A Plebiscite, Not an Election

[preacherman76]

How cute. Screw it, let the paradigm continue.

[Tiggs]

Because, in your version of reality, you are the sole arbiter of whether or not paradigm's continue?

[questionmark]

When I see some people arguing tax cuts for the rich I always wonder if they stop to think before opening the mouth. Fact is that the Americans want a strong military, which costs $680 billion this year, which comes down to $680,000 million. That divided by the number of Americans already results in $2,200 per head in taxes due regardless if they earn any money or not. The average household of 4 people already has to shoulder $8,800 dollars just to pay for the military (assumed that there were no 9% unemployed and no 10% underemployed).

Then we come to the Homeland Security budget with $53.6 billion. or 53,600 million bucks, which again divided by inhabitants comes down to $175 dollars per head, or for a family of 4 $700.

Then we come to the interest on the debt, which is $227 billion or 227,000 million or $741 for every American or $2967 bucks for the family of four.

Adding just these three positions we are at $12,467 bucks per 4 person household, and no matter what or who is in power, those positions won't go away. And that is 1/3 of the average American households earning.

Besides the above there are $1000 billion in other positions, not including the SS expenditures (which are a budget in themselves).

So, those advocating tax cuts for the rich must either continue with the paradigm of making debt or they must see that the taxes for the middle class gets increased. There is no other way to pay what is needed to keep America afloat. And thank God that interest rates are low, if normal interest rates would have to be paid on the deficit that would increase that figure to the triple.

[DemosKratos]

Preacherman said it well. There are a lot of people on here that disagree with each other, I am pretty liberal myself but lately I am seriously thinking about voting for Ron Paul. Even though I hate a lot of what he is about, he will bring about what is needed most, a fight against corruption.

[conspiracybeliever]

Preacherman said it well. There are a lot of people on here that disagree with each other, I am pretty liberal myself but lately I am seriously thinking about voting for Ron Paul. Even though I hate a lot of what he is about, he will bring about what is needed most, a fight against corruption.

I think it's the people who are going to have to do that.... sorry.

[preacherman76]

Because, in your version of reality, you are the sole arbiter of whether or not paradigm's continue?

No, its more of a if ya cant beat em join em. Im helpless to stop it. I mean, Im talking to a man who thinks our problems would be solved if Bush never made tax cuts. Let me let you in one something tiggs. You could tax every man woman and child 100% of thier income, and we still couldnt even begin to pay the interest we owe. Let alone reduce our debt.

[preacherman76]

When I see some people arguing tax cuts for the rich I always wonder if they stop to think before opening the mouth. Fact is that the Americans want a strong military, which costs $680 billion this year, which comes down to $680,000 million. That divided by the number of Americans already results in $2,200 per head in taxes due regardless if they earn any money or not. The average household of 4 people already has to shoulder $8,800 dollars just to pay for the military (assumed that there were no 9% unemployed and no 10% underemployed).

Then we come to the Homeland Security budget with $53.6 billion. or 53,600 million bucks, which again divided by inhabitants comes down to $175 dollars per head, or for a family of 4 $700.

Then we come to the interest on the debt, which is $227 billion or 227,000 million or $741 for every American or $2967 bucks for the family of four.

Adding just these three positions we are at $12,467 bucks per 4 person household, and no matter what or who is in power, those positions won't go away. And that is 1/3 of the average American households earning.

Besides the above there are $1000 billion in other positions, not including the SS expenditures (which are a budget in themselves).

So, those advocating tax cuts for the rich must either continue with the paradigm of making debt or they must see that the taxes for the middle class gets increased. There is no other way to pay what is needed to keep America afloat. And thank God that interest rates are low, if normal interest rates would have to be paid on the deficit that would increase that figure to the triple.

Im for cutting taxes for everyone, and reducing government to 1/3rd of what it is.

[Tiggs]

No, its more of a if ya cant beat em join em. Im helpless to stop it. I mean, Im talking to a man who thinks our problems would be solved if Bush never made tax cuts. Let me let you in one something tiggs. You could tax every man woman and child 100% of thier income, and we still couldnt even begin to pay the interest we owe. Let alone reduce our debt.

Well, one of us has been lied to.

The national debt - even on the most Republican of figures - has barely reached 100% of GDP.

That means if, God forbid, you did tax everyone at 100% for a year - then the national debt would be completely paid. Totally and Utterly.

Reversing the Bush tax cuts will go a long way to getting the economy back towards a more sustainable ratio of debt to GDP - somewhere around 60% would be perfectly fine. The Bush tax cuts have added and will continue to add Trillions to the national debt.

