My credit card should have infinity credit limit!

reply to post by neo96


I would give the rich people foodstamps as well. Everyone gets em! Even the rich will use them and could you imagine the economic boom it would create?

By the way, the poor pay very little in taxes...because they are poor. It's hard to give something when you have nothing and feeding your family is a constant struggle.

If we didn't have a track record to look at, I might be less skeptical. But we do. It's like giving a freshman college kid a credit card..."they will" max it out.

The abomination of bureaucracy is part of the problem, all those little Gov ants cost a lot of money and they stifle efficiency...pork projects to Senator and Congressman home states...glad handing to lobbyist.

I am totally against the idea of giving authorization for them to have unlimited blank checks. Hell they already spend that way while pretending to be frugal or cautious. "What do you mean I'm broke? I still have blank checks in my checkbook"

I understand that we have to pay our bills. I understand that might require "another" debt cap...but we cannot just keep doing this and we cannot just say "no limit". The madness has to stop.

I saw an interview today with Boehner and he said the Pres is asking for 1.6 trillion in tax increases and has only put 400 billion in cuts on the table...and added more spending to boot. This is NOT addressing the deficit.

Maybe these boneheads know something we don't and that is why they do not care. maybe all this "fiscal cliff" stuff is just to scare us back into our cages...Maybe they already know it is impossible to pay back so might as well suck up all the credit you can get before you declare bankruptcy. Does anyone know what we have been using as collateral for all this money we are borrowing?...I'm guessing Detroit...that's why they have abandoned it.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I agree but Tothetenth had a point. Spending is going to increase just due to defense spending and public service pensions.

I see two option.

Go totally socialist, 50% tax for everyone and a massive government housing programme and jobs programme

or

Massive cuts to everyone and a self-austerity programme.

Guess which one we're leaning towards?

reply to post by sheepslayer247

y the way, the poor pay very little in taxes...because they are poor. It's hard to give something when you have nothing and feeding your family is a constant struggle.

Or none at all which was the point that was made previously they get out more than they ever return,.

Poor welfare/,medicaid to retirement ss,medicare

Cradle to the grave take more from the country than ever returned to it whiich is why we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit.

reply to post by neo96


SS is not an entitlement. It is paid into by all as a way to care for the elderly as is Medicare. Otherwise, what would they do...work until they fall over dead?

Not only do we have a fiscal responsibility Neo, but we also have a social responsibility. It is quite easy to take care of that social responsibility if we drop the other garbage we pay for.

If we didn't care for the less fortunate or sick it would really show that we are heartless neanderthals and even though we are technologically advanced, society has not evolved one bit.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


SS is an entitlement

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When people are getting more out than they pay in it is an entitlement

For instance:

A person who makes 30 grand a year who pays 4% has a yearly contribution of 1200 bucks for 40 years that makes 48 grand for that period of time.

Someone else(employer) pays the rest so that would make that 96,000 after 40 years.

Someone put that cash in an investment account they would have a far better return but nope wall street is evil.

Now that 96 grand they don't get for 40 years they can't touch they have to go beg for works out to 1000 bucks a month on the average.

How the hell is that not an entitlement a person only paid 4% and gets more than they paid in multiply that by 50 million Ameircans who currently collect it.

Once they go on SS they get medicare that automatically gets deducted from that SS check both are being paid for by the youngsters of the country.

Which is what all "working" people do they are paying for someone else who are using those programs but they are not covering the expense the expense is offset my taxing the rich, borrowing money from China, and printing money out of thin air.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Not to mention...if we didn't subsidize the poor...who would park your car, mow your grass, cook your favorite fat @ss dinner for $5.99.

If everyone was paid a fair and living wage, we couldn't afford the "little luxuries" our big lazy @sses have come to expect. A burger would cost $10.00 and fresh cut beef would require a mortgage. We like to frown at the poor but without them, we couldn't afford to wipe our butts with toilet paper...someone has to be poor so others can be comfortable...this is the reality of the world we have made. We buck up, look at our ugly selves in the mirror and deal with it...or we look for real solutions.

