT. If you raise income taxes on the wealthy they pay less taxes. They didn't get wealthy by giving their money away. A lot of wealthy people pay no income tax. They stop showing income when the tax rates get too high. That is how they stay wealthy. Income Tax does not tax wealth, just income. Do you want to seize property from the wealthy to make up for a lack of income? The Govt. is going to have to start spending within its means.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

american f-15 crashed /not sure if it was a mechanical or not..pilots ejected..

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

american f-15 crashed /not sure if it was a mechanical or not..pilots ejected..

Pilots rescued, crash due to mechanical problems not enemy fire according to CNN.

[SOREHOOF]

Our military equipment is getting pretty beat up from all the years in Afghan and Iraq. Now would be a good time for a military buildup. That's always an economy booster. Lots of jobs. Increased revenue for the feds. Call it a humanitarian effort to bring the Libs on board.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

And pass a law that our theiving Presidents can not borrow from it.

Yes. But how about also preventing what some of the current crowd of GOP want, to put it "in the markets"

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. But how about also preventing what some of the current crowd of GOP want, to put it "in the markets"

When that first came up I thought it sounded like a good idea. Now, not so much.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Didn't SS pay out more than it took in in 2010? How is that solvent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...ited_States%29

The tax cuts create more revenue for the Govt. FACT.

So you believe "trickle-down economics" works. A few decades of experience in this country says no, according to most economists. But some of you remain with that belief. I don't know what supports that, however. The facts don't.

If you raise income taxes on the wealthy they pay less taxes. They didn't get wealthy by giving their money away. A lot of wealthy people pay no income tax. They stop showing income when the tax rates get too high. That is how they stay wealthy. Income Tax does not tax wealth, just income.

You don't have to raise the tax rate. You cut the loopholes so private citizens and corporations - especially corporations, such as the top ten biggest in this country who pay zero taxes - stop paying no tax. Then you could probably even lower the tax rate for everyone, corporate and private.

Do you want to seize property from the wealthy to make up for a lack of income?

No. I live in a democracy, where illegal appropriation of property doesn't cross one's mind as a solution to anything.

The Govt. is going to have to start spending within its means.

The government should stop giving away our money to it's special friends, then crying broke.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

When that first came up I thought it sounded like a good idea. Now, not so much.

It did sound good at first, especially for the young, but recent economic realities showed the flaws.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

When that first came up I thought it sounded like a good idea. Now, not so much.

Ditto.