Again. Try the simulator I linked to and find out exactly what you can and can't do to fix the economy - as opposed to trying to weigh the propaganda being hurled around by those two sides that you claim to not trust.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Tiggs

[questionmark]

Im for cutting taxes for everyone, and reducing government to 1/3rd of what it is.

I can already hear you howl the next time some date-shaker fly a plane into a building. But that could be avoided by all converting to fidel Muslims....

Edit: and the above $12,000 is LESS than 1/3 of the budget. That is the bare-bone essentials.

Edited May 4, 2012 by questionmark

[Drayno]

PM76 and I dissagree more often then not but he is dead on in what he has said so far. Being rather interested in American politics I have over the years educated myself on the so called democratic practices in the US and it`s not a democracy it`s a republic more akin to the Roman Empire of old if you will. Ron Paul was the only canidate that would have made a difference and could have possibly helped restore some of the US`s prouder days.

The United States government has sold out the people now the people must use the constitution to take it back. Being owned by a bank is no different then being owned or ran by a monarchy.

PM76 and I dissagree more often then not but he is dead on in what he has said so far. Being rather interested in American politics I have over the years educated myself on the so called democratic practices in the US and it`s not a democracy it`s a republic more akin to the Roman Empire of old if you will. Ron Paul was the only canidate that would have made a difference and could have possibly helped restore some of the US`s prouder days.

The United States government has sold out the people now the people must use the constitution to take it back. Being owned by a bank is no different then being owned or ran by a monarchy.

Thank you for stating this, because it is true.

Tyranny overtakes liberty when your right to live peacefully is intruded upon.

Because of the overwhelming amount of debt Americans face these days; spending thousands to get education so that they can make money - but spending their entire lives paying that money to the same institutions that gave them the education - we must realize that our society has become a closed circuit; a trap. Banks own millions of Americans, and that is quite similar to how my ancestors revolted against the King of England.

[questionmark]

Thank you for stating this, because it is true.

Tyranny overtakes liberty when your right to live peacefully is intruded upon.

Because of the overwhelming amount of debt Americans face these days; spending thousands to get education so that they can make money - but spending their entire lives paying that money to the same institutions that gave them the education - we must realize that our society has become a closed circuit; a trap. Banks own millions of Americans, and that is quite similar to how my ancestors revolted against the King of England.

With a slight difference, those under a king are there because of circumstances they cannot control, those owned by a bank did it to themselves in most cases.

This reminds me of the story of the early European banker, when everybody was indebted enough they just would run the Jew out of town claiming something along the lines that he killed Christ.

Well, the "Christ Killer" forced nobody to take his money, so do the banks not. If you cannot handle money responsibly stay away from banks and credit cards.

[preacherman76]

Well, one of us has been lied to.

The national debt - even on the most Republican of figures - has barely reached 100% of GDP.

That means if, God forbid, you did tax everyone at 100% for a year - then the national debt would be completely paid. Totally and Utterly.

Reversing the Bush tax cuts will go a long way to getting the economy back towards a more sustainable ratio of debt to GDP - somewhere around 60% would be perfectly fine. The Bush tax cuts have added and will continue to add Trillions to the national debt.

Again. Try the simulator I linked to and find out exactly what you can and can't do to fix the economy - as opposed to trying to weigh the propaganda being hurled around by those two sides that you claim to not trust.

I gotta head out the door in like 5 mins for work so I cant really give this post the attention it needs right now. I will come back later. One thing though, we owe ALOT more then people think. Our interest alone is enormous. We actualy owe several hundred trillion dollars. Ask your self one thing. Why would you trust anyone on thier opinion of what can and cant be done to fix the economy, when none of them thought there was a problem right up till the day it crashed. And whos only solution thus far is to bury us in more debt then we could ever hope to pay. This is a intentional economic controled demolition, to bring about a global currency.

[preacherman76]

I can already hear you howl the next time some date-shaker fly a plane into a building. But that could be avoided by all converting to fidel Muslims....

Edit: and the above $12,000 is LESS than 1/3 of the budget. That is the bare-bone essentials.

What?

[questionmark]

What?

If you read the above post, those 12 kilo bucks per family is what it costs just to keep the US of A safe and pay the interest on the already existing debt, it is quite irrelevant if you want to reduce the government. That does not go away.

[Tiggs]

I gotta head out the door in like 5 mins for work so I cant really give this post the attention it needs right now. I will come back later. One thing though, we owe ALOT more then people think. Our interest alone is enormous. We actualy owe several hundred trillion dollars.

