RE: Financial Reality

RE: Financial Reality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 5:56:32 PM)
Real noob question: somewhere back there Tim made a suggestion of where the cuts should come from and then warned that it would not be good for the economy. Since the economy is looking up, is this the wisest time to make those cuts. please be kind, I'm not smart when it comes to such things.

snappykappy -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 5:56:37 PM)
music i have never found out how to do a screen shot could you please instruct me and also how to paste a pic into a thread here which i have seen thank you very much ahead of time for your assistance

BitaTruble -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 5:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: snappykappy bita but then they get a bunch of freebies and things they never have to put into and pay like the common folk so just quick in my mind it is a lot more as well as the kick backs from all sorts of things like their campaign donations they recieve and trips etc Absolutely! That was straight salary. Not the perks, not the benefits, the health insurance, the retirement etc. That was nada but the paycheck. I could do the math and take all of that into account but frankly, I am having a lovely Sunday even though The Man Unit is quite ill right now and I don't want to spoil it by getting my knickers in a twist (more so than usual) by a gutless Congress who, despite getting paid almost $200 an hour still refuse to do their job.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: snappykappy music i have never found out how to do a screen shot could you please instruct me and also how to paste a pic into a thread here which i have seen thank you very much ahead of time for your assistance Snappy, I didn't do the screen shots myself. They are easy, on a mac and pc, but I forget quickly each time I relearn. (I'm sure you could find out quickly on Google) I just go to Google images, click on the full size, and copy the link between the Image codes: [image]http://www.reallyawesomepicturefromtheweb.com[/image]

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl 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. I'm just pointing out that people who say we can do one or the other (taxes or spending) aren't being realistic. For example, if you want to keep everything and raise taxes, you'd have to more than double the current income tax to cover the deficit alone, still not touching the debt. My own personal take? Cut defense. Raise SS ages to 64/67/70. Medicaid is not so simple--but needs overhaul/reform (raising retirement age will help some automatically, as some people will still be insured at work). Eliminate the SS tax break and add an extra half a percent. Eliminate all Bush tax cuts, all levels. Institute a national VAT. And understand this is definitely NOT going to help the economy in the short run! Why do you want to raise the SS age threshholds, and not the contribution cutoff? Why should it be at $108K (or whatever it is now)? Why have a cutoff at all? Why would those be mutually exclusive? Why don't you answer my questions?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster MM, where is the link to the graphic in post #81? I can't seem to find it. To find any link in any post, click "quote," and you'll see the link, not the graphic, in the pop-up window. The original one is from the Washington Post. It's too large, so I used screen shots others posted elsewhere. I should have thought of that. Thanks; it's a useful graph.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:08:07 PM)
quote: Why don't you answer my questions? Because you're presenting as either/or something that isn't. Why not do both?

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Why don't you answer my questions? Because you're presenting as either/or something that isn't. Why not do both? You didn't suggest doing both. "My own personal take? Cut defense. Raise SS ages to 64/67/70." You didn't offer an alternative. Eliminate the cap first. That way there is no granfathering, with some who are very close to retiring forced to wait for benefits due to some arbitrary new qualifying age.

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:16:38 PM)
quote: You didn't suggest doing both. I pointed out they were mutually exclusive. Look, I'm not selling a plan here---I'm point out that "just cut this and we'll be fine" and "just raise this and we'll be fine" are both approaches from fantasy land. We cut spending, including the sacred three, and we raise taxes, or we live with continual deficits and ever growing debt. Those are the realities, straight from the numbers. That's the point.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery My own personal take? Cut defense. Raise SS ages to 64/67/70. Medicaid is not so simple--but needs overhaul/reform (raising retirement age will help some automatically, as some people will still be insured at work). Eliminate the SS tax break and add an extra half a percent. Eliminate all Bush tax cuts, all levels. Institute a national VAT. And understand this is definitely NOT going to help the economy in the short run! We may have different definitions for the word CUT. To me, a CUT in social security means decreasing the amount retirees receive. Raising the retirement age is a bad idea. Too many businesses are getting rid of and refusing to hire older workers. Raising the contribution cut off is a much better plan. I know I keep repeating myself about creating more homeless and innocents dying slow painful deaths while murderers get painless lethal injections, but cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will cause this to happen. Such barbarity should never be considered an option. Single-payer health care is the only humane option. I agree with eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy. I agree with ending the Bush tax cuts, but not on all levels. Minimum wage workers can't afford to pay taxes and the earned income credit they receive is often needed to repair or replace their only means of transportation. People who are forced to work out of town because there are no jobs in town can't take the bus. I definitely agree with cutting military spending. Then you are going to continue with yearly deficits and continually grow the national debt. I'm saying national debt does not justify barbarity. Far more Americans would be able to pay higher taxes if their decent paying jobs hadn't been offshored to China and India. More Americans being able to pay higher taxes would mean more money for the government to pay off the debt. Globalization is contributing to the government's inability to pay off the national debt. Millions of retired homeless and innocent people dying slow painful deaths due to barbaric cuts will cause riots. Are you ready for the US to become the next Libya?

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 6:48:44 PM)
quote: I'm saying national debt does not justify barbarity. No one else is saying that either. Stop the crap.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 7:32:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY This course of action may well be defensible and work to some extent ... however, it simply masks the symptoms. It does not cure the disease. Really. How so. Because it doesn't change the culture of spending. Why should it? What will stop politicians and their interest groups - if they did everything you mentioned and balance the budget - decide that since the "financial house is now in order", that they can now fund all of those "really important programs" that they had waiting in the wings? You said it yourself in post 149: We cut spending, including the sacred three, and we raise taxes, or we live with continual deficits and ever growing debt. Assuming we can get the politicians to cut spending for now (which really, just generally cuts their own political throats in our current "bread and circuses" environment) we will just ensure that the next group, or the same group making up the next budget will decide that "well, since everything is now hunky-dory, we can go back to the same-ole, same ole" Honestly, I'm pretty pessimistic about the entire thing. I think we are near a catastrophic event, in which many of our basic assumptions will become no longer operable. Firm

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 7:38:03 PM)
quote: Because it doesn't change the culture of spending. Cutting spending doesn't change the culture of spending. OK then. I think we're done here.

