Pain and Balanced Budgets

[Foxfyre]

Most political threads focus on blaming somebody for what has happened in the past, what is happening now, or what is intended to happen in the future. And there is no greater point of contention or blame or fault finding than what the federal government does with the people's money.

In my opinion, it is no longer important whose fault it is. I believe we are at the jumping off place, the absolute last chance we have to start turning it around. Or it will be too late.

Hal Mason, a retired accountant, has been quoted quite a bit on many of the financial sites recently and has put together a short video illustrating the problem we have.

United States Budget Dilemma.wmv - YouTube

The point he makes is that it will require considerable sacrifice and pain for everybody to stop our headlong rush into national bankruptcy and generations of stagnation.

Is he right? If not, how is he wrong? If so, how much pain/sacrifice would you endure personally to fix the problem?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Don't worry your pretty little head. The wealthy & corporations have it rigged so that they won't feel a thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't worry your pretty little head. The wealthy & corporations have it rigged so that they won't feel a thing.

Well again, I'm not interested in affixing blame here. I want to know what, if anything, you and anybody else who is interested in the topic are willing to do about it personally.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What's the point in discussing it? The "little" people will be the only ones to sacrifice and made to feel the "pain"... Even though the wealthy and corporations caused the mess we're in alongside the governmnet (who also happen to be wealthy people). You may want to ask yourself instead, "how much
can we take before the pitchforks come out?"

 

[Foxfyre]

What's the point in discussing it? The "little" people will be the only ones to sacrifice and made to feel the "pain"... Even though the wealthy and corporations caused the mess we're in alongside the governmnet (who also happen to be wealthy people). You may want to ask yourself instead, "how much
can we take before the pitchforks come out?"

So your response to the poll is No. 9?

 

[Foxfyre]

Remember President Obama's elite budget cutting group that was to cut $1.2 trillion out of the budget over the next 10 years? Has a single dime been eliminated from the budget as a result of that group? How much does the committee itself cost us? Inquiring minds want to know.

But here's some ideas of how they can do it. How many of you would agree to these cuts?

Chuck Woolery on Budget Cuts - YouTube

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I would say that, yes, this country is doomed if we do not get money out of politics. And the wealthy and corporations have themselves so well insulated, that short of a proletariat coup, I don't see that happening. I just don't understand why you're asking this question when you know good and well there will be no such thing as "shared sacrifice"...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Where's the R "option" of "Take every penny from the poor, the elderly and children and give it to the wealthy"?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would say that, yes, this country is doomed if we do not get money out of politics. And the wealthy and corporations have themselves so well insulated, that short of a proletariat coup, I don't see that happening. I just don't understand why you're asking this question when you know good and well there will be no such thing as "shared sacrifice"...

Well there sure as heck won't be if those who us who want it don't talk about it and vote for it when they get the chance.

About getting money out of politics, I have long argued that the only thing that will fix the system is an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, that the federal government at any level cannot expend or obligate one dime of the people's money that benefits any individual, entity, group, or demographic that does not equally benefit all regardless of political party, socioeconomic status, or ideological leanings.

Would you agree to that?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Well there sure as heck won't be if those who us who want it don't talk about it and vote for it when they get the chance.

Problem with that is... the wealthy and corporations pay for and choose who we get to elect.

About getting money out of politics, I have long argued that the only thing that will fix the system is an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, that the federal government at any level cannot expend or obligate one dime of the people's money that benefits any individual, entity, group, or demographic that does not equally benefit all regardless of political party, socioeconomic status, or ideological leanings.

Would you agree to that?

The only thing that will work is outlawing any contribution over $100 per social security or voter registration number. Set up a set, even public fund for each person being considered for election and outlaw campaign contributions other than what I mentioned above. No corporations, no unions, no special interest groups should be allowed to contribute, ONLY the people in them. Lobbyists can talk all day and night to our congresspeople, but should not be the only ones with direct access (money). Right now, average American people have ZERO voice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where's the R "option" of "Take every penny from the poor, the elderly and children and give it to the wealthy"?

Okay, now that you've typed out your obligatory leftwing talking point, would you like to join the discussion? If it is the only way to balance the budget, would you agree to an ironclad law forbidding the federal government from benefitting anybody if they do not benefit everybody at the same time?

