You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[oreo]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

Right now the Federal Government is borrowing .46 cents on every dollar it spends.

 

[Bern80]

The fact that you ask the question clearly reveals why you will not understand the point.

And the fact that you will never answer a question simply shows what a chicken shit weasel you still are.

 

[Maple]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

I am tired of helping the poor, the poor should get up off of their duffs and get an education and get a job. I think we need to tax the poor, a flat tax for everyone, 10%, if you make a dollar you pay .10, if you make a $100 you pay 10.00. The poor use the same services that the rest of us pay for, in many instances much more than anyone else, yet they have no skin in the game and they vote. We have too many people in the wagon and not enough pulling it. The poor need to do some pulling. It's called personal responsibility.

 

[Maple]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

I guess many would rather wait until their Social Security check bounces before they take the situation seriously. That reality is coming our way very soon. I am ready, but I don't think they are.

 

[oreo]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

I guess many would rather wait until their Social Security check bounces before they take the situation seriously. That reality is coming our way very soon. I am ready, but I don't think they are.

There are currently 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare daily and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities or $534,000.00 per household debt. There simply is not enough wealth in this entire country for the federal government to confiscate to pay this tab.

Something needs to be done--to stabilize these funds so they exist for future generations.

 

[Wiseacre]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

I guess many would rather wait until their Social Security check bounces before they take the situation seriously. That reality is coming our way very soon. I am ready, but I don't think they are.

There are currently 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare daily and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities or $534,000.00 per household debt. There simply is not enough wealth in this entire country for the federal government to confiscate to pay this tab.

Something needs to be done--to stabilize these funds so they exist for future generations.

View attachment 14268

Not to mention Medicare, which becomes insolvent in what, 12 years? That unfunded liability is about 5 times worse than SS.

 

[bripat9643]

The answer is simple. Fund them instead of borrowing.

What a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, we can pay for needed services, and you know it.

True, because most of the "services" the federal government provides are not "needed." They are the fruit of swag plundered from the productive members of society.

However, all the money in the world wouldn't be enough to fund all the promises that Democrat demagogues have made.

 

[Chris]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

I am tired of helping the poor, the poor should get up off of their duffs and get an education and get a job. I think we need to tax the poor, a flat tax for everyone, 10%, if you make a dollar you pay .10, if you make a $100 you pay 10.00. The poor use the same services that the rest of us pay for, in many instances much more than anyone else, yet they have no skin in the game and they vote. We have too many people in the wagon and not enough pulling it. The poor need to do some pulling. It's called personal responsibility.

You are not helping the poor. You are helping the rich.

They are ******* you in the ass and laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Chris]

Yes, we can pay for needed services, and you know it.

True, because most of the "services" the federal government provides are not "needed." They are the fruit of swag plundered from the productive members of society.

However, all the money in the world wouldn't be enough to fund all the promises that Democrat demagogues have made.

I get a kick out of your silly posts. I really do.

■Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $705 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which totaled $170 billion in 2010.
■Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $707 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,175 per month to 34.6 million retired workers in December 2010. Social Security also provided benefits to 2.9 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.2 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2010.
■Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $732 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $452 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 47 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 60 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.

Safety net programs: About 14 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $496 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

These programs include: the refundable portion of the earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

■Interest on the national debt: The federal government must make regular interest payments on the money it has borrowed to finance past deficits — that is, on the national debt held by the public, which reached $9 trillion by the end of fiscal 2010. In 2010, these interest payments claimed $196 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[shintao]

Yes, we can pay for needed services, and you know it.

True, because most of the "services" the federal government provides are not "needed." They are the fruit of swag plundered from the productive members of society.

However, all the money in the world wouldn't be enough to fund all the promises that Democrat demagogues have made.

Yeah, like military services in the ME are not needed, but fruit of corporations. We get it moron.

 

[ShackledNation]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

The answer is simple. Fund them instead of borrowing.

snjmom, I don't think you realize the gravity of the situation. The unfunded liabilities of these programs exceed the total GDP of the entire world. It is not even possible to fully fund them through borrowing, let alone taxation.

 

[Steelplate]

Lets look at this shall we?
The ditch digger should have had the initiative to get an education that would have allowed him to watch someone dig that ditch instead of grabbing the shovel himself.
But since he did not show any concern for his future at that point, he should have realized that raising a family on 8 bucks an hour would be tough, and perhaps not had those kids to start with. Condoms are cheap.

Since he failed on all parts of his life, why should he be allowed to look at me to provide him anything?
As I said before, taking my child on vacations around the country and overseas is a far better use of my money than giving it to someone that failed to plan.

If I have to support the kids, take them out of the home, put them in a state or federal facility to be raised and have my tax dollar go there instead of the pocket of the unplanned laborer. At least this way the money can go to the kids instead of the liqueur store or drug dealer.

Once again... do you feel that everyone has the intellect to go to college? Your ******* bigoted assertions are what I hate about the Tea Party... These are the reasons that there is no ******* way that I believe you about "charity". You hate people that you consider "lesser" than you. Guess people who aren't book smart enough to go to College should just be sent to the gas chamber... I know.. we'll lock them up in these camps... we'll call them "concentration camps"... because that's their whole problem.. they refuse to concentrate, right? Then... we'll tell them that before we teach them how to Concentrate... they have to take a shower first... all that Ditch Digging makes them sweaty and stinky.... then we'll get them into the showers... and instead of water... we'll gas them with cyanide.

**** you you fascist bastard.

A don't get all bent out of shape. People on the right don't think lesser of people who go to college. In fact a lot on the right (including myself) think a lot of college is a collossal waste of money and a scam.

Don't get out of shape? Re-read your post. Do you think your bullshit comes from a reasonable point of view, or from a string of ridiculous beliefs? Sure... some people make mistakes in their lives and could have done more... but the truth is, many of those former blue collar workers were in those positions, because that's where their strengths were. Now, you want to force round pegs into square holes and blame the peg because it don't fit. Manufacturing was our backbone of the country. Those kinds of people earned good money making things for people to buy and they could afford to buy them, as could pretty much everyone else. But now we have this crazy system where we want to lower the standard of living of everyone... except those so called "job creators"(who don't create jobs....in America anyway)... for those types of people.. things haven't been this good since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution... when robber/barons ruled the day.

 

[Rinata]

Simple common sense, this have never happened in history. Repug thinking...snooze!!!!!

This has happened every time taxes are cut. The economy grows and unemployment shrinks. Whether we are talking about the Bush tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, the Kennedy tax cuts, or the Harding/Coolidge tax cuts the evidence is all of them caused a surge in the economy. This is Econ 101.
Econ 101: How do Tax Cuts Work?

That's not true. It's just not. Why Republicans continue to praise the Bush tax cuts is just crazy.

President Clinton, after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year (the month Clinton’s budget plan passed, including the increase in taxes) to 129 million jobs six years later—an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.

And the Bush tax cuts didn’t just fail to stack up on jobs. Overall economic growth was much slower under the Bush administration’s tax policies than under the Clinton administration’s tax policies. Real gross domestic product grew by 26 percent in the six years after Clinton’s tax increases. But real GDP grew by just 16 percent in the six years after the Bush tax cuts began. In fact, that six-year growth rate was low even by general historical standards. The average real GDP growth in any given six year period (from any quarter to the same quarter six years later) since World War II was 22 percent.

But there is yet another area where the Bush tax cuts fail even more spectacularly. President Bush—having inherited a record surplus from President Clinton—promised in 2001 that his tax cuts would not harm the overall federal budget picture. Bush argued in selling his huge tax cuts that, “I know a lot of folks around America are worried about national debt, as am I. We [will] pay down $2 trillion of debt over the next 10 years.” Not only that, said Bush, but, “We’ve got a trillion dollars of contingency set aside over the next 10 years. And there’s still money left over. There’s still money left over.”

Needless to say, that’s not how things turned out. Total publicly held debt stood at $3.3 trillion at the beginning of fiscal year 2002, four months after President Bush signed the first package of tax cuts into law. Six years later publicly held debt passed $5 trillion. Not only did the Bush tax cuts not produce a $2 trillion debt reduction; they had precisely the opposite effect. In fact, the Bush tax cuts have directly added $2.5 trillion to the national debt in the full 10 years that they have been law.

It is odd, given the fantastically poor record of the Bush tax cuts on all of these measures, that conservatives are making exactly the same case for why they should be extended. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), for example, came out strongly against allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire, saying, “If we want to spur economic growth and reduce the deficit, then let's stop these massive job-killing tax hikes.” Why does he think that if the tax cuts didn’t work the first time, that this time will be any different?

