Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Poll of Obama voters show split on deficit

  1. -11
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,288
    vCash:
    30586
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    You want a fair tax code? Maybe you should look up the meaning of fair. Fair would be a flat 15% tax across the board, no loopholes, no deductions and no exemptions. Fair would be a national sales tax. Progressives dont want fair, they want punitive. They want those who have more to pay more. Lets start calling it what it is.
    Which isn't fair how?

    Put it this way. I'm a fairly well built guy. 6'2, 220 lbs. A few years back I was helping my dad rebuild his patio which had been destroyed by a hurricane. He's like 5'10, 180, and was 54 years old at the time. Are you saying it was punitive that I did a lot more of the heavy lifting than he did? GTFO.

    As far as low taxes for the rich, decades of government support have not done anything for the Postal Service except string out the inevitable.....so looking to the government to to tax us back to prosperity is not going to happen either.

    The Republic is dead.......this is not the government our founding fathers envisioned for us........quite the opposite
    The founding fathers envisioned that the republic would change with the times, which it has. I honestly don't understand people who bemoan the 1800s as some sort of lost political paradise. It's a great example of the proverbial eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

    ---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    so you think just taxing rich people and cutting defense (which i agree with), is the way we are going to tackle a 16 trillion dollar deficit? basic math would tell me that isnt possible. entitlements HAVE to be reformed.
    I haven't run this "basic math" myself, so if you have perhaps you could share.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Which isn't fair how?

    Put it this way. I'm a fairly well built guy. 6'2, 220 lbs. A few years back I was helping my dad rebuild his patio which had been destroyed by a hurricane. He's like 5'10, 180, and was 54 years old at the time. Are you saying it was punitive that I did a lot more of the heavy lifting than he did? GTFO.



    The founding fathers envisioned that the republic would change with the times, which it has. I honestly don't understand people who bemoan the 1800s as some sort of lost political paradise. It's a great example of the proverbial eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

    ---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------



    I haven't run this "basic math" myself, so if you have perhaps you could share.
    You're comparing helping your parent, who raised and nurtured you to adult hood i'm presuming, to taking more from someone because he simply has more? Wow.....but i guess that since you're such a wonderful giving son, your father will not be collecting social security and will never go in to a nursing home, because you will be there to take care of him till the end.

    Your comparisons need work grasshopper. Fair is fair.....and that means everyone should be taxed at the same rate and share the burden equally. Where you got the notion that someone that worked and made more should shoulder more is patently unfair, because it has to be unfair to the person you take from.

    As far as what the founding fathers envisioned, i'm quite sure they knew times must change. But i doubt they foresaw the total apathy and disregard people hold for their own rights and government as they designed it. You refer to the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. Perhaps. But do you remember how that phrase i quoted from Franklin ended?

    "A republic. IF you can keep it" Well, if old Ben was an idealist, maybe i'm not in such bad company.

    BTW, to save Jared the trouble, the entire dept. of defense budget for 2012 was 707.5 Billion. Even if you totally eliminate defense, which is actually the Governments most important responsibility, you won't close the deficit. The Projected Deficit in 2013 is 901 Billion.
    Last edited by MoFinz; 12-04-2012 at 04:16 PM.


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post

    I haven't run this "basic math" myself, so if you have perhaps you could share.
    federal spending for year 2011 was 3.598 trillion dollars. tax receipts were 2.303 trillion dollars. defense spending accounted for 700 billion dollars. even if you cut defense spending down to 0 (which even a misguided person such as yourself wouldnt do), we would still have a budget deficit in 600 billion dollar range. that doesnt include all the extra money you would give poor people. please tell me how we get to a balanced budget by not dealing with entitlements? medicare and social security made up 43% of the spending in FY 11.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2007.png


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,866
    vCash:
    3309
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    You could tax rich people into oblivion....until the idiots we seat in washington reign in spending, we will never fix our problems.