 

[Clementine]

Don't worry your pretty little head. The wealthy & corporations have it rigged so that they won't feel a thing.

Well again, I'm not interested in affixing blame here. I want to know what, if anything, you and anybody else who is interested in the topic are willing to do about it personally.

Truth is that us middle class folks have sacrificed for years. We deserve a break. The wealthy, like everyone, should pay a fair share of taxes. I am for flat rate taxes.

The poor should be encouraged to get on their feet and it defeats the purpose when we make them comfortable in "poverty." Yes, some are poor and have no choice, others do and we should focus on the latter.

Government needs to stop spending. We have program on top of program. When one doesn't work, they add more instead of going back to the drawing board and revising the ones in place. This is a huge waste.

They also allow big refunds to illegals who claim family members (that may or may not exist) who don't even live in the states.

Now we have free cell phones being given away and there's talk of free internet. Of course, that will have to include free computers.

It seems like the government is always looking for new ways to spend. Budgets are approved based on how much was spent last year for this or that. So, depts spend like drunken sailors on stupid stuff just so they can get the money next year. The way it's set up encourages waste and foolish spending.

If government isn't going to be smart, then it doesn't matter what sacrifices we make. We could feasibly give them every dime we have and they would spend it and look for more. It's them! They are irresponsible with our money.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well there sure as heck won't be if those who us who want it don't talk about it and vote for it when they get the chance.

Problem with that is... the wealthy and corporations pay for and choose who we get to elect.

About getting money out of politics, I have long argued that the only thing that will fix the system is an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, that the federal government at any level cannot expend or obligate one dime of the people's money that benefits any individual, entity, group, or demographic that does not equally benefit all regardless of political party, socioeconomic status, or ideological leanings.

Would you agree to that?

The only thing that will work is outlawing any contribution over $100 per social security or voter registration number. Set up a set, even public fund for each person being considered for election and outlaw campaign contributions other than what I mentioned above. No corporations, no unions, no special interest groups should be allowed to contribute, ONLY the people in them. Lobbyists can talk all day and night to our congresspeople, but should not be the only ones with direct access (money). Right now, average American people have ZERO voice.

Limiting contributions has already been tried and there are far too many ways to get around that and manipulate the system. Also, we all should be free to do with our money whatever we wish short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. It is government that should be restricted from using our money to do whatever it wishes.

But don't you see? If you take away government's power to distribute favors, you remove the ability of everybody to do influence peddling in government.

And I don't believe the average American has ZERO voice. They are quite responsive to our voices or else they wouldn't be doing the non stop polling that is always going on.

But already 50% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benevolence and free stuff is powerfully addictive. And because it can use our money to dispense favors to targeted groups, goernment uses our money to buy our votes and voices. If we do not act now to start turning that around, we will have lost the opportunity forever.

Would you vote for a Constitutional amendment that prevented the federal government to use the people's money for any form of benevolence to anybody that did not equally benefit all regardless of their circumstances?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Where's the R "option" of "Take every penny from the poor, the elderly and children and give it to the wealthy"?

Okay, now that you've typed out your obligatory leftwing talking point, would you like to join the discussion? If it is the only way to balance the budget, would you agree to an ironclad law forbidding the federal government from benefitting anybody if they do not benefit everybody at the same time?

Does anyone really see any other option? As long as the Rs have the majority, that's it. That's the only thing being discussed.

 

[Dick Tuck]

For the past almost 40 years, our elected officials hid behind the unified budget. They pretended that the amassing of surplus in Social Security and Medicare didn't exist. Except that there are credit promises sitting in those trusts. They relied on dishonesty. Our last president claimed they're just pieces of papers, instead of legal obligations.

So go ahead morons. Balance the budget by slashing every discretionary program except the military cronyist budget. What's your bottom line? Elect Paul Ryan, liar supreme, and you still get nowhere, unless you fix both sides of the books.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the past almost 40 years, our elected officials hid behind the unified budget. They pretended that the amassing of surplus in Social Security and Medicare didn't exist. Except that there are credit promises sitting in those trusts. They relied on dishonesty. Our last president claimed they're just pieces of papers, instead of legal obligations.

