|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 8:14:33 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Ron Paul is the solution for this one. Even if you waved a magic wand and he was President today you still have 535 idiots in Congress who can't find their butts with both hands and a road map that you have to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by King of Kings on Jul 26, 2011 9:04:02 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Ron Paul is the solution for this one. Even if you waved a magic wand and he was President today you still have 535 idiots in Congress who can't find their butts with both hands and a road map that you have to deal with. No shit, huh? We could elect the greatest president to ever live but all of the morons in Congress would stop any sort of positive event from happening if it hinders their desires.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 12:32:10 GMT -5
Typical. Let's tax the rich even more. Yes, let's do it. They are paying less now than they did in the 90s. Rich people are saying to tax them more. Gates, Buffet, but I'm guessing because they are liberal that it doesn't matter that they say that. We can't go the Orrin Hatch way of the poor and middle class having to pay even more. They are barely making it as it is and we want to add more to their plate because we can't go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich because that's socialism or some bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 12:40:30 GMT -5
Typical. Let's tax the rich even more. Yes, let's do it. They are paying less now than they did in the 90s. Rich people are saying to tax them more. Gates, Buffet, but I'm guessing because they are liberal that it doesn't matter that they say that. We can't go the Orrin Hatch way of the poor and middle class having to pay even more. They are barely making it as it is and we want to add more to their plate because we can't go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich because that's socialism or some bullpoop. We need to take deep, deep, deep spending cuts that neither side is willing to take. The problem with raising taxes is it's never ever temporary. And you can't tax corporations in the first place as they simply pass the extra costs along to the consumers.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 12:46:29 GMT -5
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Ron Paul is the solution for this one. Even if you waved a magic wand and he was President today you still have 535 idiots in Congress who can't find their butts with both hands and a road map that you have to deal with. Ron Paul becoming President would mean that he's not going to sign these god awful bills that come in. But more importantly, it'd mean a change in philosophy of the American people toward economic responsibility. That is actually far more important, in the long-run. There isn't a magic solution that will fix this, it's going to take time. But if debt is the problem, why the hell would we want MORE of it? It's illogical.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 12:47:17 GMT -5
Yes, let's do it. They are paying less now than they did in the 90s. Rich people are saying to tax them more. Gates, Buffet, but I'm guessing because they are liberal that it doesn't matter that they say that. We can't go the Orrin Hatch way of the poor and middle class having to pay even more. They are barely making it as it is and we want to add more to their plate because we can't go back to the Clinton era tax rates for the rich because that's socialism or some bullpoop. We need to take deep, deep, deep spending cuts that neither side is willing to take. The problem with raising taxes is it's never ever temporary. And you can't tax corporations in the first place as they simply pass the extra costs along to the consumers. I'm fine with spending cuts as long as it is not to Social Security or Medicare. Corporations are people now. They should pay their fair share. Maybe we should go back to the JFK tax rates.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 12:47:17 GMT -5
And you can't tax corporations in the first place as they simply pass the extra costs along to the consumers. This is the cruel hoax that people don't seem to get. Bravo.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 12:49:13 GMT -5
And you can't tax corporations in the first place as they simply pass the extra costs along to the consumers. This is the cruel hoax that people don't seem to get. Bravo. And it's ridiculous. A lot of billion dollar corporations pay no taxes at all, make billions in profit yet they still increase prices. The way we bend over for corporations in this country is sickening.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 12:56:13 GMT -5
We need to take deep, deep, deep spending cuts that neither side is willing to take. The problem with raising taxes is it's never ever temporary. And you can't tax corporations in the first place as they simply pass the extra costs along to the consumers. I'm fine with spending cuts as long as it is not to Social Security or Medicare. That's a lovely sentiment except that Social Security and Medicare make up half of spending. You can't make spending cuts if you are completely unwilling to make cuts to the thing that is consuming half of your income. What if I came to you for financial advice and you looked at my budget and found that I was spending half of everything I earned on one thing? Would you not advise me to seriously cut that one thing?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 12:56:30 GMT -5
