What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

ScoobyDoo said:
So you're argument is that 100,000 today is the same as 100,000 in 1979. That's heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelarious.

And households making 30,000 still considered "middle class" is even funnier yet.
Click to expand...

And if you actually read the article you'll see that they adjusted for inflation.

For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
So there are communal goods when it serves conservative partisan rhetoric, and not when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

There are communal goods where they are inherently Federal in nature (or where the Constitution specifically mandates they're Federal in nature). If those happen to generally be conservative in nature, so be it.

Correlation != causation.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

unofan said:
There are communal goods where they are inherently Federal in nature (or where the Constitution specifically mandates they're Federal in nature). If those happen to generally be conservative in nature, so be it.

Correlation != causation.
Click to expand...

If the courts say it's federal, it's federal. That's the operational definition.

Now, if the courts decide Medicare and Social Security aren't in the Constitution, I am all for letting the red states try and support them on their own. I just want the recipients of federal largesse to stop whining about federal spending. It's the fatties complaining about the cake budget.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

MinnFan said:
How to balance the budget without raising taxes

The 19% Solution
Click to expand...

Despite a few ideological whoppers in the rhetoric (all taxes are "job-killing," etc), that is at least a start on an intelligent discussion. Nice post.

Every empire with expanding ambitions has bankrupted itself. At some point we will have to decide whether to leave the path of Imperial Rome, Sassanid Persia, Hapsburg Spain, and Soviet Russia, or be crushed by the weight of our own bloated expansionism.

CG-map-3.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

moe24 said:
Just delete the second set of http:// and you're there. Of course that means he's adding them in himself which makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Its just the way that it gets copied over. I'll keep an eye on it in the future. Thanks for the heads up from Scooby.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
So there are communal goods when it serves conservative partisan rhetoric, and not when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't believe those conservatives are so in bed with the postal service...he could have picked a few different examples such as highways...are they conservative too? They do require people to follow rules, stay within the lanes and pay as they go...not very liberal.;-)
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

moe24 said:
Of course that means he's adding them in himself which makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I've accidentally done this too -- it has to do with copying a link which is itself embedded in another link. It's a very common mistake when you post things found on an aggregator site like Drudge. You just have to edit the link once you have copied it and remove the pass-through URL.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

goldy_331 said:
All the folks around me are very similar, everyone has bigger houses and more stuff, they eat better and travel more, the go out for entertainment more too.
Click to expand...

How many of them can actually afford that though? The country is up to its eyeballs in debt. People don't save, they spend spend spend. Until the economy went south houses were ATM machines with skyrocketing values. Not everyone can afford the 50 inch TV with the fancy home theater audio setup, fancy cars, 3000 square foot 4 bedroom home for them and their 1 kid, etc. Live for today and don't worry about retirement!

Apparently our household income puts us in the top 10% (barely), but it certainly doesn't feel like it, and we don't have a lot of the "toys" my neighbors and friends like to spend their money on. I don't put anything on my credit card unless I plan on paying it off at the end of the month, I don't see a reason to replace my 10+ year old CRT TV that still works, and when we bought new vehicles we planned on keeping them for 10 years.

I am concerned about the cost of healthcare in the future, and the cost of educating my 2 year old son. The selfish generation (baby boomers) made sure taxes were low, education costs were low, etc when it benefited them. Now I'm sure education costs will skyrocket as state universities become more and more underfunded, I'm sure over the next 30-40 years I'm working my taxes will have to go up since the only way we'll ever be able to pay down debt is to cut spending and increase taxes, and we all know healthcare is a disaster. This will all be devastating to the vanishing middle class.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

MinnFan said:
How to balance the budget without raising taxes

The 19% Solution
Click to expand...

Excellent article. My only issue is that he calls out others for not giving specifics and then turns around and doesn't give specifics for a tax structure that achieves revenues at 19% of GDP.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

BassAle said:
The selfish generation (baby boomers) made sure taxes were low, education costs were low, etc when it benefited them. Now I'm sure education costs will skyrocket as state universities become more and more underfunded, I'm sure over the next 30-40 years I'm working my taxes will have to go up since the only way we'll ever be able to pay down debt is to cut spending and increase taxes, and we all know healthcare is a disaster. This will all be devastating to the vanishing middle class.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if much of the rest of the world decided to decimate itself in another war, and we stayed out of it (except to sell weapons to all sides). A little tactical nuclear exchange between China and India with the wind blowing right would buy us a few more decades.

Otherwise, it's get used to living like Alabama, with a few super rich exploiting a plantation with a mass of undereducated poor. The supply-siders paradise (Grover Norquist knows which group he'll be in, do you?).

Or citizens might wake up one morning and decide to pay their bills. But good luck with that when half the political spectrum keeps telling them that paying your bills makes baby Jesus cry.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Kepler said:
Despite a few ideological whoppers in the rhetoric (all taxes are "job-killing," etc), that is at least a start on an intelligent discussion. Nice post.

Every empire with expanding ambitions has bankrupted itself. At some point we will have to decide whether to leave the path of Imperial Rome, Sassanid Persia, Hapsburg Spain, and Soviet Russia, or be crushed by the weight of our own bloated expansionism.

CG-map-3.gif
Click to expand...

With approx half of the world's military budget on US taxpayer shoulders. And Europe being one of the most secure places in the world from military invasion. Its a credit to other countries that it doesn't result in an all out arms race.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

moe24 said:
Excellent article. My only issue is that he calls out others for not giving specifics and then turns around and doesn't give specifics for a tax structure that achieves revenues at 19% of GDP.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of the point. It doesn't matter what tax structure you use, you'll wind up at or near 19% of revenue. That being the case you'd want a tax structure that maximizes economic growth. I would argue that is a flat or fair tax.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

5mn_Major said:
With approx half of the world's military budget on US taxpayer shoulders. And Europe being one of the most secure places in the world from military invasion. Its a credit to other countries that it doesn't result in an all out arms race.
Click to expand...

Why would they -- the international class that created the system is using it to get rich on the backs of US taxpayers. The US military budget and corporate welfare move money from the American middle class to a post-national group of interlocking board members. There is no reason for them to mess that up. It's the same Easy Street that class enjoyed with colonialism from the Congress of Vienna to WW1. Then Lenin and Hitler messed it up for a while but they finally got it back on track in the 1980's and have been suckling at it every since. And as we can see here everyday, there is a conveyor belt producing dedicated apologists and inoculating victims against challenging it. They built the Matrix. It's really quite beautiful.

And the great thing is, once they've wrung the last dollar out of America, any other country will do. The Ayn Rand of China is sharpening her pencil as we speak.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

MinnFan said:
Thats kind of the point. It doesn't matter what tax structure you use, you'll wind up at or near 19% of revenue. That being the case you'd want a tax structure that maximizes economic growth. I would argue that is a flat or fair tax.
Click to expand...

That's true, however he eluded to changes being needed. Plus, you have to remember that the tax structure can have an effect on business and the size of the GDP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top