    Where the idiots in Washington got the idea they had a blank check and forgot that the money actually comes from US, and not some fairy Money Mother, i will never know.
    And the people that think taxing the rich will be more "fair"? Whoever told you life is fair? You go ahead and tax all those "rich" folks, and when the jobs and factories dry up, don't complain about the "rich" being at fault. Look at Hostess.....thanks to the unions inflexibility, we lose Twinkees (at least for a while). Meanwhile....how about tha Postal Service that hasn't been profitable or even able to fund its own pension for how long?
    Hostessí creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

    That was after Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent, even though the company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to the WSJ
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2147043.html


    Hostess management, which is currently blaming unions for killing the Twinkie, awarded company execs absurdly large raises around the same time as filing for bankruptcy in January 2012 - including a 300% pay raise for then-CEO Brian Driscoll.

    According to the the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union:

    "As the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256."
    I know this 300% pay raise has been mentioned within other diaries (e.g. Mark E Anderson's), but I wanted to add a diary highlighting just this one data point, because it's such a striking piece of evidence undermining the myth that organized labor killed Hostess.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ore-Bankruptcy

    The CEO of Hostess Brands is getting widely criticized for taking his full salary while cutting everyone else's pay by 8%.

    Gregory Rayburn will still get his $125,000 a month, or $1.5 million a year, the company told The Huffington Post.His logic is that because he isn't on the Hostess payroll, he doesn't have to take part in the company-wide pay cut.
    http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?p...4-47f4b4902a56

    To be fair, according to the last article Gregory Rayburn did leave some money on the table. Anyways, i agree that life is unfair. When you treat your employees like crap, make bad business decisions, and try and screw the system, your business is more than likely going under. In a fair universe you could do whatever you want and have no problems. Probably didnt help that they went through 7 CEOs in 10 years either.

    Anyways, agree with TheWalrus on defense spending. Say what you will about the rest, our defense spending is a cancer. Its just unsustainable, which made the Romney/Ryan budget even more laughable. Heres a chart on what weve recently spent in comparison to other countries. Im sure everyone here as seen similar ones:
    The United States spends 58 percent of the total defense dollars paid out by the world's top 10 military powers, which combined for $1.19 trillion in military funding in 2011. With its unparalleled global reach, the US outspends China, the next-biggest military power, by nearly 6-to-1.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1746685.html
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,288
    vCash:
    30586
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    You're comparing helping your parent, who raised and nurtured you to adult hood i'm presuming, to taking more from someone because he simply has more? Wow.....but i guess that since you're such a wonderful giving son, your father will not be collecting social security and will never go in to a nursing home, because you will be there to take care of him till the end.
    I'm talking about those who can do more being expected to do more, which is a basic -- and fair -- rule of civil society. In this same vein, we do not expect 10 year old and 70 year olds to serve in the Army. They're simply not up to it. The burden falls to those who are able.

    Actually, my father has prepared financially his whole working life to never receive social security, even though he has paid into it and his company has matched it that entire time. In my view it's improper to call it an "entitlement", except in the sense that a person should feel entitled to receive something they've paid for.

    As far as what the founding fathers envisioned, i'm quite sure they knew times must change. But i doubt they foresaw the total apathy and disregard people hold for their own rights and government as they designed it. You refer to the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. Perhaps. But do you remember how that phrase i quoted from Franklin ended?

    "A republic. IF you can keep it" Well, if old Ben was an idealist, maybe i'm not in such bad company.
    If that quote supports your argument in some way, I'm not seeing it. Not that it matters, because what Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or James Madison thought about the role of government is only interesting in principle and as a historical lesson. The world has changed since the 1790s. Just a bit. It's why I don't subscribe to originalism or textualism. Perhaps you do.

    So when you say "the republic", what are you even talking about? It's a concept, not a set thing, and that concept changes from person to person. Was the republic "dead" when the top tax rate was 90% after WWII?
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 12-04-2012 at 05:20 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,288
    vCash:
    30586
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    federal spending for year 2011 was 3.598 trillion dollars. tax receipts were 2.303 trillion dollars. defense spending accounted for 700 billion dollars. even if you cut defense spending down to 0 (which even a misguided person such as yourself wouldnt do), we would still have a budget deficit in 600 billion dollar range. that doesnt include all the extra money you would give poor people. please tell me how we get to a balanced budget by not dealing with entitlements? medicare and social security made up 43% of the spending in FY 11.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2007.png


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png
    Just repealing the Bush tax cuts is worth $100 billion a year, which is only the beginning of the argument on where tax rates should be, imo. Corporate taxes and capital gains taxes also need to increase. Even if you subscribe to the notion of the Laffer Curve, it's clear we passed the point of maximized revenues quite a ways back.

