RE: For those Americans who work for a living

RE: For those Americans who work for a living (Full Version)

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

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 4:54:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Welcome back Rich. We'll see. [8\|] No doubt we will clash at some point, but the welcome was sincere. [;)] You need to stay and fight your corner instead of flouncing out. It makes for good debate my friend.

slvemike4u -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 5:26:26 PM)
Be careful Polite,should you ruffle his feathers he takes his ball and goes home. Please see the threat just issued to the "Girl " [:)]

tazzygirl -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 5:43:37 PM)
Wow.... reduced to "Girls" and "Boys" now, are we? [8\|]

Baroana -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 5:47:41 PM)
Y'all couldn't see me shaking my head when I read that, but that was my only response.

TheHeretic -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 5:52:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 No doubt we will clash at some point, but the welcome was sincere. [;)] And it was taken as such, Polite. The "we'll see" was a reference to the gathering gaggle.

stef -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/16/2013 11:31:01 PM)
Poor Rich. Are you feeling victimized again? In regard to your original trolling; as an American who definitely works for a living, my paychecks aren't getting smaller. They increase every year and have for as long as I can remember. I'm expecting another nice double digit percentage increase this spring. If you're one of those Americans whose paycheck is getting smaller, perhaps you need to perform better at your job or work for a better employer? Just a thought.

Politesub53 -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 2:48:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Be careful Polite,should you ruffle his feathers he takes his ball and goes home. Please see the threat just issued to the "Girl " [:)] Rich is okay in a mad republican kinda way Mike.......... Sorry Rich, couldnt resist. [8D]

Politesub53 -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 2:52:47 AM)
Just an aside from across the pond and nothing to do with Obama. The Conservatives here are doing the same as your President and trying to cut the deficit. Wages are stagnating, inflation increasing and the jobs market difficult. Just about everyone, left and right, feels this is mainly due to fallout from the 2008 crisis. So it seems to me the bottom line is any party tackling the deficit, anywhere in the west, is going to have similar problems.

SadistDave -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 3:24:25 AM)
No offence, but your belief that president Obraindead is trying to cut our defecit is not even close to being based in reality. That dumbass is trying to add as much to it as he can. Obummer is a president whose economic ideas are so bad that he can't get a single vote for the budgets he submits to Congress. Think about that a second. He cannot even get votes on economic matters from members of his own party. A large number of industries that bozo has supported, bailed out, legislated tax breaks for, or just stopped in for a photo-op at have simply folded. It doesn't matter if you have a hamburger stand or a solar panel plant. As soon as that jackass walks in the door your company has a life expectancy of about 36 months. If your politicians are trying to actually cut the deficit and improve your economy... good for them! If they're dumb enough to follow our Dipshit in Chiefs lead then you're screwed! -SD-

DomKen -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 6:30:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave No offence, but your belief that president Obraindead is trying to cut our defecit is not even close to being based in reality. That dumbass is trying to add as much to it as he can. Obummer is a president whose economic ideas are so bad that he can't get a single vote for the budgets he submits to Congress. Think about that a second. He cannot even get votes on economic matters from members of his own party. A large number of industries that bozo has supported, bailed out, legislated tax breaks for, or just stopped in for a photo-op at have simply folded. It doesn't matter if you have a hamburger stand or a solar panel plant. As soon as that jackass walks in the door your company has a life expectancy of about 36 months. If your politicians are trying to actually cut the deficit and improve your economy... good for them! If they're dumb enough to follow our Dipshit in Chiefs lead then you're screwed! Funny how that is all untrue. The President's budget proposals have support in Congress. A single GOP bill that was erroneously labeled the President's budget did not. The two industries the President has most directly supported, auto's and finance, are recovering quite nicely. The auto industry in particular is booming. Even in renewable energy most of the businesses the government assisted are thriving. One business failed and right wingers have flipped out over a company that cost the taxpayers 2 orders of magnitude less than the money lost by Haliburton under W. As to the beficit, it has declined in every year of the President's term.

TreasureKY -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 6:37:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren ... SS was supposed to be a trust fund, that would establish some sort of payout when we retired, it was a trust fund for many years, separate from the federal budget. That really changed in the 1980's, when they passed an increase in the SS rates to create a cushion for when the boomers started retiring, and it started running serious surpluses. What happened was that the government started "borrowing' from SS, leaving T notes in its place, to fund the government and to basically hide the ballooning deficits, thanks to the supply side tax cuts Reagan and Bush 1 put in..to do this, SS funds were counted as part of the federal budget and incoming money from SS taxes was included as tax revenue, and payouts were considered 'government spending' , which had not been the way. As a result, when you heard the Reagan and Bush 1 budget deficits were X (and both of them increased the budget deficits tremendously; Carter's last year it was 50 billion, Bush and Reagan both had several hundred billion dollar deficits, and that was masked, it was probably higher; when Reagan took office the national debt was 1 trillion, by the time Bush 1 left it was running about 4 trillion)...so basically, SS is de fact direct tax revenue (think about this, folks, those bonds either have to be called in, which will take tax revenue, or when they come due be replaced by new debt..which pays interest..that interests comes from general tax revenues, which kind of then 'slides around' back into the budget). Incorrect. Social Security History Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

TheHeretic -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 9:02:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef Poor Rich. Are you feeling victimized again? Hi, Stef! Victimized? Hardly. Restrained from properly using the appropriate boot in the appropriate way? We shall see. Unfortunately, the last promotion was one of those sneaky ones, where I was given more responsibilities, and an intern, but not a raise or new title. Since my pay was stable over the turn of the year, the impact of the tax changes was clearly visible. Not huge, but enough to notice, and enough that there will need to be adjustments in the budget.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 2:59:03 PM)
Not much of a smaller paycheck here. In fact since I own my business, it has increased over the last couple of years. It is not what it was pre-2008 but rebounding. I deal with small and medium siza businesses, and there are more now that are spending money on automation and expansion than before. Are you referring to the expiration of the SS tax temp reduction or the lowered withholding amounts? What are you specifically referring to that makes paychecks smaller? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic How are you adjusting to the smaller paychecks? What's getting cut in your budget?

TheHeretic -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 5:34:13 PM)
Fuck it Read the link http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2013/01/05/updated-2013-federal-income-tax-brackets-and-marginal-rates/

SadistDave -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 9:27:16 PM)
I'll start with the obvious one first... As of October last year, there have been over 30 "green" jobs backed by Obama that have failed or need additional taxpayer funding if they want to keep their doors open. Here's a list: There is at least one more company added to the list since The Heritage Network compiled this. It is a battery company that's supposed to be making batteries for electric cars that has failed to make a single battery. All the employees have been getting paid with taxpayer dollars to play Monopoly and watch movies. I mentioned the burger joint for a reason. As for the deficit; I suggest you look at the history of the deficit. Before Obama, the highest deficit was less than $1/2 a trillion, The Bamster reign has given us over $1 trillion deficits 4 tears in a row. To claim he is reducing them is rather idiotic, given that whatever reductions he has made so far still leave his yearly deficit twice as high as any deficit before he took office. 1* - Presidential control 2* - Senate control 3* - House control D = Democrat R = Republican Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted 1* 2* 3* 1940 $2.9 Billion Deficit $47.54 Billion Deficit D D D 1941 $4.9 Billion Deficit $76.56 Billion Deficit D D D 1942 $20.5 Billion Deficit $288.73 Billion Deficit D D D 1943 $54.6 Billion Deficit $728 Billion Deficit D D D 1944 $47.6 Billion Deficit $618.18 Billion Deficit D D D 1945 $47.6 Billion Deficit $610.26 Billion Deficit D D D 1946 $15.9 Billion Deficit $187.06 Billion Deficit D D D 1947 $4 Billion Surplus $41.24 Billion Surplus D R R 1948 $11.8 Billion Surplus $112.38 Billion Surplus D R R 1949 $0.6 Billion Surplus $5.77 Billion Surplus D D D 1950 $3.1 Billion Deficit $29.52 Billion Deficit D D D 1951 $6.1 Billion Surplus $53.98 Billion Surplus D D D 1952 $1.5 Billion Deficit $12.93 Billion Deficit D D D 1953 $6.5 Billion Deficit $56.03 Billion Deficit R R D 1954 $1.2 Billion Deficit $10.26 Billion Deficit R R D 1955 $3 Billion Deficit $25.64 Billion Deficit R D D 1956 $3.9 Billion Surplus $32.77 Billion Surplus R D D 1957 $3.4 Billion Surplus $27.64 Billion Surplus R D D 1958 $2.8 Billion Deficit $22.22 Billion Deficit R D D 1959 $12.8 Billion Deficit $100.79 Billion Deficit R D D 1960 $0.3 Billion Surplus $2.33 Billion Surplus R D D 1961 $3.3 Billion Deficit $25.38 Billion Deficit D D D 1962 $7.1 Billion Deficit $53.79 Billion Deficit D D D 1963 $4.8 Billion Deficit $36.09 Billion Deficit D D D 1964 $5.9 Billion Deficit $43.7 Billion Deficit D D D 1965 $1.4 Billion Deficit $10.22 Billion Deficit D D D 1966 $3.7 Billion Deficit $26.24 Billion Deficit D D D 1967 $8.6 Billion Deficit $58.9 Billion Deficit D D D 1968 $25.2 Billion Deficit $165.79 Billion Deficit D D D 1969 $3.2 Billion Surplus $20 Billion Surplus R D D 1970 $2.8 Billion Deficit $16.57 Billion Deficit R D D 1971 $23 Billion Deficit $129.94 Billion Deficit R D D 1972 $23.4 Billion Deficit $128.57 Billion Deficit R D D 1973 $14.9 Billion Deficit $76.8 Billion Deficit R D D 1974 $6.1 Billion Deficit $28.37 Billion Deficit R D D 1975 $53.2 Billion Deficit $226.38 Billion Deficit R D D 1976 $73.7 Billion Deficit $297.18 Billion Deficit R D D 1977 $53.7 Billion Deficit $203.41 Billion Deficit D D D 1978 $59.2 Billion Deficit $208.45 Billion Deficit D D D 1979 $40.7 Billion Deficit $128.39 Billion Deficit D D D 1980 $73.8 Billion Deficit $205.57 Billion Deficit D D D 1981 $79 Billion Deficit $199.49 Billion Deficit R R D 1982 $128 Billion Deficit $304.04 Billion Deficit R R D 1983 $207.8 Billion Deficit $478.8 Billion Deficit R R D 1984 $185.4 Billion Deficit $409.27 Billion Deficit R R D 1985 $212.3 Billion Deficit $452.67 Billion Deficit R R D 1986 $221.2 Billion Deficit $462.76 Billion Deficit R R D 1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit $302.42 Billion Deficit R D D 1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit $300.78 Billion Deficit R D D 1989 $152.5 Billion Deficit $281.89 Billion Deficit R D D 1990 $221.2 Billion Deficit $388.07 Billion Deficit R D D 1991 $269.3 Billion Deficit $453.37 Billion Deficit R D D 1992 $290.4 Billion Deficit $474.51 Billion Deficit R D D 1993 $255.1 Billion Deficit $404.92 Billion Deficit D D D 1994 $203.2 Billion Deficit $314.55 Billion Deficit D D D 1995 $164 Billion Deficit $246.62 Billion Deficit D R R 1996 $107.5 Billion Deficit $157.16 Billion Deficit D R R 1997 $22 Billion Deficit $31.43 Billion Deficit D R R 1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus $97.33 Billion Surplus D R R 1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus $172.76 Billion Surplus D R R 2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus $314.78 Billion Surplus D R R 2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus $164.9 Billion Surplus R D R 2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit $201.02 Billion Deficit R D R 2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit $470.82 Billion Deficit R R R 2004 $413 Billion Deficit $501.21 Billion Deficit R R R 2005 $318 Billion Deficit $373.24 Billion Deficit R R R 2006 $248 Billion Deficit $282.14 Billion Deficit R R R 2007 $161 Billion Deficit $178.1 Billion Deficit R D D 2008 $459 Billion Deficit $488.82 Billion Deficit R D D 2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D 2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit D D D 2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit D D R 2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1100 Billion Deficit D D R 2013 $900 Billion Deficit $884.96 Billion Deficit D D R This deficit decrease in his 2013 budget still only represents a cut in an increase his policies are responsible for. This is like the claim that Obama created jobs. He inherited a 7.something% unemployment rate. In his first 18 months it skyrocketed to around 10%. It took him 4 years to get the "official" unemployment rate down to virtually the same 7.something% from the increase his policies caused. I don't think I'll overly concern myself with the 0-vote-budget issue. It may have been political theater, but it happened. As such, it is as valid as the political theater that has allowed Odumbass to get away with claiming he's reduced the deficit, created jobs, and claim responsibility for things his regime is not responsible for. -SD-