I understand you point sheepslayer...I am not against the social contract that is social security. I was completely against the Gov for pilfering it to balance the budget beginning under Reagan... and now they call the debt they owe to the fund a "entitlement"...yes...the people that paid into Social Security are "entitled" to get the money back the Gov stole from them. If no one had to pay into this thing and it was just something the Gov did out of the good of their hearts...then yes...it is an "entitlement"...but a promise was made...it is expected to be fulfilled.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I agree but Tothetenth had a point. Spending is going to increase just due to defense spending and public service pensions.

I see two option.

Go totally socialist, 50% tax for everyone and a massive government housing programme and jobs programme

or

Massive cuts to everyone and a self-austerity programme.

Guess which one we're leaning towards?

edit on 30-11-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

I say we just revamp the government. Return it to what it's supposed to be instead of what it's been made into over the past two centuries. No big salaries for politicians, no accounts set up for them to run their "offices", none of that, just them doing "community service" and filling a role that needs to be filled.

Then do a 25% flat rate on all income with no loopholes for a set period of time, say two years. Don't allow any deductions, no loopholes at all for the two year period and see what the outcome is.

....just a thought, I'm not an economist and find balancing my checkbook challenging regardless of multiple degrees in Mathematics

.... I never did get into the economic side of Mathematics, I prefer the theoretical and applications to science

reply to post by neo96


People should get more than they put into it. The program is designed to take a little money and stash it away, building interest until it's time to be put to use. The funds have been raided by the politicians and that is the reason it is in trouble, not because the moochers have played the system.

The problem with Wall Street is not that they are evil, it's that they are unreliable. As we have seen over the last years, the market is volatile and completely at the whim of policy-makers and big-money interests. It is not a viable alternative to take a guaranteed safety-net through SS and hand it over to an institution that cannot guarantee the money will not dissipate over night.

I am open to better alternatives, but until a solid solution can be put in place we must keep SS going.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


In the correct definition of the word, yes it is an entitlement. But I think you can agree that the word "entitlement" has now become a political buzzword to indicate that those that are "entitled" are nothing more than welfare recipients that are taking freebies from the government that they never paid in to.

That is not the case with SS and I do not call it an entitlement in the context in which the word is being used.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

People should get more than they put into it.

Seriously?

No they shouldn't.

The program is designed to take a little money and stash it away, building interest until it's time to be put to use.

That is what it was sold as, and what it continues to defended as the truth is known to all who are paying attention that money is gone as soon as it is collected.

Hello?

16 trillion dollar defict and current federal spending at 2.2 trillion dollars that is not being paid for.

People want their so called safety net pay for them myself I'd rather have iras.and other investment vehicles.

People can choose to live on a pittance paid in and a pittance paid out not I.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer

 

Why do people think that raising the debt ceiling = spending?

I don't really understand. The Debt Ceiling is symbolic, it does not mean automatic spending. It just means that the government has now the option of spending said money in the budget as approved by Congress.

The fact that all recent presidents and congresses have taken full advantage of that "option" and proceeded to equate a debt ceiling raise to immediate room on Mom & Dad's credit cards while gleefully waltzing through the mall would seem to indicate a trend, Tenth. Furthermore, what is the Congressional approved budget you speak of? I don't recall us having one of those since George Walker Bush left the White House.

But yeah, just give us a few minutes to prepare ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren for the sticker shock and surprise rear admiraling and jack that flipping debt cap to the moon.