On paper, possibly.

You can, for example, project large future liabilities for various government safety nets - Social Security for example - liabilities that just go away, quite frankly, with some minor tweaking, such as upping the retirement age.

Again. It all depends on the legislation that congress passes between here and then. Everyone is aware that Social security needs reform.

The issue is how it gets reformed. Republicans want to dismantle and privative it, Democrats want to patch it.

But, y'know - Congress. Not currently the easiest place to get legislation passed, ever.

The idea that we owe several hundred trillion dollars is, in general, a worst-case scenario fantasy, usually promoted by various Gold resellers, trying to pump the price of Gold sky-high through demand generated by consumer fear.

Ask your self one thing. Why would you trust anyone on thier opinion of what can and cant be done to fix the economy, when none of them thought there was a problem right up till the day it crashed.

Because basic mathematics.

Also - not that it matters particularly, but several Liberals predicted the collapse of the housing bubble. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, for example being just one of many.

And whos only solution thus far is to bury us in more debt then we could ever hope to pay.

No. That's pure propaganda.

Ask yourself one thing. Why would any government intend to do that if their purpose was not to weaken and destroy that government?

Again. I strongly advise you to go and try that Budget simulation for yourself.

This is a intentional economic controled demolition, to bring about a global currency.

No. The financial crisis was essentially caused by the incorrect labeling of the risk associated with American Mortgage Repayments. It was personal greed, rather than conspiracy.

There is, however, an intentional economic controlled demolition to destroy the power of the Federal Government.

There's an American political party who have a stated political goal of doing just that. See above.

[Drayno]

With a slight difference, those under a king are there because of circumstances they cannot control, those owned by a bank did it to themselves in most cases.

This reminds me of the story of the early European banker, when everybody was indebted enough they just would run the Jew out of town claiming something along the lines that he killed Christ.

Well, the "Christ Killer" forced nobody to take his money, so do the banks not. If you cannot handle money responsibly stay away from banks and credit cards.

With a slight difference, those under a king are there because of circumstances they cannot control, those owned by a bank did it to themselves in most cases.

This reminds me of the story of the early European banker, when everybody was indebted enough they just would run the Jew out of town claiming something along the lines that he killed Christ.

Well, the "Christ Killer" forced nobody to take his money, so do the banks not. If you cannot handle money responsibly stay away from banks and credit cards.

Indeed, this is quite true. Folk make choices, but said ownership exists nonetheless to an extent.

[ninjadude]

You can, for example, project large future liabilities for various government safety nets - Social Security for example - liabilities that just go away, quite frankly, with some minor tweaking, such as upping the retirement age.

I dissgree with you there. The only people who are living longer are those who are well off and can afford extensive medical care. The majority of Americans just don't fall into that. Maybe someday.

No, the REAL tweak that SS needs is to stop capping the income level that the tax stops at. Currently about 108,000K. Think about it. We tax everyone for SS up to that amount. But the RICH blaze up to that amount in hours and then don't pay a cent after. IMO there should be no cap whatsoever. This will make the system solvent for centuries.

[Socio]

Well, one of us has been lied to.

The national debt - even on the most Republican of figures - has barely reached 100% of GDP.

That means if, God forbid, you did tax everyone at 100% for a year - then the national debt would be completely paid. Totally and Utterly.

Reversing the Bush tax cuts will go a long way to getting the economy back towards a more sustainable ratio of debt to GDP - somewhere around 60% would be perfectly fine. The Bush tax cuts have added and will continue to add Trillions to the national debt.

Again. Try the simulator I linked to and find out exactly what you can and can't do to fix the economy - as opposed to trying to weigh the propaganda being hurled around by those two sides that you claim to not trust.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-scott-taxing-those-100000-and-100-will-not-get-us-out-year-s-deficit

The President tries to tax, to tax our way out of debt -- placing the burden on those earning more than $100,000,“ Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said on the House floor Thursday morning.

“The problem, sir, is a simple one -- that if we were to tax these individuals 100 percent of their income, we still could not cover our deficit this year alone. As a matter of fact, to tax our way out of debt we would need to increase taxes across the board on every man, on every woman and every business by 60 percent. You simply cannot tax your way out of this debt,” Scott said.

We can't tax our way out of this nor does taxation ever lead to prosperity.

To put it simply the haves can not afford to carry the have nots, never could.

More drastic cuts need to be made than are listed in that simulator you posted.

[Tiggs]

http://cnsnews.com/n...-year-s-deficit

A Republican claiming that raising taxes is not the answer? Color me surprised.

