Republicans want to limit access to SSI for children
27 Aug 2011, 12:58 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Inventor wrote:
A hundred years ago we got an income tax, 1/10% of earnings over $10,000 a year. Same year, 1913, The Federal Reserve System.
Income tax went up. As the same people sold us both, it was to avoid a simpler plan, a tax on assets.
The debt is no problem, taxing labor is, the solution a flat 3% tax on net worth. America has a net worth of several hundred trillion.
A few years would pay off the debt, making money worth more, restoring our AAA credit rating, and a few more years would make a single payer health care system for all.
Paying off our debt would cause the Saudis, Japanese, Chinese, to spend dollars. Our bonds are dead money that bleeds us.
This would put five trillion into the world economy.
There is nothing to fear, but low math skills.
Income tax went up. As the same people sold us both, it was to avoid a simpler plan, a tax on assets.
The debt is no problem, taxing labor is, the solution a flat 3% tax on net worth. America has a net worth of several hundred trillion.
A few years would pay off the debt, making money worth more, restoring our AAA credit rating, and a few more years would make a single payer health care system for all.
Paying off our debt would cause the Saudis, Japanese, Chinese, to spend dollars. Our bonds are dead money that bleeds us.
This would put five trillion into the world economy.
There is nothing to fear, but low math skills.
How do you define net worth though? Defining how much net worth someone has can be used as a weapon of intimidation, where income is just straight up how much money you made.
Our problem is the amount of regulations coming out of the White House, our problem is not the Bush tax rates.
Those terrible regulations are there to protect us from being poisoned by the food we eat, from the planes we fly in from crashing due to a malfunction, and from the clothes we put on our children from being flammable. Oh yeah, also, they're there to keep banks from ripping customers off - or at least, they're supposed to.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So letting GE move jobs to China is okay, but Boeing can't have a plant in South Carolina, that's somehow okay with you?
Just how the hell did even you infer that from what I wrote?
And for your information, I think GE should have their ass handed them for betraying American workers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No, Obama just named the head of GE to his Job Creation panel, not sure what it is called.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
27 Aug 2011, 1:08 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Inventor wrote:
A hundred years ago we got an income tax, 1/10% of earnings over $10,000 a year. Same year, 1913, The Federal Reserve System.
Income tax went up. As the same people sold us both, it was to avoid a simpler plan, a tax on assets.
The debt is no problem, taxing labor is, the solution a flat 3% tax on net worth. America has a net worth of several hundred trillion.
A few years would pay off the debt, making money worth more, restoring our AAA credit rating, and a few more years would make a single payer health care system for all.
Paying off our debt would cause the Saudis, Japanese, Chinese, to spend dollars. Our bonds are dead money that bleeds us.
This would put five trillion into the world economy.
There is nothing to fear, but low math skills.
Income tax went up. As the same people sold us both, it was to avoid a simpler plan, a tax on assets.
The debt is no problem, taxing labor is, the solution a flat 3% tax on net worth. America has a net worth of several hundred trillion.
A few years would pay off the debt, making money worth more, restoring our AAA credit rating, and a few more years would make a single payer health care system for all.
Paying off our debt would cause the Saudis, Japanese, Chinese, to spend dollars. Our bonds are dead money that bleeds us.
This would put five trillion into the world economy.
There is nothing to fear, but low math skills.
How do you define net worth though? Defining how much net worth someone has can be used as a weapon of intimidation, where income is just straight up how much money you made.
Our problem is the amount of regulations coming out of the White House, our problem is not the Bush tax rates.
Those terrible regulations are there to protect us from being poisoned by the food we eat, from the planes we fly in from crashing due to a malfunction, and from the clothes we put on our children from being flammable. Oh yeah, also, they're there to keep banks from ripping customers off - or at least, they're supposed to.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So letting GE move jobs to China is okay, but Boeing can't have a plant in South Carolina, that's somehow okay with you?
Just how the hell did even you infer that from what I wrote?
And for your information, I think GE should have their ass handed them for betraying American workers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No, Obama just named the head of GE to his Job Creation panel, not sure what it is called.
He still should get his ass handed to him.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
28 Aug 2011, 7:46 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Just how the hell did even you infer that from what I wrote?
And for your information, I think GE should have their ass handed them for betraying American workers.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
A privately owned profit making firm should be able to seek labor at the lowest feasible cost. Businesses are not charities or welfare institutions.
ruveyn
Not the question. Both are trying, one has their nose so far up Obama's a$$ while sitting on a political board trusted with job growth in the United States! Boeing doesn't play ball, GE gets the China deal and Boeing gets a new competitor. Feasible cost, hardly. When you make the rules and break the rules all feasibility goes out the window.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
23 Feb 2015, 1:14 am
Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
The republican opposition to social programs is entirely ideological. Some people really do believe in "social darwinism."
We start two unfunded wars, and 10 years later have a huge deficit (surprise, surprise). So, the "obvious" solution is to cut SSI, Medicare, and Medicaide? Yeah, that makes no sense.
We start two unfunded wars, and 10 years later have a huge deficit (surprise, surprise). So, the "obvious" solution is to cut SSI, Medicare, and Medicaide? Yeah, that makes no sense.
And don't forget EBT.
_________________
We won't go back.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Feb 2015, 1:26 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
The republican opposition to social programs is entirely ideological. Some people really do believe in "social darwinism."
We start two unfunded wars, and 10 years later have a huge deficit (surprise, surprise). So, the "obvious" solution is to cut SSI, Medicare, and Medicaide? Yeah, that makes no sense.
We start two unfunded wars, and 10 years later have a huge deficit (surprise, surprise). So, the "obvious" solution is to cut SSI, Medicare, and Medicaide? Yeah, that makes no sense.
And don't forget EBT.
God forbid we ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes that they won't miss! After all, they're the job creators - - in Bangladesh.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
03 Mar 2015, 1:47 pm
Oh!! !! !! ! The children, the children!! !! !
Maybe if we stopped spending so much on weapons that do not increase our security an iota, we would have more for the children, the children!! !!
Taxes are high enough. Perhaps if we used our money more wisely proposals to burn the rich alive would not come up so frequently.
ruveyn
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Mar 2015, 2:00 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Oh!! ! ! ! ! ! The children, the children!! ! ! !
Maybe if we stopped spending so much on weapons that do not increase our security an iota, we would have more for the children, the children!! ! !
Taxes are high enough. Perhaps if we used our money more wisely proposals to burn the rich alive would not come up so frequently.
ruveyn
Maybe if we stopped spending so much on weapons that do not increase our security an iota, we would have more for the children, the children!! ! !
Taxes are high enough. Perhaps if we used our money more wisely proposals to burn the rich alive would not come up so frequently.
ruveyn
That would certainly be a step in the right direction.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
03 Mar 2015, 2:14 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
I get the feeling NPR is not telling the whole story.
Anyways, we have a 14.3-16 trillion dollar national debt, the economy is looking like it's about to go into depression territory, and the spending we have going on is unsustainable.
I've got a question for all of you, where do you propose we cut spending?
If you say military spending, you're neglecting the fact that in order to keep ahead of the Chinese we have to keep ahead of them in advancements of military technology. I hate to break it to everyone but Fighter Jets are expensive, aircraft carriers are expensive, etc. Also military spending is the one area of government spending that has a positive effect on GDP.
If you propose tax hikes like Obama is proposing, you end up targetting small business owners, not simply millionaires and billionaires like Obama's rhetoric claims.
The bulk of our spending is the entitlement programs, and I'll be honest with you, I don't like the idea of them cutting into SSI for kids with ADHD, but you have to consider the facts.
There are a lot of things out there I would like to buy, but can't simply because I don't have the money for it. Republicans are trying to get our fiscal house in order which is a mess both parties caused, but it seems one party now wants to take responsibility and clean up the mess. While the other as we can see with NPR, doesn't propose anything, rather instead resorts to character assassination and cheap political games, putting the political partisanship ahead of country bashing their political opponents whenever they propose the tough choices.
If we don't do something now, we're eventually going to be forced to make the cuts by just plain simple reality that people won't loan us money anymore, and in all honesty when that happens we'll have to pretty much make cuts that make what the Republicans are proposing look like trivial decreases. I'm not playing partisan games here, the facts are the facts.
All the money of our top 1% if I recall correctly could only run this government for 10 days, that's right 10 days. We can't tax our way out of this.
Anyways, we have a 14.3-16 trillion dollar national debt, the economy is looking like it's about to go into depression territory, and the spending we have going on is unsustainable.
I've got a question for all of you, where do you propose we cut spending?
If you say military spending, you're neglecting the fact that in order to keep ahead of the Chinese we have to keep ahead of them in advancements of military technology. I hate to break it to everyone but Fighter Jets are expensive, aircraft carriers are expensive, etc. Also military spending is the one area of government spending that has a positive effect on GDP.
If you propose tax hikes like Obama is proposing, you end up targetting small business owners, not simply millionaires and billionaires like Obama's rhetoric claims.
The bulk of our spending is the entitlement programs, and I'll be honest with you, I don't like the idea of them cutting into SSI for kids with ADHD, but you have to consider the facts.
There are a lot of things out there I would like to buy, but can't simply because I don't have the money for it. Republicans are trying to get our fiscal house in order which is a mess both parties caused, but it seems one party now wants to take responsibility and clean up the mess. While the other as we can see with NPR, doesn't propose anything, rather instead resorts to character assassination and cheap political games, putting the political partisanship ahead of country bashing their political opponents whenever they propose the tough choices.
