WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Mitt’s Income vs. Your Income (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791607)

Shooter 01-30-2012 8:54 PM

http://img.tapatalk.com/63b1bdba-6600-4809.jpg

Shooter 01-31-2012 12:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...y_category.jpg

No one is arguing against the fact that government spending needs to be drastically cut, but people like Sam don't have a grasp of how much cutting is really required and how difficult that job is. What Sam fails to realize is that the US has spent like drunken sailors for the past 45 years and it is too late to just make cuts. Sacrifices need to be made and it is clear from some of the "ignorant" responses that selfish americans (rich & poor) only want cuts or tax increases as long as it will not effect them.

Here are some facts:

The last time the US had a balanced budget was in 1957 (not including Clinton's surplus myth in 2000)
US Debit= 15.3 Trillion and rising
Expected 2012 US budget deficit= 1.2 Trillion
57% of the budget is "mandatory spending" and includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP and other mandatory programs.
Descresionary spending makes up 1.3 trillion of the budget with most of it going to military and homeland security (815 billion)

According to my quick math the US will need to cut approximately 1.7 trillion out of the annual budget to ballance the budget and start making a dent in our 15 trillion dollar debt.

This means even if we cut ALL "descresionary spending", we will still be short 400 billion. No problem! We just change the laws and start digging into the "mandatory spending". It is estimated that the government spends approximatly 900 billion a year on all "welfare for the poor". We can cut every social service known to man! This will put a end to all of the "mexicans" who buy 50 inch televisions and 22 inch rims, but how many deaths of children from malnutrition is except able? We can cut the Social Security that was "promised" to the baby boomers, but how many deaths of ederly from lack of assistance is except able? We can cut Medicare, but how many unnecessary deaths of the sick from lack of care is except able?

As radical as this may sound, I'm not completly against the apocalyptic scenario described (little military, little social services, little social security) because this scenario will eventually come if we continue to ignore our government's income vs spending problems.

Everone needs to sacrifice in order to make a difference, yet I even speak about raising capital gains taxes back to rates seen as recent as 2002 and the "conservatives" get their panties in a bunch. Sam claims to be a "conservative", but the truth is that he is only conservative if it doesnt effect him. You will make a great politician Sam.

Shooter 01-31-2012 12:37 AM

BTW… FLY is right, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that is willing to make the cuts needed.

Shooter 01-31-2012 12:43 AM

In case you are as "ignorant" as Paul or Sam, here is what 15 trillion dollars looks like:

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

jason_ssr 01-31-2012 8:50 AM

Shooter, every one of us here are only here because we were lucky. All of our governments "mandatory spending" seems to be focussed on mitigating bad luck. That should not be the governments job. Just because we have been doing it a long time and feel entitled to that service does not mean it should be kept. All are given opportunity to persue happiness. Most will find it. Many will not, and some of those through no fault of their own. We as citizens should help when we can through charity, but it should not be the job of the government.

fly135 01-31-2012 9:05 AM

So the mandatory spending is for mitigating bad luck, and the discretionary spending is for special interests and generally running the country into the ground. FWIW I say cut the discretionary spending first then work on cutting the mandatory spending.

01-31-2012 9:15 AM

Shooter,
Please tell me what else what I don't know or believe... I can't wait.

I think we should cut every Federal Government program that isn't explicitly listed in the Enumerated Powers, including those which fall under the liberally defined welfare clause... cut them all, I will do fine, heck, I will excel.

Secondly, maybe charts like this

http://sierravoices.com/wordpress/wp...eased_debt.jpg

are great talking points in your group of friends, but you are either

DISHONEST or more likely IGNORANT!

First, as spelled out in the Constitution of United States, Congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.

Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The POTUS can only try to set general policy and tone.

The Obama Administration is required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921and by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to present a budget. Read about history... this is Nixon/Watergate stuff.. The Obama Administration has violated both of these laws by not submitting and adopting a budget.

