# Obamas 3.7 Trillion Budget To Congress



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

oo00ooh good job buddy.

first 2 years in office,so many broken promises and short falls.heres an overveiw.2 years of 1 trillion plus in the red in spending for the man who would make change happen.remember kids...you can alwyas spend and print money to get out of debt.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/14/obama-sends-trillion-budget-congress/


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

its a shame isnt it?


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Rome is falling apart ahhhhhhh


----------



## Uncle Jesse (Feb 18, 2007)

Ok so maybe he broke some promises but so what, HE'S THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Ffh9xDf2S9c


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

You can make history but still make a huge mistake...you shouldnt vote for someone based solely on race/ voting for someone just because of their skin color is just as bad as not voting for someone based on skin color...vote for people based on what they stand for, experience and their capabilities...this is what make me crazy...we take it so for granted here in the states...you see whats happening all around the middle east...these people were never given a chance to vote in what they believe in and now that they can they show up by the droves...here in america its like its a hassle to vote and people like to complain when they didnt get their lazy selves up to vote


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

BuckeyeGuy777 said:


> ...here in america its like its a hassle to vote and people like to complain when they didnt get their lazy selves up to vote


That is something that really pisses me off. 2010 election....in the months leading up to it everybody in the freaking office I work at was talking nothing but politics. This one stupid bitch that works in my department....holy sh*t I swear she couldn't get a sentance out of her mouth that didn't have "Obama" in it....out of the 70 or so odd people that couldn't shut the f*ck up about politics guess how many voted? 6 including me. Far as I'm concerned if you're not going to take 20 minutes out of your day to make your voice heard you have no right to bitch.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

Piranha Dan said:


> ...here in america its like its a hassle to vote and people like to complain when they didnt get their lazy selves up to vote


That is something that really pisses me off. 2010 election....in the months leading up to it everybody in the freaking office I work at was talking nothing but politics. This one stupid bitch that works in my department....holy sh*t I swear she couldn't get a sentance out of her mouth that didn't have "Obama" in it....out of the 70 or so odd people that couldn't shut the f*ck up about politics guess how many voted? 6 including me. Far as I'm concerned if you're not going to take 20 minutes out of your day to make your voice heard you have no right to bitch.
[/quote]

thats what im saying...and i dont care where u side politicly JUST VOTE...but vote on who the person is not what the person is


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

O - One
B - Big
A - Ass
M - Mistake
A - America

I voted but it wasnt for him, His budget is a joke more spending sorry I mean "Investing"









I want Regan back


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Ba20 said:


> I want Regan back



View attachment 199559


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

lol







good one


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

oh really? reagan wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative, and where did he stand on illegal immigrants? yeah...he granted them amnesty. pwned.

i voted for obama, im white...maybe im racist?


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

I could care less about illegals there already here "pwned"

The good clinton era was b/c of regan









How you like being left with nothing but change R1


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ba20 said:


> I could care less about illegals there already here "pwned"
> 
> The good clinton era was b/c of regan
> 
> ...


care less about illegals...ok sir, a direct quote that you could care less about illegals who are already here.

bahaha, yeah because of regan...so then the shitty obama presidency is because of bush...right? hahaha.

nothing but change...nice one, i havent even heard that one yet, let alone seen it on like 5,000 bumper stickers...what's next, you gonna throw out obummer? hahaha.


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

Im full of good ones stay tuned


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Budget? What deficit? Obama just proposed spending billions to build a high speed train from LA to SF.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

obviously obama hasnt had the most outstanding performance, but i do think a lot of it is blown out of proportion...but thats just me. i know you're not about to change your opinion, and to be quite honest, if ron paul ran against obama in 2012, i'd vote for him instead...but as it stands, im pleased with what has been done so far, and am hopeful that things will turn around in the near future. until then i'll reserve judgement on obama...although i'll gladly poke fun at him for the sandals he wore in hawaii









btw i love the jokes they come up with...never before has there been a president that was so easily made fun of by the use of his name...i mean, what shear coincidence that his middle name is hussein. obama, i mean, how many words can you make out of obama? osama? hahaha...it gets better and better. although lately i feel like whoever was responsible for making the jokes must've subbed that duty out to the government, because as of late there's been no new material, lackluster satirical performance. the first year was gold, now it's like they stopped trying.


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

exactly and why ?


----------



## Uncle Jesse (Feb 18, 2007)

WTF do illegal immigrants have to do with anything? They are here. You can send them home but what do you think they will do? Come on back that's what. Whenever one country is doing better then another, and they border each other immigration happens. Illegal immigration happens when it is easier. You want to do away with illegal immigrants? Make them legal and make it easier to become legal.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

diddye said:


> Budget? What deficit? Obama just proposed spending billions to build a high speed train from LA to SF.


ya cuz thats what the country needs...to get from Hell to Hades faster


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

I dont know why he went that route either, must have made sense in his own mind. Anyways NO dont make them legal, penalize the companys that hire them so theyhave no reason to come over

I am officially a Buckeye fan now









Grammar edit


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

railroads and highways have historically played an extremely important role in increasing economic activity. asia and europe are 5 years ahead of us technologically, why would we want to sit by the wayside and let them have all the advancement? pretty soon our premier military equipment will be their practice gear. domestic infrastructure is of utmost importance to ensure continued economic growth and a strong interstate economy.



Ba20 said:


> *I dont know why he went that route either, must have made sense in his own mind. Anyways NO dont make them legal, penalize the companys that hire them so theyhave no reason to come over*
> 
> I am officially a Buckeye fan now
> 
> ...


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

Yeah back in the day when we didnt use planes, no one rides a train anymore thats why Amtrac is subsidized by the government.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> *Yeah back in the day when we didnt use planes*, no one rides a train anymore thats why Amtrac is subsidized by the government.


