It's still beside the point. Government did the spending. Corporations paid taxes by the standards the government set. The government knew how much revenue they were taking in and they knew how much they have been spending.
Government controls how much is spent.
Government controls how much is taken in.
and Gov't can set new standards for Corporations to pay more in taxes...and control how much is taken in therefore they can raise taxes to cover what is spent...
and Gov't can set new standards for Corporations to pay more in taxes...and control how much is taken in therefore they can raise taxes to cover what is spent...
simple...
But the government didn't set standards and they have known about the deficit for .... well as long as I can remember.
and Gov't can set new standards for Corporations to pay more in taxes...and control how much is taken in therefore they can raise taxes to cover what is spent...
simple...
But the government didn't set standards and they have known about the deficit for .... well as long as I can remember.
and Obama wants to address it by cutting spending and raising revenue...
are you saying that since it wasn't addressed before, it can't be addressed now... :?
and Obama wants to address it by cutting spending and raising revenue...
are you saying that since it wasn't addressed before, it can't be addressed now... :?
I'm not missing any points anyone is making. But the way I process it is that everything points back to the annual budget that congress approves. They know and have known they are outspending their revenue for years now. I don't see any indication that they have learned their lesson. The only thing they know is that they have finally hit the extreme limit of debt and now they are in trouble.
Why didn't they address it last year? Or the year before? Why did it take a debt limit to force the issue? And why does the taxpayer have to chip in to fix their fuck-up? And why are people OK with that concept?
and Obama wants to address it by cutting spending and raising revenue...
are you saying that since it wasn't addressed before, it can't be addressed now... :?
I'm not missing any points anyone is making. But the way I process it is that everything points back to the annual budget that congress approves. They know and have known they are outspending their revenue for years now. I don't see any indication that they have learned their lesson. The only thing they know is that they have finally hit the extreme limit of debt and now they are in trouble.
Why didn't they address it last year? Or the year before? Why did it take a debt limit to force the issue? And why does the taxpayer have to chip in to fix their fuck-up? And why are people OK with that concept?
you speak of the gov't as if it were a single person that you want to give a nice stern talking to...and funny how the debt limit is suddenly the the single biggest issue ever...
the reason we are in the mess is unfunded wars and tax cuts (lack of revenue to cover spending for silly things like roads, schools, police, natural disasters)...
it's as if you're bitching to the waitstaff after you received your check for a big meal...
If people are so pissed, why oppose raising the taxes on these Corporations? Why oppose closing the loopholes that give these and other such Corporations taxpayer subsidies? Why oppose trade laws that limited outsourcing? People keep wanting to point the finger at the President, but he is not the one outsourcing jobs. He’s not the one sitting up factories in China, Japan, Mexico and Brazil.
Simple. Because it wasn't the Corporations that authorized spending the money that put the nation in debt.
You want to be specific, because we didn’t get to this point in the budget or economic crisis overnight?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
it's as if you're bitching to the waitstaff after you received your check for a big meal...
time to pay up...it's that simple...
In that scenario (if I represent the government), I would just go over to the nearest table, whack a patron (taxpayer) in the head with a black-jack, steal their wallet, and then go pay the waiter (China).
it's as if you're bitching to the waitstaff after you received your check for a big meal...
time to pay up...it's that simple...
In that scenario (if I represent the government), I would just go over to the nearest table, whack a patron (taxpayer) in the head with a black-jack, steal their wallet, and then go pay the waiter (China).
I see you don't get it...or don't want get it...anyway...
edit: in my example, you are the taxpayer/citizen complaining when the bill has come due...and I find it interesting that you ignored the rest of the post...anyhoo, carry on...cutting funding for the olds and poors is obviously he only way to go... :thumbup:
it's as if you're bitching to the waitstaff after you received your check for a big meal...
time to pay up...it's that simple...
In that scenario (if I represent the government), I would just go over to the nearest table, whack a patron (taxpayer) in the head with a black-jack, steal their wallet, and then go pay the waiter (China).
I see you don't get it...or don't want get it...anyway...
I get it. The government is in crisis mode. They need to pay up. Cutting spending doesn't address the current issue. And they have several hundred million citizens available to squeeze money out of.
I understand the concept completely. I'm just not OK with it.
the thing is you guys are both right and wrong ...
on one hand, you can't tackle the debt without raising revenue ... cutting spending often just leads to additional revenue shortfall ... but on the other - the government has shown that the function of raising revenue is strictly to siphon it to various corporations who dictate policy and representation ...
it's really a catch-22 ... and the only solution folks is ultimately ... an all out revolution ... it sounds absurd but there is no other way ...
and Obama wants to address it by cutting spending and raising revenue...
are you saying that since it wasn't addressed before, it can't be addressed now... :?
