Jeff Wigand wrote:
I'd prefer an amendment to the Constitution that bars companies or individuals from contributing to a politician's campaign for national office.
Who cares what you prefer? Nobody need accept your preferences.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
I'd prefer an amendment to the Constitution that bars companies or individuals from contributing to a politician's campaign for national office.
Who cares what you prefer? Nobody need accept your preferences.
I hate the left.
asfasdfasdf wrote:Their taxes should not be raised just because liberals think they have room in their budget to suffer a little more.
Oh no, but we must budget appropriately so we can pay for everyone's health care benefits, unemployment benefits, food stamps and social security benefits. If it means there's nothing left over for our own kids, then so be it. They'll understand, right?
How stupid are the Republicans?? Just extend the tax break for those under 250,000 and do it NOW. If eveyone's rates go up because we are beholden to billionaires we will get destroyed in two years at the elections.
Republicans don't learn. Its very annoying.
yeah, & don't worry about making any spending cuts at all, huh sport?
The sheer stupidity of the electorate will cause a crisis caused by democrats - with help from the GOP - to be blamed on Republicans.
asfasdfasdf wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:You don't seem to understand that you've got a moderate republican in the White House right now
You are one sick fuck.
It's the truth. Barack Obama's name might as well be Nelson Rockefeller because that's who he's in line with.
abolish liberal ignorance wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:I'd prefer an amendment to the Constitution that bars companies or individuals from contributing to a politician's campaign for national office.
Who cares what you prefer?
The guy who tried to insinuate my idea for improving the state of the country, that's who.
crushed by the burden wrote:
asfasdfasdf wrote:Their taxes should not be raised just because liberals think they have room in their budget to suffer a little more.Oh no, but we must budget appropriately so we can pay for everyone's health care benefits, unemployment benefits, food stamps and social security benefits. If it means there's nothing left over for our own kids, then so be it. They'll understand, right?
You can do this the easy way and take one of those dimes out of your pocket to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Or you can do this the hard way, and keep ratcheting up the disparity between the haves and have nots until the poor people come and try to take your stuff out of desperation. Then you can pay to house them in prison (much more expensive). Countries with huge disparities between the haves and have nots don't tend to be the most pleasant or stable of societies.
great idea. Let's declare war on poverty and spend trillions over the next 50 years on entitlement programs to deal with this "disparity".
Oh wait......derrrrrr.....dduuuuuhhhhhh......we already did..
Jeff Wigand wrote:
You can do this the easy way and take one of those dimes out of your pocket to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Or you can do this the hard way, and keep ratcheting up the disparity between the haves and have nots until the poor people come and try to take your stuff out of desperation. Then you can pay to house them in prison (much more expensive). Countries with huge disparities between the haves and have nots don't tend to be the most pleasant or stable of societies.
Ummm.... I already pay exorbitant taxes to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security. There already exist plenty of government-financed programs to help people without health care, stable employment and retirement money. The most difficult pill for me to swallow is the allegation that I don't pay enough in taxes already to mitigate the disparity between the haves and "have nots".
POMPATUS OF LOVE wrote:
yeah, & don't worry about making any spending cuts at all, huh sport?
The sheer stupidity of the electorate will cause a crisis caused by democrats - with help from the GOP - to be blamed on Republicans.
Republicans do not really care about spending cuts or deficits at all.
They only care about low taxes.
They would sooner agree to increased spending and keeping all of the tax cuts over maintaining the same spending and letting taxes go up on a small portion of people.
Obama could offer a 50% reduction in all discretionary spending to go with a $5 increase in taxes on all individuals with a billion dollars of income and the Republicans would turn it down.
crushed by the burden wrote:
Ummm.... I already pay exorbitant taxes to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security. There already exist plenty of government-financed programs to help people without health care, stable employment and retirement money. The most difficult pill for me to swallow is the allegation that I don't pay enough in taxes already to mitigate the disparity between the haves and "have nots".