BWAHHAHAHA


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

this isn't about you and me traveling, it's about shipping sh*t. the vast majority of stuff is shipped by rail. not truck, not kia optima, train. trains move sh*t around in this country. if railroads were allowed to be compromised, it'd be a hell of an interesting situation.


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

Yes you are right but the high speed trains, he has been pushing are commuter trains like the ones in china and europe.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

yeah,look ow the economy was when reagan first came in,and look where it was when he left.f*ck the other sh*t.we are seriously getting fucked by this guy.hes getting bashed from everywhere left and right.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

Ba20 said:


> Yes you are right but the high speed trains, he has been pushing are commuter trains like the ones in china and europe.


which are a waste of money....they wanted to put one in C-bus and our new governor scrapped that idea...so many better uses for the money


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

That being said im all for electric cars


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

^yeah,we have a similar situation here in WI.its gonna get scrapped too i hope.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

muskielover1 said:


> ^yeah,we have a similar situation here in WI.its gonna get scrapped too i hope.


good...get rid of it


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i dont know...i think it's a good thing for the country. given the money we spend on legitimately stupid sh*t, a high speed rail system seems like a pretty good investment for the country. who benefits? the people do. whenever that is the outcome i think it's a good decision. the people do not benefit from bombing, and then rebuilding bombed out buildings in a foreign country halfway across the world. the people dont benefit when a giant sports complex or massive manufacturing plant (believe it or not) is subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars, why not invest that money into infrastructure that the people can use? many companies and sports complexes have recieved tons of money just to be there, in their wake they've left economic dead zones, and they've taken community strongholds such as urban parks via eminent domain so they could build their stadium. there was no upside for the people, but they people who pay taxes had to foot part or most of the bill...public works projects IMO are a solid investment on behalf of the taxpayers. a high speed rail system, especially one that stretches coast to coast, would be a major boost to this country in my view. feel free to disagree.


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

making electric cars affordable would be money well spent compared to a train, IMO

Also in my opinion we dont need to spending anything


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

Ba20 said:


> making electric cars affordable would be money well spent compared to a train, IMO
> 
> *Also in my opinion we dont need to spending anything*


X2


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

even china has come to the realization that infrastructure is an extremely important thing for the country. that's why they're spending half a trillion dollars on it this year. the US can't just stop advancing, or china will certainly take over, and then we're truly fucked.

it's funny, you think about what people need to be productive...

easy access to transportation. china is heavily investing in a highway system that practically mimicks what we have here, which was created under eisenhower.

education, china is also investing heavily in education to ensure a thriving, intelligent several generations to come of chinese youth.

and health care, the healthier people are, the happier they are, the more productive they are, the more they contribute to GDP and innovation.

china is leading the way, its only a matter of time.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

BuckeyeGuy777 said:


> even china has come to the realization that infrastructure is an extremely important thing for the country. that's why they're spending half a trillion dollars on it this year. the US can't just stop advancing, or china will certainly take over, and then we're truly fucked.


yeah and have you seen the ghost cities?entire metropolis's with nobody in them.building sh*t waaaay in advance.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> even china has come to the realization that infrastructure is an extremely important thing for the country. that's why they're spending half a trillion dollars on it this year. the US can't just stop advancing, or china will certainly take over, and then we're truly fucked.


screw advacing...china has all of our money and imports...we to cut that out and save money


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

screw advancing? im sorry...is this still america?

not a bad read...hey...im just saying... http://skepticblog.org/2011/02/10/chinas-ghost-cities/


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339536/Ghost-towns-China-Satellite-images-cities-lying-completely-deserted.html


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

We build these new super duper highways but cant afford gas to put in the car to drive on them.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

^yeah i remember everyone bashing bush for the gas prices....him and oil ya know....whats obamas excuse?


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

advancing right now is getting us further into an unbelievable debt....we can hold off and get spending under control....advancing for advancing sake is dumb....


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

advancing is not stupid under any circumstances. how much money did the Us government invest into the internet? i bet that was considered wasteful spending UNTIL it proved to be one of the most revolutionary ideas in history, the wealth generated by the internet is positively incalculable...who's to say the next major breakthrough is not right around the corner? why stop advancing? china's not going to stop...india isn't going to stop, the UK...nobody else is going to stop advancing, why should we? we are the dominant player on the world stage, we can't just fold our hand and say we're done for now, we're already behind! we have to play catchup at this point. if we could improve our system so much that it saves the average taxpayer 3000 dollars a year to live, and it's going to cost us 30000 dollars per person to implement, 10 years down the road we'll have recouped our money, AND our populace would be injecting that extra money into the economy. making life flow more efficiently is a good investment with a solid return. that's why the government offers incentives to purchase solar panels and electric or hybrid cars.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

spending is up %24 in the last 2 years


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

the countries u listed are not trillions and trillions in debt they can afford to


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you know we were in a recession right?

so with that in mind, do you notice a trend with this chart?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

china is estimated to have 1.5+ trillion in hidden debt which is close to 60% of GDP. 
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/27/news/international/china_debt.reut/index.htm

india is at 2.55 trillion in debt (more debt than the US as a percentage of GDP, and they're investing 1.5 trillion in infrastructure...go figgur?) and the UK is at 1.05 trillion debt.

PWNED

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

anyway, it was fun, but im off to bed. fun chat.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

R1, my bad for not bein here to help ya out dude

First and foremost, before anyone wants to blow Reagan for what a great republican president he was remember, he wanted to abolish the nuclear arsenal, signed a bill to limit tailpipe emissions, signed a bill on abortion (I think, not 100%). increased the national debt to just under $3T and granted amnesty to illegals...one hell of a republican, democrats don't even want that last I checked. Not even to mention, the reckless deregulation, although spurring the economy for the last 20, is definitely responsible in some part for where we are today. Economies are pendulums they swing both ways.

I also do not, for the life of me, understand how advancing our country is a bad thing. News flash for everyone, we aren't where we were 40, 30, even 20 years ago. China has us beat on production, Japan has us beat in education, Europe has us beat in infrastructure and health care just about the only thing we do lead in is military spending $711B (thats 2.5 times Europe, not just England, like the whole continent), and military investment does not help a nation develop socially or economically. Right now the US ranks 14th out of 34 in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. 25?!? Its a great thing out defense budgets so big, pretty soon well have to start outsourcing the engineering and design of our equipment to asia, while its there we might as well have them produce it for us too.

I'm not big on defect spending, if you extrapolate that out it means I'm not a fan of Obama's plans right now, but that does not mean that we should stop worrying about domestic issues. Yes foreign policy is important, but think back a year or so...remember when the DOT put out a report saying 80% of the bridges in America are structurally deficient? What did we do to solve this problem? We put a couple of signs on the road saying "your tax dollars at work," and called it done, that's not a solution. If theres one lesson to be learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union, its that making bullets instead of bread is not a good strategy, especially when your borrowing the money.

Edit: someone might want to para paraphrase this, I got started on a rant...oops


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

^im talkng about the economy.i said about reagan,look at the economy when he arrived,and look at it when he left.rghtnow,the most importaint thing is the economy.obama is failing hard and screwing us hard.none of this can be agued.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

alright we are getting way off....this is the only thing that we should worry about.....
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT NUMBER....i mean *really* understand the fact that divided up each person in all of america owes 45,000 dollars

nothing else should matter....were not gunna have a future where advancement matters 
screw trains, screw the health care program, screw EVERYTHING till we can get this under control

we can just keep print new money off when we need it....we cant keep having government bail out companies that made stupid decisions...we cant let government regulate what private business does better....

good night and God bless
Buck


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

^this


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Yes, so it logically makes sense to spend money where it doesn't benefit the country's internal structure. Prolonged military actions has NEVER in the course of history benefited a country, Greece, Rome Genghis Khan, nobody, ever. Its non-debatable, yet here we are dumping billions on a bloated defense budget while our own country is falling behind. Yes I see, $45,000 and realize how much that is, but for what I can see, well be lucky to have 50% of our high school graduates have the same appreciation for this number as me and you do. Our country, the place we live in, is most important thing not whats going on in the rest of the world. What I'm saying is that Obama and the US needs to stop investing in countries that aren't the US.

Also an interesting point, that I didn't articulate well enough apparently so here

WHY IS DEFICIT SPENDING ON DEFENSE ACCEPTABLE, WHILE HOME FRONT SPENDING IS NOT.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

TheSpaz13 said:


> Yes, so it logically makes sense to spend money where it doesn't benefit the country's internal structure. *Prolonged military actions has NEVER in the course of history benefited a country, *Greece, Rome Genghis Khan, nobody, ever. Its non-debatable, yet here we are dumping billions on a bloated defense budget while our own country is falling behind. Yes I see, $45,000 and realize how much that is, but for what I can see, well be lucky to have 50% of our high school graduates have the same appreciation for this number as me and you do. Our country, the place we live in, is most important thing not whats going on in the rest of the world. What I'm saying is that Obama and the US needs to stop investing in countries that aren't the US.
> 
> Also an interesting point, that I didn't articulate well enough apparently so here
> 
> WHY IS DEFICIT SPENDING ON DEFENSE ACCEPTABLE, WHILE HOME FRONT SPENDING IS NOT.


ok well i was gunna be done but then i saw this ridiculous statement...this no where near correct....every benefit every country has had is through war...Heraclitus said "war is the father of all things,"...because he is right....war provides A TON...

Technological advances- EVERY great technological advancement that any country has had was made during a time of war when things to be done faster and more efficient
improves the Economy- money is being generated...not printed but just moving...people buy more things
Jobs- nothing creates a few million jobs like war does...everything from paid soldiers to the owners of the steel company that has to hire more people to meet the demands
Boost in Patriotism- nothing boost love for you country when your brave men and women are over seas fighting
Land acquired- u named all those HUGE empires...how did they get that big???? WAR
Freedom- more people are freed from the bonds of tyranny than by any other method...just walk up to to kindly put his weapons down and go democratic...doesnt work Osama
i would never discount the live lost but to say war is not a means to benefit your country is truly preposterous

spelling and grammer


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Yes, absolutely 100% correct...in the short term.

Wars falsely inflate economies because after the war is over defense jobs dissolve, economies contract. Spreading of freedom? bad time to argue the point in the same Mubarak stepped down, and more protests and demonstrations are being planned by the day, without any invasion. Land? Land costs money to operate and maintain, who pays for the stuff that gets destroyed in our wars? We do.

How does education benefit us? More jobs, more taxable, skilled jobs providing income for our government. Better infrastructure? More taxable goods traveling across the country, you guessed it, more income.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

muskielover1 said:


> ^yeah i remember everyone bashing bush for the gas prices....him and oil ya know....whats obamas excuse?


Obama is lining his pockets with the oil money the arabs are giving him. Isn't it obvious he raised the oil prices so that he can win the election? The only reason Obama is staying in Iraq and Afghanistan is to steal their oil. (lol....is it obvious these statements are stupid now? Why did you morons make them when bush was in office???)


