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.

The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Whenever I even think of sympathizing with righties, a quick browse of opinions like those I see out here cures me for awhile. :D

I don't care how Americans choose to label themselves (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, wingnuts, hippies, kooks, etc). I don't care what they say in response to poll questions. What I'm going on is evidence. Show me where the American voter has signed up for massive spending cuts that affect them personally? Anybody who runs around saying "we have a spending problem" like they're some sort of sage has it @ ss backwards. We need to pay for the spending that the voters demand. Voters demand entitlement spending. I'm not telling people they have to like that, but it just is. There's a reason why you need the Hubble telescope to be able to find Ron Paul's vote totals whenever he runs for President. People like to hear his sh !t, but they won't vote for it. They never have.

So, by all means work furiously to make gubmint more efficient. In particular with the delivery of healthcare and the true needs of the military (as has been said, Social Security is essentually a funded program). But don't kid yourself that Americans will all of a sudden agree with a massive reduction in their services.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Soc sec wasn't set up to take care of you for 20 yrs. they set retirement age pretty close to life expectancy then for a reason. Kick it up to 71 or so now. If you are able to retire now at 65, it's with your own dime....no retirement benefits until you hit 71.
 
Rover said:
So, by all means work furiously to make gubmint more efficient. In particular with the delivery of healthcare and the true needs of the military (as has been said, Social Security is essentually a funded program). But don't kid yourself that Americans will all of a sudden agree with a massive reduction in their services.
Click to expand...

Got that straight dammit!!! I don't want to tax your money to pay for his benefits, I want to tax your wealth to pay for my benefits!!!! I EARNED mine!!! :D
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan said:
Income taxes? About 1.5%.

All taxes? virtually everyone, since the payroll tax holiday ended. Next paycheck will see an additional 2% taken out.
Click to expand...
After what Obama said I'm shocked the middle class will pay higher taxes
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

walrus said:
After what Obama said I'm shocked the middle class will pay higher taxes
Click to expand...

I'm not. Anyone that took three seconds to think about execution would know that although income taxes wouldn't go up, something else would.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Fact is, as long as the boomers are untouchable we're going bankrupt. It don't matter if we change it for future generations or not.
Click to expand...

Social security isn't the problem. It's solvent indefinitely at 85% of current benefits. When the time comes changes can be made.

Medicare is the bigger issue, but that's because health care in general is sn issue in this country.

I also think it's extremely hypocritical to exempt current seniors from any changes. If the proposed privitization is so great, they should get to "enjoy"its fruits ad eell.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

What am I missing in thinking the rates are not expiring for most of us?:

House approves Senate's fiscal cliff deal

The measure that sought to maintain tax cuts for most Americans but increase rates on the wealthy passed the Democratic-led Senate overwhelmingly early in the day.

The legislation averted much of the fiscal cliff's negative near-term economic impact by extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the majority of Americans. It also extends long-term unemployment benefits that were set to expire.

Had the House not acted, and the tax cuts enacted last decade expired fully, broad tax increases would have kicked in, as would $110 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and military spending.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

mookie1995 said:
mine went up 2%

yours?? 0x0=0 :P
Click to expand...

My offer still stands. Anyone who thinks their tax burden is unfair can give me their income in exchange for mine. They can pay my paltry taxes and I'l buck up and pay their exorbitant taxes.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Priceless said:
My offer still stands. Anyone who thinks their tax burden is unfair can give me their income in exchange for mine. They can pay my paltry taxes and I'l buck up and pay their exorbitant taxes.
Click to expand...

ah yes, the bob dylan offer...
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Rover said:
Anybody who runs around saying "we have a spending problem" like they're some sort of sage has it @ ss backwards. We need to pay for the spending that the voters demand. Voters demand entitlement spending. I'm not telling people they have to like that, but it just is. There's a reason why you need the Hubble telescope to be able to find Ron Paul's vote totals whenever he runs for President. People like to hear his sh !t, but they won't vote for it. They never have.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about Americans and our entitlement spending. The prevailing attitude seems to be, "Cut my lazy, drunken neighbor's benefits, but don't lay a finger on mine!" and "My grandkid has one o' them fancy, high-paying engineerin' degrees - he/she can get a job and work their a55 off to pay for our Soc and Medicare." All the while, of course, taking their severance and going back to work on contract for half the pay and no benefits, thus taking away jobs from their recently graduated grandkids :p.

mookie1995 said:
Soc sec wasn't set up to take care of you for 20 yrs. they set retirement age pretty close to life expectancy then for a reason. Kick it up to 71 or so now. If you are able to retire now at 65, it's with your own dime....no retirement benefits until you hit 71.
Click to expand...