There are not "Haves" and "have nots" in this country. There are "Haves" and "Have Mores"
People don't realize how good they have it in this country with the entitlement programs already in place.
If you make 250k then pay your F U C K I N G fair share or move to Israel to live a Nazi life.
bye BYE you Nazi wrote:
If you make 250k then pay your F U C K I N G fair share or move to Israel to live a Nazi life.
Agreed. But their "fair share" is 0%.
POMPATUS OF LOVE wrote:
great idea. Let's declare war on poverty and spend trillions over the next 50 years on entitlement programs to deal with this "disparity".
Oh wait......derrrrrr.....dduuuuuhhhhhh......we already did..
The problem is that everyone wants those programs but they don't want to pay for them. It's a symptom of the problem the US has with education.
We can sit here and argue this all day, but the truth is that our government is spending like a drunken sailor and it is simply not sustainable in any sense of the word.
You think it is bad when people don't get entitlements? Wait until they have been getting them and you take them away.
All of you lower middle class folks who criticize the rich don't get it. You'll have your homes attacked as well. Hell, yours will the be the first to get looted.
You think that won't happen? Go read about the NYC Draft riots towards the end of the Civil War. Hell, go watch Gangs of New York and do some reading on Tamminy Hall. People are filthy animals. The last 100 years have been a deviation from the norm. Even with that time we had WW1 and WW2, horrible inhumane atrocities.
Just wait. Roving gangs cannot be stopped, especially when the government thinks they are owed something!
Jeff Wigand wrote:
You can do this the easy way and take one of those dimes out of your pocket to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Or you can do this the hard way, and keep ratcheting up the disparity between the haves and have nots until the poor people come and try to take your stuff out of desperation. Then you can pay to house them in prison (much more expensive). Countries with huge disparities between the haves and have nots don't tend to be the most pleasant or stable of societies.
Yes, the welfare state has worked so well:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-statecrushed by the burden wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:You can do this the easy way and take one of those dimes out of your pocket to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Or you can do this the hard way, and keep ratcheting up the disparity between the haves and have nots until the poor people come and try to take your stuff out of desperation. Then you can pay to house them in prison (much more expensive). Countries with huge disparities between the haves and have nots don't tend to be the most pleasant or stable of societies.
Ummm.... I already pay exorbitant taxes to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security. There already exist plenty of government-financed programs to help people without health care, stable employment and retirement money. The most difficult pill for me to swallow is the allegation that I don't pay enough in taxes already to mitigate the disparity between the haves and "have nots".
You and I would probably disagree on your use of the word "exorbitant" but putting that aside, there is a lot of money that could be better spent. If, for example, we cut DoD spending to something around 2% of GDP, that would free up about $250 billion per year, and the US would still be spending three times what China spends.
Hilarious wrote:
We can sit here and argue this all day, but the truth is that our government is spending like a drunken sailor and it is simply not sustainable in any sense of the word.
Out debt problem is almost entirely Medicare.
Which party just ran party just ran a campaign centered around attacking the other for a plan that reduced Medicare spending by almost $1 trillion over 10 years?
Republicans and almost everyone in the Tea Party are not serious about reducing the debt. They just want to cut taxes, continue corporate welfare, continue spending trillions on the elderly, and dismantle the programs that invest in infrastructure and our people.
Sagarin wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:You can do this the easy way and take one of those dimes out of your pocket to supplement the lives of those with less in the way of health care, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Or you can do this the hard way, and keep ratcheting up the disparity between the haves and have nots until the poor people come and try to take your stuff out of desperation. Then you can pay to house them in prison (much more expensive). Countries with huge disparities between the haves and have nots don't tend to be the most pleasant or stable of societies.
Yes, the welfare state has worked so well:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state
Sagarin,
I'm genuinely interested in this because having read my fair share of threads here, I respect your posts as having thought behind them, even though I almost always disagree with their premises.
My question for you is this: what country or countries do you see as a model for the US to work towards, with respect to how the government collects and spends the money of its citizens?