And it's ridiculous. A lot of billion dollar corporations pay no taxes at all, make billions in profit yet they still increase prices. The way we bend over for corporations in this country is sickening. We can't STOP them from raising their prices, though. The thing we need to do is stop with this ridiculous notion that making rich individuals and/or businesses pay more is going to fix this problem. It's not. The ONLY way we can fix this problem is by coming to the realization that we are going to have to stop letting the government do everything.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 12:59:31 GMT -5
And it's ridiculous. A lot of billion dollar corporations pay no taxes at all, make billions in profit yet they still increase prices. The way we bend over for corporations in this country is sickening. We can't STOP them from raising their prices, though. The thing we need to do is stop with this ridiculous notion that making rich individuals and/or businesses pay more is going to fix this problem. It's not. The ONLY way we can fix this problem is by coming to the realization that we are going to have to stop letting the government do everything. That's not going to happen. We have to be realistic. The government is not going to stop doing everything. It's still bullcrapand they are blackmailing us. "Don't raise our taxes or even make us pay any taxes because if you do, you'll all pay." Why was our economy good under JFK with the marginal tax rate at 70%?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 13:01:21 GMT -5
Honestly, we really need to overhaul the way we do government completely. It's just gotten insane. We have 535 people plus the President and all his cabinet members. We have to get a majority of them to come to some sort of consensus before we do anything. It's just an insane way of doing things. No one would ever dream of running any sort of business this way. Why can we not look at how some of the really big multi-national companies run things and completely re-structure everything?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 13:01:26 GMT -5
I'm fine with spending cuts as long as it is not to Social Security or Medicare. That's a lovely sentiment except that Social Security and Medicare make up half of spending. You can't make spending cuts if you are completely unwilling to make cuts to the thing that is consuming half of your income. What if I came to you for financial advice and you looked at my budget and found that I was spending half of everything I earned on one thing? Would you not advise me to seriously cut that one thing? It also depends on what that one thing is. If you are spending half on cigarettes then yes, I'd say to seriously cut it. If you are spending it something that keeps you from being homeless or from going without your medication or something you need to survive then I would not say cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 13:14:05 GMT -5
That's a lovely sentiment except that Social Security and Medicare make up half of spending. You can't make spending cuts if you are completely unwilling to make cuts to the thing that is consuming half of your income. What if I came to you for financial advice and you looked at my budget and found that I was spending half of everything I earned on one thing? Would you not advise me to seriously cut that one thing? It also depends on what that one thing is. If you are spending half on cigarettes then yes, I'd say to seriously cut it. If you are spending it something that keeps you from being homeless or from going without your medication or something you need to survive then I would not say cut it. It doesn't matter what it's being spent on. It's still half of a paycheck. It's not sustainable at all. Raising revenues is not long term answer here. It's stupid spending and you cannot out earn stupid. We've seen professional athletes prove that time and time again. They earn $20 mil a year and 5-10 years after they retire they're bankrupt. Stupidity comes back to bite you every single time. That's exactly what's happening now. You have to cut it. You have to phase it out and get rid of it if possible. You have to look long term and not just to the next election.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 13:15:25 GMT -5
The bottom line is that we can't just take care of people because they don't have things. It sucks, but that's the truth. When people are irresponsible and do not take control of their own well-being, we cannot be held hostage by their poor decisions. There are people who really need help, who physically or mentally are unable to care for themselves. We should take care of these people and help them get jobs (if they are able to do anything). But other than that, I pretty much say 'em. I know it's a hard way of looking at things, but it's kind of the mentality we need to have if we want to be realistic with what it's going to take to get out of this situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 13:17:44 GMT -5
The bottom line is that we can't just take care of people because they don't have things. It sucks, but that's the truth. When people are irresponsible and do not take control of their own well-being, we cannot be held hostage by their poor decisions. There are people who really need help, who physically or mentally are unable to care for themselves. We should take care of these people and help them get jobs (if they are able to do anything). But other than that, I pretty much say 'em. I know it's a hard way of looking at things, but it's kind of the mentality we need to have if we want to be realistic with what it's going to take to get out of this situation. I'll agree with you on that one.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 13:20:38 GMT -5