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

The point of everything we do in the Middle East, imho, is to attempt to stabilize an extremely unstable part of the world that also happens to have a natural resource that is the lifeblood of everywhere more civilized. You want to rant and rave about that go right ahead, but you should know that you're typing that rant on a keyboard that's in all probability made of hydrocarbon based plastic. Look around you right now....there is not one thing in your house/apartment that didn't somehow use a petroleum based product either in it's manufacture, as a fuel, or otherwise....personally I'm praying like hell that those experts who are saying the pumps are going to run dry in 50-100 years are wrong. You would literally be looking at the end of life as we know it.
Mr. Obama'a budget is a joke. 2+2 is not going to equal 5 no matter how much you try to slick talk the calculator.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

BuckeyeGuy777 said:


> Yes you are right but the high speed trains, he has been pushing are commuter trains like the ones in china and europe.


which are a waste of money....they wanted to put one in C-bus and our new governor scrapped that idea...so many better uses for the money
[/quote]

It wasn't gonna be a high speed train either, it was gonna run from cinci to columbus to cleveland and go like 60 mph. Why the hell would I want to go slower through this state?

Honestly though I'd take the money for these high speed trains and get our communication infrastructure up to date. Speeds we have for internet are a joke cmpared to countries in asia.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Unless they want to cut the defense budget, there's really no point of discussing things further because nothing else helps solve enough of the deficit without that. SS and Medicare/Medicaid just need a few tweeks to remain solvent indefinitely, and the rest of the budget in its' entirety is insignificant compared to the big 3. (Defense, SS, Medicare/caid)

If they really want to fix things then there's a few things that absolutely must happen. 
1. Cut the defense budget by 5% for the next 10 years. This will require us to start withdrawing from our 2 wars, but even with a 50% reduction we'll still be vastly ahead of the rest of the world in military spending. 
2. Fix SS by raising the retirement age 62 to 65, and increasing the payroll tax from 12.4% to 14.4%. We'll also have to stop the common practice of raiding this fund. The CBO has estimated that these measures alone will make SS solvent indefinitely.

Those two things alone with make massive strides. Medicare/caid doesn't really need to be messed with because because we can find more than enough cuts with defense. And, messing with this program can possibly put massive amounts of people in the uninsured pool which will cause incredible increases in patient care for the rest of us. Besides, if we remove those programs we'll also lose the revenue they provide via social insurance taxes.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)




----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

r1dermon said:


> oh really? *reagan wasn't exactly a fiscal conservative*, and where did he stand on illegal immigrants? yeah...he granted them amnesty. pwned.


this is a true statement


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)

If we don't take serious cuts to SS, Militarism, and other domestic welfare programs soon its going to be too late. Its just sad that we get caught up blaming one side or the other, when both parties have been guilty of running of huge annual deficits.


----------



## Dolphinswin (Jun 26, 2010)

I know little about politics but a teacher of mine made a good point, how can everyone hate democrats when the republicans have been in office and obviously run us into this mess?


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

Dolphinswin said:


> I know little about politics but a teacher of mine made a good point, how can everyone hate democrats when the republicans have been in office and obviously run us into this mess?


Except the democrats have been in control for the past 4 years.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

4 years huh. Kind of a stretch don't you think?


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

not a stretch at all.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Care to elaborate or are we just working with oneliners today?


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

Democrats have had the majority in both houses for the last 4 years. Therefor they have been in control. Only with this last congress has it changed. Pretty simple.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

And the president doesn't have veto power or set policy anymore?


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

Except in the last 10 years there have been a total of 14 vetoes with 4 being overridden. Congress creates laws and has to approve pretty much anything the president does. If you want to continue with your argument the dems have also controlled the legislative and executive branch for the last 2 years allowing them to ram through whatever they want.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

I have never seen a political group fail harder then the DNC from 2008-2009. Super Majority.....Super. f*cking. Majority. Could've done anything they wanted. What'd they do? Argue over healthcare for a year and pass a 2000 page pile of sh*t that most of them hadn't even read completely. Regardless of wheather or not you agree with what they stood for, you have to agree that they had the chance of a lifetime and fucked it up royally.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

well ya know pelosis words were"we have to get it passed so we can find out whats in it"when asked what was in the bill








none of them read that bill.democrats form all over are scrutinizing the president for his budget today.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

And once the dems lot the super majority, how many times did reps filibuster? 
Hahahahahaha...yea, idk if I can count that high

Everything to do with healthcare represents a complete failure by the dems and a glimmering victory for the reps. Dems did not frame the issue correctly at all and let the republicans define everything. Ask someone what a single payer option is and see how long it takes them to recite Glenn Beck episode number 412231b. Whoever controls the debate wins, dems gave up control from the opening arguments


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

Piranha Dan said:


> I have never seen a political group fail harder then the DNC from 2008-2009. Super Majority.....Super. f*cking. Majority. Could've done anything they wanted. What'd they do? Argue over healthcare for a year and pass a 2000 page pile of sh*t that most of them hadn't even read completely. Regardless of wheather or not you agree with what they stood for, you have to agree that they had the chance of a lifetime and fucked it up royally.


this is the truth...

but to get down to the meat and potatoes....i dont trust a single one of the members of congress...everyone is out for an agenda but no ones agenda is to better the country but instead to better them selves and pad their own pockets...

now i still vote and vote with pride however i stand on this fact

if you want to run for office, if you think you deserve to be a congress man, if your believe your qualified to be the President.....You have absolutely no right running...it should be a duty and an honor given to you because the nation thinks you are worthy ...instead we have a bunch guys spending ungodly amounts of money to buy the presidency...producing such things as the Acorn Scandal

the perfect example is our very first president...Washington did not run for president he did not campaign, he did not spend money, and most of all he did not want to....but the nation found him worthy and he felt it was his duty to be president...and when offered to stay president and potentially be a king... because the people would have been fine with that...Washington said no

there is no person on capitol hill that would be able to do this...that is why they dont deserve it


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I have to agree the republicans have been blocking anything and everything which gets nothing done. They know they have the power and sadly both sides are making decisions based on how it will affect the elections in a couple years vs our country at this moment.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

TheSpaz13 said:


> And once the dems lot the super majority, how many times did reps filibuster?
> Hahahahahaha...yea, idk if I can count that high


Hurr durr....derp?
Sorry that's about the most logical reply I can come up with for that....


