Printable View
Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.
The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415111]Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.
The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers? [/QUOTE]Well said. Anyone paying taxes should wonder whether the recipient of those taxes are good stewards of their money. The answer is obvious. The government spends our money like drunken sailors. Only worse.
The issue is not income. If the government can not live on what it extorts from us it only emphasizes what fiscal morons they are. The issue is spending. The taxpayer probably receives less than 5 cents of value for every dollar extorted by the government.
I will say it here. Don't raise the debt ceiling. It will only encourage government to continue its wasteful spending. We used to call it tough love. Well, with the government there is no love involved. Now we we call it 'get the fuc* out of our wallets'.
P.S. The scare tactic against not raising the debt ceiling is that wasteful government spending is essential to the economy. What bull sh**.
Not raising the debt ceiling will not effect businesses. Businesses are fiscally conservative and have to be to survive. Businesses are probably as fiscally solvent now as they have ever been
Not raising the debt ceiling will not affect individuals. Individuals already know they cannot spend money they donīt have.
The only entity that will be affected by not raising the debt ceiling is that corpulent, obese, fat ridden 2000 pound slob known as the government.
īThe business of America is businessī Calvin Coolidge. Letīs get lean and mean again and quit bowing to those #@$%$#*@&# Chinese.
It's far too early to count chickens. Nonetheless, if one were to approximate chickens, this is a pretty good indication that Republicans will need to gain just 2-3 more seats in 2012 to take back the Senate. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/analysis_what_conrads_retirement_means_for_2012_108573.html[/url]
Dorgan's retirement means there are 22 other Dems who will be running in 2012, and only 10 Republican seats (including Hutchinson's). Translation: It will be very hard for Dems to make any gains, and much easier for Republicans to pick off, say. 10% of the remainder.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415111]Shrinking the governemnt starts with US the taxpayer who funds it all. The people who will yell the loudest are the ones who are on the receiving end of all the benefits. Not the Taxpayer who pays the bill.[/QUOTE]More conservative drivel. Benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare have plenty of support from taxpayers. Do you know why? Because taxpayers paid into those programs and expect them to be in place if and when they need them.
[QUOTE]The polls are pretty clear, people want less spending and smaller government. Esten can only cobble together less than 18% by perverting a poll and then calling the poll flawed. Flawed because it does not come up with what you wanted to see no matter how you try to bend the numbers?[/QUOTE]No, adding 9% and 9% is not less than 18%, it's 18%. And it is not perversion, just simple addition of two separate groups which both favored raising taxes as part of their preferred approach to lowering deficits. Your arguments in the past were filled with errors, and I see nothing has changed.
That 18% becomes 33% when the poll question is if they are willing to pay more taxes, rather than what is their preferred approach.
Just so you know, nobody is disputing that most people want less spending. I am in that group as well.
But another key point is that most people want the rich to contribute more to balancing budgets. We saw that in the earlier poll showing 61% support for raising taxes on the rich (consistent with prior polls). And we saw that in El Alamo's poll showing 63% support for reducing Social Security for the rich.
The polls are clear on how Americans feel when asked about the rich. I have no need to distort them, they speak for themselves.
It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.
Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist
Package,
The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.
What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?
I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.
The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.
So many other posts in the last few days:
[quote]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.
Rock Harders[/quote]
[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 415067]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]I have to admit that I am I complete agreement with Rock Harders. I don't think Bush could have fucked up anymore than he did. Especially with those 2 wars. I wish Obama would step up to the plate and pull the plug on that disaster called Afghanistan.
The interesting issue is why some people with conservative views vote for Democratic while others with a liberal leaning vote Republican. Probably the same reason some people are Yankee fans and others are Red Sox fans. We have three pasttimes that occupy the masses - sports, religion and politics. Take your pick.
And at the end of day it really doesn't matter who we elect because we never receive what we expect. Clinton turned out to be the most fiscally prudent president since Eisenhower. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor thanks to his compulsion (gracias a Cheney) to send troops to every corner of the globe.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415124]It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.
Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist
Package,
The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.
What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?
I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.
The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.
So many other posts in the last few days:It started at 1. 3 billion or less and did not end at trillions? Something like O'Bama's inherited 1. 3 trillion debt.
