Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on July 26, 2011, 01:14:38 AM
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/07/25/president-obama-addresses-nation-dangers-default
What ego. ;/
-
"For the last decade..." (It's not my fault.)
"In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But, instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was used for trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were added to the nation's credit card." (It's not my fault, but I took the $300 billion deficit and more than tripled it anyway. And I doubled down on the drug program by pushing through a multi-trillion dollar socialized medicine program.)
"...an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or the biggest corporations to contribute anything at all." (Those wealthy Americans--25% of the population--are already paying 75% of the taxes. I won't be happy until they're paying 100%.)
What a *expletive deleted*che bag.
-
I could only take a small dose, oozing arrogance and condescension.
something like "like our founders said, out of the many-one" When he says it it sounds like evil Spock talking about the other federation on that star trek episode where Spock has a goatee
-
I loved the part where he stated that the debt ceiling was "a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before" and then proceeded to lecture on the subject as if we hadn't been hearing about it on the *expletive deleted*ing news for WEEKS now. :facepalm:
Condescending SOB.
Also, bonus quote:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure...It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit." - Senator Barack Obama, 2006
-
There was much yelling at the tv last night at casa de lup
What an arrogant, ignorant, self righteous, fear mongering, *expletive deleted*che bag.
-
So, in, summary, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSH!!!!!!
-
So, in, summary, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSH!!!!!!
Yep Blame Bush.
I didn't agree with the some of the message of the speech/talk but I did think he did an excellent job on delivery.
I don't agree with taxing coorporations because all they will do is raise prices, I do in part agree with restoring some of the taxes on most wealthy or go to a standard flat tax for everyone and ditch any tax right offs/ incentives.
I do also agree with a balanced budget amendment, the great state of Iowa has on where we can only spend up to 99% of actual revenues taken in, probably the #1 reason Iowa isn't in the hole like CA or IL.
-
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure...It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit." - Senator Barack Obama, 2006
Oh what tangled webs we weave...
-
I had one of those moments where I almost kicked the TV off its stand, then realized that I didn' need to- Obama will ensure that my taxes will go up enough to make up the cost of a couple of 52" plasma TVs per year, and I didn't need to help myself in emptying my wallet.
-
I had one of those moments where I almost kicked the TV off its stand, then realized that I didn' need to- Obama will ensure that my taxes will go up enough to make up the cost of a couple of 52" plasma TVs per year, and I didn't need to help myself in emptying my wallet.
I just skipped it and didn't watch it. I know I won't agree with what he says and much of what he says will be half-truth.
-
Yep Blame Bush.
I didn't agree with the some of the message of the speech/talk but I did think he did an excellent job on delivery.
I don't agree with taxing coorporations because all they will do is raise prices, I do in part agree with restoring some of the taxes on most wealthy or go to a standard flat tax for everyone and ditch any tax right offs/ incentives.
I do also agree with a balanced budget amendment, the great state of Iowa has on where we can only spend up to 99% of actual revenues taken in, probably the #1 reason Iowa isn't in the hole like CA or IL.
I guess different people see the "delivery" differently. I never had a problem with Bush's speeches. I still don't understand why so many people are so caught up with that. They would rather be cheated by a slick salesman than deal honestly with a poor one.
I also don't think the "wealthy" should pay any more taxes than anyone else by percentage. However, they shouldn't get any more tax shelters either. Of course, there is always the problem that my definition of wealthy and democrat's definition of wealthy are two different things. Democrats always end up telling me I'm wealthy. Of course, income does not equal wealth anyway.
-
Server not found
Be still my heart!
-
I don't see anything unusual about Obama's speaking style. I've heard better. In fact, much better.
When you listen to the words, it's like listening to a closed loop recording. Nothing you haven't heard before.
-
Makes me so glad I'm stuck where I'm at without 24 hour a day TV access.
-
I don't see anything unusual about Obama's speaking style. I've heard better. In fact, much better.
When you listen to the words, it's like listening to a closed loop recording. Nothing you haven't heard before.
He also says "um" ALL THE DAMN TIME.
I personally only force myself to watch him speak when it's an off-prompter one...he flounders like a new college graduate...it's actually fun to watch if you forget he's the president for a moment. I personally can't wait for the 2012 debates, especially if we get a good candidate (still wishing Ryan would run, he would tear Obama apart in a debate)...I will be watching closely for the "ten word answer" (a la "the west wing")...a classic Obama soundbite answer...then watch the rebuttal with a real PLAN. Unfortunately, the MSM will only show the Obama answer, and creatively edit a soundbite from the GOP that totally distorts the actual answer. Remember 2008 dem primary debates where Obama said, after being asked if he would raise cap gains taxes EVEN IF IT REDUCED TAX REVENUE, "I would, in the interest of fairness"...wow...what a great soundbite...that the MSM BURIED.