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Sorry, I thought you would be able to count to 112...personally, Ive had a rough day but I though some pfurians may have had it easier



BuckeyeGuy777 said:


> I have never seen a political group fail harder then the DNC from 2008-2009. Super Majority.....Super. f*cking. Majority. Could've done anything they wanted. What'd they do? Argue over healthcare for a year and pass a 2000 page pile of sh*t that most of them hadn't even read completely. Regardless of wheather or not you agree with what they stood for, you have to agree that they had the chance of a lifetime and fucked it up royally.


this is the truth...

but to get down to the meat and potatoes....i dont trust a single one of the members of congress...everyone is out for an agenda but no ones agenda is to better the country but instead to better them selves and pad their own pockets...

now i still vote and vote with pride however i stand on this fact

if you want to run for office, if you think you deserve to be a congress man, if your believe your qualified to be the President.....You have absolutely no right running...it should be a duty and an honor given to you because the nation thinks you are worthy ...instead we have a bunch guys spending ungodly amounts of money to buy the presidency...producing such things as the Acorn Scandal

the perfect example is our very first president...Washington did not run for president he did not campaign, he did not spend money, and most of all he did not want to....but the nation found him worthy and he felt it was his duty to be president...and when offered to stay president and potentially be a king... because the people would have been fine with that...Washington said no

there is no person on capitol hill that would be able to do this...that is why they dont deserve it
[/quote]

x2 also dissolve the idea of the electoral college


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> And once the dems lot the super majority, how many times did reps filibuster?
> Hahahahahaha...yea, idk if I can count that high


Hurr durr....derp?
Sorry that's about the most logical reply I can come up with for that....








[/quote]
lmao!!!how many times did the REP fillabuster????PWNED spaz!learn up on your sh*t


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Scrappy said:


> 4 years huh. Kind of a stretch don't you think?


yes scrap...get it?c;mon man


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

diddye said:


> I have to agree the republicans have been blocking anything and everything which gets nothing done. They know they have the power and sadly both sides are making decisions based on how it will affect the elections in a couple years vs our country at this moment.


yeah,you know why?because the GOP dosent want the country going in the shitter.the dems want us to bail them out cuz time comes...itll be all"praise obama"when its the GOP whos gettin sh*t done.damn sure aint obame<dare someone to argue this.

thing is.obama PROMISED to cut the deficiet,unemployment would drop below  after the FIRST stimulous////he is full of fail

now i made the topic,stick to it (cuz im conna cry like R! about keeping it on topic).even his fellow dems are smoking that ass saying its crap,but lets let him validate why his guys budget is killer for this country..lets hear why you are in the VAST MINORITY...since this is the t6opic and all.
wait....the budget and our debt isnt the most importaint thing







lets hear some fucked excuse how that goes.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

muskielover1 said:


> And once the dems lot the super majority, how many times did reps filibuster?
> Hahahahahaha...yea, idk if I can count that high


Hurr durr....derp?
Sorry that's about the most logical reply I can come up with for that....








[/quote]
lmao!!!how many times did the REP fillabuster????PWNED spaz!learn up on your sh*t
[/quote]
You're really trying to argue this? The GOP has the record in the 110th Congress with 139 and a close second in the 111th with 134.

Btw, I have a really hard time understanding what you're trying to say.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Scrappy said:


> And once the dems lot the super majority, how many times did reps filibuster?
> Hahahahahaha...yea, idk if I can count that high


Hurr durr....derp?
Sorry that's about the most logical reply I can come up with for that....








[/quote]
lmao!!!how many times did the REP fillabuster????PWNED spaz!learn up on your sh*t
[/quote]
You're really trying to argue this? The GOP has the record in the 110th Congress with 139 and a close second in the 111th with 134.

Btw, I have a really hard time understanding what you're trying to say.
[/quote]
My Hurr-Durr post was a joke, because I didn't think I'd have to spell out what was wrong with the original post above, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ it looks like I have to....








OK....Super Majority means you have enough people to override a filibuster....From the Time Obama and company took over on Jan 20th 2008 to Feb 4th 2010 when Scott Brown was elected Senator of Massachusetts, the Dems had complete control of the House, Senate and Whitehouse. No checks, no balances, NOTHING was standing in their way of making every promise Obama made during his cambaign come true that first year. Nothing except themselves that is.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

I quoted Muskie, and my reply was directed toward him.

But I'm also guessing you didn't even look at the link in my post. You know, the link shows how successful the GOP's gridlock tactic was.

Thank you for the civics lesson though. Let me return the favor. Here's the procedure to invoke cloture.

_Procedure
The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. To invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies.[9]
The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:
A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
The clerk reads the petition.
The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present. However, the mandatory quorum call is often waived by unanimous consent.
The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.
After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:
No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[10]
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of._

As you can see, it's fairly bureaucratic. That's why even the threat of a filibuster can kill a measure and it doesn't matter if you have a majority, supermajority, or superdupermajority.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

it's not really the budget im concerned about overall though...as you can see in this well written article...the system is broken, and is designed to funnel wealth to the richest people in the country, and keep everyone else poor.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

it's a long read, most people who dont care (most people in america) wont read it...but if you actually give a rats ass, maybe you'll finish it for shits and giggles, that's all it's for in reality, because no matter how loud you shout, nothing will ever change without a forceful movement.