Albert Einstein once quipped that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We’d be downright mad by that definition to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans.

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year

 

[Steelplate]

"That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you. Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No ******* way."

What part of the concept that unfunded entitlements will be double our GDP in another twenty years do you not understand? Nobody likes cutting services, Steelplate...but when you have no possible way to pay for them you have to. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! Failure to address the situation will eventually result in our creditors turning off the cash spigots.

Bullshit... I was watching Cspan the other day and they had two senators...one Democrat, one Republican on the program(it was early in the morning before congress was in session).

They talked about Social Security... they BOTH agreed that even if no more money were put into the system from here on out... it would be solvent till 2036... that's with what's currently in the system now. So your tirades of how "broke the system is" is just right wing spin because Wall Street wants to get their hands on that money. I'm sorry... I don't think our futures should be for sale and I will fight it to my dying breath.

As far as Medicare? You guys screwed the pooch with that one. A single payer system would have reduced the cost of health Care incredibly and would have covered everyone. But instead of trying to understand what the problems of are healthcare system are... we heard the familiar blind rhetoric of "Socialism" killing Grandma... and the rest... and THAT was just for the idea of a Public Option...not full blown single payer.

what increase in taxes there would have been would have saved individuals and businesses five-fold by not having to buy insurance. That would have been a boon to the small business community. The problem is.... too many people are getting really, really rich off of our rigged and monopolistic system.... they won(big fuckin' surprise).

 

[editec]

Social security was and still is PRE-FUNDED by the American taxpayers. The FED doesn't pay for Social Security, it merely pays BACK social secutity for money it has been borrowing from SOCIAL SECURITY.

The Pentagon is largely funded by the USA taking on more NEW debt. The PENTAGON is the welfare recipient, SS is NOT.

Social security doesn't COST the Federal government a penny.

When the FED disburses SS moneies it is is paying back money it borrowed from SOCIAL SECURITY.

When the FED SPENDS money on the Pentagon it MUST DO SO by creating STILL MORE DEBT.

You guys understand these basic account facts, don't you?

Social security is one of the FED's CREDITORS. SS is not a supplicant asking for help, it is a CREDITOR demanding REPAYMENT.

The Pentagon is one of the WELFARE PROGRAMS that is forcing the FED to create still MORE DEBT.

If you conservatives are truly concerned about the national debt, and if you want our government to stop creating on new debt, SOCIAL SECURITY is not what you need to cut.

What you need to cut are those activities for which the government must borrow money to fund.

 

[Flaylo]

Social security was and still is PRE-FUNDED by the American taxpayers. The FED doesn't pay for Social Security, it merely pays BACK social secutity for money it has been borrowing from SOCIAL SECURITY.

The Pentagon is largely funded by the USA taking on more NEW debt. The PENTAGON is the welfare recipient, SS is NOT.

Social security doesn't COST the Federal government a penny.

When the FED disburses SS moneies it is is paying back money it borrowed from SOCIAL SECURITY.

When the FED SPENDS money on the Pentagon it MUST DO SO by creating STILL MORE DEBT.

You guys understand these basic account facts, don't you?

Social security is one of the FED's CREDITORS. SS is not a supplicant asking for help, it is a CREDITOR demanding REPAYMENT.

The Pentagon is one of the WELFARE PROGRAMS that is forcing the FED to create still MORE DEBT.

If you conservatives are truly concerned about the national debt, and if you want our government to stop creating on new debt, SOCIAL SECURITY is not what you need to cut.

What you need to cut are those activities for which the government must borrow money to fund.

Wow, I can honestly say that I just learned something from you, thanks, seriously, no joke. I wasn't fully aware of these things.

 

[editec]

Social security was and still is PRE-FUNDED by the American taxpayers. The FED doesn't pay for Social Security, it merely pays BACK social secutity for money it has been borrowing from SOCIAL SECURITY.

The Pentagon is largely funded by the USA taking on more NEW debt. The PENTAGON is the welfare recipient, SS is NOT.

Social security doesn't COST the Federal government a penny.

When the FED disburses SS moneies it is is paying back money it borrowed from SOCIAL SECURITY.

When the FED SPENDS money on the Pentagon it MUST DO SO by creating STILL MORE DEBT.

You guys understand these basic account facts, don't you?

Social security is one of the FED's CREDITORS. SS is not a supplicant asking for help, it is a CREDITOR demanding REPAYMENT.

