Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: U.S Will Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 4, 2013

moblesuit75 wrote:

Where is the cliff?

 

How High is it?

 

Does it really matter?

 

I went over my fiscal cliff a few years back.  The only difference is; I won't get a stimulous package!

 

F-U U.S. Gov and all your friends!

 

Sincerely,

Moble


For the newer Mods, F (Find) - U (Unity).

 

What did you think I meant?

 

Moble

Message 21 of 30 (194 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
55486 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 4, 2013

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off

Message 22 of 30 (193 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 07/20/2008
Offline
2788 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

[ Edited ]
Jan 4, 2013

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off


I'd say let's start with the military.

 

640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

 

Of course Medicare and Social Security also take a huge chunk. Program changes to both to improve efficiency and cut waste.

 

And increase taxes on the wealthiest (won't hurt economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html):

 

United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

 

And let's throw in a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

 

There's a start.

 

Of course I could just be insane, but that's my intepretation of the data.

Message 23 of 30 (191 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/02/2009
Online
7025 posts
 

Re: U.S Will Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

[ Edited ]
Jan 4, 2013

havocsarmy wrote:

mcbuttz78 wrote:

 They reached a deal . so no its not going over the cliff. It would hurt  the rich more than it hurts the poor. becuase the poor is already poor.

 

 This  the reason they reached a deal at  the last minute  becuase they  they would lose alot of  money.  Everyone know tea  party is the new  Klu  klux, and  they give real good  respected republican like regan, elder bush and  dewey a  bad name. Guys like  bohner  and allen west and  tthe likes  are just out of touch  with reality. these  are the  same fools  talking about the governemnt going is  broke but still in take in  100 K$ a month frmo the  government  for life . i dont see  any of then screaming for a pay cut.

 

 

 republican today are nothing of what the  repubs where in my day they are a disgrace today   and the  new klu  klux.. Go  look  all the  housing majoity leader memebers  all of the are  males and  white , not one  woman or  ethic  culture to  be found. Let the boys be boys  they dont  care as long they get thiers..

 

 

 

 

 The Republicans of yesteryear were very discriminatory against blacks, today not so much. We couldn't even drink out the same water fountain back then, and there were Southern Democrats who acted in the same racist way. Me and my family know about the Republicans up until the 80's when Reagan showed up. He welcomed people who were tired of the same-old and let us join his party. There are many blacks, hispanics, and women in the G.O.P. now. Yes .   so back in my day it was pretty bad versus ethic groups of all kinds but  the  one of the things  is   they let you be and let  you  earn a honest living in your community. or in society.   I think todays  certain republican are just as badd  those days guys  if not badder. They do   alot things to keep  ethic down  or the poor .  the  properious ethic  communites  have   demised    that what where once  a positive place and to  making positive impacts on  american life and live. Reagan & nixon  was not as bad as  folk them be they signed bills to help all ethics to get job.. today  these guys  want a bill to drug  test people on food stamp and ssi&ssd every month . they want  drug test to get  public housing assitance.. They dont beilive in food stamps or city  shelter improve life. The all ethic kids to get  hiv and std  test  in order to go to public school and  perticipate in sports.

 

 They want the G.e.d.. program to vanish from jails and  public schools from  being free to all   who want  better their life.. Back when prision was about reform  of  a man not a wild jungle of death  and drug connection  for gang recruits , you  could  get  ged. and  a college degree . learn a  trade come out with a postive attiude. with some kind moral  value to be better in society and not worry  about doing  crime.  Guess what  rupub in 1988- or early  1990 outlawed that except for in indiania,     folks in prision have to pettition to  the board of the state just get a education and 90%  they are denied.  Any they wonder why crime/murder. drugs  has  skyrocketed.    Since 1988  

 

 

 

There are still some GOP members who are still bitter about this welcoming, such as Trent Lott back in 2003 saying we would be better off with Strum Thurmond as President, a known segregrationist. There was a lot of uproar, considerably so. 

 

What I don't like about the current Dems & Repub's is the obstructionist policies toward one another. We should come together as a nation and take care of fiscal problems. We are currently spending like we're drunk and the next generation will have to pay for it, not to mention the demise of our currency, which last I looked was 80 cents on the dollar.


 Im going to tell you something. IN  politics they use  fear,race cards and etc to brain wash the masses. what  make  you think the usa is going broke. haha  that is comical at best let me tell you  something  america is never going broke   they have  been printing money and taking  in money  since the birth of the usa.  Some countries owe  us  for next 100-200 yrs man.. Not  just 1 country many. current always  change the dollar  style has been around for 100 yrs or so and it most likely change to credits or  so.
 To sit here and say our grandkids are going to  paying off the debt is  silly. Becuase they going  be paying it off anyway. the national debt  and etc taxes all that. is nothing more than a great ponzi  scheme in  a way, so is purchase intrest rates.  so is  insurance.. ever heard of pay day loans.  thats  how the government works in a nut shell. You  nevr actually pay it off  and  never actaully know where your money is going to pay it. the rate just get higher and higher so  each time you owe more in more in  the system..
  People are suffering man everyday when they should not be . it  enought money  in the usa for every  family to have 3 homes and 2  cars high line  sport cars and take  in 100K  mth and not even work  ever!!.  To sit here and   say america is  going broke the  debt  is this or that. is false. the us treasuryy is  biggest debt  of the usa.  Be cause like the saying  geos it. "it cost money to make money ". As  long as they are printing  money the usa will never  go broke as long as theres intrest  rates on the making of the usa dollar. by the time the avg american  hit 22-25 yrs they have spend   150K$+ or more.
 What you is a setting,  of ecomnic   monoply on human lives.  Some  pass   go and get rich  some go to   jail... and  some keep going around the board  to keep the game moving..
Mcbuttz78

vp-psn legioniaree group.

Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past, Wisdom is of the future

Message 24 of 30 (181 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 4, 2013

pimentel2 wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off


I'd say let's start with the military.

 

640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

 

Of course Medicare and Social Security also take a huge chunk. Program changes to both to improve efficiency and cut waste.

 

And increase taxes on the wealthiest (won't hurt economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html):

 

United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

 

And let's throw in a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

 

There's a start.

 

Of course I could just be insane, but that's my intepretation of the data.


I find it more concerning that the Discretionary is larger than the "other mandatory".  You would think a mandatory expenditure would outweigh a discretionary expenditure.  Call me crazy!

 

Moble

Message 25 of 30 (180 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 01/19/2004
Offline
36722 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 7, 2013

moblesuit75 wrote:

pimentel2 wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off


I'd say let's start with the military.

 

640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

 

Of course Medicare and Social Security also take a huge chunk. Program changes to both to improve efficiency and cut waste.

 

And increase taxes on the wealthiest (won't hurt economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html):

 

United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

 

And let's throw in a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

 

There's a start.

 

Of course I could just be insane, but that's my intepretation of the data.


I find it more concerning that the Discretionary is larger than the "other mandatory".  You would think a mandatory expenditure would outweigh a discretionary expenditure.  Call me crazy!

 

Moble


A good start would be to rename things what they really are.  "Discretionary" spending is on things like Defense, which is actually ennumerated in the Constitution.  "Mandatory" spending is on things like Welfare, which are not ennumerated in the Constitution, thus making it unconstitutional and illegal for the Federal Government to be spending on such things.  These confusing names were made like this on purpose, to confuse a gullible electorate.

 

Let's make this distinction up front.  Social Security is a flawed and unconstitutional ponzi scheme which can't possibly sustain itself.  However, people paid into SS for decades and expect a retirement.  The elderly are the least able to deal with change, so basically we owe them.  We need to phase it out, but without affecting any retirees currently on Social Security.

 

I would rename the spending brackets as follows:

Constitutionally Ennumerated (Defense and Debt)

Unconstitutional but we owe them (Social Security)

Unconstitutional and poisoning the country (Welfare)

 

Now that the names are more accurately aligned to what the Constitution says, things become more clear.  The immediate cuts need to be made to the third category.  Big cuts, not little cuts.

 

Furthermore, I submit that if you have never held a job and are always on Welfare, you are not a productive member of society.  Again, not to be confused with people on Social Security or Workers Comp.  These people have paid in and are owed.  I'm talking about the people who have never held a real job and without Government assistance they wouldn't have clue #1 what to do.  These people are essentially wards of the state.  They are basically overage children with no visible means of support.  As children, they should not be afforded the right to vote.  Why should they be allowed to make decisions that affect how we spend our tax money if they have never paid any tax money in?  They shouldn't.  They have proven by their very existence that they don't know anything about making real decisions and making sound financial choices.

 

In a system that is based on robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.  But if Peter is paying the taxes and Paul is not, then Paul doesn't get a say in it.  Period.

 

This one step of disenfranchising people who should not be allowed to vote would solve 90% of our problems practically overnight.

Message 26 of 30 (162 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/06/2011
Offline
4421 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 7, 2013

DrGadget wrote:

moblesuit75 wrote:

pimentel2 wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off


I'd say let's start with the military.

 

640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

 

Of course Medicare and Social Security also take a huge chunk. Program changes to both to improve efficiency and cut waste.

 

And increase taxes on the wealthiest (won't hurt economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html):

 

United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

 

And let's throw in a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

 

There's a start.

 

Of course I could just be insane, but that's my intepretation of the data.


I find it more concerning that the Discretionary is larger than the "other mandatory".  You would think a mandatory expenditure would outweigh a discretionary expenditure.  Call me crazy!

 

Moble


A good start would be to rename things what they really are.  "Discretionary" spending is on things like Defense, which is actually ennumerated in the Constitution.  "Mandatory" spending is on things like Welfare, which are not ennumerated in the Constitution, thus making it unconstitutional and illegal for the Federal Government to be spending on such things.  These confusing names were made like this on purpose, to confuse a gullible electorate.

 

Let's make this distinction up front.  Social Security is a flawed and unconstitutional ponzi scheme which can't possibly sustain itself.  However, people paid into SS for decades and expect a retirement.  The elderly are the least able to deal with change, so basically we owe them.  We need to phase it out, but without affecting any retirees currently on Social Security.