IMO, give them all a fair trial, and upon conviction public beheadings should come back to our justice system.


----------



## wisco_pygo (Dec 9, 2009)




----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

So I hear you guys are building a train. Thats cool.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^Yup. Everybody can commute to their jobs in California now....


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

i wish the San Andreas fault would completely sepertate sending that portion of Cali in to the ocean....the country would be so much better with out the cities west of it


----------



## Inflade (Mar 24, 2006)

its only a matter of time before the United states falls as the powerhouse of the world.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

BuckeyeGuy777 said:


> i wish the San Andreas fault would completely sepertate sending that portion of Cali in to the ocean....the country would be so much better with out the cities west of it


There wasnt THAT many faults in San Andreas, it was a great game. Probably my favorite out of the GTA series. Give it a rest.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

food prices would kick our asses if kalifornia ever sank into the ocean.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

ya but we wouldnt have california...so im down....its not all ocalifornia just from the fault west....im ok with the rest


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> food prices would kick our asses if kalifornia ever sank into the ocean.


Maybe some fruits and vegetables, but the big 4 ag products are all produced in the Midwest. They may produce 13% of agriculture, but also have 10% of the total population.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

california's claim to fame is milk.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

California's claim to fame is movies, stars, and teen girls addicted to coke.


----------



## Ba20 (Jan 29, 2003)

nothing wrong woth that A









To be honest I dont like Cali either


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Yo california is sick yo. Dont be like that.


----------



## klink67 (Feb 14, 2010)

The ONLY thing good about cali is Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood! Other than that the rest are hippies. I dont think there are many member from cali here anyways....

Also if you think obamas budget is bad check out his new plan for our food supply























*
Senate Bill S510*


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^That bill is a good thing. It will save me from all of that dangerous locally grown and organic produce and meat at the farmers market and make me buy safe food from the big companies that sell in supermarkets. Growing food is vury complicated and because 1 in a million people get food poisoning every year it must be regulated by the gubmint.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

"it's not really the budget im concerned about overall though.."R1
hmmm,not concerned?ok,lets let our sh*t get in the red as FAAAR as it can go.good job.

funnel wealth?hey...last i checked,the millionaires who own buisnesses are paying youre salary.cuts for the wealthy buisness owners=more jobs=better economy.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/23/pf/rich_wealth_gap/index.htm

f*ck the rich people, i dont need them to give me a job, i need them to stop colluding with politicians to destroy the free market.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

who gives you jobs?people with buisnesses..who also have the money to pay you to do those jobs.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

nobody gives me sh*t. I give my company my time,in exchange for money. Where do they get money? Their customer...the consumer gives me my job, because without them,me and my boss would both be SOL. The top 1% of earners hold more wealth now than at any other time in history. What's your tax rate? You know you probably pay more taxes than the top 1% as a percentage? Capital gains on investments held over a year is 15%. I don't know about you, but I certainly get taxed more than that. Why do you think these uber rich don't take saleries? Just to be nice? Rolling stone has a great article about wall st. You should look it up. It's brand new and fresh.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

first off,there wouldnt be a customer if there wasnt a product,or a service(and who does that?people with money)(who hires you?people with less money than you?or people with more money?).then,one has an oprotunity to get a job in said company(expansion)
the consumer dosent give you the job.the people that run the corp gives you the jobs.

and again...regan era...look at the economy in 80...and look at it in 88.the deficiet is the largest problem.going to be a domino effect quick.this is the problem that needs to be addressed first,then other things can come to bout.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

r1dermon said:


> nobody gives me sh*t. I give my company my time,in exchange for money. Where do they get money? Their customer...the consumer gives me my job, because without them,me and my boss would both be SOL. *The top 1% of earners hold more wealth now than at any other time in history.* What's your tax rate? You know you probably pay more taxes than the top 1% as a percentage? Capital gains on investments held over a year is 15%. I don't know about you, but I certainly get taxed more than that. Why do you think these uber rich don't take saleries? Just to be nice? Rolling stone has a great article about wall st. You should look it up. It's brand new and fresh.


"*The top 1% of earners hold more wealth now than at any other time in history"*
this statement couldnt be more wrong...there has and will always be a great disparity between the rich and the poor...as a history major i know that there is no difference between the rich and the poor now than there was in rome, chinese dynasties, middle ages in europe, and through the colonial periods ....

while your statement might look true on the surface it is not...they might physically have more money....but with inflation and percentages its is near equal and in some cases far less than other time periods thought out history


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

i also see he dropped his"false information"sig


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

you can't hide from the facts forever, sooner or later people are going to revolt.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

alright so heres the thing though...those people are the ones that own the big buisneses that we all know and love...the reason they are rich is your fault my fault and every person in americas fault...why because you and i made them rich...we bought their products we watched their movies we bought their tickets...so u can either stop supporting any one thats rich or stop complaining....

these people...Examples....Sam walton, bill gates, James Dimon, michael jordan, and heck even lady gaga....they are rich because we made them rich...they provide a service...you want the service...you pay for it...they make money...you lose money....they get richer...you get poorer....

dont penalize people because they have more money...they earned most of it...

do i wish i had a portion of their money...YES...but its their money....


