Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Financial Reality


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Financial Reality Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 9:50:32 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

As you point out, the amount of taxes isn't the issue.

Spending is.

Firm



Not at all. As I pointed out, spending cuts alone are NOT going to cover the deficit.

It's going to take revenue increases as well.

A re-read is in order. Silly crap like this isn't like you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Political brinkmanship at the expense of the nation as a whole.

I believe that many (most) liberals - including Obama - have zero understanding of the economy, or where "money" actually comes from. They seem to believe that just because they've always been able to "find the money", that they always will be able to "find the money".

Reality will likely teach them some cold hard facts.

But probably not. Eat the seed-corn, and burn the crops that feed everyone to teach those bastards a lesson!

Grasshopper, meet ant.


And this applies equally to Republicans and apparently, House leadership. Cut taxes and the money will just be there. But for 30 years, more excuses about why it isn't there, as the debt continues to balloon. And that's their "plan" now---kick it down the road ten years, with a few cuts, and the magic money will just appear. Meanwhile, we'll just borrow more of it.

Starve the beast...sound familiar? But they don't...they just live on more and more taxpayer credit.

Cuts will have to be made, yes, and to the big three, yes. That STILL won't balance the budget, let alone start to address the debt. It's going to take raising taxes as well. On everyone, yes, including the wealthy.

You could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and eliminate medicare completely---and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and completely cut social security--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could slash defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, and discretionary spending by a third--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and slash defense spending 80%--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget.

Spending cuts alone are NOT going to do this! The House is in Disneyland. Spending cuts alone, even as severely overstated as above, as NOT going to balance the budget. Plans to rely on cuts alone, even severe ones, are going to STILL leave us with climbing debt, year after year after year.

Argue about what KIND of revenue increases, which taxes, on what, on whom, fine. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts--for everyone. Add a VAT. Raise payroll taxes a half a percent (after eliminating the one year cut). Because without revenue increases---and not the fantasy "Oh we'll just grow our way out of a $1.27 trillion deficit" (let alone reducing the debt)--debt will continue to grow, year after year, and interest rates and inflation in its wake.




< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/24/2011 9:55:30 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: frustrated with President Obama - 7/24/2011 10:26:13 AM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

That's right. I hear your mom calling you... Y'all better run off home now.

For the record, you haven't ever answered the Employer/Entrepreneur question of how many FTE jobs you've personally created, so I'm going to assume that like your 'inventing career', your employer and entrepreneur credentials are also non-existent.

Remember, the Democrats would accept a "deal" wherein the debt limit is raised, thus avoiding default. The Republicans would not. All else is just details. I therefore suggest that we start calling this "the Republican Default of 2011".


Not that I have to tell a loser/failure/liberal like you anything about what I do, but, for the record, I employ 3 people.  I am a solo practitioner and I can get away with the 3 ladies that work for me.  I employ a contractor and his team half of the year, every year for the past 8 years.  I employ the same landscapers, who also do the snow removal, for the past 14 years and I employ the same cleaning service for the buildings and the office for the past 8 years.  Every week, I write out a number of checks to a number of people that work for me.  Some of those people, in turn, have hired me to do real estate closings, personal injury matters, wills and other such things.  And so the wheel turns round. 

What I don't do is social services law so I can help loser pieces of shit try to suck more out of the system.  Does that apply to you, Fargie?  A number of people on the board thinks it does.  I certainly think it does.  I you aren't personally sucking off the public tit, people very close to you are and that is important to you because it takes up your slack in helping them.

I want to meet you someday, Fargie.  As this country goes to shit (for a variety of reasons but not the least of them being too many people like you), I want to watch you beg and then actually thank the people who give to you.  It will be a real comeuppance for you and I can hardly wait!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 10:37:58 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline 		I won't disagree that increased taxes along with budget cuts will balance the budget more quickly, but I would pose the question as to why you think the most expedient method is the only one? 