I'm not missing any points anyone is making. But the way I process it is that everything points back to the annual budget that congress approves. They know and have known they are outspending their revenue for years now. I don't see any indication that they have learned their lesson. The only thing they know is that they have finally hit the extreme limit of debt and now they are in trouble.
Why didn't they address it last year? Or the year before? Why did it take a debt limit to force the issue? And why does the taxpayer have to chip in to fix their fuck-up? And why are people OK with that concept?
Finally, here’s the real you, a truly concerned taxpayer asking the right questions. Why wasn’t it stopped before we got to this point, is a moot question, we are in the middle of this rising river head straight towards a waterfall; and we really need to get our feet on some solid ground. Whether we like it or not, both the Republicans and Democrats have to give. This means entitlements and it means raising taxes. Stop before you get upset and take a moment, hell take a couple of minutes and think about the everyday products of necessity that have gone up in cost, not the things that you might have decided you can do without, but the things that you need. You, me, we are already bearing the cost of overpriced consumer goods made dirt cheap on the foreign markets while these corporations rack in the profits and give nothing or damn near next to nothing in taxes. On top of that, they are still outsourcing jobs, not creating jobs. So why shouldn’t they be taxed? We’ve already seen increases in taxes assessed against our pays, while our benefits are being slashed. Congress and their families have a lifetime guarantee of free health care, you don’t, and I don’t. When the pay of federal workers and the military was frozen, Congress was exempt. You, me, we are the one in crisis and yet political affiliation blinds against reasonable solutions because we haven’t hit rock bottom like some of the rest of our fellow citizens.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I say cut spending and raise taxes....what do you say...?
If we could cut spending significantly and we were still in debt, then I would consider a tax increase to serve the greater good of my fellow countrymen. I'm not trying to be difficult in this debate, but I'm holding strong to my argument because I've become convinced that spending won't be cut to any serious degree.
When the federal budget was approved a few months ago (remember the GOP's Pledge to America), the GOP used the promise of slashing the budget by $100B to sweep the elections ... even though $100B, sadly, is a drop in the bucket. Before negotiations started, Boehner already compromised the expectations to $60B. They ended up settling for around $30B on paper, but it was all bogus accounting. The real amount slashed after shell-game accounting amounted to less then $1B.
That was a pretty big reality-check to me.
I need an olive branch. A act of good faith. Something, anything that demonstrates that spending can be reduced significantly.
Until then, looking inward, I need every dollar I have to pay bills that I have budgeted for responsibly.
I say cut spending and raise taxes....what do you say...?
If we could cut spending significantly and we were still in debt, then I would consider a tax increase to serve the greater good of my fellow countrymen. I'm not trying to be difficult in this debate, but I'm holding strong to my argument because I've become convinced that spending won't be cut to any serious degree.
When the federal budget was approved a few months ago (remember the GOP's Pledge to America), the GOP used the promise of slashing the budget by $100B to sweep the elections ... even though $100B, sadly, is a drop in the bucket. Before negotiations started, Boehner already compromised the expectations to $60B. They ended up settling for around $30B on paper, but it was all bogus accounting. The real amount slashed after shell-game accounting amounted to less then $1B.
That was a pretty big reality-check to me.
I need an olive branch. A act of good faith. Something, anything that demonstrates that spending can be reduced significantly.
Until then, looking inward, I need every dollar I have to pay bills that I have budgeted for responsibly.
What spending cut would you consider as an olive branch that would serve as a reality check for you? Be honest and you don't have to give a reason why.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
What spending cut would you consider as an olive branch that would serve as a reality check for you? Be honest and you don't have to give a reason why.
OK, I'm game.
Based on the "what would you cut" thread, the government is taking in $172B and spending $306B each month, resulting in $134B shortfall each month. If they could reduce that shortfall by 50%, I'm all ears to tax increases.
Of course, over the course of 12 months that would require a budget reduction of over $800B, so by my calculations (to quote Brian from Half Baked), "it's fucking impossible, man!".
(Sidenote: What a shitty "Promise to America" by the GOP. We promise to cut spending so for one month we will only by $34B in the hole!)
I say cut spending and raise taxes....what do you say...?
