Thread: Spreadn' the Wealth - Just Not Within the Family

Originally Posted by Swiper

but why blame Romney for paying a low tax? I think the people who don't like it should blame the politicians who made the tax laws. He's just following the law. if you were a millionaire you wouldn't do everything possible to pay the least amount of taxes? come on, sure you would.

I too think Romney will be a failure, just like Obama is.

I don't blame him for having low taxes. Everyone tries to limit their tax bill. However, there is a significant difference between someone like me using a legitimate business expense such as the cost of gas to lower my tax bill and someone like him using a loophole like offshoring all of his money and making up dummy corporations. Again, I don't blame him for the fucked up tax code, but the fact that he benefits so greatly from that fucked up tax code makes me believe he will do nothing to fix it. I am all for lowering rates, that will only work if you close loopholes and the backdoor shenanigans these guys use. We need to generate revenue and that won't magically happen by cutting tax revenues, they need to grow. Wall Street is sitting on trillions of dollars, how much do they need to sit on to create a few jobs? Bottom line, if I thought Romney was going to make it better for the middle class I would vote for him. He won't. Obama has made it marginally better for the middle class so if I were to vote for one of the 2 it would be him.

We should not rely on these corporations to create jobs by giving them our tax money as welfare. I don't think they are interested in creating jobs. We need to import employers from abroad by giving them good deal on tax. Make them compete with american employers in american soil. If we decided to do this, then we also need to ban work visa until all americans are employed. Relying on these corporations to create jobs is like running on circle. It will get nowhere.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

I don't know what issues you're talking about that he hasn't taken a side on. I'll admit, his positions did miraculously change when he went from running at the state level in MA to running for POTUS, but hey, he's a politician. Obama hasn't exactly kept all of his campaign promises either. He chastised GWB for doing a hell of a lot of the things that he has continued to do for almost 4 years now - massive deficits, reckless spending, etc. At least in Romney, we have a guy who brings real world success in the private sector, extremely impressive executive experience, and strong vetted leadership abilities. That's something we don't have now and desperately need.

I know his stance on abortion, gay marriage, etc. None of that shit matters, they are wedge issues. I know he wants to reduce the deficit and cut the debt, but how? What will he cut, how will he raise revenue, how will he create jobs. How will he cut healthcare costs and make the system better. We already know he'll cut taxes, but how will that raise revenue? Sure, we can lose revenue and still lower the deficit, but you can't pay off debt that way. How is he going to trim the military budget? As it stands now, I am under the impression he won't touch it and was against Obama's cuts to it despite Panetta agreeing t them.

The fact of the matter is, both of these clowns live in a fantasy land. Our budget needs to be cut, and not with a scalpel, with a machete. Entitlements need to be cut, the military needs to be slashed, and revenue needs to be raised. Romney hasn't said how he will do any of that. IMO, both will put entitlements on the table, but only Obama will put revenues and the military on the table. That's Romney's problem, he will cut entitlements which are popular and people don't want them cut, but he won't raise taxes or cut the military, things an overwhelming majority of people are for cutting. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he's for cutting the military but just won't say it. Everything that has come out of his mouth has run contrary to that. Everybody talks about him being valuable because of his business experience, I find it hard to believe any business man worth a shit would look at that military budget and think it's ok. Part of the criticism levied at Obama is that he is a weak leader, how is Romney any different if he is too chicken shit to tell his base there are going to be major cuts to something that makes up over 50% of the budget? The right is saying we need a leader, I don't see that in Romney as I don't see it in Obama, but I see Obama doing more stuff that will benefit the middle class. I'm still not voting for him, but he is second with Romney being a far distant 3rd.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I know he wants to reduce the deficit and cut the debt, but how? What will he cut, how will he raise revenue, how will he create jobs. How will he cut healthcare costs and make the system better. We already know he'll cut taxes, but how will that raise revenue? Sure, we can lose revenue and still lower the deficit, but you can't pay off debt that way. How is he going to trim the military budget? As it stands now, I am under the impression he won't touch it and was against Obama's cuts to it despite Panetta agreeing t them.

The fact of the matter is, both of these clowns live in a fantasy land. Our budget needs to be cut, and not with a scalpel, with a machete. Entitlements need to be cut, the military needs to be slashed, and revenue needs to be raised. Romney hasn't said how he will do any of that. IMO, both will put entitlements on the table, but only Obama will put revenues and the military on the table. That's Romney's problem, he will cut entitlements which are popular and people don't want them cut, but he won't raise taxes or cut the military, things an overwhelming majority of people are for cutting. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he's for cutting the military but just won't say it.

the reverse robin hood budget of the neo-cons doesn't pay down the deficit at all it only transfers monies for programs, education, etc. that benefit those in the lower income for tax cuts for US large firms and top earners. that will come at the expense of future earning power of the working class that derives all of their income from wages. there is no use for a large healthy middle class in the US anymore not with a consumption based economy and liberalization of low wage labor to India and SE Asia.

with such a large portion of the US labor force exiting in coming decades and no incoming population boom to compensate consumption has no choice but to drop. instead of consumption increasing as workers get older it's going to have to decease because of the lack of wages and the increasing costs of healthcare.

supply-side tax cuts only service to increase the wealth of top earners while increasing the deficit.

total debt in 1896 was 2.5B
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...opdm011869.pdf

90 years later it was 935B in Jan of 1981
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm011981.pdf

after 8 years of supply-side economics under Reagan total treasury debt at was 2.6T
the annual budget deficit was 78B when he took over and 152B when he left
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm011989.pdf

and after 4 years of GHWB total treasury debt at was 4.1T
the annual budget deficit was 152B when he took over and 255B when he left
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm011993.pdf

and after 8 years of Clinton total treasury debt at was 5.7T
the annual budget deficit was 255B when he took over and 128B when he left
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds012001.pdf

and after 8 years of supply side economics under GWB it was 12T
the annual budget deficit was 128B when he took over and 1.4T when he left
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...opds112009.pdf

and after 4 years of Obama it is 15.8T
the annual budget deficit was 1.4T when he took over and in 2012 estimated at 1.3T
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...opds072012.pdf

Table 1.1?Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789?2017
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z1.xls

Entitlement Hater Paul Ryan Was A Social Security Baby



When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father's lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.

After his father's passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people. Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education. This social contract lifted him and his entire family out of a tough situation.

Many people do not know that 30% of the social security fund goes directly to widows,orphans and the disabled.

Originally Posted by Little Wing

Entitlement Hater Paul Ryan Was A Social Security Baby

he's a fraud just like Ayn Rand and the rest of the hypocrites....

Originally Posted by Little Wing

Entitlement Hater Paul Ryan Was A Social Security Baby



When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father's lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.

After his father's passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people. Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education. This social contract lifted him and his entire family out of a tough situation.

Many people do not know that 30% of the social security fund goes directly to widows,orphans and the disabled.

not surprise. Ryan supports most govt entitlements.

what a corrupt SS system we have. his dad paid in to it his whole life and got nothing in return. what a scam. get rid if it, let people keep their hard earned money and spend it the way they want to. ss is biggest ponzi scam in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Swiper

let people keep their hard earned money and spend it the way they want to. ss is biggest ponzi scam in the history of the world.

the world tried that in the 1800's and early 1900's and it didn't work...and then there is the slight problem with US banks paying depositors less than 1% APR when real inflation is closer to 4% a year.

Originally Posted by LAM

the world tried that in the 1800's and early 1900's and it didn't work...and then there is the slight problem with US banks paying depositors less than 1% APR when real inflation is closer to 4% a year.

you rather have govt steal ur money? I guess some people just like govt forcing them on how to invest their money.

you should start to look at the issues in the terms of LIBERTY. ask ur self does this make things more free or less free. it seems like you like govt force. we don't have a choice when it comes to SS. u don't pay u go to prison. is that a free society?

So you propose we just let history repeat itself? I'm confused.

Originally Posted by Swiper

you rather have govt steal ur money? I guess some people just like govt forcing them on how to invest their money.

you should start to look at the issues in the terms of LIBERTY. ask ur self does this make things more free or less free. it seems like you like govt force. we don't have a choice when it comes to SS. u don't pay u go to prison. is that a free society?

the system would work when the percentage of the population exiting the workforce and collecting benefits is the same as that entering the workforce paying into it.

baby-boomers account for roughly 30% of the US population and workforce, there is just not enough people entering into the system to pay into it as there are exiting. birthrates in the US are basically at historic lows, people can't afford to raise big family's because of the low wages and ever increasing costs of goods and services. it's not rocket science

the same thing is happening to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the OECD that experienced a post WWII population explosion. it has nothing to do with the US government.

Originally Posted by LAM

the system would work when the percentage of the population exiting the workforce and collecting benefits is the same as that entering the workforce paying into it.

baby-boomers account for roughly 30% of the US population and workforce, there is just not enough people entering into the system to pay into it as there are exiting. birthrates in the US are basically at historic lows, people can't afford to raise big family's because of the low wages and ever increasing costs of goods and services. it's not rocket science

the same thing is happening to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the OECD that experienced a post WWII population explosion. it has nothing to do with the US government.

That is because americans invented Homosexuallity, Cum shots, Facials and many other weird stuffs.