Personally I say "screw 'em." and I'm not talking about those of us who are getting stuck with the bill. It is long past time for the Federal government to either learn to feed itself within the existing confines of their resources and balance their expenditures accordingly... or starve to death. Maybe China can open a US Government soup kitchen or Brothers of Saint Francis shelter to take in those alphabet agencies who have fallen on hard times... start putting up red, white, and blue kettles with a dude dressed as Uncle Sam ringing a little mock up of the Liberty Bell at the front door of all the world's malls asking for donations to help feed HUD. Start selling TSA Cookies (I hear the Groping Grasshopper chocolate mint cookies are divine) and Medicare can sell handcrafts to make ends meet. I honestly couldn't give a rat's rear end how they opt to barter for, beg for, or treasure hunt for the funds they need, but the time is now for the American tax payer to shut their door, turn off the lights, and quietly wait for them to leave our porches and go peddle their empty promises and insulting pamphlets elsewhere.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Yes, "entitlement" has taken on a whole new meaning these days. The recipients of Social Security made a contract with the Gov. Each paycheck, they would give a percentage of their hard earned money to the Gov in trust who, for being allowed access to that money over time, would pay them interest and provide a retirement income when they came "of age". They were entitled to that money because they had an arrangement. They did their part and paid into the system for years and now they are fully correct in expecting the Gov to do their part....they are entitled to their money.

Now...entitlement has become this broad paint brush that covers SSI, and Medicare (also part of the deal)...with charities...welfare, food stamps, medicaid and housing. They are not the same. In the first group, we pay into it (by no choice I might add) and we rightfully expect to get it back. The other is from tax revenues collected from everywhere...and distributed based on income and "need".

I do not begrudge people expecting to get back what the Gov took from them. The system is...however...extremely damaged in application. No need to go there now as it is somewhat off topic.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I agree but Tothetenth had a point. Spending is going to increase just due to defense spending and public service pensions.

I see two option.

Go totally socialist, 50% tax for everyone and a massive government housing programme and jobs programme

or

Massive cuts to everyone and a self-austerity programme.

Option #3: Tax the everloving horsecrap out of the government itself. Imagine the brilliance of it all. Income and corporate tax rates could be locked in stone at Bush levels, but suddenly we apply a VAT tax to all government entities not specifically provided for in the United States Constitution. Pure, unadulterated defense spending (i.e. spending that actually keeps us safe and leads to $$$ in the form of the spoils of war... I'll pause now so the government and 70% of the US population can take a moment to learn about spoils and why, when they were claimed in warfare throughout history, fewer wars were fought because losing governments actually stood to lose something of more tangible value to them than soldiers' lives hold.), commerce spending, and some infrastructure spending would be exempt. Most social services, unfunded pensions, nanny state programs, world policing, pointless meddlesome and obstructionist agencies, and most pork barrel spending would be taxed at the 1960's 91% figure the tax & spend crowd seems so infatuated with these days. Those dollars, in turn, would go into the general fund where they would be mandated to be utilized to pay for those aforementioned Constitutionally approved sinkholes.

Make no mistake, it is beauracracy... but it's beauracracy against the beaureaucrats, which makes it a simply magnificent slap across the face of the idiots in DC.

reply to post by neo96

I'd rather have iras.and other investment vehicles.

What happens when those investments go belly-up Neo? Do we let you starve and step over your withering body as you lie homeless in the streets?

No, we are beyond that I believe.

Your ideas may sound good on the surface to those that realize the government has royally screwed us, but in the end it is one step away from barbarism.

We are not living in the dark ages and it's time that we put our social responsibilities on par with our other priorities.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


My way is diversified risk and people paying their own way

We have tried it the other way for over 70 years and we are now about to go belly up.

who care tho lets have 70 more years of the same,

reply to post by neo96


It's about to go belly-up because of corrupt politicians, not the infallibility of the system itself.

there has to be a better way then the current system where the debt ceiling mechanism is used as a political football

and I agree you can't just give them unlimited spending powers

the problem is the interest on the debt is compounding, and it's like running uphill in sand

so the only way out as I see it is by becoming a producer and exporter instead of a consumer and importer

but the american worker makes too much money to make it feasible

so the only way out is to make less and spend less ?

I'm so freaking confused now

reply to post by beezzer


Our children are doomed, unless we do something about it.

NOW

so the only way out as I see it is by becoming a producer and exporter instead of a consumer and importer

but the american worker makes too much money to make it feasible

There is an answer and quite simple. Immediate, gigantic tariffs on (chinese) imports, make it so expensive that manufacturing returns here and we make what we buy, again.
This will never happen for the same reason our borders are not controlled, both corrupt Parties have incentives to keep the current system.