The GOP's last chance

#101
#101
Implication that the rich and poor have done the same level of work in "enjoying" all of the benefits our nation provides is borderline stupidity. All started with an opportunity to benefit from our system. Not all have done so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#102
#102
droski said:
i guess mods can make personal attacks. nice

money put into the capital markets has already been taxed. you want to start taxing money in my checking account too? how the hell is that a tax shelter?
Click to expand...

Did I mention you? Did I mention anybody? Have you ever called me a socialist?
 
#103
#103
droski said:
relavance? how does a rich person on average cost more for medicare,medicaid, social security and defense than a poor person? particurally since the rich pay higher taxes on all things mentioned and also pay higher premiums. you seem to forget the dollar amounts that the rich pay over the poor are many multiples here.
Click to expand...

I would definitely say that our expeditionary excursions since Vietnam have benefited the rich more than the poor (something about college students not being drafted in Vietnam seems to ring a bell; something about oil and corporate contracts in the ME rings a bell, now).

Simply because you can quantify entitlements and cannot quantify certain other measures, does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion that the poor get more and pay less than the rich.
 
#104
#104
therealUT said:
For a fact? Exactly which qualitative measures are you arbitrarily trying to quantify and which are you arbitrarily attempting to ignore?

Seeing as how the biggest budget items are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense, I fail to see your argument as sound. Old people, as an entire group, can neither be categorized as poor nor rich: rich old people still use Medicare and draw Social Security. The Department of Defense has a tendency to protect "American Interests" abroad; these interests are usually the interests of the rich and powerful in America.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the poor subsidize social security. The poor generally start working at age 18. Generally retire at 65 or later. And generally don't live much past that.

Compare that to a typical middle class individual: Generally starts working at age 22-25. Generally is able to retire earlier than 65. Generally lives a lot longer than the poor.

The working poor pay into the system over a longer period and collect for a shorter period.
 
#107
#107
therealUT said:
I would definitely say that our expeditionary excursions since Vietnam have benefited the rich more than the poor (something about college students not being drafted in Vietnam seems to ring a bell; something about oil and corporate contracts in the ME rings a bell, now).

Simply because you can quantify entitlements and cannot quantify certain other measures, does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion that the poor get more and pay less than the rich.
Click to expand...

How have the rich benefited more than the poor? They both still have access to the same "system".

You can always argue that the wealthy have benefited more because of their station, but it's silly to presume that they had no hand in Theo outcome and they that haven't more than paid their fair share.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#108
#108
nbakerld said:
Not to mention the poor subsidize social security. The poor generally start working at age 18. Generally retire at 65 or later. And generally don't live much past that.

Compare that to a typical middle class individual: Generally starts working at age 22-25. Generally is able to retire earlier than 65. Generally lives a lot longer than the poor.

The working poor pay into the system over a longer period and collect for a shorter period.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that as the money made in a lifetime of a college grad is much greater than that of a HS one. I would bet I will put in more between 24-65 than a person that entered the workforce at 18
 
#109
#109
utvolpj said:
I would disagree with that as the money made in a lifetime of a college grad is much greater than that of a HS one. I would bet I will put in more between 24-65 than a person that entered the workforce at 18
Click to expand...

Is the worth of an individual really measured by how much they 'pay into' the system now?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#110
#110
utvolpj said:
yeah what's a little more straw on the camel's back. Can't see a problem there

I see no fun in forcing others to pay for my debts
Click to expand...

It's not fun. It's recognizing that it's fair to share the cost of paying down the debt. The wealthiest have done remarkably well, as a group relative to others, in the past ten years. If I saw real evidence that more taxes were going to cause them not to hire when they otherwise would, I might hesitate. But there is no viable reason to believe that rolling back the cuts will hurt the economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#111
#111
JayVols said:
Is the worth of an individual really measured by how much they 'pay into' the system now?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

it was only in reference to his statement that the poor subsidize SS

I'm all for keeping my money and letting them continue if that's the case
 
#112
#112
lawgator1 said:
It's not fun. It's recognizing that it's fair to share the cost of paying down the debt. The wealthiest have done remarkably well, as a group relative to others, in the past ten years. If I saw real evidence that more taxes were going to cause them not to hire when they otherwise would, I might hesitate. But there is no viable reason to believe that rolling back the cuts will hurt the economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
I suspect more millionaires have become not millionaires over the past decade than at any other time in our history. I bet it's not even close.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#113
#113
The republicans can reject whatever the prez throws at them. In the end the people will hold Obama responsible whether it's his fault or not.
 
#114
#114
utvolpj said:
it was only in reference to his statement that the poor subsidize SS

I'm all for keeping my money and letting them continue if that's the case
Click to expand...

Ok. Just wanted clarity.

You want to keep your money and pay for govt services yourself? Or are you speaking solely on SS?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
utvolpj said:
it was only in reference to his statement that the poor subsidize SS

I'm all for keeping my money and letting them continue if that's the case
Click to expand...

Ideally, I would like to see SS abolished, as well as Medicare; however, that option is not on the table and, likely, never will be.

In an ideal situation, I would like to see a FairTax system or at least a Flat Tax; yet, I do not see that as a viable option right now. The government needs to cut spending and needs to raise revenue. I think increases the taxes on every worker, will ultimately force the government to spend more responsibly.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but this is the premise I am working off of.
 
#116
#116
lawgator1 said:
It's not fun. It's recognizing that it's fair to share the cost of paying down the debt. The wealthiest have done remarkably well, as a group relative to others, in the past ten years. If I saw real evidence that more taxes were going to cause them not to hire when they otherwise would, I might hesitate. But there is no viable reason to believe that rolling back the cuts will hurt the economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

half the people in the US already don't share the cost. Saying they will start is ludicrous. The taxes will happen and the cuts will be worth nothing by the time they are realized. BO knows this and it's why he's proposing them
 
#117
#117
JayVols said:
Is the worth of an individual really measured by how much they 'pay into' the system now?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Not personal worth, but we're arguing here that net negative folks are less burdensome to the system than net positive folks because of all the benefits being used by the net payors.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#118
#118
milohimself said:
I'm pretty sure you can't institute $2b in cuts in one FY, that would be disastrous.
Click to expand...

Missed this gem. So you are advocating the same thing. 3:1 spending cuts to revenue increases where the spending cuts are in the future (i.e., will never happen or are a play with numbers) and the tax increases (on only the wealthy) are immediate and real.

Yet you blame the republicans for not agreeing to such a proposal and credit Obama for sticking his neck out?
 
#119
#119
therealUT said:
Ideally, I would like to see SS abolished, as well as Medicare; however, that option is not on the table and, likely, never will be.

In an ideal situation, I would like to see a FairTax system or at least a Flat Tax; yet, I do not see that as a viable option right now. The government needs to cut spending and needs to raise revenue. I think increases the taxes on every worker, will ultimately force the government to spend more responsibly.

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but this is the premise I am working off of.
Click to expand...
It is obscenely shortsighted to assume that the revenue side increasing will result in less debt. I'm all for everyone payig their share, but presuming congress cat piss additional money away in buying votes is crazy. That's why the emphasis should always be on expense side. Govt just can't take it away once someone views it as a right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#120
#120
If anyone ever thought just maybe this government was inept, then look no further than this. I don't understand how they can call Social Security a entitlement when people paid it in all their lives/ twisted thinking there. Neither side seems to be willing to budge, i don't see much getting done anytime soon. They'll just raise the debt ceiling and print some more money, you know like they're doing now. The dollar will crash and stocks will tumble. This is just kind of pitiful if you think about it.

Buy gold people it's the only thing that's going to worth a damn in the future, our leaders(so called) are making sure of it. It's like a bunch of children fighting over a kickball.
 
#121
#121
Cartervol said:
If anyone ever thought just maybe this government was inept, then look no further than this. I don't understand how they can call Social Security a entitlement when people paid it in all their lives/ twisted thinking there. Neither side seems to be willing to budge, i don't see much getting done anytime soon. They'll just raise the debt ceiling and print some more money, you know like they're doing now. The dollar will crash and stocks will tumble. This is just kind of pitiful if you think about it.

Buy gold people it's the only thing that's going to worth a damn in the future, our leaders(so called) are making sure of it. It's like a bunch of children fighting over a kickball.
Click to expand...

Solid. You forgot about the fact that the lower the dollar value, the higher the cost of oil though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
Cartervol said:
If anyone ever thought just maybe this government was inept, then look no further than this. I don't understand how they can call Social Security a entitlement when people paid it in all their lives/ twisted thinking there. Neither side seems to be willing to budge, i don't see much getting done anytime soon. They'll just raise the debt ceiling and print some more money, you know like they're doing now. The dollar will crash and stocks will tumble. This is just kind of pitiful if you think about it.

Buy gold people it's the only thing that's going to worth a damn in the future, our leaders(so called) are making sure of it. It's like a bunch of children fighting over a kickball.
Click to expand...

The term "entitlement" when applied to Congressional Appropriations does not mean what you think it means. I recommend you research "entitlements vs. discretionary spending".
 
#123
#123
JayVols said:
Solid. You forgot about the fact that the lower the dollar value, the higher the cost of oil though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
They're keeping it right at a price where people wish it were cheaper but they're still buying it. Let it get back up around 4 dollars again. They start car pooling and riding the amtrac and buses again. Less demand and it goes down every time.
 
#124
#124
Cartervol said:
They're keeping it right at a price where people wish it were cheaper but they're still buying it. Let it get back up around 4 dollars again. They start car pooling and riding the amtrac and buses again. Less demand and it goes down every time.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that oil prices are manipulated?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#125
#125
JayVols said:
Are you suggesting that oil prices are manipulated?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not by they. I believe traders take huge advantage of the market and that OPEC absolutely manipulates price.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top