If expenditures are reduced to below the level of income, you will eventually have a balanced budget.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 10:38:19 AM   
lockedaway


Posts: 1720
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline 		Interesting chart but I don't accept it as accurate.  Not yet at least but I have an open mind.  Look at these figures from the IRS:

2010 Tax Stats Card
Summary of Collections Before Refunds by Type of Return, FY 2009 [1]
Type of Return
Number of Returns
Gross Collections
(Millions of $)
144,103,375
1,175,422
2,475,785 [2]
225,482
30,223,289
 858,164
809,461
46,632
245,262
3,094
47,320
21,583
  Selected Information from Returns Filed

Corporate Returns (TY 2007) [3]
 Number filing with assets $250M or more
 14,752
 Percent of total corporate net income for firms with assets $250M or more
75.4%


S Corporation Returns (TY 2007) [3]
 Number of returns
[P] 3,989,893



Partnership Returns  (TY 2008) [3]
 Number of returns
3,146,006
Top 1-percent Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) break (TY 2008) [3,4]
 $380,354
Top 10-percent AGI break (TY 2008) [3,4]
  $113,799
Bottom 10-percent AGI break (TY 2008) [3,4]
 $5,942
Median AGI (TY 2008) [3,4] 
$33,048
Percent that claim standard deductions (TY 2008) [3]
  64.4%
Percent that claim itemized deductions (TY 2008) [3]
  33.8%
Percent e-filed (TY 2009) thru 5/23/2010 [5]  
75.7%
Percent using paid preparers (TY 2008) [3]
  57.7%
Number of returns with AGI $1M or more (TY 2008) [5] 
323,067
State with the highest number-California (TY 2008)
44,027
State with the least number- Vermont (TY 2008)  
389
Number of individual refunds (TY 2008) (millions) [3] 
  111.7
Individual refund amount (TY 2008) (billions of $) [3]
  $324.1
Average individual refund amount (TY 2008)
  $2,902
Earned Income Tax Credit (TY 2008) [3]:
Number of returns with credit (millions)  
[P]  24.8
Amount claimed (billions of $)
[P]  $50.7


Look at the number of corporations with assets valued over 250 million dollars.  In the entire country there are 14,000 and change, right?  Not that many when you think about it.  That number needs to increase, in my opinion, by close to double.

Look at the tax on the corporations and then add to that figure the employment taxes.  That is a more accurate picture of what is generated from the corporate sector/private business sector and is essentially equal to what is generated from individuals.  I think the corporate sector should pay more because the base is expanded rather than constricted through higher taxes.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 10:43:23 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I won't disagree that increased taxes along with budget cuts will balance the budget more quickly, but I would pose the question as to why you think the most expedient method is the only one?

If expenditures are reduced to below the level of income, you will eventually have a balanced budget.


As I've already explained repeatedly, reducing expenditures by $1.27 trillion is not so simple.

You could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and eliminate medicare completely---and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and completely cut social security--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could slash defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, and discretionary spending by a third--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and slash defense spending 80%--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget.

Spending cuts alone are NOT going to do this! This is not a simple matter of expediency. Spending cuts alone, even as severely overstated as above, as NOT going to balance the budget. Plans to rely on cuts alone, even severe ones, are going to STILL leave us with climbing debt, year after year after year. How much longer should we grow this debt until finally facing it--which is STILL going to require increasing taxes.

Cuts will have to be made, yes, and to the big three, yes. That STILL won't balance the budget, let alone start to address the debt. It's going to take raising taxes as well. On everyone, yes, including the wealthy.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 10:49:04 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		MM,

I read it fine.

The problem is that we are already several years into overspending.

Can we get out of it, and "return" to a balanced budget?  Sure we can.  Can we balance the budget this year?  No way in hell.

But, the equation is simple.  If any individual or organization continues to spend more than they make, they will eventually end up in bankruptcy or one form or another.

Can you increase your income in order to "help makes ends meet"?  Yup.  But that alone will not solve the real problem: sending more than you make.

If you increase the income, and then continue to increase the spending more than the increased income, you'll still end up at the same place: bankruptcy.