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

im not trying to penalize them for earning their money...that's fine. i just want the playing field evened out. like i said, they hold a much larger percentage of "investments" compared with people in the middle class, that's fine. people in the middleclass get revenue by way of income, and for this, we are levied an income tax. as are rich people. which SOUNDS fair, but you have to realize that capital gains is not taxed the same if it is held for over a year, and the top earners pay 15% on those "gains" (income), which i am not afforded the opportunity to do. their main revenue source is taxed at half the normal rate of everyone else.

and for all the fraud and blatant scheming and STEALING of tons of cash from investors (who are really just you and me, invested in a 401k or some other investment fund) how many of those guys have been even arrested in 2010? how many have been implicated by the SEC in crimes that it appears they committed? there's plenty of smoking guns, but the SEC, which is in collusion with rich bankers, have prosecuted nobody.

im not saying we should penalize people who earned their money, but we definitely have to do a better job at a few things, including taxing the rich their FAIR share, and prosecuting white collar criminals. it wont be done, it WONT be done, and for that im grateful, once you realize that gasoline is 8 dollars a gallon, and you can't buy bread to feed your family, while a bunch of fat cats who stole it all and moved to the bahamas are sipping on margaritas and enjoying a tropical breeze, once the world realizes that (it's already being realized in other parts of the globe) http://www.zerohedge.com/article/video-burning-greek-policeman-class-warfare-escalates-protesters-scream-dont-obey-rich%E2%80%94fight ...they can't feed or cloth their kids, or live in general, once everybody realizes that...then we'll see.

BTW, food for thought. watch italy for the next few days.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

^tax the rich,no investment in company,no new jobs,unemployment goes up...that simple.again,who pays your salary?people with more money than you.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

so we should have higher taxes than rich people?


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

pretty sure we dont pay in more than they do.plus,we dont create jobs....we are the ones who they are creating jobs for.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

as a percentage of our income, we certainly do.


----------



## BuckeyeGuy777 (Oct 30, 2010)

You are mistaken...as you get paid more you get placed in a higher tax bracket ...

And the only way to level the playing field as you put is to penalize the rich....your just candy coating it Robin Hood

Fact is we need the rich or if everyone had the same amount of money everything would cost more


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

muskielover1 said:


> Fact is we need the rich or if everyone had the same amount of money everything would cost more


One of the most insane thought I've heard. The rich do us charity work by giving us cheaper anything? No, they keep more and more


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

why do so many CEO's and such forgo a regular salary? high and mighty CEO decided to take a 1 dollar salary...how generous of him...right? wrong. that same CEO, who would've paid in a higher tax bracket for that salary, decided to forgo that salary, because he has stocks, which when he cashes them out, he will be taxed at 15%. i dont know about you, but i certainly get taxed more than 15% of my income.

agreed with thespaz. if trickle down was the shiznit, we wouldn't be in a huge recession, and distribution of wealth wouldn't even be a discussion.

just one other thing...the rich dont provide you with anything. you provide yourself with all the essentials, everything you need to survive. you have the choice to work for them, or create your own job. the rich have played the system to ensure that the playing field is tilted in their favor. they've worked with legislators to ensure that no encroachment onto their turf is allowed, and they're given a free pass when they commit financial crimes against the populace of america.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^This is one of the reasons why we need to simplify the tax system, imho. Scrap the insanity we have now and institute Flat or V.A.T. So everybody pays their fair share. No more child tax credit this or writing off your mortgage interest that, you pay a flat percenage of what you make a year. If the 47% of the population that didn't pay any federal tax last year had to shoulder their share of the burden it would go a long way to easing the other 53% taxes, not to mention paying down the insane amount of debt we have.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> as a percentage of our income, we certainly do.


Here you go R1, have a blast with this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/visual-reminder-us-social-stratification
Here's a few I found interesting:


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Scrappy said:


> Forbes says a flat tax would be a cut for the rich and a possible increase for the middle and lower class.


Exactly. Their taxes would go from $0.00 to a fair amount. You call it an increase, I call it pulling their share of the weight.
Our current system sucks donkey balls because it rewards failure and punishes success. The guy who busts his balls and makes 100k a year has to give half of that 100k to Uncle Sam. Meanwhile Joe Dirt down the street Sits on his ass all day drinking welfare beer, not only owes nothing when all is said and done, but gets a $1000 credit for every kid his dirtbag wife pops out. That's bullshit man.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Piranha Dan said:


> Forbes says a flat tax would be a cut for the rich and a possible increase for the middle and lower class.


Exactly. Their taxes would go from $0.00 to a fair amount. You call it an increase, I call it pulling their share of the weight.
Our current system sucks donkey balls because it rewards failure and punishes success. The guy who busts his balls and makes 100k a year has to give half of that 100k to Uncle Sam. Meanwhile Joe Dirt down the street Sits on his ass all day drinking welfare beer, not only owes nothing when all is said and done, but gets a $1000 credit for every kid his dirtbag wife pops out. That's bullshit man.








[/quote]

Yes, that's 100% an accurate depiction of how things work in this country, the only people that work hard earn 100k a year, and they support everyone else. Newsflash, plenty of people in the "middle class" bust their ass and some hardly make a livable wage. People exploit the system, it's undeniable but it has nothing to do with tax revenue. How about drug testing for social welfare programs?

Not even to mention, people making 100k aren't even the problem. How about the people that have a 4mil golden parachute set for them after they run their company into the ground? That's the problem. How about the people that get paid a dollar a year but get stock options worth millions on top of private jets and a list of "company" expenditures at country clubs all over the company. Were talking a completely different set of degrees here, there's nothing wrong with working inside the system but exploitation exists at both ends


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Yes, exploitation exists at both ends. Easy way to fix both sides of the coin: Flat tax.







No loopholes, no credits, no itemizing, no defer this or hide that in the Caymen Islands, you make 100K a year you owe Uncle Sam $20,000. You make %10,000 a year you owe him $2,000. or whatever percentage it takes to run the country in the black.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

people who make 100k make jack dick 1/100000000th a sperm in 10 loads of what the top 1/100th of a percent of americans make. 100k a year, congratulations, IF you can keep your job for 2 decades and stash 20% away every year for retirement, on top of some nice stock options on your ever growing company that you work for, you will have lived well.

think about this though...that person who made 100k a year, and worked 30 years at the same company..after all their expendatures they took home 55k healthcare...etc...everything paid, after 30 years they've come away with 1.65 million dollars in income LIFETIME. and they're in the top 10% of earners in the US. climb the ladder, dick fuld, does his name sound familiar? probably not as familiar as bernie madoff right? dick fuld hid 263 million dollars in compensation from investors. 263 MILLION. guy works 30 years and makes an honest living, and walks home with 3 million NET, and he's doing DAMN well for any american...yet this fucktard chieftan fudges some books, gets a 0% interest loan from you and I and scoots off with 263 MILLION DOLLARS. art samburg, sound familiar? on a "whim" he bought up a shitload of heller financial stocks...a few days later, GE bought heller and samburg walked away with 18 MILLION DOLLARS. nearly ALL americans work much harder than that to get 18 million dollars. somebody tells you something is going to happen, so you buy a shitload of stocks, and make 18 million dollars. haha. classic. john mack from morgan stanley tipped him off...interestingly enough, john mack had gone to interview for a major investment bank in switzerland...(unfortunately he "accidently" threw away all his knowledge about his meeting there) samburg cut mack in on an insider trade involving lucent (which netted mack a cool 10 million), and interestingly enough Mack told samburg to buy up heller. strangely, one of the major clients of the firm mack had just interviewed for...you guessed it buddy...HELLER FINANCIAL!!!!









so...but it gets better, since Mack was a major donator to george bush and hillary clinton...morgan stanley's regulatory liason (also a top aid to eliot spitzer...haha), called the investigator at the SEC who was doing his job, persuing the insider trading case...oddly enough, wouldn't you know it, a few weeks pass and that investigator was fired from the SEC. the government regulatory agency, supposed to be on the PEOPLES side, was working for the bank.

but there was justice...because after the SEC paid 800,000 in compensation for wrongful dismissal, they finally interviewed Mack several DAYS AFTER the statute of limitations ran out. fuckin A i love america. it's the only place in the world that hard work DOESNT pay off, but stealing, and colluding with the government will net you millions, and you'll never get in trouble.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Thats all fine and dandy...I'm sure Dick Fuld will employ three to four more people in his life and pay them $8.25/hr. Thats why he has the money, to stimulate economic growth...


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> Yes, exploitation exists at both ends. Easy way to fix both sides of the coin: Flat tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look at the last graphs I posted. Corporate tax is the lowest it's been since the 50's and the top 1% of America has seen their income quadruple. Everyone else's income before taxes has stayed the same since the 70's, and their income after taxes has dropped steadily since the 70's.

So what you're saying is, the wealthy need even more tax cuts while the rest of us should shoulder the costs? F that.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

I see what you're saying, and I agree with the graphs, totally. The the people at the high and low extremes are getting away with murder and meanwhile the middle class is getting screwed with the bill. Why wouldn't taxing everyone a flat % on whatever income they make, no ifs, ands or loopholes fix that? Lets say that percentage is 20%.....you make 100 million off of one stock transaction? Guess what, you Owe the IRS 200,000. 
If you think about it, that percentage, if everyone's paying in, would be pretty low right? I mean, when you get rid of all the credits being payed out and increase the number of people paying in by almost 50% that should drop the amount that the people already are paying in pay in.
As for corporate taxes.....yes, they're the lowest they've been in 60 years, but they're still some of the highest in the world. The cost of doing business in this country is one of the things that's really driving corporations overseas.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

funny how this was supposed to be about the budgets shortcommings.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

Piranha Dan said:


> I see what you're saying, and I agree with the graphs, totally. The the people at the high and low extremes are getting away with murder and meanwhile the middle class is getting screwed with the bill. Why wouldn't taxing everyone a flat % on whatever income they make, no ifs, ands or loopholes fix that? Lets say that percentage is 20%.....you make 100 million off of one stock transaction? Guess what, you Owe the IRS 200,000.
> If you think about it, that percentage, if everyone's paying in, would be pretty low right? I mean, when you get rid of all the credits being payed out and increase the number of people paying in by almost 50% that should drop the amount that the people already are paying in pay in.
> As for corporate taxes.....yes, they're the lowest they've been in 60 years, but they're still some of the highest in the world. The cost of doing business in this country is one of the things that's really driving corporations overseas.


Labor costs is more influential in pushing companies away from the country then the tax rate is


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

yes, labor and that terrible regulation. these companies can pollute to their hearts desire and pay their employees dirt money in china. is that what america wants? it's a serious question...here in america, we've regulated toxic waste, so that a company cannot profit infinitely while completely dismantling the natural resources around them, not to mention the harmful environmental effects on the populace immediately surrounding their operation. we've instituted regulations which force companies to invest in worst case scenario prevention mechanisms. for instance, look at the BP oil spill. what the GOP suggests is zero regulation on these oil giants, but literally one, out of thousands of oil derricks explodes due to a faulty device and the entire gulf of mexico is affected. the fish and marine life, as well as the beaches and tourist attractions were, and are devastated because of one faulty device. the people along the shore deserve regulations placed on those operations, as they endanger their livelihood if something go's wrong.

muskie, you have to look at it this way. the economy is in the shitter, people are not making money, not consuming, not paying taxes anywhere near the amount that governments are used to. what has to happen immediately is that the job market has to resurge. you can cut spending all you want, but that's not the root of the problem. if 1/3rd of your country doesn't work, you've got a major MAJOR economic crisis on your hands, and priority #1 is getting everybody back to work.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

muskielover1 said:


> funny how this was supposed to be about the budgets shortcommings.


The incredible increase in wealth disparity and the unchecked tax relief for the wealthy is one of the root causes of the budget shortfall.


----------