    The biggest driver of the debt is health care costs. The fact that Medicare covers health care is secondary to the root of the problem. Hopefully the provisions of Obamacare will work as intended and help reduce the cost of health care, though I believe a single payer system would have been far better. As Crazy685 has posted, health insurance companies engage in outright fraud and fee manipulation and make just absurd amounts of money in the process, ripping off their customers and doctors alike.

    Reigning them in is the best way to solve the problem in a non single payer environment, imo. Cutting people from the Medicare rolls or reducing their coverage is not.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    jared81's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,850
    vCash:
    1097
    Loc:
    orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Just repealing the Bush tax cuts is worth $100 billion a year, which is only the beginning of the argument on where tax rates should be, imo. Corporate taxes and capital gains taxes also need to increase. Even if you subscribe to the notion of the Laffer Curve, it's clear we passed the point of maximized revenues quite a ways back.

    The biggest driver of the debt is health care costs. The fact that Medicare covers health care is secondary to the root of the problem. Hopefully the provisions of Obamacare will work as intended and help reduce the cost of health care, though I believe a single payer system would have been far better. As Crazy685 has posted, health insurance companies engage in outright fraud and fee manipulation and make just absurd amounts of money in the process, ripping off their customers and doctors alike.

    Reigning them in is the best way to solve the problem in a non single payer environment, imo. Cutting people from the Medicare rolls or reducing their coverage is not.

    ok so 100 billion dollars a year for the bush tax cuts, no military spending and lets say we can save a couple hundred billion in medical cost (i am erroring way in favor on your side), we are still 400 billion away from balancing a budget. again, my question is, how do we balance a budget without looking at entitlements????
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,240
    vCash:
    6988
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    You go ahead and tax all those "rich" folks, and when the jobs and factories dry up, don't complain about the "rich" being at fault. Look at Hostess.....thanks to the unions inflexibility, we lose Twinkees (at least for a while).
    Hostess borrowed an estimated 50million in UNION funded pension contributions, & now that their declaring bankruptcy, all the employees that had their wages slashed over the last few years are watching their pensions evaporate. On top of that, they're dolling out 1.75 million bonuses to the executives who ran the company into the ground to begin with.


    Too many witch-hunts about Unions & not enough about greedy corporate cocksuckers.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,260
    vCash:
    1253
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Indeed. Too bad there isn't a way to change the tax code to make it more fair.
    Fair? Who determines what is fair? What's the standard?
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,288
    vCash:
    30586
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by jared81 View Post
    ok so 100 billion dollars a year for the bush tax cuts, no military spending and lets say we can save a couple hundred billion in medical cost (i am erroring way in favor on your side), we are still 400 billion away from balancing a budget. again, my question is, how do we balance a budget without looking at entitlements????
    Balancing the budget isn't really my goal. Deficits are not in and of themselves bad for the economy. They are certainly better than surpluses, anyway. Not everybody is a Keynesian, I get that -- and I'm no expert -- but to me the debate is how much deficit is reasonable to have.

    "Looking at" entitlements is synonymous with cutting them, and that's not where I'm starting. Revenue increases have been neglected for far too long and need to be the first thing that's addressed. When we've increased revenue and cut military spending (and hopefully, medical costs have come down), then we'll look at the rest. That's how I'm approaching it.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Poll: Dems split over handing Obama '12 nomination
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-02-2010, 03:59 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 06:29 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 10:27 PM
  4. Poll Finds Voters Split on Candidates' Iraq-Pullout Positions
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 05:21 PM
  5. Pre Election Poll: Taxes, Spending, Deficit
    By DeathStar in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 02:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •