Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-22-2011, 2:56 PM Reply   
I was reading this post on Fox News web site....

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannit...urn-debt-limit

This isn't about Fox so please don't go there. What caught my eye was the disparity between two different points made in this article.

1) Hannity stated that our debt increases by 4 billion / day.

Quote:
With each passing day an estimated $4 billion is added to America's debt.
2) Hannity stated that conservatives were disappointed in not getting 68 billion in cuts.

Quote:
All right. Look, there are a lot of conservatives in the country that were disappointed over the 2011 budget deal. They thought the Republicans should have fought harder for the $61 billion that they wanted.
Now my math skills tell me that the conservatives only wanted 15 days of the spending deficit cut from the budget. And are disappointed at Republicans for not pushing harder for it.

What's wrong with this picture?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-22-2011, 3:00 PM Reply   
OK, I should have read further to the end before posting this as Hannity makes the same point...

Quote:
You know, I agree that politics has got to be considered. But, you know, when we were watching the 2011 budget debate Charles, and we've got a $3.6 trillion budget, $3.7 trillion budget, 1.65 deficit, 61 billion, of 3.7 trillion, is nothing. And I felt that that was reasonable. And I thought there was an accommodation there because that was a prorated figure of their promise of 100 billion. But the time the CBO was done, we end up with 385 million. It's not even a day's worth of debt in the end. And I feel that's why people that follow this are disappointed.
But Hannity isn't who I was referring to. It's simply the whole political process that makes much ado about nothing while Rome figuratively burns. It seems that conservatives (whoever they are) only want to make a political issue over the budget with no really meaningful arguments.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       04-22-2011, 5:56 PM Reply   
You've outlined one of the many reasons I despise neocons. The same applies to liberals though. $61 billion is a spit in the ocean. If they are fiting for anything less than $1.7 trillion in cuts, they aren't getting my vote, nor do I give them any credibility.

I sometimes wonder how these people manage their personal finances... Oh wait, they make so much money that they don't have to worry about money, at least not in the sense that normal people do.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       04-23-2011, 3:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
you've outlined one of the many reasons i despise neocons. The same applies to liberals though. $61 billion is a spit in the ocean. If they are fiting for anything less than $1.7 trillion in cuts, they aren't getting my vote, nor do i give them any credibility.

I sometimes wonder how these people manage their personal finances... Oh wait, they make so much money that they don't have to worry about money, at least not in the sense that normal people do.
amen!
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       04-24-2011, 8:57 AM Reply   
The only way we're ever going to dig out will have to include the following:

- Cut insane spending -
Stop the wars - at least our involvement
Cut down in healthcare and defense
Social security needs a look - My brother (18) has been getting $956/mo. for the last 3 years from social security - thats some serious bull****
-- Bring in a new taxed resource -
Legalize pot and sell it though an actual store/pharmacy - no street dealers - put them out of business/out of jail


Whats going on now is a band-aid on a broken leg - we need to purge a lot of ****.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-24-2011, 9:04 AM Reply   
There is plenty of proof that reducing cost of healthcare in half is plausible. The proof is that other developed Western countries spend 1/2 of what we do to get the same care and even better life expectancy. We should start by researching how they do it. Surely it can't be some indecipherable mystery. Then implement the same policies here.

Since your bother has been getting SS as a minor it seems that there's more to the story. Did you father die? If so then those benefits are not unreasonable considering the amount he probably paid in over his lifetime. SS may be an entitlement, but it isn't welfare.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       04-25-2011, 9:30 AM Reply   
Nope, father is still alive and kicking...

I think it is written up the following way:
If you are old enough to receive social security - all of your children under the age of 18 at the time you become eligible will receive $XXX until they graduate high school....