Or are You, Senile or Do You Have Alzheimer's? Just like Fox has a Racist Republican Policy, which is a Racist
Package,
The "Health Care Package for All" Is not the "O'Bama Health Care Package" as Fox Calls It.
What does it cost you to visit to an Argentine Doctor?
I went 3 or 4 times, and I paid US$35-40.
The USA has to pay 3-4 times more than Europe.
So many other posts in the last few days:
[quote]The simple fact about the Bush Administration is that he (they) were handed a massive federal budget SURPLUS and managed to turn it into an even more massive budget DEFICIT. He (they) engaged the US in two opened ended wars which will NEVER have the desired outcome and which are still ongoing and are still draining the federal coffers. The easy sleazy credit that the Bush Administration put into place after the post-9/11 mini recession was responsible for the so-called growth you are referring to; this was in fact not growth at all, just a giant bubble that burst at the end of his (their) administration. The vast majority of US citizens were worse off at the end of the Bush Administration than they were when it began. The economy, and country as a whole, were indisputably worse off at the end than they were at the beginning of the Bush Administration.
Rock Harders[/quote][/QUOTE]Hello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? We were dragged into a war with an international organization that had vowed to attack us again, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?
Duh!
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 415127]Hello! Our country was ATTACKED on 9-11-01, remember? Our economy was instantly paralyzed, remember?
Duh!
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]If you went back and researched the actual statistics on the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the US economy in late 2001 and into 2002, you would note they were minimal and of very short duration, even in New York City, with the exception of the area around ground zero.
The Bush decision to attack Iraq and create the money sucking, mostly useless Homeland Security behemoth is how he began the destruction of the sound fiscal inheritance that Clinton had bequeathed him. He completed the destruction with his tax cuts for the super-rich and a trillion dollar give away to big pharma disguised as a drug program for seniors.
You are a fucking idiot plain and simple who mouths foolish dogma and wouldn't know a fact, if one appeared in your bed one night. (This last comment is in keeping with the tradition of ad hominem attacks perfected by the right wing over recent years!)
Esten, I have NEVER said Medicare or Social Security should be cut for the exact reason you stated, people paid in for the benefit. What I have said needed to be axed was MEDICAID and WELFARE, government vote garnering programs invented by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Esten, you and your liberal friends please keep your rose colored glasses on and remain in denial until after November 2012 and the conservatives sweep your folks in Washington from office. Even Democrats admit it was about cutting spending and shrinking government at least the ones that are left. Get a grip big guy
For those interested, this is a pretty good early rundown of what's in store in the Senate in 2012:
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/20/assessing_the_2012_senate_battlefield_108599.html[/url]
Regardless of what else happens, Democrats are extremely vulnerable there.
It is way too early to predict the outcomes of these elections. The link above just gives an early glimpse of which way some of the battlefields tilt. The jockeying will start in about 10 months as the primaries begin to gather steam, and the elections themselves are just a year after that.
As most already know, the effort to "repeal" ObamaCare outright is largely symbolic until after the next election. They may be able to kill individual pieces of it; they can delay and deny funding some of it; they might even get a vote on the individual mandate, which would be a huge win, but which would be met with a veto regardless. But, there's no shot at repealing all of it until after 2012. It may get struck down legally, but it won't be legislatively repealed before the next election.
The important thing, though, is to hold Democrats' feet to the fire so that they're held to account in 2012. The interesting thing will be to watch the squirming of those Democrats who are listed as "Vulnerable" or "Potentially Vulnerable" on that link. Their machinations and doublespeak will increase exponentially in relation to the proximity of the election, just as it did this last go-round.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 415132]Esten, I have NEVER said Medicare or Social Security should be cut for the exact reason you stated, people paid in for the benefit. What I have said needed to be axed was MEDICAID and WELFARE, government vote garnering programs invented by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Esten, you and your liberal friends please keep your rose colored glasses on and remain in denial until after November 2012 and the conservatives sweep your folks in Washington from office. Even Democrats admit it was about cutting spending and shrinking government at least the ones that are left. Get a grip big guy[/QUOTE]Doppel, I did not see where you weighed in before on Medicare and Social Security, but am glad to see we agree on this.
There is another poll out today with some fairly detailed questions about how to cut the deficit. Of interest, when asked about specific potential benefit changes to these two programs, the top choice among all groups (including Republicans) were for options where the rich take more of the burden. More evidence of this theme.
