It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's $300B infrastructure plan

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 





First of all Neo, stop talking about "entitlement programs" as a whole. It's not a single entity, people like you group things together to exaggerate figures.


No yeah it is a single entity because its called MANDATORY spending.




Social security, 20%, is NOT something the government is throwing money away on. WE PAY INTO IT I don't know how you cannot fathom that. WE PAY IN, that is our money, not the government's money they are giving to us. So stop including that on your numbers for "social programs" up for cut, that's not their money, it's ours, we ARE entitled to it.


People are only entitled to the 6% they paid in to it.




Second of all, medicare, you know who is on medicare don't you? A bunch of old conservatives. A bunch of old people sucking the government's teet while whining about others doing it. You want to kill off the eldery that's fine, I won't complain, but your conservative brothers who benefit will likely get made.


Nice hyperbole ! ! !




Then it comes to unemployment insurance. You do know, if there were jobs, we wouldn't be spending anywhere near that, right?


Yeah when it comes to 'unemployment insurance' I don't think people should get paid for doing absolutely nothing,

Off the employers back.





Why not attack wasteful spending of this money, instead of attacking the money being spent in the first place?


That is what I have been doing.

Attacking the wasteful corporate welfare spending of social engineering programs.

Also been attacking the use of federal funds for union welfare like 'infrastructure'.

But hey who cares!




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Apples and oranges. In 2013, "social insurance" (aka "entitlements") tax payments were $947.8 billion. That's how much both employers and employees paid into "entitlements". Regular ole income tax generated $1.316 trillion. Corporate tax generated $273.5 billion. So...those payroll taxes paid over three times as much as all the corporations HQ'd in the US paid in the same year.

The link to look for yourself instead of using a website that is known to be biased. However, you will need either Excel or an open source variant (Open Office Calc works well) to view it: www.cbo.gov...

This is what I mean by apples and oranges. Benefits that get paid out every year basically emanate from those "social insurance taxes" as those are the funds that are obligated to be used in that manner. Now look at your graphs.

Over $700 billion in "welfare" spending in 2008. Well, in 2008, the "social insurance taxes" generated $896.2 billion in tax revenues.

The DoD, on the other hand, has budgetary resources that both draw from the income and corporate tax revenues and then its own investments.

Two different trees completely. Neo96, you're arguing with an accountant about budgets. This is my job.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You know what I hope this works and they are telling the truth for a change. We need this......We really do. If you have seen my posts before you know I hate progressive scum bags. But even the worst person can have a good idea.





This could really help this country and I being a sound minded constitutional loving conservative support it........If they are telling the truth and that is a big.........IF.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 




Apples and oranges.


Since this was already linked earlier

What is the total payroll taxes collected ?

Oh, and that's not counting the payroll tax CUT Obama made earlier during his presidency.

www.usdebtclock.org...

$971 billion dollars collect in payroll tax.

Now what is the total spending on SS, and Medicare?

over 2 trillion dollars including interest.

Once again Apple and oranges

Hardly.
edit on 26-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Well, I'm not surprised that the right would jump up in arms at anything Obama plans to do, be it good or bad.

It seems the USA would rather spend monies on bombs than bridges and roads and any mention of cutting one to fund the other is considered treason.

wtv.

Honestly, I'm over it.

Americans want to watch their entire nation crumble so that they can win whatever game of political football is going on, that's fine.

Just don't pretend you aren't part of the problem.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

SubTruth
reply to post by neo96
 


You know what I hope this works and they are telling the truth for a change. We need this......We really do. If you have seen my posts before you know I hate progressive scum bags. But even the worst person can have a good idea.





This could really help this country and I being a sound minded constitutional loving conservative support it........If they are telling the truth and that is a big.........IF.


I know this is not good.

As the administration hasn't delivered anything of substance yet.

The only thing he has delivered is DEBT.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
Well, I'm not surprised that the right would jump up in arms at anything Obama plans to do, be it good or bad.

It seems the USA would rather spend monies on bombs than bridges and roads and any mention of cutting one to fund the other is considered treason.

wtv.

Honestly, I'm over it.

Americans want to watch their entire nation crumble so that they can win whatever game of political football is going on, that's fine.

Just don't pretend you aren't part of the problem.

~Tenth


I know I am not 'part of the problem'

No one ever listens to me.

But they sure do listen to the Potus, and worships the wind beneath his wings.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

SubTruth
reply to post by neo96
 


You know what I hope this works and they are telling the truth for a change. We need this......We really do. If you have seen my posts before you know I hate progressive scum bags. But even the worst person can have a good idea.





This could really help this country and I being a sound minded constitutional loving conservative support it........If they are telling the truth and that is a big.........IF.


That is the issue I have, we spent 7 trillion in the last few years and got nothing for it, why would I believe this little crumb would actually do anything this time?

IMHO it is just another crony payday, either to corporations, or unions, but more likely both.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I beg to differ.

Anybody who would attack a party for wanting to spend money on critical infrastructure is doing it based on party or ideology and that's just plain wrong and stupid.

Then bring up a bunch of other things, largely unrelated to anything contained in the story as justification for the outrage.

Don't get me wrong, I have my fair share of 'faux outrage' when it comes to social issues and what not, but let's not kid ourselves here.

Infrastructure spending hasn't really occurred since like what the 80's? The entire nation is falling apart and I would think that DEFENSE can take a back seat to such a hugely important domestic issue.

But to some, it won't matter how the plan is structured or how it's presented, or even what it accomplishes.

Cause it's all bad when the POTUS of the party we don't like ( or just politicians in general, see armchair generals) says anything. Even when those things make a lot of sense.

Divide and conquer.

The terrorists have won in a lot of ways haven't they?

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
'Apples to oranges' !!!!!

Right :

Just pay no attention to Helvering V Davis or Flemming v. Nestor:

www.cato.org...

From the lips of the SCOTUS:




Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





You DO realize that our infrastructure is crumbling into unusability? I'd say that we have a LONG way to go of repairing and rebuilding existing roads, bridges, and tunnels before we have to worry about building new roads that don't go anywhere. Your point is dumb.


Yes sirrie!

Point how out 7 trillion dollars that have been blown in the past 7 years is 'dumb'.


So basically, this entire thread was made so you can continue to gripe and moan about how much we've spent on welfare in the last so many years?


Explaining to people just what is the direct cause of 'infrastructure' in decline is also 'dumb'.


There are many factors at play for why the infrastructure is in decline. It isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it seem. You should stop the partisan rhetoric.


But please by all means.

Please continue parroting White House talking points.


Care to point out how ANYTHING I have said in this thread is a White House talking point? The website I linked to certainly isn't www.whitehouse.gov, so what White House talking points are you accusing me of parroting exactly? Do you disagree that the roads need to be repaired and think that it is all an illusion created by Obama so he can justify spending more money or something?


That shows who the 'dumb' ones are.


You certainly do...



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
Well, I'm not surprised that the right would jump up in arms at anything Obama plans to do, be it good or bad.

It seems the USA would rather spend monies on bombs than bridges and roads and any mention of cutting one to fund the other is considered treason.

wtv.

Honestly, I'm over it.

Americans want to watch their entire nation crumble so that they can win whatever game of political football is going on, that's fine.

Just don't pretend you aren't part of the problem.

~Tenth


It has little to do with any left vs right political BS, as far as I am concerned.

I just dont believe it will be any different than any of the other times we spend more than the GDP of a medium sized country and got absolutely nothing out of it.

I mean, what did we get out of any of the trillions we already spent?

Why would we expect this time to be any different at all?

Because the prez is the man hope? I just hope the electricity isnt off and the water still works by the time he leaves office at rate he is spending our great grandchildren's money on nothing.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So what you're saying is that a debt clock hosted by an unknown individual is somehow comparative to actual source information from the CBO, itself. Do a whois on that link that you seem to think is a valid source. They aren't even honest about who they are....



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





I beg to differ.