If we could cut spending significantly and we were still in debt, then I would consider a tax increase to serve the greater good of my fellow countrymen. I'm not trying to be difficult in this debate, but I'm holding strong to my argument because I've become convinced that spending won't be cut to any serious degree.
When the federal budget was approved a few months ago (remember the GOP's Pledge to America), the GOP used the promise of slashing the budget by $100B to sweep the elections ... even though $100B, sadly, is a drop in the bucket. Before negotiations started, Boehner already compromised the expectations to $60B. They ended up settling for around $30B on paper, but it was all bogus accounting. The real amount slashed after shell-game accounting amounted to less then $1B.
That was a pretty big reality-check to me.
I need an olive branch. A act of good faith. Something, anything that demonstrates that spending can be reduced significantly.
Until then, looking inward, I need every dollar I have to pay bills that I have budgeted for responsibly.
I don't disagree with anything you say here....
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
i don't feel sorry for them in the least. these are the dumbasses who said "keep your government hands off of my medicare" and "cut all entitlement programs" all while not knowing or failing to acknowledge the medicare is government sponsored and funded health insurance. they get what they vote for. i can't wait to hear them cry when things actually get cut. i hope they taste the salt in their own tears when they have so many medical expenses they have to pay out of their own pocket that would have otherwise been covered at 100%. i love it when a whole constituency steps on their collective penis and then regrets it later.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
"Cutting" social security doesn't necessarily entail stripping people of benefits...I think they are talking more about means testing and raising the age of eligibility. Let's face it, they have to raise the age of eligibility...people are living much longer these days. That's my understanding anyway...Plus those with benefits currently won't see any change, this will be for people who have not hit a certain age yet. Probably also for those who are close to hitting the age.
it doesn't matter anyway...there is no actual money in the social security trust fund, they are all special t-bills that the government will need to borrow from the fed to pay off because they couldn't keep their grubby hands off it, which just adds to the debt....ironically that process adds to making the dollars that are actually paid out in social security worth less than the day they were put in...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
"Cutting" social security doesn't necessarily entail stripping people of benefits...I think they are talking more about means testing and raising the age of eligibility. Let's face it, they have to raise the age of eligibility...people are living much longer these days. That's my understanding anyway...Plus those with benefits currently won't see any change, this will be for people who have not hit a certain age yet. Probably also for those who are close to hitting the age.
it doesn't matter anyway...there is no actual money in the social security trust fund, they are all special t-bills that the government will need to borrow from the fed to pay off because they couldn't keep their grubby hands off it, which just adds to the debt....ironically that process adds to making the dollars that are actually paid out in social security worth less than the day they were put in...
the thing about SS that i will never understand is this.
If we are to believe that SS will be broke in 20 years (or whatever it is), why did we reduce that tax this year?
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
"Cutting" social security doesn't necessarily entail stripping people of benefits...I think they are talking more about means testing and raising the age of eligibility. Let's face it, they have to raise the age of eligibility...people are living much longer these days. That's my understanding anyway...Plus those with benefits currently won't see any change, this will be for people who have not hit a certain age yet. Probably also for those who are close to hitting the age.
it doesn't matter anyway...there is no actual money in the social security trust fund, they are all special t-bills that the government will need to borrow from the fed to pay off because they couldn't keep their grubby hands off it, which just adds to the debt....ironically that process adds to making the dollars that are actually paid out in social security worth less than the day they were put in...
the thing about SS that i will never understand is this.
If we are to believe that SS will be broke in 20 years (or whatever it is), why did we reduce that tax this year?
it gives immediate relief to both businesses and employees who pay in.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
and Gov't can set new standards for Corporations to pay more in taxes...and control how much is taken in therefore they can raise taxes to cover what is spent...
simple...
the corporations are the government
and Obama wants to address it by cutting spending and raising revenue...
are you saying that since it wasn't addressed before, it can't be addressed now... :?
Why didn't they address it last year? Or the year before? Why did it take a debt limit to force the issue? And why does the taxpayer have to chip in to fix their fuck-up? And why are people OK with that concept?
you speak of the gov't as if it were a single person that you want to give a nice stern talking to...and funny how the debt limit is suddenly the the single biggest issue ever...
the reason we are in the mess is unfunded wars and tax cuts (lack of revenue to cover spending for silly things like roads, schools, police, natural disasters)...
it's as if you're bitching to the waitstaff after you received your check for a big meal...
time to pay up...it's that simple...
You want to be specific, because we didn’t get to this point in the budget or economic crisis overnight?