Its some serious bull****. I had some money from a grandfather that became 100% mine when I turned 18, but since my brother wasn't born at the time of the grandparents death, he didn't get any... being a "good" big brother I cut him a check for 40% of the inheritance (100% of mine went to college and figured his would do the same - I took 60% because he got an addition 5 years of growth with the money) - assuming he had nothing to pay for school with besides loans/FASFA.... because I was born first (IN TIME FOR THAT, BUT TO LATE TO GET SS - worth mentioned because I get F**ked later) well then this came about, so he was barely 16 when my dad starting getting social security so that means he was able to get it for all of 16 years old, all of 17 years old and 7 months of being 18 (birthday is Dec and graduation is June).... so he is getting ~$30,000 from the govt for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Its absurd... I've had a job since I was 15, worked and paid for everything I've ever wanted.... not him, as soon as he found out he gets this money he quit looking for a job, and when I suggested that he give $300/mo. to me to cover my rent at school he told me to piss off, it was "His money" despite the fact I cut him a check far larger than what he was going to be giving me (lesser percent and far far less total).... little punk just blows the money too.

He has been 18 for 3 months now here is some of what he has bought with OUR SS money:
2 motorcycles - Yamaha 125 dirtbike / Honda 600 rocket
2000 honda prelude (I bought it off him when my civic sold) - 2003 Accord - 2004 Mazda 3 - 2004 Dodge 1500 pickup (lifted it , rims tires etc etc) - 2004 Nissan Maxima **All of the cars have gotten rims and in-dash screens**
He has 2 playstations - 2 xbox360s (so he and his buddies can play at the same time) - Wii
65" dlp tv and 47" LCD tv - projector and screen
Ipad
(2) Ipod touch
Mac laptop, HP laptop

plus who knows what else he has bought and I haven't seen..... He has honestly spent almost every penny - he asked me to order him a 50ft. hdmi the other day because he didn't have enough in his checking to cover a $35 cord. My parents FORCED me to save money and checked that I was, and now he is just pissing it all away....
SORRY, JUST VENTING!

He is the perfect example of why this country is in trouble....
Living like a king on "free" money but feels completely entitled to it. Honestly if he would have saved most of it his college would have been 100% paid for.... I don't think he has a clue of Effin' stupid.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-25-2011, 10:18 AM Reply   
Nick, I had never heard of this and agree that it's crazy. The only one who should of received SS was IMO your father (and possibly spousal benefits). Even if your brother had been conscientious with the money I don't feel it's justified. I find it hard to believe that SS would have sent money to a minor. It should have been sent to your Dad. Even still I don't think it should have been paid at all.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       04-25-2011, 10:28 AM Reply   
Um. children don't recieve SS unless a parent is dead. If your brother is getting it, and your father and mother are alive, its fraud.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       04-25-2011, 11:15 AM Reply   
There is some weird loophole that my dad's financial advisor found....

Since my dad become 62+ before my brother was 18 the following happened - the money he gets because of my father's social security (maybe they call it something else - but it started the moment my dad started SS is suppose to go to him in aiding like some sort of child support - with that said I believe there was an option at some point to have the money sent to my mother to monitor, my dad said it goes to my brother or nothing (divorce - I don't think he wanted her getting any more) so my mom said sure, give it to him and that frees me up from having to pay for all of his BS.... I don't know the ins-outs, but the day my dad starting getting his SS checks my brother started getting them as well.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       04-25-2011, 1:41 PM Reply   
Well, that is f'ed up. Never heard of it.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       04-25-2011, 1:47 PM Reply   
Found it.

"Who can get child's benefits
Your child can get benefits if he or she is your biological child, adopted child or dependent stepchild. (In some cases, your child also could be eligible for benefits on his or her grandparents’ earnings.)

To get benefits, a child must have:

•A parent(s) who is disabled or retired and entitled to Social Security benefits; or
•A parent who died after having worked long enough in a job where he or she paid Social Security taxes.
The child also must be:

•Unmarried;
•Younger than age 18;
•18-19 years old and a full-time student (no higher than grade 12); or 18 or older and disabled. (The disability must have started before age 22.)"

Also,

"About 3.8 million children receive approximately $1.6 billion each month because one or both of their parents are disabled, retired or deceased"

1.6B PER MONTH. Now I can understand the deceased or disabled part, but RETIRED? No wonder its going broke.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       04-25-2011, 2:44 PM Reply   
^
Quote:
About 3.8 million children receive approximately $1.6 billion each month because one or both of their parents are disabled, retired or deceased
Wow.

I can understand disabled, I can understand dead.... but just retired (like my dad) is straight stupid. Why reward a kid because daddy had an "oops" later in life.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:49 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us