If we don't do something now, we're eventually going to be forced to make the cuts by just plain simple reality that people won't loan us money anymore, and in all honesty when that happens we'll have to pretty much make cuts that make what the Republicans are proposing look like trivial decreases. I'm not playing partisan games here, the facts are the facts.
All the money of our top 1% if I recall correctly could only run this government for 10 days, that's right 10 days. We can't tax our way out of this.
food stamps have a positive effect on GDP, generating more in economic activity than we spend. even the pentagon says we don't need the huge military budget we have. it's pork, pure and simple. i doubt some of your other "facts", too. where are you getting these numbers? infrastructure would generate economic benefits not only now, but way into the future. what we don't need is another iraq war and continued tax cuts for the wealthy. that's where the deficit came from and now you want to solve it by hurting poor people.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Mar 2015, 4:09 pm
cathylynn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I get the feeling NPR is not telling the whole story.
Anyways, we have a 14.3-16 trillion dollar national debt, the economy is looking like it's about to go into depression territory, and the spending we have going on is unsustainable.
I've got a question for all of you, where do you propose we cut spending?
If you say military spending, you're neglecting the fact that in order to keep ahead of the Chinese we have to keep ahead of them in advancements of military technology. I hate to break it to everyone but Fighter Jets are expensive, aircraft carriers are expensive, etc. Also military spending is the one area of government spending that has a positive effect on GDP.
If you propose tax hikes like Obama is proposing, you end up targetting small business owners, not simply millionaires and billionaires like Obama's rhetoric claims.
The bulk of our spending is the entitlement programs, and I'll be honest with you, I don't like the idea of them cutting into SSI for kids with ADHD, but you have to consider the facts.
There are a lot of things out there I would like to buy, but can't simply because I don't have the money for it. Republicans are trying to get our fiscal house in order which is a mess both parties caused, but it seems one party now wants to take responsibility and clean up the mess. While the other as we can see with NPR, doesn't propose anything, rather instead resorts to character assassination and cheap political games, putting the political partisanship ahead of country bashing their political opponents whenever they propose the tough choices.
If we don't do something now, we're eventually going to be forced to make the cuts by just plain simple reality that people won't loan us money anymore, and in all honesty when that happens we'll have to pretty much make cuts that make what the Republicans are proposing look like trivial decreases. I'm not playing partisan games here, the facts are the facts.
All the money of our top 1% if I recall correctly could only run this government for 10 days, that's right 10 days. We can't tax our way out of this.
Anyways, we have a 14.3-16 trillion dollar national debt, the economy is looking like it's about to go into depression territory, and the spending we have going on is unsustainable.
I've got a question for all of you, where do you propose we cut spending?
If you say military spending, you're neglecting the fact that in order to keep ahead of the Chinese we have to keep ahead of them in advancements of military technology. I hate to break it to everyone but Fighter Jets are expensive, aircraft carriers are expensive, etc. Also military spending is the one area of government spending that has a positive effect on GDP.
If you propose tax hikes like Obama is proposing, you end up targetting small business owners, not simply millionaires and billionaires like Obama's rhetoric claims.
The bulk of our spending is the entitlement programs, and I'll be honest with you, I don't like the idea of them cutting into SSI for kids with ADHD, but you have to consider the facts.
There are a lot of things out there I would like to buy, but can't simply because I don't have the money for it. Republicans are trying to get our fiscal house in order which is a mess both parties caused, but it seems one party now wants to take responsibility and clean up the mess. While the other as we can see with NPR, doesn't propose anything, rather instead resorts to character assassination and cheap political games, putting the political partisanship ahead of country bashing their political opponents whenever they propose the tough choices.
If we don't do something now, we're eventually going to be forced to make the cuts by just plain simple reality that people won't loan us money anymore, and in all honesty when that happens we'll have to pretty much make cuts that make what the Republicans are proposing look like trivial decreases. I'm not playing partisan games here, the facts are the facts.
All the money of our top 1% if I recall correctly could only run this government for 10 days, that's right 10 days. We can't tax our way out of this.
food stamps have a positive effect on GDP, generating more in economic activity than we spend. even the pentagon says we don't need the huge military budget we have. it's pork, pure and simple. i doubt some of your other "facts", too. where are you getting these numbers? infrastructure would generate economic benefits not only now, but way into the future. what we don't need is another iraq war and continued tax cuts for the wealthy. that's where the deficit came from and now you want to solve it by hurting poor people.
Just to let you know, Inuyasha is no longer with us (no, he didn't die; worse, he was banned), so I wouldn't be expecting an answer from him.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I guess Iran wants to limit abortions to increase populatio. |
03 Feb 2024, 12:03 pm |
| SCOTUS abortion pill access hearing |
26 Mar 2024, 5:17 pm |
| Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
| Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |
