Mountain Buzz banner

Poop Politics

22K views 155 replies 29 participants last post by  Schutzie 
#1 ·
The whole office thought this was definitely worth sharing. Some folks just got off of a Grand Canyon trip who lost their launch date during the shutdown but then stuck it out and got on the river as soon as the government opened back up. They made their views on the situation pretty clear through some creative groover art!
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#3 ·
At what point do trillion dollar deficits begin to impact your economic future? Just a thought- Don't bother looking at reality.... just keep on keepin' on and drinking the kool aid

The ones we should be mad at are ourselves for allowing the government to tell us when we can and cannot use OUR resources. The budget NEEDS to get fixed- rafters just got caught in the middle of that. If we had real leadership in DC we wouldn't be facing either of these issues- VOTE EM ALL OUT, regardless of which side of the aisle they, or you, fall on.
 
#4 ·
First off, the deficit has been cut in half from when Obama took office from 1 trillion to 500 billion. Obviously, the debt is still increasing, which needs to be addressed. With all due respect, how the hell can you justify defaulting on the public debt in the name of the public debt?! This would increase borrowing costs on the national debt, thereby increasing the debt even more than otherwise, along with destroying the economy. This is moronic at best, a terrorist act at worst! There are much better ways to reduce the national debt than increase it!
 
#6 ·
Like... NOT INCREASING THE DEBT BY DEFAULTING ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! Folks this isn't complicated!

In all seriousness, military spending, medicare, and social security all need to be cut. I have my favorite priorities, but they all need some trimming. Everyone, especially millionaires and billionaires need to pay more taxes!!!! Be patriotic, for god's sake!! We need to grow our economy by investing in our people in specialized education because more taxpayers = more revenue and less cuts. Simpson-Bowels Commission was a missed opportunity! A vibrant domestic energy development program that expands the use of natural gas for transportation would drastically reduce our trade deficit! Too much money is in the hands of the few! If money is more equally distributed among the populations, more taxes will be paid to local governments in the form of sales taxes that will allow states and counties to make better investments in infrastructure and education. After all 80% of the wealth in America is in the hands of the top 10% of Americans! They're not using that money to purchase more goods, after all you only need 1 or 2 pillows no matter how rich you ma be.
 
#22 ·
Where to begin............
Judicious cuts to defense spending and Medicare I agree with. Cuts to Social Security as well, provided they don't cut benefits I and my employer paid for. See, Social Security is a contract between my employer, me, and the government. The government can't break that contract without my approval.

Everyone needs to pay MORE taxes?? Fine; provided budget cuts and tax increases go hand in hand; giving those robbers more money is like giving an addict the keys to the drug cabinet. The one thing I liked that Romney said was to cap deductions at $25,000 for everyone. Take whatever deductions you can up to that limit, then pay on what's left. See, no one's Ox gets gored that way.

The rich need to pay more?? How much more?? You do know that the 1% already pay 70% of the total income tax bill, right?

More tax payers?? YES; but specialized training in what? And who pays for that, and who decides if that training has a good return on the investment? Too many highly educated but unemployable people saddled with college debt now.

Redistribute the wealth?? Why, what the hell did I do to deserve a piece of Bill Gates, or Warren Buffets money?

I mean, you want to talk redistribution? I don't have a whitewater raft. Why the hell can't I have yours? How many life jackets you got?? I could use a new one..........

I saw somewhere that each taxpayer "owes" $1.1 MILLION to offset the debt. If we can't get those robbers in Washington to stop spending until the debt is under control we need to vote them out of there. I'm all for paying "My fair share" (whatever that is) but dammit, I expect everyone else to as well. Including the "47%", whoever they are.
 
#7 ·
We could only pay congress only while they were in session. Or maybe only if they were productive, like the rest on the world. We could also make them use the same health care that they vote for. We could take all the campaign finance money that comes from undisclosed sources And put it twards the national debt.
 