-
I also don't think the "wealthy" should pay any more taxes than anyone else by percentage. However, they shouldn't get any more tax shelters either. Of course, there is always the problem that my definition of wealthy and democrat's definition of wealthy are two different things. Democrats always end up telling me I'm wealthy. Of course, income does not equal wealth anyway.
I could agree with removing all the tax shelters/loopholds for everyone. No more mortage interest right offs, no more municipal bonds, no student loan interest credit, no education credit, welfare recipents pay tax, etc.
-
I could agree with removing all the tax shelters/loopholds for everyone. No more mortage interest right offs, no more municipal bonds, no student loan interest credit, no education credit, welfare recipents pay tax, etc.
Spitballing numbers around, with a $4 trillion annual operating cost and 300 million people to pay those costs... and keeping in mind that 300 million includes seniors, children, mentally handicapped, convicts, homeless and millionaires...
That comes out to a per-capita cost of government of $13,333.34.
A family of four has a household cost of government of $53,333.34.
I'm good with your proposal.
I'll pay my $13k. When I get married, my wife and I will pay $26k. When we have kids, we'll pay our $53k.
Now go out and get everyone else to pay their $13k. Get rid of all the tax shelters/loopholes. All of em. Even the income-based ones for those that make under $25k, or are on welfare, or are living behind the city park, have 8 kids and live in Salt Lake City, or are in jail.
-
I'll pay my $13k. When I get married, my wife and I will pay $26k. When we have kids, we'll pay our $53k.
Now go out and get everyone else to pay their $13k. Get rid of all the tax shelters/loopholes. All of em. Even the income-based ones for those that make under $25k, or are on welfare, or are living behind the city park, have 8 kids and live in Salt Lake City, or are in jail.
Brilliant!
I would gladly pay the $53K for my family if everyone else were forced to pay their share:)
The size of the federal government would shrink significantly in the 2nd year :cool:
-
FFS, I'd be willing to pay my share, though it would mean homelessness once again. I'm tired of this government being out of control, and it needs to stop NOW! :mad:
What it would mean is that business would thrive again and I might be able to find work, regardless of my disabilities. :)
-
Spitballing numbers around, with a $4 trillion annual operating cost and 300 million people to pay those costs... and keeping in mind that 300 million includes seniors, children, mentally handicapped, convicts, homeless and millionaires...
That comes out to a per-capita cost of government of $13,333.34.
A family of four has a household cost of government of $53,333.34.
I'm good with your proposal.
I'll pay my $13k. When I get married, my wife and I will pay $26k. When we have kids, we'll pay our $53k.
Now go out and get everyone else to pay their $13k. Get rid of all the tax shelters/loopholes. All of em. Even the income-based ones for those that make under $25k, or are on welfare, or are living behind the city park, have 8 kids and live in Salt Lake City, or are in jail.
Flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage not the same dollar mount.
So welfare dude that rakes in $20k in welfare last year at 10% pays $2k in tax.
Local businessman makes $1 million last year pays $100k in at 10% tax.
-
Flat tax means everyone pays the same percentage not the same dollar mount.
So welfare dude that rakes in $20k in welfare last year at 10% pays $2k in tax.
Local businessman makes $1 million last year pays $100k in at 10% tax.
Even that is a far cry better than a progressive tax system for the purpose of keeping government in check.
A progressive tax system only allows a government to grow progressively larger.
-
Even that is a far cry better than a progressive tax system for the purpose of keeping government in check.
A progressive tax system only allows a government to grow progressively larger.
And convince at least half of the people that they don't really have to pay for it.
-
Spitballing numbers around, with a $4 trillion annual operating cost and 300 million people to pay those costs... and keeping in mind that 300 million includes seniors, children, mentally handicapped, convicts, homeless and millionaires...
That comes out to a per-capita cost of government of $13,333.34.
A family of four has a household cost of government of $53,333.34.
I'm good with your proposal.
I'll pay my $13k. When I get married, my wife and I will pay $26k. When we have kids, we'll pay our $53k.
Now go out and get everyone else to pay their $13k. Get rid of all the tax shelters/loopholes. All of em. Even the income-based ones for those that make under $25k, or are on welfare, or are living behind the city park, have 8 kids and live in Salt Lake City, or are in jail.
Screw $4 Trillion. That is an Obama budget. It doesn't need to be anywhere near that high.
-
Guys, you're falling for the whole "we need to tax more to balance the budget" crap.
We don't need more taxes.
We need less budget.