So go ahead morons. Balance the budget by slashing every discretionary program except the military cronyist budget. What's your bottom line? Elect Paul Ryan, liar supreme, and you still get nowhere, unless you fix both sides of the books.

Define what the two sides are please.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Don't worry your pretty little head. The wealthy & corporations have it rigged so that they won't feel a thing.

Well again, I'm not interested in affixing blame here. I want to know what, if anything, you and anybody else who is interested in the topic are willing to do about it personally.

Truth is that us middle class folks have sacrificed for years. We deserve a break. The wealthy, like everyone, should pay a fair share of taxes. I am for flat rate taxes.

The poor should be encouraged to get on their feet and it defeats the purpose when we make them comfortable in "poverty." Yes, some are poor and have no choice, others do and we should focus on the latter.

Government needs to stop spending. We have program on top of program. When one doesn't work, they add more instead of going back to the drawing board and revising the ones in place. This is a huge waste.

They also allow big refunds to illegals who claim family members (that may or may not exist) who don't even live in the states.

Now we have free cell phones being given away and there's talk of free internet. Of course, that will have to include free computers.

It seems like the government is always looking for new ways to spend. Budgets are approved based on how much was spent last year for this or that. So, depts spend like drunken sailors on stupid stuff just so they can get the money next year. The way it's set up encourages waste and foolish spending.

If government isn't going to be smart, then it doesn't matter what sacrifices we make. We could feasibly give them every dime we have and they would spend it and look for more. It's them! They are irresponsible with our money.

Big (income tax?) refunds to illegals who PAY income tax but don't file tax returns.

Jeez, where do people get this silly crap?

 

[Foxfyre]

Where's the R "option" of "Take every penny from the poor, the elderly and children and give it to the wealthy"?

Okay, now that you've typed out your obligatory leftwing talking point, would you like to join the discussion? If it is the only way to balance the budget, would you agree to an ironclad law forbidding the federal government from benefitting anybody if they do not benefit everybody at the same time?

Does anyone really see any other option? As long as the Rs have the majority, that's it. That's the only thing being discussed.

No, you are the only one discussing that.

I am discussing how to turn the government around from the destructive path it is on, and how much pain/sacrifice each of us is willing to endure to do that.

Do you see the way to do that is vote out all the R's and elect all D's and then everything will be wonderful?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And I don't believe the average American has ZERO voice. They are quite responsive to our voices or else they wouldn't be doing the non stop polling that is always going on.

Come on now, they do this to keep an ear to the ground as to what we're really paying attention to. Don't you find it odd that, for example, all food legislation is solely for the big agra monopolies? How anti-small farm, anti-sustainable, anti-farmer's market and direct farm sales and anti-competition they are? Are these laws really written to protect us? HELL NO! Those companies are basically paying our elected officials to poison us, make us sick and, most importantly, to make $$$ for those corporations. These laws are NOT in our favor, no matter how you spin them. And this is just one speck of an example. Wake up, please! American citizens have no voice in the matter anymore. Do WE get to vote on Monsanto's terminator seed moratorium being lifted? No. Do WE get to vote on whether Monsanto should label GMO foods? No, again. But this legislation sure as hell affects us directly, just like all corporate-paid for legislation... and you can bet your bippy, it's going to affect us in a bad way.

 

[The T]

Most political threads focus on blaming somebody for what has happened in the past, what is happening now, or what is intended to happen in the future. And there is no greater point of contention or blame or fault finding than what the federal government does with the people's money.

In my opinion, it is no longer important whose fault it is. I believe we are at the jumping off place, the absolute last chance we have to start turning it around. Or it will be too late.

Hal Mason, a retired accountant, has been quoted quite a bit on many of the financial sites recently and has put together a short video illustrating the problem we have.

United States Budget Dilemma.wmv - YouTube

The point he makes is that it will require considerable sacrifice and pain for everybody to stop our headlong rush into national bankruptcy and generations of stagnation.

Is he right? If not, how is he wrong? If so, how much pain/sacrifice would you endure personally to fix the problem?

How much PAIN and sacrifice did we endure through TWO World Wars against tyranny?