FirmhandKY -> RE: frustrated with President Obama (7/24/2011 7:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Cut all discretionary spending. All that does is slow the rate of the deficits growth. Raise taxes. Can't for ideological reasons. After all, the people that cried the loudest, "We've all got to make sacrifices" when it's union wages we're looking at, draw a line at the most well off. They must not make a sacrifice. That's ideology. Cut mandatory spending. Who will that hurt most? The rich? Nope. The middle class? Well, it'd hurt them. The poorest in society? Yup, they'd be the ones to pay the most. When all your income goes on necessities, any cut goes to the bone. Offtopic/ Hey, Philo! Long time no see! How are things? Treasure and I were in Canada last month, and plan on being up there again later this year. You near Ottawa? /Offtopic On topic ... Where we are going is a place with inflation and devaluation which will hurt everyone. Unfortunately, the least able to absorb it will be the most hurt. Theoretically, it would the least painful to that group if some of them were hurt "some" now, rather than "a lot" later. Failure of the US government to get its spending under control will result in the most misery, for the most people. But I think that is exactly where we are headed. Reality always wins. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 7:42:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Because it doesn't change the culture of spending. Cutting spending doesn't change the culture of spending. OK then. I think we're done here. Back up and stop being an asshole, MM. Cutting spending one time doesn't change the structural and political reasons that caused the culture of spending, and it will re-assert itself at the first opportunity. Firm

jackod -> RE: frustrated with President Obama (7/24/2011 7:59:36 PM)
what a stupid comments the snake with two heads republican/democrat ,are looking even more to screw up the proletariat

Musicmystery -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 8:09:19 PM)
quote: Back up and stop being an asshole, MM. Cutting spending one time doesn't change the structural and political reasons that caused the culture of spending Back attcha, if that's where this is now. Cutting on this magnitude, to actually achieve a balanced budget, including tax increases, absolutely changes the structural and political reasons that caused it, because they must be overcome to do it in the first place. If you want to play the "well but it's all hopeless because I know the future and how they think" game, then yes, we're done--you're just going to continually come back to your all knowing position, and yes, further discussion would be pointless. Why cut anything? Why collect taxes? Why even discuss it? It will all just go back to hell again, right? Come on. If that makes me an "asshole," then "asshole" means "one who can see when he's wasting his time."

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 8:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I'm not saying we don't have a debt problem. I'm asking where we put all the homeless people cuts to benefits in the big three will create. I'm asking what you think about innocent people dying slow painful deaths from chronic illness while death row inmates get painless lethal injection. don't cram "you don't care about all this people" stuff down my throat. Fuck you. You've no idea about my positions there, and no right to assume them. I'm talking purely numbers here for the moment. What isn't cut has to be paid for. Since when does asking for your opinion become cramming you don't care about these people down your throat? When you didn't answer my questions, I assumed you saw my points as valid. I assumed you did care and was waiting for you to come up with some better ideas that don't involve the big three. So yes I did assume. I assumed the opposite of what you thought I assumed. Wow.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Financial Reality (7/24/2011 8:21:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Back up and stop being an asshole, MM. Cutting spending one time doesn't change the structural and political reasons that caused the culture of spending Back attcha, if that's where this is now. Cutting on this magnitude, to actually achieve a balanced budget, including tax increases, absolutely changes the structural and political reasons that caused it, because they must be overcome to do it in the first place. If you want to play the "well but it's all hopeless because I know the future and how they think" game, then yes, we're done--you're just going to continually come back to your all knowing position, and yes, further discussion would be pointless. Why cut anything? Why collect taxes? Why even discuss it? It will all just go back to hell again, right? Come on. If that makes me an "asshole," then "asshole" means "one who can see when he's wasting his time." You are "being an asshole" because you are arrogant, dismissive and condescending. What you are not doing is "listening". You have your position, know it's correct, and fuck all the idiots who might differ. That makes you an ass on the subject. My point is that there are structural reasons that we have gotten to this point, and even if our politicians are able to do as you suggest (which completely remains to be seen), it still would not change the underlying political and social factors that gave rise to it. In response to you belief that a one-time change is a structural change, I think you are being - at best - naive. Firm edited: to delete some snarky material, and better address your last point.

philosophy -> RE: frustrated with President Obama (7/24/2011 8:46:49 PM)
Hey Firm, hope you and treasure are well. I'm about 100 miles south of alaska over in BC. It actually takes me less time to fly to the UK than to Ottawa.....lol Back to the topic on hand...... I don't disagree that US finances are in a mess. Succesive governments, locked into the demands of an electoral cycle, have ensured this. Too many spending decisions based on winning votes, not enough based on thinking 10 or 20 years ahead. Both red and blue equally to blame. The only way iut is an austerity package. Time to tighten belts and all that jazz. Spending cuts have to happen, I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. The devil, as always, is in the details. However, what us furriners see is your politicians, (and I'm sorry but these voices are exclusively Republican or Tea Party), arguing that the lower and middle classes should tighten belts, but for some reason the richest in society must be insulated from such austerity. Let the GWB tax breaks expire. Let the richest dig deeper into their pockets, just as some are demanding that only those earning less than a million a year dig into their pockets. You all should be pulling together. you wont while one side to the argument keeps trying to insulate the very richest in society.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875