In other news - the Pope is suspected to be Catholic. More reports to follow.

[questionmark]

I dissgree with you there. The only people who are living longer are those who are well off and can afford extensive medical care. The majority of Americans just don't fall into that. Maybe someday.

No, the REAL tweak that SS needs is to stop capping the income level that the tax stops at. Currently about 108,000K. Think about it. We tax everyone for SS up to that amount. But the RICH blaze up to that amount in hours and then don't pay a cent after. IMO there should be no cap whatsoever. This will make the system solvent for centuries.

Even then it is not a solution because the higher the amount out into SS the bigger the retirement pay. Pensions were not planned so that somebody could work 30 years and then live another 30 collecting. To do that the SS deduction would have to be 40% of the salary. The original idea was that somebody incapable of working due to age would not have to lean on family or live in poverty. Most are perfectly capable of doing significant work past their 70s nowadays. And that is where the tweak has to go to.

[karmakazi]

Here is 20 reasons he is a socialist (anti-Liberty);

Your relationships, whether good or bad, are a reflection of you, Obama's relationships speak volumes about him.

If you really don't think he is then see if you can find 20 reasons why he is not.

LOL OMG that video seriously just said "hes the manchurian president because this book says so"

What a giant steaming pile of story spinning. Omitting 99% of information and pointing only to the things which support the desired message isn't proof.

I don't like Obama and frankly I don't care if he is socialist or not... I still don't like him either way. Voting for Obama over any other candidate doesn't point to a person's disbelief in what America should stand for once stood for. If anything, voting for either candidate shows that people are either (a) not aware that politics are essentially a shell game or ( are aware but are going to try anyway.

The interesting thing about republicans and democrats is they are presented as the "two options" of the USA. (I know there are others but they never stand a chance of winning)

These two options are both presented as having a set system of values, which are thought of as opposite ends of the spectrum. What each side stands for is collectively only a small representation of the possible values that exist, and if you look at the big picture the two parties aren't that far from each other.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, because there are two parties and they are constantly described as the left and the right, people are given a multiple choice or "true/false" question to answer.... when we should be given an essay question and put thought into it beyond what either parties vision of the US is. To me, both parties represent a government that isn't true to its foundations, and that's a problem.

[Tiggs]

To me, both parties represent a government that isn't true to its foundations, and that's a problem.

I expect at least half the country wouldn't want to revert to a government where only male land owners could vote.

Progress. Apparently, it's a good thing.

[ninjadude]

Even then it is not a solution because the higher the amount out into SS the bigger the retirement pay. Pensions were not planned so that somebody could work 30 years and then live another 30 collecting. To do that the SS deduction would have to be 40% of the salary. The original idea was that somebody incapable of working due to age would not have to lean on family or live in poverty. Most are perfectly capable of doing significant work past their 70s nowadays. And that is where the tweak has to go to.

No "most" people are not capable nor living that long. Sure those well off are but that skews the average. SS is not a pension fund. It's insurance. That's not different than it is today - that's how it works. If the cap is lifted, it should also not pay out more. In fact with a means test, it should NOT pay out more if you already have the means - so millionares won't collect a dime.

[questionmark]

No "most" people are not capable nor living that long. Sure those well off are but that skews the average. SS is not a pension fund. It's insurance. That's not different than it is today - that's how it works. If the cap is lifted, it should also not pay out more. In fact with a means test, it should NOT pay out more if you already have the means - so millionares won't collect a dime.

Now again: Do you not get SS according to the amount you paid in? So if the cap is lifted those who pay in more get out more. As simple as that. Besides, where is the justice if somebody pays a higher insurance policy and does not get a higher pay out?

[ninjadude]

Now again: Do you not get SS according to the amount you paid in? So if the cap is lifted those who pay in more get out more. As simple as that. Besides, where is the justice if somebody pays a higher insurance policy and does not get a higher pay out?

You're right. It replaces about 40% of income and is capped about 108K. I'm just not buying into that there needs to be any "justice" that a millionaire should be 40% of his income. 40 percent of 108K is little to him. "Social" security means that we all pay in and we all can get some benefits. IMO it's wrong that it's capped at 108K. And it would be just as wrong to pay about 40 percent to a millionaire. Not morally wrong but fiscally wrong. There has to be a means test as well. (knowing that you are *I think* one of those folks, it's interesting your take on this). Look at it like this, if you're a millionaire and you get taxed more, do you expect to get *more* fire protection, police, education, etc. than the average person? I think this should apply to SS as well.

Edited May 6, 2012 by ninjadude