Consolidate programs. Eliminate waste. I'll bet that $13,000ish number could be trimmed to under $5,000... And still have stuff in it like national parks...
-
We don't even need to cut that much.
For GFY 2011, the federal govt received $2.17T, and spent $3.82T.
2012 revenues are estimated at ~$2.5T. If we reduced spending to 2008 levels, minus the GWoT funds, the spending would be (roughly) $2.75T (vs the $3.82T we spent in 2011).
Now, does anyone think we spent "too little" in 2008?! Probably not, but even going back to 2008 funding levels would be an immediate cut of >$1 TRILLION in a SINGLE FISCAL YEAR (considering all the arguments about them trying to cut that over 10).
The dems are screaming about "drastic cuts" (when they are talking $100B a year cut) on the current debate, and think $1T a year cut is "impossible"...when all it takes to get a trillion a year cut is to simply go back less than three years! (in fact, I believe 2008 was the last budget the senate passed)...have things really gone that bad that the amount we spent three years ago would throw granny off a cliff, deprive college students of loans, etc? No.
Not only that, if you then help spending to grow with inflation (let's say 3%), and had an economic growth rate of 5-6% (totally reasonable if Barack wasn't screwing it up)...t
Returning to a 2008 baseline for 2012 would result in a balanced budget inside of 3 years with ZERO revenue changes (we even get to keep the payroll tax cut)
-
We don't even need to cut that much.
For GFY 2011, the federal govt received $2.17T, and spent $3.82T.
2012 revenues are estimated at ~$2.5T. If we reduced spending to 2008 levels, minus the GWoT funds, the spending would be (roughly) $2.75T (vs the $3.82T we spent in 2011).
Now, does anyone think we spent "too little" in 2008?! Probably not, but even going back to 2008 funding levels would be an immediate cut of >$1 TRILLION in a SINGLE FISCAL YEAR (considering all the arguments about them trying to cut that over 10).
The dems are screaming about "drastic cuts" (when they are talking $100B a year cut) on the current debate, and think $1T a year cut is "impossible"...when all it takes to get a trillion a year cut is to simply go back less than three years! (in fact, I believe 2008 was the last budget the senate passed)...have things really gone that bad that the amount we spent three years ago would throw granny off a cliff, deprive college students of loans, etc? No.
Not only that, if you then help spending to grow with inflation (let's say 3%), and had an economic growth rate of 5-6% (totally reasonable if Barack wasn't screwing it up)...t
Returning to a 2008 baseline for 2012 would result in a balanced budget inside of 3 years with ZERO revenue changes (we even get to keep the payroll tax cut)
I'm not sure it's that simple.
I don't have time to check the specific numbers, but the leading edge of the baby boomers retired in 2010/2011. That's a massive demographic shift (that will only get worse) for Medicare/Social Security.
We can't just "go back to 2008" levels since the major drivers of our spending are Medicare and Social Security.
What needs to happen is a restructuring of those two entitlements AND a cutting of "discretionary" spending back to levels below 2008.
Yes, my preference is to end Medicare and Social Security, but ending them immediately is not only politically infeasible, it is also harmful. Changes should be made slowly so that people have time to plan for them.
However, those changes must come because the money is running out. If we keep ignoring the warning signs, we WILL have a sudden collapse that screws over those seniors most. (Seniors have the most savings that would be wiped out, rely on Medicare and Social Security that would be either ineffectual or gone, and the least capacity to change employment and/or move back into the workforce.) THIS is what the Republicans should be saying- we will be screwing over the most vulnerable if we don't start cutting back.
The solutions aren't simple.
The solutions aren't balanced either. Our taxes are already too high. (Highest corporate tax rate in the world, baby! YEAH!) Our regulations are already far too onerous.
We can't have a "balanced" solution because everything is so far out of balance.
-
The first of the boomers aren't eligible for Medicare and SS (65 1/2) until just about now (end of FY11)
Medicare and SS only grew by $154B from fy08-10
Medicaid and welfare/unemployment grew by $328B (and that's not old people!)
2010-2011 was an even more distorted increase, but still, considering the total federal budget only grew by ~$650B between 08 and 10, and HALF of that increase was for Medicaid, welfare, and unemployment, we haven't seen the effect of the boomers yet, only the effect of liberal redistribution
Discretionary spending over the same period increased by $250B (and defense plus VA plus GWoT funding stayed about the same so you can't blame defense) HUD DofEd, EPA, State, etc made up the bulk of the increase, again favorite liberal piggy banks.
My point is, the 2006 and 2008 democrat takeover in the house (starting in FY2007) and Obama have created the bulk of the massive rise...even during the first 5 W years, spending rose from $2.0-2.73 trillion (roughly 6% per year), while 2007-2010 it rose by ~8%, and 2011 looks to be a nearly 10% increase.