It also depends on what that one thing is. If you are spending half on cigarettes then yes, I'd say to seriously cut it. If you are spending it something that keeps you from being homeless or from going without your medication or something you need to survive then I would not say cut it. It doesn't matter what it's being spent on. It's still half of a paycheck. It's not sustainable at all. Raising revenues is not long term answer here. It's stupid spending and you cannot out earn stupid. We've seen professional athletes prove that time and time again. They earn $20 mil a year and 5-10 years after they retire they're bankrupt. Stupidity comes back to bite you every single time. That's exactly what's happening now. You have to cut it. You have to phase it out and get rid of it if possible. You have to look long term and not just to the next election. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...you would not hear of that party again in our political history." - President Eisenhower You cannot get rid of Social Security or Medicare, it just can't happen. I know you and Kliq hate the idea that people need it but they do and we can't just let them starve or not get their medicine or go homeless because it's a terrible thing to help our citizens in that way.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 13:26:32 GMT -5
It doesn't matter what it's being spent on. It's still half of a paycheck. It's not sustainable at all. Raising revenues is not long term answer here. It's stupid spending and you cannot out earn stupid. We've seen professional athletes prove that time and time again. They earn $20 mil a year and 5-10 years after they retire they're bankrupt. Stupidity comes back to bite you every single time. That's exactly what's happening now. You have to cut it. You have to phase it out and get rid of it if possible. You have to look long term and not just to the next election. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...you would not hear of that party again in our political history." - President Eisenhower You cannot get rid of Social Security or Medicare, it just can't happen. I know you and Kliq hate the idea that people need it but they do and we can't just let them starve or not get their medicine or go homeless because it's a terrible thing to help our citizens in that way. Neither one of us said that we shouldn't take care of those who are disabled and cannot work. We're opposed to giving money to the lazy s who can work, but don't for whatever reason. We simply cannot afford it. That's what it comes down to. We don't have the money for it any more.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 13:30:18 GMT -5
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...you would not hear of that party again in our political history." - President Eisenhower You cannot get rid of Social Security or Medicare, it just can't happen. I know you and Kliq hate the idea that people need it but they do and we can't just let them starve or not get their medicine or go homeless because it's a terrible thing to help our citizens in that way. Neither one of us said that we shouldn't take care of those who are disabled and cannot work. We're opposed to giving money to the lazy s who can work, but don't for whatever reason. We simply cannot afford it. That's what it comes down to. We don't have the money for it any more. You said to end it and he said to get rid of it for everyone who isn't severely disabled. Lazy? Yeah, that 75 year old widow sure is a lazy bitch rolling in all that government cash.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 13:34:10 GMT -5
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security...you would not hear of that party again in our political history." - President Eisenhower You cannot get rid of Social Security or Medicare, it just can't happen. I know you and Kliq hate the idea that people need it but they do and we can't just let them starve or not get their medicine or go homeless because it's a terrible thing to help our citizens in that way. You can't just eliminate it. It has to be phased out so as to ween people off of it and get them understanding, like you and I do, that it will not be available for them. These people need to plan accordingly. If that means spending less money throughout their lives, then that is what they need to do... Everyone posting on this board is in the same situation when it comes to Social Security. It is not logical to think that it will be available for us when we get there. Quite frankly, Social Security doesn't work anyway for a lot of people. I've told this story before, but my best friend is about as physically handicapped as anyone can possibly imagine. He has absolutely no muscle and literally needs to use both arms to press a button on a keyboard. You know how much money he gets per month? $690.This is intended to pay for his housing, his food, his electricity, additional medication and any other bills that he may incur. The VERY CHEAPEST places to live around here are like $500/mo., and they are disgusting. How is he supposed to live off of the morsels of money he gets? He can't. Right now, he has to live with his parents and would not be able to survive without them and his friends who have taken care of him. This is what happens when the government gets involved with things. A good idea (helping people who cannot help themselves) gets ed up by people taking advantage of it. The majority of people on Social Security are physically able to work. We cannot keep up with this idiotic idea that Social Security is a long-term solution or even that it is a short-term solution for a lot of people.
|
|