As well, increasing taxes has an effect on your future income, generally reducing the available capital to finance the very economic activity that provides the income in the first place.

Bottom line, the only way to stay solvent is to cut spending consistently, until you can pay off your debt, and then stay within a budget.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 11:00:24 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Firm,

My beef was with you misrepresenting my post.

quote:

If you increase the income, and then continue to increase the spending more than the increased income, you'll still end up at the same place: bankruptcy.

If.

Also, if you continue to ignore that we can't afford the tax cuts passed out for the last 30 years--even just the unfunded Bush tax cuts--borrowing to cover your folly, you'll still end up at the same place: not bankruptcy yet, but unsustainable debt levels.

quote:

Can you increase your income in order to "help makes ends meet"? Yup. But that alone will not solve the real problem: sending more than you make.

I have already repeated pointed out that it will take both taxes and cuts, including the big three. It's not an either/or proposition. Stop pretending it is, and don't imply any such side-taking on my part.

quote:

As well, increasing taxes has an effect on your future income, generally reducing the available capital to finance the very economic activity that provides the income in the first place.

Yes it does. And so does massive borrowing.

quote:

Bottom line, the only way to stay solvent is to cut spending consistently, until you can pay off your debt, and then stay within a budget.

Bottom line, this is a fantasy. Where are cuts of this magnitude going to come from? When is this magical future time when suddenly there's plenty of revenue? Just how are you going to stay within a budget when you can't even balance it?

It's going to take cuts, serious cuts, and it's going to take taxes. Wishful thinking about growing into solvency got us here.

It's insanity to think doing the same thing is going to get different results. You're just going to continue growing the debt--which frankly is the Republican plan.

You tell me. Do the math. Show me where $1.27 trillion in cuts come from.

You could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and eliminate medicare completely---and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and completely cut social security--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could slash defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, and discretionary spending by a third--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and slash defense spending 80%--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget.

Spending cuts alone are NOT going to do this! This is not a simple matter of expediency. Spending cuts alone, even as severely overstated as above, as NOT going to balance the budget. Plans to rely on cuts alone, even severe ones, are going to STILL leave us with climbing debt, year after year after year. How much longer should we grow this debt until finally facing it--which is STILL going to require increasing taxes.

Cuts will have to be made, yes, and to the big three, yes. That STILL won't balance the budget, let alone start to address the debt. It's going to take raising taxes as well. On everyone, yes, including the wealthy.

Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/24/2011 11:01:56 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 11:19:22 AM   
TreasureKY


Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You tell me. Do the math. Show me where $1.27 trillion in cuts come from.


You want the simple answer?  Everything.

From your own chart we currently spend $3.83 trillion dollars on a $2.57 trillion dollar budget.  We essentially spend 1/3 more than we bring in.

Cut everything by a bit more than 1/3 (as we can't cut our debt service), and there's no need to raise taxes.

Sure... no one likes it.  But tightening the belt isn't fun.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: frustrated with President Obama - 7/24/2011 11:21:30 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

All he has to do is make more cuts, half the State Dept, end Energy, Education, EPA. End "foreign aid."
What seems to be his problem?
Hell he can cut the military too!
You'd have to talk to him personally to get any answers.


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Obama is the president, not a dictator. Taxing the rich will more won't solve the 14 trillion dollar dept problem we have in this country. Cuts will have to be made and nothing should be off the table including the big three. The problem isn't on the revenue side, it's on the spending side.

Cutting yours or popeye's favorite targets won't balance it either.

Cuts will have to be made, yes, and to the big three, yes. That STILL won't balance the budget, let alone start to address the debt. It's going to take raising taxes as well. On everyone, yes, including the wealthy.

You could eliminate ALL discretionary spending and eliminate medicare completely---and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and completely cut social security--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could slash defense, social security, medicare, medicaid, and discretionary spending by a third--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget. You could eliminate all discretionary spending and slash defense spending 80%--and you STILL wouldn't have a balanced budget.