This is pure unadulterated redistributive spending, not the effect of boomers. Spending vs GDP has only really spiked in the past few years.
-
The first of the boomers aren't eligible for Medicare and SS (65 1/2) until just about now (end of FY11)
Medicare and SS only grew by $154B from fy08-10
Medicaid and welfare/unemployment grew by $328B (and that's not old people!)
2010-2011 was an even more distorted increase, but still, considering the total federal budget only grew by ~$650B between 08 and 10, and HALF of that increase was for Medicaid, welfare, and unemployment, we haven't seen the effect of the boomers yet, only the effect of liberal redistribution
Discretionary spending over the same period increased by $250B (and defense plus VA plus GWoT funding stayed about the same so you can't blame defense) HUD DofEd, EPA, State, etc made up the bulk of the increase, again favorite liberal piggy banks.
My point is, the 2006 and 2008 democrat takeover in the house (starting in FY2007) and Obama have created the bulk of the massive rise...even during the first 5 W years, spending rose from $2.0-2.73 trillion (roughly 6% per year), while 2007-2010 it rose by ~8%, and 2011 looks to be a nearly 10% increase.
This is pure unadulterated redistributive spending, not the effect of boomers. Spending vs GDP has only really spiked in the past few years.
Ok. Then the Medicare/SS-BabyBoomer problem starts this year. The problem is still there, though.
And of course "discretionary" spending needs to be cut. I'm just saying it's likely to be more than just back to 2008 levels, though that would be a start. (And, of course, neither of our ideas will be implemented. At least for a year and a half and probably never. )
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shtfplan.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fmessagefrompresident.jpg&hash=69c861ae2828051a950e8101ea4ae6928d0528a7)
-
I am schizophrenic about this. Good/brave Hutch listens to Dave Ramsey and watches his debt subside as the 401k staggers around. Evil/scared Hutch believes the fiscal aircraft of this country has lost both wings and the propeller, and is plotting his Masada strategy.
You're just jealous of me because the little voices don't talk to you!
-
I am schizophrenic about this. Good/brave Hutch listens to Dave Ramsey and watches his debt subside as the 401k staggers around. Evil/scared Hutch believes the fiscal aircraft of this country has lost both wings and the propeller, and is plotting his Masada strategy.
You're just jealous of me because the little voices don't talk to you!
Don't worry, birdman has three voices...the 401k investment voice, the "guess I'll have to work forever" voice, and the "glad I have a truck, because if it doesn't fit in that when I have to G.O.O.D., I don't really own it" voice....hope for the best, plan for the worst.
-
Get an enclosed trailer.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shtfplan.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fmessagefrompresident.jpg&hash=69c861ae2828051a950e8101ea4ae6928d0528a7)
Hey stickerman! Bogie! I'll take some of these.
-
Don't worry, birdman has three voices...the 401k investment voice, the "guess I'll have to work forever" voice, and the "glad I have a truck, because if it doesn't fit in that when I have to G.O.O.D., I don't really own it" voice....hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Was over to a buddy's today (to see his new Uzi , zehr cool). He's pretty financially savvy, and normally upbeat. I asked him "So, how long will the depression last?". He got a sour look, and started talking about how his dad (also describable as "pretty financially savvy, and normally upbeat") was buying gold coins and didn't think he'd live to see the market come back.
-
I can't stand the sight of him. So I don't subject myself to listening to anything he has to say.
-
Get an enclosed trailer.
I have one, it's just not nearly as off-road capable as my raptor.
-
I'm in the "have a friend with means who needs some hired muscle in the collapse" retirement plan.
I fully expect to lose my retirement nest egg when the collapse happens. I hope I don't, but I think I will.
At that point, i'll survive and keep my family alive through ingenuity and living away from everyone else. LOL
-
I'm *really* glad I have in-laws who live about an hour out in the country with a couple of acres. I imagine
if when this economy tanks, we'll be turning their back acre into one big family garden........
ETA: I'm also really glad the Mrs. and I have a lot that's a quarter acre. We've got a wood fireplace, a couple of *BIG* trees we can fell, and space to plant our own garden if necessary.
-
I'm in the "have a friend with means who needs some hired muscle in the collapse" retirement plan.
I fully expect to lose my retirement nest egg when the collapse happens. I hope I don't, but I think I will.
At that point, i'll survive and keep my family alive through ingenuity and living away from everyone else. LOL
Hey you see where they are talking about doing away with retirement for the military at 20yrs and go towards a 401(k) type plan where even someone who puts in just 5-6 years can walk away with some money. But even then they will have to wait until after 60+.