#8 ·
We could only pay congress only while they were in session. Or maybe only if they were productive, like the rest on the world. .
As a side not...we just missed that opportunity. Their pay can only be changed during elections, as mandated by the Constitution. Wonder if we could actually get enough of them to vote such a measure or something similar into existence? I know when I was a delegate ethics bills were nearly impossible to pass or even get enough citizens motivated to get the required signatures.

Phillip
 
#9 ·
I think all the pay arguments are kind of silly. Think of how many kayakers go so long without real income. Think about how few congressmen aren't extremely wealthy BEFORE they take office. Then consider congressmen make significantly more money after they retire when they go to work for whatever special interest group they made the most happy while in office. In a sense if you attempt to place a financial burden on congressmen then you only provide an provide an incentive to fatten up their retirement by playing the special interest game even more.

I'm fairly certain congressional pay even with with staff accounted for has to be a drop in the bucket of our nations finances. These are our elected leaders and I'm not afraid of paying them as such. They are making much less than they would in the private sector anyways.
 
#10 ·
Genn,
I am sure that the dollars per hour or salary per year is indeed negligible. I think my point is more rooted in the bases that compensating people for their nonproductive behavior breeds a continued status quote. I think that everyone on either side of the issues would agree that continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results is a bit of a stretch. If the process never changes how can results ever be in the people's interest?

On that note, Everyone do their snow dance so we can get the water stored for spring. Here's hoping for a 10ft year on the MFS.
 
#14 ·
Agreed status quote [sic] isn't the solution. I just think congressional salaries are the last place we should consider reforming and campaign financing should be the first. Salary adjustments would account for little more than a slap on the wrist for most of these independently wealthy politicians.
 
#25 ·
See, I love the argument that those greedy rascals got rich on our backs, that the government infrastructure helped them get rich. Of course it did; they paid their taxes while they were getting rich, just like the rest of us did. Now that they "made it" they pay even more in taxes, but we that are still riding the public bus think somehow that they "Owe" us even more.
Of course they can afford to pay higher taxes. Of course they would never have gotten filthy rich without the infrastructure. Begs the point.

Where is it written they "owe" us anything more? Surely they don't need 5 mansions, and private jets, and limos and vacations in Fiji every year, but the point is, they had the same opportunity anyone else has been given, the same opportunity to succeed or fail. In my opinion goring the rich for more taxes is simple jealousy and "Not my Ox" thinking. And it's dangerous thinking; leads to socialism.

Before we go after the 1% lets get spending under control, get rid of the public feeding trough, and then march to the mansions with our torches and pitch forks.

And as far as Social Security goes? I remember when I got my first check with SSN taken out, and my dad's comment was; you'll never see a dime of that money; Social Security will be broke before you retire. That was about 1966. Social Security is one of those programs to big to fail. As one of my passengers on a trip once put it; I paid my money; get me a beer.
 
#30 ·
I'm not saying those greedy bastards got rich no our back. I'm saying we setup a system where some people win and some people don't. I think it's in the nature of a democratic republic to follow the popular opinion while respecting and protecting the minority opinion. In a similar vein I think it's important to have an economic system where most win but those who don't are taken care of anyways. We more or less had that going until the massive shift of wealth to the upper upper tier individuals.

The really sick part is the effective tax rates of the highest income earners is laughably low because of how sieved out our tax policies are.

Bottom line you think socialism is the devil and I would welcome more socialism into our hybrid version of capitalism. I've found government programs to be some of the most beneficial and important parts of my life. To be clear I'm far from a drain on society, pay taxes on a good job, don't have kids in the education system and generally keep my nose clean.

Thank you sincerely for the history lesson on social security. I'll of course follow up on my own but I had no idea it originally was a wholly separate monetary device.
 
#26 ·
One other thing about Social Security. When it was created in 1934 the money paid in was required to be held in a dedicated trust fund separate from other government funds. Until the mid 60's Social Security was never a part of the government budget discussion; it was separate from and not a part of it. This was not a unique concept; there are several programs funded the same way. Unemployment is one of them.

In the mid 60's Johnson ramped up things in Viet Nam a considerable bit. He needed to deal with how best to fund it, or at least cover up the cost. His answer was to "unify" the budget; I.E. grab all that dedicated trust money and roll it into the general federal budget. He got away with this move by making sure that "dedicated" continued to mean "dedicated; to be used only for", but the impact was to bolster the federal budget and move all that money to the bottom line. He couldn't use a dime of that money for his war, but it sure obscured the cost.

That rascal's brilliant sleight of hand has been continued through all subsequent administrations, and the dirty little secret is that while those dedicated trust funds remain sacrosanct, one can "borrow" from them if one can hold one's nose long enough. Clinton, that rascal, in between trysts in the oval office, "borrowed" heavily from the Social Security trust fund to reduce the deficit. Not the debt, but the deficit. See, he "borrowed" from Social Security and put the money into some other budget bucket. Suddenly, the other bucket is more full, and if you look at the Social Security trust, it hasn't changed a bit; still shows all that money in there. Only now, a chunk of it is a slip of paper that says "IOU".

In theory those promissory notes can be called on demand, you know, to pay all those retirement benefits that go out each month. And woe to the politician who decides "we don't gotta really pay that back". They'd be mobbed by silver haired old ladies and gents with canes.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to collecting my Social Security. I have my 401 and my IRA and my annuities, but I paid my money, and now I want Uncle Sam to get me my beer.
 
#27 ·
Where to begin............

General theme of your statements: FUCK YOU! I'VE GOT MINE!

You probably don't believe that your political stance will result in this reality, but make no mistake, it will!

First off, you said the following, "Cuts to Social Security as well, provided they don't cut benefits I and my employer paid for. See, Social Security is a contract between my employer, me, and the government. The government can't break that contract without my approval."

Well actually... your generation voted overwhelming for tax cuts and wars costs that have robbed the social security trust fund. You see, the $2.5 trillion worth of "money" that is supposed to be stored in the Social Security fund has been siphoned off to the Treasury Department to pay for the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts that have cost us $1.285 Trillion to date! Additionally, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars have cost us an estimated $1.48 trillion. Cost of National Security - Notes and Sources

So let's see, the total cost to date of the Bush Tax cuts and Wars have cost at the very least, $2.73 trillion so far! This does not include the interest we'll have to pay on that debt, nor does it consider the money that will be needed to care for our disabled veterans! You see, there's actually NO MONEY in the social security fund! It's actually just IOUs thanks to uninformed conservatives voters like you. Now, the conservative leadership of this country wants to continue to perpetrate fraud on the younger folks, so that "they get theirs" until the system crashes. Oh by the way, the US Government does NOT view your contributions as a "contract". How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

According to a 1960 US Supreme Court ruling, "In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right“ to Social Security benefits. - See more at: How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

Nobody has a contractual earned right to social security benefits." So much for your thought that you have a "right" to social security! You old folks need to share some of the pain too, specifically those who are independently wealthy. It's not okay to vote against tax increases, fight vehemently against tax increases with the Grover Norquist Pledge, and then pass a pile of burning shit onto the next generation that is the result of your unwillingness to do what's necessary to secure the finances of this country!

As was stated previously by Glen, income inequality is massive and threatens the very existence of our democracy! Let's look at the numbers, the top 1 percent of American citizens bring in about 23% of annual earnings. Additionally, the top 1 percent of Americans owns a whopping 34.6% of the nation's wealth! The top 10% of Americans own 80% of the nation's wealth! Furthermore, the top 400 families own more than the bottom 53% of Americans citizens, just 400 families! The bottom 43% of American citizens have less wealth than the 6 heirs to the Walmart fortune! Some of this information can be found in this article, The Great Regression: Robert Reich's New Film Mainstreams the Dangers of Income Inequality

Among nations of the world, we rank 44th out of 88 nations in wealth equality, just behind that great bastion of equality, Nigeria (sarcasm)! Map: How the world

Nigeria has such bad inequality that they won't invest in water wells for their people despite the fact that they're one of the strongest oil producers in the world! We're behind them! So much for America being the land of opportunity!

You're damn fucking right we should tax the rich! They have the money, and thanks to policies like Citizen's United, they use their money to undermine the integrity of our elections to gain even more of the share of the pie. I do believe that ordinary Americans should pay more taxes, but only after they're given living wages that are reflective of productivity increases. Since 1975, productivity has increased by 100% and wages have remained flat for ordinary Americans! CEO pay is now over 840 times the average salary of someone working in their company. That's up from 42 times the average working in 1980! CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

This is morally bankrupt! Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

A while back, the Rethuglicans in congress requested a study be conducted to analyze for a correlation between tax increases on the wealthy and job creation. Here's the study, guess what they found!
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy Top Rates.pdf
I quote the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, "The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

More tax payers?? YES; but specialized training in what? And who pays for that, and who decides if that training has a good return on the investment? Too many highly educated but unemployable people saddled with college debt now.

Training for high tech manufacturing jobs! Germany and Japan both bring in about 20% of the revenue from iphone sales! The US brings in a measly 6% of the revenue. These are both high-wage countries. The difference is that their employees have specific skills needed, which aren't readily available in the US. This is why we need more investment in specific types of education! It should be paid by raising taxes on the rich!

Redistribute the wealth?? Why, what the hell did I do to deserve a piece of Bill Gates, or Warren Buffets money?

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al. pay less money as a percentage of their income than you likely do, if you're still working for a living! Not only is this less than a flat tax would yield, but they PAY LESS AS A PERCENTAGE THAN WORKING AMERICANS! This is called the carried interest loophole which allows the investment class to pay 15% capital gains tax on their investments! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/o...-an-unjust-privilege-for-financiers.html?_r=0

For the record Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't support your taxation views, and both of them advocate that millionaires and billionaires pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes!

I mean, you want to talk redistribution? I don't have a whitewater raft. Why the hell can't I have yours? How many life jackets you got?? I could use a new one..........

Stupid is as stupid does....... after all of this discussion, I don't feel the need to elaborate.

I saw somewhere that each taxpayer "owes" $1.1 MILLION to offset the debt. If we can't get those robbers in Washington to stop spending until the debt is under control we need to vote them out of there. I'm all for paying "My fair share" (whatever that is) but dammit, I expect everyone else to as well. Including the "47%", whoever they are.[/QUOTE]

The robbers in Washington spent your money on tax cuts for people that don't need them and wars. They're planning to take your medicare and social security, NOT your guns... that is until you realize what they've screwed your kids over, then they'll take your angry kids' guns.

By the way, thanks for having such little regard for future generations! I proposed modest things we can do to secure the future of this country and you're unwilling to go along with them because you have the sickness, "Fuck YOU I've GOT MINE" syndrome.

One last thought, here's a graph of federal spending. Ask yourself how you'll balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending when it only accounts for a measly 17% of the Federal Budget? After all, you don't want to cut your benefits which amount to a whoping 45% of the Federal Budget!
File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope your generation is proud of the fact that they're borrowing money they spent long ago on tax cuts and wars to fund their own welfare state. I wouldn't be angry with you except that you're unwilling to compromise on revenue We're currently borrowing to fund past obligations to YOU while we quit investing in education, infrastructure and research and development. You should feel really proud of yourselves. 'MERICA, FUCK YEA! Stupid inbreeds! God Damn Teabaggers!!!

I'm sick of wasting time on ignorant people!
 
#28 ·
Where to begin............

General theme of your statements: FUCK YOU! I'VE GOT MINE!

You probably don't believe that your political stance will result in this reality, but make no mistake, it will!

First off, you said the following, "Cuts to Social Security as well, provided they don't cut benefits I and my employer paid for. See, Social Security is a contract between my employer, me, and the government. The government can't break that contract without my approval."

Well actually... your generation voted overwhelming for tax cuts and wars costs that have robbed the social security trust fund. You see, the $2.5 trillion worth of "money" that is supposed to be stored in the Social Security fund has been siphoned off to the Treasury Department to pay for the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts that have cost us $1.285 Trillion to date! Additionally, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars have cost us an estimated $1.48 trillion. Cost of National Security - Notes and Sources

So let's see, the total cost to date of the Bush Tax cuts and Wars have cost at the very least, $2.73 trillion so far! This does not include the interest we'll have to pay on that debt, nor does it consider the money that will be needed to care for our disabled veterans! You see, there's actually NO MONEY in the social security fund! It's actually just IOUs thanks to uninformed conservatives voters like you. Now, the conservative leadership of this country wants to continue to perpetrate fraud on the younger folks, so that "they get theirs" until the system crashes. Oh by the way, the US Government does NOT view your contributions as a "contract". How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

According to a 1960 US Supreme Court ruling, "In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right“ to Social Security benefits. - See more at: How Your Social Security Money Was Stolen – Where Did the $2.5 Trillion Surplus Go? | AmpedStatus

Nobody has a contractual earned right to social security benefits." So much for your thought that you have a "right" to social security! You old folks need to share some of the pain too, specifically those who are independently wealthy. It's not okay to vote against tax increases, fight vehemently against tax increases with the Grover Norquist Pledge, and then pass a pile of burning shit onto the next generation that is the result of your unwillingness to do what's necessary to secure the finances of this country!

As was stated previously by Glen, income inequality is massive and threatens the very existence of our democracy! Let's look at the numbers, the top 1 percent of American citizens bring in about 23% of annual earnings. Additionally, the top 1 percent of Americans owns a whopping 34.6% of the nation's wealth! The top 10% of Americans own 80% of the nation's wealth! Furthermore, the top 400 families own more than the bottom 53% of Americans citizens, just 400 families! The bottom 43% of American citizens have less wealth than the 6 heirs to the Walmart fortune! Some of this information can be found in this article, The Great Regression: Robert Reich's New Film Mainstreams the Dangers of Income Inequality

Among nations of the world, we rank 44th out of 88 nations in wealth equality, just behind that great bastion of equality, Nigeria (sarcasm)! Map: How the world

Nigeria has such bad inequality that they won't invest in water wells for their people despite the fact that they're one of the strongest oil producers in the world! We're behind them! So much for America being the land of opportunity!

You're damn fucking right we should tax the rich! They have the money, and thanks to policies like Citizen's United, they use their money to undermine the integrity of our elections to gain even more of the share of the pie. I do believe that ordinary Americans should pay more taxes, but only after they're given living wages that are reflective of productivity increases. Since 1975, productivity has increased by 100% and wages have remained flat for ordinary Americans! CEO pay is now over 840 times the average salary of someone working in their company. That's up from 42 times the average working in 1980! CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

This is morally bankrupt! Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

A while back, the Rethuglicans in congress requested a study be conducted to analyze for a correlation between tax increases on the wealthy and job creation. Here's the study, guess what they found!
http://www.dpcc.senate.gov/files/documents/CRSTaxesandtheEconomy Top Rates.pdf
I quote the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, "The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities."

More tax payers?? YES; but specialized training in what? And who pays for that, and who decides if that training has a good return on the investment? Too many highly educated but unemployable people saddled with college debt now.

Training for high tech manufacturing jobs! Germany and Japan both bring in about 20% of the revenue from iphone sales! The US brings in a measly 6% of the revenue. These are both high-wage countries. The difference is that their employees have specific skills needed, which aren't readily available in the US. This is why we need more investment in specific types of education! It should be paid by raising taxes on the rich!

Redistribute the wealth?? Why, what the hell did I do to deserve a piece of Bill Gates, or Warren Buffets money?

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al. pay less money as a percentage of their income than you likely do, if you're still working for a living! Not only is this less than a flat tax would yield, but they PAY LESS AS A PERCENTAGE THAN WORKING AMERICANS! This is called the carried interest loophole which allows the investment class to pay 15% capital gains tax on their investments! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/o...-an-unjust-privilege-for-financiers.html?_r=0

For the record Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't support your taxation views, and both of them advocate that millionaires and billionaires pay more of a percentage of their income in taxes!

I mean, you want to talk redistribution? I don't have a whitewater raft. Why the hell can't I have yours? How many life jackets you got?? I could use a new one..........

Stupid is as stupid does....... after all of this discussion, I don't feel the need to elaborate.

I saw somewhere that each taxpayer "owes" $1.1 MILLION to offset the debt. If we can't get those robbers in Washington to stop spending until the debt is under control we need to vote them out of there. I'm all for paying "My fair share" (whatever that is) but dammit, I expect everyone else to as well. Including the "47%", whoever they are.
The robbers in Washington spent your money on tax cuts for people that don't need them and wars. They're planning to take your medicare and social security, NOT your guns... that is until you realize what they've screwed your kids over, then they'll take your angry kids' guns.

By the way, thanks for having such little regard for future generations! I proposed modest things we can do to secure the future of this country and you're unwilling to go along with them because you have the sickness, "Fuck YOU I've GOT MINE" syndrome.

One last thought, here's a graph of federal spending. Ask yourself how you'll balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending when it only accounts for a measly 17% of the Federal Budget? After all, you don't want to cut your benefits which amount to a whoping 45% of the Federal Budget!
File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2011.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope your generation is proud of the fact that they're borrowing money they spent long ago on tax cuts and wars to fund their own welfare state. I wouldn't be angry with you except that you're unwilling to compromise on revenue We're currently borrowing to fund past obligations to YOU while we quit investing in education, infrastructure and research and development. You should feel really proud of yourselves. 'MERICA, FUCK YEA! Stupid inbreeds! God Damn Teabaggers!!!

I'm sick of wasting time on ignorant people![/QUOTE]

get angry much
 
#29 ·
.......and right away we start the "we/they" arguments.

I didn't vote for Bush. I didn't vote for Obama. "My" generation was perfectly happy turning on, tuning out and having a sexual revolution. That "Police action" in Viet Nam got in the way, but we still managed to have a damn fine time. "We" didn't vote for tax cuts, or for wars. "My" Generation already fought a senseless war. One mismanaged by a high stepping Texan as I recall, who was more concerned with not pissing off the Russians and Chinese than actually accomplishing the mission.

This isn't a "we/they" discussion. It's a "we're fucked if we keep going the way we are" discussion.

Social Security was designed to be a pension. That's how it was sold, that's what it is. I pay money in while I'm working, my employer pays in while I'm working, and when I'm done working I get to collect a check. I have my 401 and my Roth, and my Annuities. But my retirement strategy has always included Social Security. That's the deal. It isn't a "I got mine so fuck you" attitude, it's a "we had a deal, I kept my end of the deal, now you keep yours" attitude. See, I relied on that deal when I was planning for my old age. You want to walk away from your side of the deal when I'm close to retiring? Don't think so.

I saw an interesting article, but damned if I can find it now. One of Obama's former financial advisors basically said that it was pretty clear, to create new jobs, and build the economy, you had to do two things. Ready?

Cut taxes and build stuff.

I'm going to find that article and post it. Cause, in the end she was saying exactly what that robber Reagan said. And doesn't that just cause all the progressive bobble heads to tighten their undies?

Now, lets talk about income "inequality" Yes, I agree, 1% hold 80% of the wealth. So what? How is it that I should get to claim a piece of that? And, if Warren Buffet and Bill Gates think they should pay more they can. They can write a check any time they want to, to the US Treasury, for any amount they want to.

Funny. Haven't seen any news about them actually doing it though.

So here's an idea. Cap deductions at $25K per tax payer. Require that all income earners pay a minimum tax of 1%.

What would that do? Well, first the 1% would get a tax increase. A big one. They can carry their "earned interest" forward.......up to $25K a year. The rest of their income gets taxed.

That was a Romney idea by the way. And I didn't vote for that robber either. I just thought he had a good idea is all.

Here's another idea.
Require a balanced budget be passed every year.
Require that every program have a funding source, and I'm not talking about "general revenues".
You want a new bridge Mr. Senator, how will it be paid for? Specifically. That should take care of at least some of the pork.

I have more, but lets not overload anyone with ideas. Don't want them wasting time on "stupid" if they don't want to.
 