Spending cuts alone are NOT going to do this! The House is in Disneyland. Spending cuts alone, even as severely overstated as above, as NOT going to balance the budget. Plans to rely on cuts alone, even severe ones, are going to STILL leave us with climbing debt, year after year after year.

Argue about what KIND of revenue increases, which taxes, on what, on whom, fine. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts--for everyone. Add a VAT. Raise payroll taxes a half a percent (after eliminating the one year cut). Because without revenue increases---and not the fantasy "Oh we'll just grow our way out of a $1.27 trillion deficit" (let alone reducing the debt)--debt will continue to grow, year after year, and interest rates and inflation in its wake.



Music, that being true then there's only one option, Chap 7 or 11.
The problem with giving the "govt" more money is that the more you give them the more they spend!
They're not going to pay down the debt if there was a whole slew of new taxes, they'll just come up with a whole slew of "new programs."
If the govt had kept the Social Security money seperate and maybe invested some of it people would be getting SS checks for $3 or $4 thousand a month!
Look at Chile.
Our "govt" just doesn't have the best interests of The People at heart, they don't serve us anymore they serve the lobbyists and big companies.
Maybe we should go bankrupt and shake those bastards out of the trees.
Everyone has to be on a budget. If I spend too much money on lottery tickets for three months and don't pay my mortgage the sherriff is going to come around and tell me to vacate the premises.
And if we got out of all those "free trade" agreements we could increase "customs duties" exponentially! (A $trillion or two a year?)
Why do I "need" to buy anything that's made in China or any other country?
Now that would be a nice "revenue increase" like Obama wants now wouldn't it? Yeah, that's how you do it, "revenue increases" on imported goods! Tax the *HELL* out of them!!!
And why does Obama keep saying "revenues" instead of "taxes?"

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 7/24/2011 11:40:28 AM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: frustrated with President Obama - 7/24/2011 11:30:44 AM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Someone somewhere gave an analogy that it's like you and your Republican friends all phone up and order some pizza. The delivery guy comes to the door, you get everyone together to pitch in for the pizza you all agreed on to buy, and the Republican friends now refuse to pay for the food they ordered previously.



There is joke in which somebody gives a plate of 12 cookies to a rich guy, a lobbyist and a liberal. The rich guy takes 11 cookies then tells the lobbyist to watch out because the liberal is trying to take his cookie.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 11:36:09 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		MM,

I'm convinced that any funds made available to the federal government due to tax increases will go towards increased spending, not paying down the debt, because that is about all that has every happened in Washington, especially with the current generation of our political elite.

Why should this tax increase be any different?

Theoretically, would I be willing to increase taxes in order to start getting back to a balanced budget?  Absolutely!

But that's not really what's going to happen to that increased revenue, based on the historical record, now is it?

In personal terms, giving more money to the Feds is like giving money to an addict to "help pay his rent, so he won't lose his apartment".  When he is actually going to spend it on more meth or alcohol. 

Firm

edited for spelling and clarity

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 7/24/2011 12:16:21 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: frustrated with President Obama - 7/24/2011 11:41:24 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Someone somewhere gave an analogy that it's like you and your Republican friends all phone up and order some pizza. The delivery guy comes to the door, you get everyone together to pitch in for the pizza you all agreed on to buy, and the Republican friends now refuse to pay for the food they ordered previously.


There is joke in which somebody gives a plate of 12 cookies to a rich guy, a lobbyist and a liberal. The rich guy takes 11 cookies then tells the lobbyist to watch out because the liberal is trying to take his cookie.


No, the "rich guy" bought 12 cookies with his own money, and when it was delivered the delivery man claimed three for himself, then told the "rich guy" that he was obligated to give 4 more to the homeless people in the city, and that the "rich guy" could only eat one, because the rest of them really belonged to all the other people that wanted cookies, but didn't have enough to actual buy them.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 11:41:46 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

MM,

I'm convinced that any funds made available to the federal government due to tax increases will go towards increased spending, not paying down the debt, because that is about all that has every happened in Washington, especially with the current generation of our political elite.