Top change to Medicare benefits: Raising the premiums high-income Medicare recipients have to pay.
Top change to Social Security benefits: Reducing benefits for Americans with higher incomes.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/20/us/poll-graphic.html[/url]
Again, liberals / Democrats agree spending cuts are important and are not against them. We will just differ on where the cuts should be made. You support cuts to Medicaid and Welfare, so let me ask you a question. I know one of the conservative arguments is that some people abuse these programs and don't take enough personal responsibility. But I'm sure you also recognize there are many honest, ethical people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are willing to work to get out of that situation but can't get a job that pays enough (especially in this economy where 5 people are competing for every job). So, you are perfectly fine with taking away benefits from people at the bottom of the ladder, and thereby likely increasing poverty, disease and death in this country, when there is an alternative i.e. a small tax increase on people who can afford it? You would rather protect tax cuts for the rich, than protect Americans who have fallen on hard times?
You see Esten that is the difference between the Left & the Right, the answer to everything is more government and more taxes for the Left.
Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?
Now if I advocate cutting Medicaid and Welfare I want to push people into poverty and kill them? I love the logic. I know it has never occured to you if you took the benefit away they might actually get up and go do something when the checks stoped coming in?
The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.
Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]Let me see if I get this right, you want high income earners to pay more but take less from social security and medicare? How is that "fair"?[/quote]DG,
You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]Let me give you one example of the "good" Welfare has done in the Black community, the very community it was intended to help! Check studies of the Black family unit and out of wedlock birth rate prior to 1965. Now look at those two items today. Yes all that "caring" has really helped nearly destroy one segment of our population and reduce it to dependency on the government. Great Job![/QUOTE]You already know the liberal answer to this one too, which is "[I]These statistics would have been much worse if we had [U]NOT[/U] enacted these programs.[/I]", an unprovable statement just like the liberal's claims about the effect of Obama's 1 trillion economic stimulus program.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;415145]The United States became the greatest power on earth, respected by our friends and feared by our foes without Welfare and Medicaid. These areas were left to states and private citizens or groups to take care of and we muddled through. Since Johnson's great society and the introduction of Welfare and its step child Medicaid I would argue we have declined as a nation since removing the need to work for what you get.[/QUOTE]No truer words ever were spoken.
1. Not so long ago, giving and support for the out-of-work and down-and-out were the responsibility of families, communities, civic and church groups. Those who "got" were appreciative and were expected to live up to their end of the bargain: Do what you can so you won't need support anymore. Usually, folks weren't asking for handouts. They were offering to do some work for something, anything, and folks reciprocated when they could.
2. Liberals took this out of their hands and put government in charge. As a consequence, there wasn't much of a social compact left, no quid pro quo,"I give and you'll do what you can to improve your situation."
3. As a result of #2, the groups in #1 no longer felt responsible for giving and support. Some still help out. But, it's viewed as government's responsibility.
4. As a result of #2, many of those on the dole have lost sight of their obligation to do what they can to improve their situation. What they "get" doesn't directly affect anyone else. It's just government money.
I hear this ALL the time on the radio when they're interviewing out-of-work folks. Classic examples are former employees of banks who used to make $100, 000 a year, but they're turning down jobs paying $60, 000 because they're waiting for something better to come along. Managers who used to make $60, 000 are turning down $17 hour jobs because they don't pay enough. They'd rather stay on the dole than do what they can to improve their situation. Most claim they're actively looking for work, but virtually all of them have been out of work for two years and won't lower themselves to do anything they view as menial work or below their former station in life. They view themselves as victims of the economy, which is the government's fault.
It is a problem, and it's an unintended albeit direct consequence of programs like medicaid, rent subsidies, food stamps and unemployment benefits. No one starts out life aspiring to be on these programs. But, once there, many find a comfortable existence. They don't thrive; they just survive. And, they come to view their job as figuring out how to work the system rather than figuring out how to get out of the system. When you get generations who have gone through life this way, then you've got a real problem. That's where we are now.
There are many articles discussing the problems with ObamaCare. For anyone who's interested, this one's about the best succinct summary that I've seen regarding the phony "deficit reduction" argument being offered by Democrats: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257625/why-everything-starts-repeal-charles-krauthammer[/url]
Charles Krauthammer usually hits the nail on the head. The guy rarely misses.