I see you don't get it...or don't want get it...anyway...
edit: in my example, you are the taxpayer/citizen complaining when the bill has come due...and I find it interesting that you ignored the rest of the post...anyhoo, carry on...cutting funding for the olds and poors is obviously he only way to go... :thumbup:
I understand the concept completely. I'm just not OK with it.
give me an alternative...
I say cut spending and raise taxes....what do you say...?
cut spending
until they cut out the bull shit spending, why should i want to give more?
on one hand, you can't tackle the debt without raising revenue ... cutting spending often just leads to additional revenue shortfall ... but on the other - the government has shown that the function of raising revenue is strictly to siphon it to various corporations who dictate policy and representation ...
it's really a catch-22 ... and the only solution folks is ultimately ... an all out revolution ... it sounds absurd but there is no other way ...
Finally, here’s the real you, a truly concerned taxpayer asking the right questions. Why wasn’t it stopped before we got to this point, is a moot question, we are in the middle of this rising river head straight towards a waterfall; and we really need to get our feet on some solid ground. Whether we like it or not, both the Republicans and Democrats have to give. This means entitlements and it means raising taxes. Stop before you get upset and take a moment, hell take a couple of minutes and think about the everyday products of necessity that have gone up in cost, not the things that you might have decided you can do without, but the things that you need. You, me, we are already bearing the cost of overpriced consumer goods made dirt cheap on the foreign markets while these corporations rack in the profits and give nothing or damn near next to nothing in taxes. On top of that, they are still outsourcing jobs, not creating jobs. So why shouldn’t they be taxed? We’ve already seen increases in taxes assessed against our pays, while our benefits are being slashed. Congress and their families have a lifetime guarantee of free health care, you don’t, and I don’t. When the pay of federal workers and the military was frozen, Congress was exempt. You, me, we are the one in crisis and yet political affiliation blinds against reasonable solutions because we haven’t hit rock bottom like some of the rest of our fellow citizens.
When the federal budget was approved a few months ago (remember the GOP's Pledge to America), the GOP used the promise of slashing the budget by $100B to sweep the elections ... even though $100B, sadly, is a drop in the bucket. Before negotiations started, Boehner already compromised the expectations to $60B. They ended up settling for around $30B on paper, but it was all bogus accounting. The real amount slashed after shell-game accounting amounted to less then $1B.
That was a pretty big reality-check to me.
I need an olive branch. A act of good faith. Something, anything that demonstrates that spending can be reduced significantly.
Until then, looking inward, I need every dollar I have to pay bills that I have budgeted for responsibly.
What spending cut would you consider as an olive branch that would serve as a reality check for you? Be honest and you don't have to give a reason why.
Based on the "what would you cut" thread, the government is taking in $172B and spending $306B each month, resulting in $134B shortfall each month. If they could reduce that shortfall by 50%, I'm all ears to tax increases.
Of course, over the course of 12 months that would require a budget reduction of over $800B, so by my calculations (to quote Brian from Half Baked), "it's fucking impossible, man!".
(Sidenote: What a shitty "Promise to America" by the GOP. We promise to cut spending so for one month we will only by $34B in the hole!)
aah, the old "bullshit spending" line...perhaps you could be more clear...
I say cut military spending and foreign aid....what do propose...?
I don't disagree with anything you say here....
as I see it, for decades, folks have said "hell no, don't raise my taxes" and the US kept racking up debt....sadly, we may be the ones who pay up....
I find it ironic a lot of teabaggers receive social security and medicare, now the folks they put in power are ready to cut those entitlements....I kinda fell bad for those folks....
i've listed both military and foreign aid a number of times in a number of posts.
but there is plenty of other pork in that barrel.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
"Cutting" social security doesn't necessarily entail stripping people of benefits...I think they are talking more about means testing and raising the age of eligibility. Let's face it, they have to raise the age of eligibility...people are living much longer these days. That's my understanding anyway...Plus those with benefits currently won't see any change, this will be for people who have not hit a certain age yet. Probably also for those who are close to hitting the age.
it doesn't matter anyway...there is no actual money in the social security trust fund, they are all special t-bills that the government will need to borrow from the fed to pay off because they couldn't keep their grubby hands off it, which just adds to the debt....ironically that process adds to making the dollars that are actually paid out in social security worth less than the day they were put in...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the thing about SS that i will never understand is this.
If we are to believe that SS will be broke in 20 years (or whatever it is), why did we reduce that tax this year?
it gives immediate relief to both businesses and employees who pay in.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... community/
Godfather.