Why should this tax increase be any different?

Theoretically, would I be willing to increase taxes in order to start getting back to a balanced budget?  Absolutely!

But that's not really what's going to happen to that increased revenue, based on the historical record, now is it?

In personal terms, giving more money to the Feds is like giving money to an addict to "help pay his rent, so he won't lose his apartment".  What he is actually going to spend it on is more meth or alcohol. 

Firm



Nail, head.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 11:45:00 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You tell me. Do the math. Show me where $1.27 trillion in cuts come from.


You want the simple answer?  Everything.

From your own chart we currently spend $3.83 trillion dollars on a $2.57 trillion dollar budget.  We essentially spend 1/3 more than we bring in.

Cut everything by a bit more than 1/3 (as we can't cut our debt service), and there's no need to raise taxes.

Sure... no one likes it.  But tightening the belt isn't fun.

How much would we save if we completely pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and NATO completely?

I think I could live with that.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:25:41 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Cut everything by a bit more than 1/3 (as we can't cut our debt service), and there's no need to raise taxes.


You're missing the distinction between discretionary and mandatory spending. All we can cut immediately is all discretionary spending, including defense. If you cut all defense and all discretionary spending, you'd just barely cover the deficit, and you could keep your tax cuts.

Is that what you want to do?

In the long term, we could change more. When I see those in the House screaming against tax increases telling people we have to cut 1/3 of everything, they'll have my attention. It's a flawed plan for several reasons, but it would hit the numbers.

But no one in the House is saying that. Nothing even close to it.

And if you want keepers, you need revenue increases.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/24/2011 2:27:56 PM >

(in reply to TreasureKY)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:30:13 PM   
defiantbadgirl


Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Cuts will have to be made, yes, and to the big three, yes.



SOCIAL SECURITY

Not everyone can afford to have the amount of their social security checks reduced. Some may advocate making social security income needs based like supplemental security income. With the federal poverty level being below $15,000 a year for a household of two adults, senior couples wouldn't have enough money to pay for their prescription drugs. Unfortunately, needs based programs are based on this ridiculous level.

MEDICARE

Too many seniors are already forced to choose between buying medicine and buying food. Cuts to Medicare benefits would result in many seniors becoming homeless. Where do we put these people?

SPENDING CAPS ON MEDICAID

What happens to disabled Americans with chronic health issues when they reach their caps? Do we leave innocent people to die slow painful deaths while death row inmates die painlessly from lethal injection? Where do we put nursing home patients once they exceed their medicaid caps?

You say cuts to the big three are necessary. I say cuts in benefits to the big three are not possible. Now if you were to say cuts in administration to the big three without any cuts in benefits were necessary, I would feel differently. If our leaders intended to cut administration and not benefits, they would let the American people know that instead of scaring the shit out of everybody. What specific areas of the big three do you think should be cut?





_____________________________


Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.


Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:36:06 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

How much would we save if we completely pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and NATO completely?


About $600 billion.

Less than half the deficit (but about half).


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:38:27 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I say cuts in benefits to the big three are not possible.


OK. So where does the $1.27 trillion shortfall come from?

Or do we keep adding it to the $14 trillion debt each year?

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:41:09 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:


SOCIAL SECURITY

Not everyone can afford to have the amount of their social security checks reduced. Some may advocate making social security income needs based like supplemental security income. With the federal poverty level being below $15,000 a year for a household of two adults, senior couples wouldn't have enough money to pay for their prescription drugs. Unfortunately, needs based programs are based on this ridiculous level.


Social Security is funded completely by the existing payroll tax and doesn't contribute ONE PENNY to the deficit. It's a red-herring thrown into the discussion to confuse the real issue. The Republican Deficit of 2011 is caused by people who don't want to pay for their obligations.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Financial Reality - 7/24/2011 2:49:27 PM   
defiantbadgirl


Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline 		I agree that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. I'm curious about MM's ideas on what specific areas should be cut.

_____________________________


Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.


Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Financial Reality Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109