Feel free




Anybody who would attack a party for wanting to spend money on critical infrastructure is doing it based on party or ideology and that's just plain wrong and stupid.


Is that so ?

Calling out more government stupidity, and infrastructure spending is stupid.

Especially after just getting a blank check from congress.

Blowing 800 billion dollars when he became president, just signing a trillion dollar farm bill.

Is NOT wrong or stupid.

The Obama administration just spent 7 trillion dollars in 6 years.

That is more than the total for the last guy during his ENTIRE two terms.

And once again.

Infrastructure are local and state issues.

Not robbing from one state to give to another state who will see NO benefit what so ever.

While the states with the high populations will cost the most. Leaving the lesser populated areas left blowing in the proverbial wind.

Anyone who has heard of the Boston 'Big Dig' knows how wrong Obama is, and those who defend 'infrastructure' spending are.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





So basically, this entire thread was made so you can continue to gripe and moan about how much we've spent on welfare in the last so many years?


No this thread was created to talk about Obama blowing more money since the last 6 years he doesn't have a damn thing to show for it.

Except 7 trillion in debt.




There are many factors at play for why the infrastructure is in decline. It isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it seem. You should stop the partisan rhetoric.


Yeah and the nanny state is why.




Care to point out how ANYTHING I have said in this thread is a White House talking point? The website I linked to certainly isn't www.whitehouse.gov, so what White House talking points are you accusing me of parroting exactly? Do you disagree that the roads need to be repaired and think that it is all an illusion created by Obama so he can justify spending more money or something?


Infrastructure spending is awesome!

That White House talking point.




That shows who the 'dumb' ones are.


Nope.

The ones who support blowing 300 more billion dollars after spending 800 billion on 'shovel ready' does.

6 years later STILL DOESN'T have anything to show for it.



edit on 26-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

WhiteAlice
reply to post by neo96
 


So what you're saying is that a debt clock hosted by an unknown individual is somehow comparative to actual source information from the CBO, itself. Do a whois on that link that you seem to think is a valid source. They aren't even honest about who they are....



What have a problem with that site ?

Why ?

It was good enough to bash Bush with over the head with when he was Potus.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So what the heck do you want the government to do until the end of Obama's term? Nothing? Because frankly that would NEVER happen and that is LITERALLY the only way the government won't spend anymore money. You complaining about the government spending more money to fix something that is utterly broken is by far the most asinine thing I've ever seen. This is on top of you being EXTREMELY vocal about continuing to fund our over bloated military. Frankly, your priorities are messed up. You are making up bad reasons to denounce good ideas all so you can continue to toe the Republican line. It is sick and disgusting.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 






So what the heck do you want the government to do until the end of Obama's term?


Works for me.

Can't screw the country over anymore than it already is that way.

But alas we were 'promised' a year of action ! ! ! !



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Well it's not going to happen. I don't care if a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, or any other political party were in power. There is literally no way that will EVER happen. To wish for it and complain when it doesn't happen is just a recipe for unhappiness and does nothing to further any useful debates.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Is that so ?

Calling out more government stupidity, and infrastructure spending is stupid.


The ladder yes, the former no.


Especially after just getting a blank check from congress.

Blowing 800 billion dollars when he became president, just signing a trillion dollar farm bill.

Is NOT wrong or stupid.

The Obama administration just spent 7 trillion dollars in 6 years.

That is more than the total for the last guy during his ENTIRE two terms.


None of that means anything in the context of infrastructure spending. It's just hyperbole to prove your point that this is all bad because Obama's Admin are the ones doing it.


Infrastructure are local and state issues.


No, it's not.

The largest of all infrastructure projects in the US have always been funded by the FED in some way or another.

Yes, the majority of infrastructure at the local and state level can fall under that, but the state has neither the time nor the resources in most cases to develop proper infrastructure strategies and then subsequently deploy them.

There's the other point to mention here, which is that the proposal isn't even on the table yet, and you've already dismissed it.

~Tenth
edit on 2/26/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join