#31 ·
I'd be willing to bet that most of the super rich didn't "make it in this system" Their grand parents did. I'd guess that most of the 1% are filthy rich now because they were born into royalty. Their concept of reality must be skewed because of their privilege. Therefore, they can spend their time puppet mastering the federal government to their further benefit.
 
#32 ·
......well, lets see.............
Bill Gates...son of a lawyer, dropped out of Harvard, pulled a serious negotiating trick on IBM to buy DOS (Have you ever even heard of DOS?) and founded Microsoft.

Warren Buffett.......born in Nebraska, son of a congressman. Made his money starting in school, selling Cokes door to door, bought a used pin ball machine and put it in the barber shop, parlayed that into owning several....was intrigued by the stock market even before he was out of grade school.

Larry Ellison. Orphan, adopted by a relative. Founded Oracle. Both his adoptive parents and his biological parents are what you might call......poor. No royal blood here, and for sure no hidden fortune.

The Koch brothers. Parents were immigrants, father was founding stockholder of a spur railroad, founded what later became Koch industries. When the Koch brothers took the leadership role from their father the company was a mid sized oil company. Growth in 40 years was about 2000%.

The Walton Family. Father started Wal Mart. As a single dry goods store. Family was not rich by any means.

I could go on, but the point is, a lot (not all, but a lot) of the 1% are actually the typical American success story.

And most of them donate more to charity as a percentage of their income than anyone else.
 
#33 ·
I found this on anther blog, thought it might help bring into focus the real issue we face.

US Tax revenue $2,170,000,000,000
Federal Budget $3,820,000,000,000
New debt $1,650,000,000,000
National debt $17,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts $38,500,000,000

Now take away some zeros to simplify this into a household budget.

Family income $21,700
Money spent $38,200
New debt on credit card $16,500
Balance on credit card $172,710
Budget cuts $38.50

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but this was my budget, my wife and I would be doing some serious budget cutting and looking for ways to pay off that debt. And we'd be looking for better jobs.

And if you been married as long as I have, you know how unproductive it is to point fingers and say "we're in this mess because you.........".

Nope. Time for a come to Jesus meeting. Them that want to point fingers, or don't see the problem, need to be sent packing. Replace them with people who can see the problem and find the solutions.
 
#39 ·
One other thought for those who support the idea of "wealth redistribution"....................

About 10 MILLION Americans who became unemployed during 2008 and 2009 are still unemployed. They haven't worked since the recession started. They've collected 2 years of unemployment, gone on food stamps and welfare, and a lot of them are now retiring or filing for disability.

They are the new "unemployable". They won't be working again, if ever, until the unemployment rate gets down around 4%.

They were employable in 2008 and 2009. We made them unemployable by giving them unemployment for 2 years, you know, so they'd learn how to subsist on half their prior income. Then, we encouraged them to go back to school rather than find a job, any job. Now, they have even more debt, will not be hired by anyone, cause, you know, they been unemployed for 3-4 years, and they aren't really trying to find jobs cause they've gotten used to living a subsistence existence. They've given up.

10 Million Americans. We killed them with kindness. What the hell, let the 1% support them now.
 
#43 ·
Umm, the voters elect their government.

That is the problem, the people put these folks in Washington and approved the laws they passed by keeping them there.

Long as we elect our President and members of Congress based on how much money they spend on ten second sound bite promises not of morals, leadership ability and trustworthiness - what we have in Washington DC is going to continue.

Long as Congress writes laws that are thousands of pages of legal smoke and mirrors long, do not read what they pass much less understand the effects of the laws - the laws we live under will get worse.

Long as we have a Supreme Court that rules on laws like the Affordable Health Care and the Justices say words to the effect "Do you expect us to read all of this law before we rule on it" - instead of keeping Congress and the President honest, the Judges become part of the problem.

Long as we have a tax law of thousands of pages, written to give certain groups benefits that others do not get and those laws are written in secret - income redistribution will run rampant.

Long as our country has a budget system with automatic raises and sometimes Congress does not even make a budget - we will have financial disasters.

Long as our country runs up massive amounts of debts and then prints money to pay only the interest - what money the vast majority of us have will continue to shrink in value.

As long as the Congress, Bureaucrats or President have no direct responsibility for their actions, they will continue to do what ever they want and this includes making laws but not funding them, not responding to Congressional Inquiries and blowing what budgets they have - performance will continue to go down and unexpected consequences become the norm.

Long as we judge a Bill by its name not it's content - our laws will do more harm than good.

So who is to blame?

We have the best form of Government out there and the best way of making money.

Neither Government or Capitalism work when the people in charge of running them are either incompetent or crooks.

Who put these people in office?

The voters do of course. Sad to say I see these news outlets interview people on the street all the time. Most have have no idea who is the political office holders or how they got there.

Until the voters do their job and elect leaders that are honest and qualified to do the job, what we have will continue.

We can blame all sorts of people or groups but it is the voters that put these people in office and it will take the voters to hold them to account.
 
#45 ·
Okie Boater, I won't quote your entire message, but I do heartily agree with you!

Yep!
You see where a white guy (Dave Wilson) got elected to the Houston Community College board of trustees by inferring he was a black guy? I mean, you gotta call foul on his tactics, but you really gotta say those bubble heads got what they voted for.

Candidate wins election in Houston with misleading campaign
 
#46 ·
I agree with a lot of what you say Okie. The political system is broke. I would begin to fix it as follows: 1) Term limits (4 for Reps, 2 for senators). we accept it for the Pres, it should apply to congress. 2) Stop paying members of Congress for life. 3) All laws signed into law apply equally to all, even the neophytes who pass them.
 
#50 ·
When people talk about the 1 per cent I think they are really talking about the .0001 percent. A doctor or lawyer making a ridiculous salary could be in the 1 % and not many people care about that.

As far as "wealth inequality". I think most people just want to make a decent salaryto buy a house and car and go on some nice vacations. Nobody thinks Bill Gates should make the same salary as a plumber.

Unfortunately, for the last 30 years or so we have been heading down a path to where half the country will be living near the poverty line due to free trade agreements, union busting and Corporate and Wall St greed etc.. And the Republicans think this is just great. Survival of the fittest, Ayn Rand and all that. The post WW II era of the middle class is just about over.
 
#52 ·
Oh that dirty socialism! Do you mean the system that has the best track record of any yet developed (in modernity)) in consistently providing a high standard of living, more honest multi-party democracy, greater wealth equality and upward mobility, better scores than us on most quality of life indices (healthcare results -education and transportation systems), higher union participation, a thriving but well regulated and adequately taxed private sector as part of their mixed economies? (see Scandanavia and most of northern and Western Europe) Or are you referring to your jingoistic fantasy world of American exceptionalism and the unquestioned supremacy of "free market "capitalism.Apparently the latter, based on the absurd notion that billionaires legitimately earned the money.Do the math on that one : 5000 hours a yr (the 100 hr. weeks rich guys supposedly all work) x $1000 dollars an hour equals 5 million, so you would have to work 200 years to "earn " 1 billion or 5200 years apiece in the case of the Koch Brothers.That does not even take into account taxes or living expenses.You repubs have a VERY PERVERSE sense of work and earning !!! Regardless of anecdotal evidence the number one predictor of wealth is the wealth of your parents.Even those who came from more modest backgrounds amassed the overwhelming part of their wealth not off wages and salaries, but off money making money not work.At a bare minimum, capital gains should be taxed ag a much higher rate than earned income.America 's economic heyday corresponds to the highest marginal tax rates being over 70%(1946 -78) and was 91% under that dirty commie Eisenhower./:rolleyes:

'Tis easier to earn your second million than your first guinea "-unknown (to me)
 
#53 ·
Great posts Outlaw! You could add the alligator jaw graph showing that wages have not kept pace with increases in productivity since the implementation of supply side economic policies (apx 30 years) .If they had (based on 40 hour week) wr could be working 29 hours a week and make 6% more.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top