The Pentagon is one of the WELFARE PROGRAMS that is forcing the FED to create still MORE DEBT.

If you conservatives are truly concerned about the national debt, and if you want our government to stop creating on new debt, SOCIAL SECURITY is not what you need to cut.

What you need to cut are those activities for which the government must borrow money to fund.

Wow, I can honestly say that I just learned something from you, thanks, seriously, no joke. I wasn't fully aware of these things.

Seriously?!

I thought you'd have been one of those people who understood this fact perfectly.

Well, I'm glad I could be there for ya, then, Flaylo.

the Boomer generation have not only eliminated the debts that SS accrued from the WWII generation, but they also prefunded their own retirements out to about 2045 (or so).

That's is what happened when the SS deductions jumped up to 7.5% (or so) of our incomes.

When I first started paying into SS (1965), I think I paid about 1%.

By the mid 80's the deduction was increased up to about 7.5%. (under Reagan, incidently...You remember him, right? the so-called TAX CUTTTER?)

Meanwhile the FED borrowed all that EXCESSS cash to fund their stupid policies that were NOT being funded.

One of those (I think) stupid policies is that bloated EMPIRE BUILDING military we have been involved with my entire life.

Basically our previous administration (both Dem and REP) have been spending Americans' RETIREMENT SAVINGS on empire and other silly and wasteful things.

BOTH parties DID THAT.

BOTH of them.

That is why this nation is in debt.

WELFARE is a very very TINY amount of this nations overall budget.

Historically all the welfare programs combined are not 1/20th of the cost of the historical DoD expenses.

The DEBT, that looming problem that suddenly we are so damned worried about, can mostly be laid at the feet of the USA expansive and expensive MILITARY spending.

 

[Flaylo]

Social security was and still is PRE-FUNDED by the American taxpayers. The FED doesn't pay for Social Security, it merely pays BACK social secutity for money it has been borrowing from SOCIAL SECURITY.

The Pentagon is largely funded by the USA taking on more NEW debt. The PENTAGON is the welfare recipient, SS is NOT.

Social security doesn't COST the Federal government a penny.

When the FED disburses SS moneies it is is paying back money it borrowed from SOCIAL SECURITY.

When the FED SPENDS money on the Pentagon it MUST DO SO by creating STILL MORE DEBT.

You guys understand these basic account facts, don't you?

Social security is one of the FED's CREDITORS. SS is not a supplicant asking for help, it is a CREDITOR demanding REPAYMENT.

The Pentagon is one of the WELFARE PROGRAMS that is forcing the FED to create still MORE DEBT.

If you conservatives are truly concerned about the national debt, and if you want our government to stop creating on new debt, SOCIAL SECURITY is not what you need to cut.

What you need to cut are those activities for which the government must borrow money to fund.

Wow, I can honestly say that I just learned something from you, thanks, seriously, no joke. I wasn't fully aware of these things.

Seriously?!

I thought you'd have been one of those people who understood this fact perfectly.

Well, I'm glad I could be there for ya, then, Flaylo.

the Boomer have not only eliminated the debts that SS was in, but they also prefunded their own retirements out to about 2045 (or so).

That's is what happened when the SS deductions jumped up to 7/5% (or so) of our incomes.

When I first started paying into SS, I think I paid about 1%.

By the mid 80's the deduction was about 7.5%.

Meanwhile the FED borrowed all that EXCESSS cash to fund their stupid policies that were NOT being funded.

One of those (I think) stupid policies is that bloated EMPIRE BUILDING military we have been involved with my entire life.

Basically our previous administration (both Dem and REP) have been spending Americans' RETIREMENT SAVINGS on empire and other silly and wasteful things.

BOTH parties DID THAT.

BOTH of them.

I already understood what social security was just wasn't aware that the money being put into it was borrowed so much and I didn't know that the money financing the Pentagon created more debt. But on social security it is true, the taxpayers pay into it so its not the govt's money, with that said I wouldn't want SS ran by the private sector like Republican't want.

 

[skookerasbil]

Trickle-Up Poverty economics is gay............thats what we have now. Its a brilliant strategy politically........make the lower class bigger with handouts = permanent votes.

Whats hysterical is that the majority of the lefties who troll on here believe that the intentions of these people are noble and that these politicans are genuinely looking out for the little guy.