Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: For those Americans who work for a living


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: For those Americans who work for a living Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 4:54:05 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Welcome back Rich.



We'll see.




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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 5:26:26 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
Be careful Polite,should you ruffle his feathers he takes his ball and goes home.
Please see the threat just issued to the "Girl "


_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 5:43:37 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Wow.... reduced to "Girls" and "Boys" now, are we?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 5:47:41 PM   
Baroana


Posts: 1480
Joined: 11/13/2011
Status: offline
Y'all couldn't see me shaking my head when I read that, but that was my only response.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 5:52:45 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/16/2013 11:31:01 PM   
stef


Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 2:48:35 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 2:52:47 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 3:24:25 AM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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-




< Message edited by SadistDave -- 2/17/2013 3:30:59 AM >


_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 6:30:11 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 6:37:50 AM   
TreasureKY


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

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.

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 9:02:53 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 2:59:03 PM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
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?



_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 5:34:13 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Fuck it

Read the link

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2013/01/05/updated-2013-federal-income-tax-brackets-and-marginal-rates/


< Message edited by TheHeretic -- 2/17/2013 5:41:27 PM >


_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 9:27:16 PM   
SadistDave


Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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-



_____________________________

To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 9:29:51 PM   
WebWanderer


Posts: 255
Joined: 5/20/2011
From: Fort Worth, TX
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Author of Introduction to Self-Bondage and Nine Tales of Submission - now available on Kindle! :)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 9:54:39 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
Fuck. Now we're going to get the Fin-Dommes hunting down here.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to WebWanderer)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 10:34:36 PM   
littlewonder


Posts: 15659
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Nothing has changed
Everything has changed

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/17/2013 10:42:37 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to littlewonder)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: For those Americans who work for a living - 2/18/2013 2:58:24 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: For those Americans who work for a living Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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