I can hear the screaming from everyone who is late 50s+ already.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Rover said:
Whenever I even think of sympathizing with righties, a quick browse of opinions like those I see out here cures me for awhile. :D

I don't care how Americans choose to label themselves (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, wingnuts, hippies, kooks, etc). I don't care what they say in response to poll questions. What I'm going on is evidence. Show me where the American voter has signed up for massive spending cuts that affect them personally? Anybody who runs around saying "we have a spending problem" like they're some sort of sage has it @ ss backwards. We need to pay for the spending that the voters demand. Voters demand entitlement spending. I'm not telling people they have to like that, but it just is. There's a reason why you need the Hubble telescope to be able to find Ron Paul's vote totals whenever he runs for President. People like to hear his sh !t, but they won't vote for it. They never have.

So, by all means work furiously to make gubmint more efficient. In particular with the delivery of healthcare and the true needs of the military (as has been said, Social Security is essentually a funded program). But don't kid yourself that Americans will all of a sudden agree with a massive reduction in their services.
Click to expand...
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

We've gone a full 180 in 50 years. Having my cake and you yours is all well and wonderful when there is money moving around in the system. But start taking tax dollars and paying a ballooning debt at 3% interest (we'll get there someday), and you have a mell of a hess. And maybe a riots.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

FlagDUDE08 said:
Want to cut defence or similar executive personnel? How about at the same time promote local organised militias?
Click to expand...

If we would stop being the world's police, we could defend ourselves with a much smaller military. No need for local militias to pickup the slack. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, most of which are our allies. I think we should _cut_ our defense budget by at least 25% over the next 10 years (not just reduce the rate at which the budget grows), and no more going to war without a corresponding tax. Americans will be much less inclined to get involved in a prolonged (expensive) war under questionable circumstances if they will feel it in their paycheck.

China doesn't want to go to war with us anyway, who else would buy all their cheap ****? I'm still all for having the worlds strongest military, it just doesn't need to be so big. Close many of the foreign bases. Let Europe pick up more of the slack. China has one aircraft carrier, and it is second hand. We have something like 10 in service and 3 more under construction. I think we'll be OK if we downsize a bit.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

walrus said:
After what Obama said I'm shocked the middle class will pay higher taxes
Click to expand...

In the first round of negotiations Obama proposed extending the Payroll Tax Holiday (see it is called a holiday because it was supposed to be temporary). However, it was taken off the table relatively early. Some republicans didn't really like it because it added to the deficit, and some democrats didn't like it because they thought it could undermine social security if we continue what was supposed to be a temporary stimulus. It did add to the deficit because the government has been making up the difference by transferring funds from the general fund.
 
Priceless said:
My offer still stands. Anyone who thinks their tax burden is unfair can give me their income in exchange for mine. They can pay my paltry taxes and I'l buck up and pay their exorbitant taxes.
Click to expand...

That statement so perfectly embodies what you stand for...I haven't earned it but will gladly take it from somebody who has.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

BassAle said:
If we would stop being the world's police, we could defend ourselves with a much smaller military. No need for local militias to pickup the slack. We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, most of which are our allies. I think we should _cut_ our defense budget by at least 25% over the next 10 years (not just reduce the rate at which the budget grows), and no more going to war without a corresponding tax. Americans will be much less inclined to get involved in a prolonged (expensive) war under questionable circumstances if they will feel it in their paycheck.

China doesn't want to go to war with us anyway, who else would buy all their cheap ****? I'm still all for having the worlds strongest military, it just doesn't need to be so big. Close many of the foreign bases. Let Europe pick up more of the slack. China has one aircraft carrier, and it is second hand. We have something like 10 in service and 3 more under construction. I think we'll be OK if we downsize a bit.
Click to expand...
Let's say we cut the military by 500,000. That means 500,000 men and women are going to be added to the workforce. Guess what? There are not 500,000 jobs available in the country, otherwise the unemployment rate would be around 4%.

While I agree with you, the President and Congress are faced with a quandary - until the economy expands (and the manufacturing jobs that have traditionally captured the returning vet have gone overseas), you can't afford to dump 500K into the workforce, unless those 500K become servants of the state. But then they've changed one uniform for another and you have not saved much.

So, how do we get the economy going? Reducing corporate income is not the way to go. We have to bring manufacturing home and tighten immigration to allow for the current gang here to get employed. The ugly way is to provide tax incentives to a company - but that reduces revenue. Anyone have ideas?
 
joecct said:
Let's say we cut the military by 500,000. That means 500,000 men and women are going to be added to the workforce. Guess what? There are not 500,000 jobs available in the country, otherwise the unemployment rate would be around 4%.

While I agree with you, the President and Congress are faced with a quandary - until the economy expands (and the manufacturing jobs that have traditionally captured the returning vet have gone overseas), you can't afford to dump 500K into the workforce, unless those 500K become servants of the state. But then they've changed one uniform for another and you have not saved much.

So, how do we get the economy going? Reducing corporate income is not the way to go. We have to bring manufacturing home and tighten immigration to allow for the current gang here to get employed. The ugly way is to provide tax incentives to a company - but that reduces revenue. Anyone have ideas?
Click to expand...

They could go into the hundreds of thousands of state and local government jobs that have been cut over the last 5 years or so. I'd rather fund local jobs than overseas ones, all else being equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top