 

I would rename the spending brackets as follows:

Constitutionally Ennumerated (Defense and Debt)

Unconstitutional but we owe them (Social Security)

Unconstitutional and poisoning the country (Welfare)

 

Now that the names are more accurately aligned to what the Constitution says, things become more clear.  The immediate cuts need to be made to the third category.  Big cuts, not little cuts.

 

Furthermore, I submit that if you have never held a job and are always on Welfare, you are not a productive member of society.  Again, not to be confused with people on Social Security or Workers Comp.  These people have paid in and are owed.  I'm talking about the people who have never held a real job and without Government assistance they wouldn't have clue #1 what to do.  These people are essentially wards of the state.  They are basically overage children with no visible means of support.  As children, they should not be afforded the right to vote.  Why should they be allowed to make decisions that affect how we spend our tax money if they have never paid any tax money in?  They shouldn't.  They have proven by their very existence that they don't know anything about making real decisions and making sound financial choices.

 

In a system that is based on robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.  But if Peter is paying the taxes and Paul is not, then Paul doesn't get a say in it.  Period.

 

This one step of disenfranchising people who should not be allowed to vote would solve 90% of our problems practically overnight.


Shake N Bake.jpg

 

WORD!

 

Moble

Message 27 of 30 (153 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 07/20/2008
Offline
2788 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 8, 2013

moblesuit75 wrote:

DrGadget wrote:

moblesuit75 wrote:

pimentel2 wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

I am now paying an additional $13.91/week in taxes and my govt is STILL spending more money than it confiscates through taxes and fees.  I make a 5 figure income.

 

So much for being Mr Middle Class there Mr President.........your lack of leadership in this area since january 21st 2009, as evidenced by not getting ONE budget done and passed amongst many other things, has cost me personally now and who knows what damage your lack of leadership has done to those americans even younger than me.

 

Rant Off


I'd say let's start with the military.

 

640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png

 

Of course Medicare and Social Security also take a huge chunk. Program changes to both to improve efficiency and cut waste.

 

And increase taxes on the wealthiest (won't hurt economic growth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2094592.html):

 

United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png

 

And let's throw in a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.

 

There's a start.

 

Of course I could just be insane, but that's my intepretation of the data.


I find it more concerning that the Discretionary is larger than the "other mandatory".  You would think a mandatory expenditure would outweigh a discretionary expenditure.  Call me crazy!

 

Moble


A good start would be to rename things what they really are.  "Discretionary" spending is on things like Defense, which is actually ennumerated in the Constitution.  "Mandatory" spending is on things like Welfare, which are not ennumerated in the Constitution, thus making it unconstitutional and illegal for the Federal Government to be spending on such things.  These confusing names were made like this on purpose, to confuse a gullible electorate.

 

Let's make this distinction up front.  Social Security is a flawed and unconstitutional ponzi scheme which can't possibly sustain itself.  However, people paid into SS for decades and expect a retirement.  The elderly are the least able to deal with change, so basically we owe them.  We need to phase it out, but without affecting any retirees currently on Social Security.

 

I would rename the spending brackets as follows:

Constitutionally Ennumerated (Defense and Debt)

Unconstitutional but we owe them (Social Security)

Unconstitutional and poisoning the country (Welfare)

 

Now that the names are more accurately aligned to what the Constitution says, things become more clear.  The immediate cuts need to be made to the third category.  Big cuts, not little cuts.

 

Furthermore, I submit that if you have never held a job and are always on Welfare, you are not a productive member of society.  Again, not to be confused with people on Social Security or Workers Comp.  These people have paid in and are owed.  I'm talking about the people who have never held a real job and without Government assistance they wouldn't have clue #1 what to do.  These people are essentially wards of the state.  They are basically overage children with no visible means of support.  As children, they should not be afforded the right to vote.  Why should they be allowed to make decisions that affect how we spend our tax money if they have never paid any tax money in?  They shouldn't.  They have proven by their very existence that they don't know anything about making real decisions and making sound financial choices.

 

In a system that is based on robbing Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.  But if Peter is paying the taxes and Paul is not, then Paul doesn't get a say in it.  Period.

 

This one step of disenfranchising people who should not be allowed to vote would solve 90% of our problems practically overnight.


Shake N Bake.jpg

 

WORD!

 

Moble


I totally agree with you DrGadget. Great points.

 

Kudos.

Message 28 of 30 (144 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 11/27/2008
Offline
7836 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 8, 2013
Your posts always seem to make me smile, Gadget.



Survivor of an earthquake, hurricane, and multiple tornadoes in one week. g@m
Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Utley, Pence, Price, Longo, Briere, Jags

Message 29 of 30 (143 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Highlighted
Fender Bender
Registered: 08/14/2011
Offline
3995 posts
 

Re: U.S Will NOT Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

Jan 8, 2013
Wow lol lots of good information here. Lol, it feels like bussiness class all over again. Smiley Happy
Message 30 of 30 (130 Views)
Reply
0 Likes