Furthermore, the chart is complete nonsense since all the POTUS's prior to Obama all include a minimum FOUR FULL YEARS and in some cases EIGHT YEARS as POTUS. The chart only represents two of Obama's years as POTUS. It also is shown with a running percentage which is misleading because it depends on what the debt was prior to each president serving.

During Bill Clinton's term as POTUS the congress stopped him cold when it came to spending.

But the truth is that the debt owed to the public was $6.3 trillion the day Obama took office. A year later, it was $7.8 trillion, and as of June 1, it was $9.7 trillion. The total outstanding debt, which includes both the public debt and money the government owes to itself was $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009; a year later, it was $12.3 trillion, and it’s $14.3 trillion today.

Obama's proposed 2012 budget would double the public debt over the next decade, from $9 trillion in fiscal 2010 to $18.4 trillion in 2019, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. BTW, not one single Democrat voted for this budget!

When the chart says, "Office of the Democratic Leader" on the bottom it might clue the average person in to doing more research since it could possibly be bias...

And for the record, I doubt anyone believes in Ron Paul's message more than I do. I know he can't win this go around, he is only trying to spread his message. He will end up passing his campaign machine on to his son, who does have a real chance to win in the future. Rand Paul is just as awesome as his dad, but wraps it up in a prettier package.

01-31-2012 10:26 AM

Congressional Budget Office reports trillion dollar deficits through 2017

jason_ssr 01-31-2012 10:30 AM

Quote:

So the mandatory spending is for mitigating bad luck, and the discretionary spending is for special interests and generally running the country into the ground. FWIW I say cut the discretionary spending first then work on cutting the mandatory spending.
I think you misread, he said discretionary spending was mostly military and homeland security. Oddly enough, two things the government should actually be responsible for. I say start with things that shouldnt be the job of the federal government, like welfare\social services, the move onto areas where they need to maintain responsibility.

Shooter 01-31-2012 10:49 AM

Sam, you feel that I posted that image to defend Obama and that is not the case. In fact, it makes Obama look bad. Multiply 16% (two years in office) by 4 (8 years in office) and you will have a 64% increase in debit. I posted it to show BOTH parties are equllly at fault.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" -The Who

Jason, discretionary or mandatory spending….I dont care. It is my understanding that the president does not have the authority to cut mandatory spending. My only point was that both need to be cut to get the job done.

"I think we should cut every Federal Government program that isn't explicitly listed in the Enumerated Powers, including those which fall under the liberally defined welfare clause... cut them all, I will do fine, heck, I will excel."

Just don't raise Sam's capital gains tax by 5%, he needs to put gas in that boat! Thanks for proving my point

Shooter 01-31-2012 10:53 AM

One more for your enjoyment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Li0no7O9zmE

01-31-2012 11:48 AM

I just love this "wealth" argument crap. Complete crap. Do you realize that the "wealth" is on paper. They do not actually have that money. It is invested in business which employee people. The purchase of those stocks has been converted to real money that is in the economy. What the heck do you guys even think with. If you want to complain, you should do it regarding the local tax structures that make it real expensive for businesses to get started and be able capture those investment dollars.

I love it how someone won't vote for someone based on his answer about capital gains but will gladly vote for someone who's position and parties position is to spread America's wealth internationally through fixed taxation schemes so the UN can have a budget off American workers backs.

fly135 01-31-2012 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason_ssr (Post 1729042)
I think you misread, he said discretionary spending was mostly military and homeland security. Oddly enough, two things the government should actually be responsible for. I say start with things that shouldnt be the job of the federal government, like welfare\social services, the move onto areas where they need to maintain responsibility.

That's why you will always find a large majority who vote against your interests. Both of the things that you think the govt should be doing are so far overreaching and sometimes non-productive or even destructive that they are viewed both as waste and even oppressive.

Bottom line is that anyone with half a brain knows the trillions spent in the middle east are all to put gas in your car or provide other forms of energy. The people using the oil should be paying for it in a way more directly related to consumption. Maybe we need a "security interest gas tax".

01-31-2012 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1729080)
That's why you will always find a large majority who vote against your interests. Both of the things that you think the govt should be doing are so far overreaching and sometimes non-productive or even destructive that they are viewed both as waste and even oppressive.

Bottom line is that anyone with half a brain knows the trillions spent in the middle east are all to put gas in your car or provide other forms of energy. The people using the oil should be paying for it in a way more directly related to consumption. Maybe we need a "security interest gas tax".

As far as a Security Interest Gas Tax goes... Nope..we don't need that. Just cut corporate welfare and adhere to what the Constitution says.

Regarding the "large majority who vote against your interests", this is very problem with a "Democracy" and why our founding fathers didn't make the United States one. A Constitutional Republic guarantees and protects the interest of the worlds largest minority, the individual. The politicians want to change our system though and have been doing so since our inception as country. They keep moving us towards a democracy and away from a republic. The worst part was probably the 17th Amendment.

joeshmoe 01-31-2012 4:25 PM

"Multiply 16% (two years in office) by 4 (8 years in office) and you will have a 64% increase in debit"
Thats simple interest, if you use compound interest its almost 90% increase:eek:

01-31-2012 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeshmoe (Post 1729135)
"Multiply 16% (two years in office) by 4 (8 years in office) and you will have a 64% increase in debit"
Thats simple interest, if you use compound interest its almost 90% increase:eek:

The chart is misleading because it shows "Percent Increase in Public Debt" instead of a consistent baseline. If the Public Debt was low, then the percent increase would appear higher than if the public debt was high when they were in office (Does that make sense?).

lfadam 01-31-2012 4:54 PM

McGavin (Shooter)-I havent kept up with this thread, nor do I have a horse in this race...but your post and subsequent posts lost all credibility when I saw you spell "acceptable" as "except able." I would let it slide if it was just 1 brain fart, but it was 3 times in a row. I dont mean to be a jerk, but I dont know how you can make a convincing political argument without knowing how to use/spell a 1st grade word.

Shooter 01-31-2012 5:19 PM

Adam,

"ex·cept"
Preposition:
Not including; other than.

It was ment to be a play on words in context of my post (Except-able over Acceptable)….Everyone can sacrifice "except" for me.

It appears the others figured it out, next time I will dumb it down for you.

Laker1234 01-31-2012 5:37 PM

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Laker1234 01-31-2012 5:38 PM

We do not need anymore taxes. To me, that's the same as giving an ineffective employee a raise for insufficient work. The US Gov. has plenty of money to run our country. Having a balanced budget amendment may help because with an unlimited amount to spend and virtually no accountability what's to stop the spending. The above chart has some interesting information and adjusts for inflation when analyzing the deficit.

lfadam 01-31-2012 6:04 PM

Hm, I see what you were going for now. Seems like a muddy stretch of a pun to me... but you're right I didn't catch on. While I'm being the grammar police though, I don't believe "will not effect (sic) them" was a pun (affect).

With that being said, I think you have a legitimate point that nobody has a problem with tax increases or budget cuts until it affects them.

01-31-2012 8:35 PM

My favorite blog! She's my teacher too!

Why a balanced budget amendment is bad... This where I get most of my arguments from.

fly135 02-01-2012 8:39 AM

Sam, does this mean tariffs? The very one thing that we should be doing but aren't?

Quote:

Note that Madison contemplated that the federal government would be financed in large part by taxation on foreign commerce. That is because the constitutional powers of the federal government are so limited & defined! The States and the People are to handle everything else.

psudy 02-01-2012 8:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shooter (Post 1728981)
In case you are as "ignorant" as Paul or Sam, here is what 15 trillion dollars looks like:

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

Yeah. I'm the ignorant one, because I want our government to be more responsible.

02-01-2012 9:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1729208)
Sam, does this mean tariffs? The very one thing that we should be doing but aren't?

Sounds like it to me...

fly135 02-01-2012 9:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram (Post 1729218)
Sounds like it to me...

How ironic that you call me the ignorant liberal when the cornerstone of my argument has always been that the trade deficit is the problem and that American manufacturers can't compete and it's a threat to our national security.

IOW, the very thing that you believe about funding of the govt has been precisely aligned with my belief that imports should be tariffed. In addition oil is a significant import and I called for it to be taxed.

I have always claimed that deficit spending was necessary because we are violating this one important principle that protects the economy of our nation. The one principle that causes devaluation of the dollar, and destroys opportunity for people of all levels of capability and education.

I have also claimed that the higher taxes for larger earnings are a penalty for not following these principles.

02-01-2012 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1729221)
How ironic that you call me the ignorant liberal when the cornerstone of my argument has always been that the trade deficit is the problem and that American manufacturers can't compete and it's a threat to our national security.

IOW, the very thing that you believe about funding of the govt has been precisely aligned with my belief that imports should be tariffed. In addition oil is a significant import and I called for it to be taxed.

I have always claimed that deficit spending was necessary because we are violating this one important principle that protects the economy of our nation. The one principle that causes devaluation of the dollar, and destroys opportunity for people of all levels of capability and education.

I have also claimed that the higher taxes for larger earnings are a penalty for not following these principles.

John,
I apologize if you actually think I mean it when I call you ignorant. You clearly have a position on the issues of our time, but it seems that you also are open enough to consider other points of view. However, I find it very, very difficult to figure out what your position is on most issues. In fact, I know that others do (I keep typing "due" instead of do and I can't figure out why) too. Often we have the same, or at least similar views, on many of the issues. When someone like Shooter parrots what you say, I think it is clearly evident that your message isn't getting out.

I'm curious, where are you on the political compass test? Here is where I fall, what about others?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...3.88&soc=-4.00

fly135 02-01-2012 11:09 AM

I'm sure I'll be on the left because my liberal bent is partly due to the violation of many libertarian principles.

wake77 02-01-2012 11:33 AM

I am at the same, exact spot where Sam is with respect to the x-axis, but I am across the y-axis, inside the green quadrant.

Laker1234 02-01-2012 1:13 PM

Sam, "Why a balanced budget amendment is bad... This where I get most of my arguments from.” I understand what the article is saying and they'll be definite consequences for limiting spending, but IMHO, the Fed. Gov. will continue to spend without some type of cap. Understandably, many groups are against having a balanced budget because some serious economic consequences will occur. However, the sooner people learn there are consequences for out-of-control spending and lending, the better off we’ll be in the long run. This article states the other side of the coin. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/1...balanced-budge

02-01-2012 1:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker1234 (Post 1729269)
Sam, "Why a balanced budget amendment is bad... This where I get most of my arguments from.” I understand what the article is saying and they'll be definite consequences for limiting spending, but IMHO, the Fed. Gov. will continue to spend without some type of cap. Understandably, many groups are against having a balanced budget because some serious economic consequences will occur. However, the sooner people learn there are consequences for out-of-control spending and lending, the better off we’ll be in the long run. This article states the other side of the coin. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/1...balanced-budge

Publius Huldah is a Constitutionalist, her blogs generally deal with the Constitution and legal issues, not the status quo or how to maintain it. She generally doesn't include an analysis of what is legal and what is actually happening...

joeshmoe 02-01-2012 4:52 PM

Jeremy, I think most people who take the "Test" for the chart are left libertarian(green), but it is very interesting that no two people are exactly the same, just different degrees of the same ideas.

cadunkle 02-01-2012 5:29 PM

Interesting test/graph. All of my beliefs stem from natural rights and property rights, which are to be respected above all else... As everything else is based upon that.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...8.25&soc=-4.10

02-01-2012 5:34 PM

You are very close to Friedman! You are also one of the few purple people...

joeshmoe 02-01-2012 5:58 PM

"You are also one of the few purple people"
maybe this is why Ron Paul is not being considered for president? I really wish more people would have backed him!

cadunkle 02-02-2012 6:03 AM

Unfortunate as it may be, Ron Paul has my support through to the end. I've donated a lot to his campaign, and from a poor person like me that money comes directly from my boat fuel savings, the only real fun I have all year.

Ron Paul is the only one that fights for all of us, by taking a principled stand on natural rights and individual liberties. He's also the only one with a plan to do anything about our national debt, insane tax rates, and general terrible economic situation. The stakes are high. Newt/Romney/whoever else will just be another Bush/Obama and drive this country further into the ground.

I think a lot of the problem is people want to force their morals on others, restricting their freedom to lice their lives as they see fit in a manner that violates nobody else's rights. Neocon and socialist candidates like Newt/Romney/Obama are also want to force their morals on others. I wholeheartedly disagree with any point of view that is focused on violence. Most people seem to support State sponsored violent to force others to live as someone else sees fit, hence they vote for candidates who endorse such policies.

jason_ssr 02-02-2012 7:14 AM

I think Paul is a great candidate, even though i think his foreign policy beliefs are kinda crazy. I dont think anyone should avoid voting for a good candidate based on their wild ideas. If there is anything we have learned is that a president cannot impose his will as it pertains to drastic change. All a president can do is plant a seed. The next guy in line gets the benefit of hindsight and may choose to grow it a little more, or kill it. For a modern president to really make a drastic change, it would have to be such a great idea that the next president runs with it and the one after him runs with it as well. he will be dead before its seen through.

pesos 02-03-2012 9:18 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Hope Paul gets to make some noise at the convention

Shooter 02-03-2012 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamIngram (Post 1729230)
John,
Often we have the same, or at least similar views, on many of the issues. When someone like Shooter parrots what you say

I don't feel I "parrot" whatever John says. In fact, I have started most of these debates and have even disagreed with John in the past. I respect John's post because we have similar views and he backs his position with a compelling argument.

Sam, I respect your opinion and although disagree most of the time, I understand your prospective. My only issue is that you are always the first to take it personal and resort to name calling.

Our political stance is not all that different, but I feel I'm more open minded. I understand that nothing is black & white, only shades of grey. My political opinion is always changing while your stance is that the rich and republicans can do no wrong.

I feel strongly about one thing in politics...The US debt is or is about to be the greatest threat to our country since the Civil War. The fix is not easy and everyone will need to sacrifice. Unfortunately current American (boomers included) probably don't have what it takes to over come like past generations.

Shooter 02-03-2012 4:41 PM

Adam, I will be the first to admit that my grammar could use improvement. I post mostly from my phone and that doesn't help. I respect the "grammar police" and don't mind the criticism from time to time. The day my posts start looking like "da moose" is the day I eat my gun.

Shooter 02-03-2012 4:42 PM

http://img.tapatalk.com/c6e4dc28-70c7-b9f3.jpg

Here you go Sam

Shooter 02-04-2012 1:20 PM

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ygo-frontpage/l...en&.tsrc=yahoo

Good article...I feel bad for some of the 1% who are also getting screwed by our tax code.

cadunkle 02-04-2012 3:59 PM

Income tax needs to be eliminated. Two options I see...

A: Spead the federal expenses over the year evenly across everyone. Everyone gets a bill for $11,504.62 annually. I guarantee government would quickly be forced to eliminate welfare programs and downsize heavily. With just the quick and easy elimination of the high dollar welfare programs as well as some modest cuts to other programs such as the military (unconstitutional wars) the cost would be $4,417.88 for each person. This is a truly fair and equal tax and would ensure a return to a smaller more Constitutional government.

B: Federal sales tax. This way the poor pay less, the rich pay more. Exemptions similar to current state sales tax for food and various other necessities. This would be a progressive tax, since so many people seem to like that.

There are other choices, but personally I think option A is great.

wakecumberland 02-06-2012 2:00 PM

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...5.25&soc=-3.38


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:21 PM.