WebWanderer -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 9:29:51 PM)
I spend only ~40% of my paycheck - the rest automatically goes to savings. So no, the payroll tax hasn't made any significant impact on my life. [sm=cool.gif]

TheHeretic -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 9:54:39 PM)
Fuck. Now we're going to get the Fin-Dommes hunting down here.

littlewonder -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 10:34:36 PM)
I'm adjusting just fine. Found a great job that I will be starting very soon, full benefits and I don't have to pay for a car or mortgage and my job pays for my transportation. I'm doing better now than I have in many, many years.

TheHeretic -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/17/2013 10:42:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I'm adjusting just fine. Found a great job that I will be starting very soon, full benefits and I don't have to pay for a car or mortgage and my job pays for my transportation. I'm doing better now than I have in many, many years. That's awesome! Unless you are becoming a truck driver. You aren't becoming a truck driver, are you?

DomKen -> RE: For those Americans who work for a living (2/18/2013 2:58:24 AM)
I'll deal with this since you flat out lied in your own post. quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave As for the deficit; I suggest you look at the history of the deficit. Before Obama, the highest deficit was less than $1/2 a trillion, The Bamster reign has given us over $1 trillion deficits 4 tears in a row. To claim he is reducing them is rather idiotic, given that whatever reductions he has made so far still leave his yearly deficit twice as high as any deficit before he took office. 2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D This is the deficit produced by the last W budget. No Obama deficit has been higher. Your uncredited source lies when they claim that Obama had control of the 2009 budget. It was proposed and passed in 2008 and started in september of 2008.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875