 |
Page: 1 2 3 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 9438 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:57:03 PM
...and in related news Obama blames the unemployment on ATM machines |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:29:07 AM
Hephaestus: It's been too long as it is now, If we were really serious about the unemployment problem we would end the insurance payments and people would get off their ass and find work. |
|
 Hephaestus
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
35 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:39:47 PM
@CrakrJak:
Yeah, I noticed that. Not terribly surprising given prolong and deep recessions.
Don't think many are interested in making that a long term slice of the pie. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23995 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:15:21 PM
So many truths are made up :) |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:59:31 AM
Hephaestus: You will note that unemployment payments have swelled to more than is paid out for medicare now.
Some people have been on unemployment nearly two years now. |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16885 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:30:25 AM
Lee Doren DEBUNKS REICH here.
I mean really! Tax cuts have CAUSED the deficit to grow? fluff and nonsense! It's already been proven that taking ALL THE MONEY (not just taxes) from the super-rich STILL wouldn't plug the deficit! Reich is a communists hard-core nutjob. |
|
ChrisMunich
Male, 18-29, Europe
383 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:53:29 AM
Meh, just tax the sh*te out of everyone, that'll let you pay off your debt! And then there's lots of angry people with no money left to spend, meaning they are easy to control and oppress. Problem solved ;) |
|
Hephaestus
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
35 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 7:10:59 AM
@CrakrJak:
Thanks. You're right, it is a little hard to see, could you go ahead and just CSI that image for me? "Enhance" 
Anyway, I found the previous years data on wiki and found that the items you call "Public Sector" spending hasn't really changed between the two recent administrations. Although Medicaid and Department of Defense flipped their percentages. Tried to compare it to 1996 as well, but the layout and names are different. Looks like the department of defense swelled going from Clinton to Bush.
It's not all complete, but here is the link for those interested: Link
Regardless, I think I-See-U is right. It's about the quality of life and not the percentages alone. As a country, we should look out for each other; not horde the resources in |
|
 Victory7
Male, 18-29, Western US
362 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:49:48 AM
So then, the solution is obvious. GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX AND DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. |
|
 Calithlin
Male, 18-29, Western US
38 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:32:42 AM
MoveOn.org at the end... no f'ing wonder. The middle class can't borrow any more? Borrowing is what got us into this trouble! |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 9:30:45 PM
Hephaestus:
It might be hard to see (the color key is kind of small), but medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, and unemployment made up over 50% of last years budget. |
|
Hephaestus
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
35 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 9:16:00 PM
@I-See-U:
Personally, I'm not discounting the "unquantifiable" human element. And I don't think anyone here should. It's why I brought up 39% of 30k is VERY different than 39% of 370K. But I am interested in sources of "knowledge".
@CrakrJak:
While I don't disagree about the nature of the paperwork or the potential to intentionally confuse, it's a little beyond the point at the moment. I just wanted to see the link you were looking at to make the claim that half of the deficit is public spending. I assumed you had looked at it to make such a claim, so I was hoping you could provide the link and save everyone else the trouble of having to wade through the nonsensical links and bloated data.
BTW, this was a similar link to what I mentioned before where 3 parts make up about 63% of the budget. I bet there are trimmings to be made in there.
 DuckBoy87
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
2087 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 9:02:46 PM
I disagree with raising minimum wages. Sure it's nice to have but it discourages growth for smaller businesses and minimum wage jobs aren't supposed to be "permanent" jobs. They are supposed to be for students, people who just need a job until they find something in their field etc. They're not supposed to be careers.
If you keep asking for higher and higher wages, businesses will hire less and less people, or even hire people illegally, or pay them under the table at a lower wage.
Government needs to spend less on frivolous and failing programs, such as social security, but spend more on higher education opportunities to educate people so that they can get something better than a minimum wage job. |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 8:41:21 PM
Hephaestus: I agree, US government budgets are so full of crap spending the bill is the size of an encyclopedia every year. That should be a telling clue as to just how bloated and wasteful our government really is.
No one in their right mind would sign a contract for a house, car, or business or anything else with that many pages to it, because common sense would tell you that somewhere buried in the fine print is a way for the contractor to screw you over. And that is just what our government is doing to us every year. |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8710 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 8:36:35 PM
Of course the ONLY reason every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has failed is because they never had anybody as smart as Robert Reisssssssssshuh put in charge. |
|
 keith2
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
2316 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 8:18:02 PM
Damn peasants always asking for livable wages.. how dare they. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16885 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 8:14:30 PM
MoveOn is a far-leftist, Obama-loving group. It's a fact!
Hey! Every single time FoxNews is on, the left ALL chant "Faux News is dumb!"
His 'points' got worse and worse. Also farther and farther LEFTIST. Coincidence? I think not.
WHat crap, I hope the comments have already de-bunked this bunkum. |
|
I-See-U
Male, 18-29, Southern US
354 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:51:07 PM
So you guys keep looking up those numbers and keep forgetting that the quality of life has kept dropping since your parents were kids. Sure you might, have a new gadget or shiny new truck, but 20-40 years ago you didn't have to work as hard for it. |
|
I-See-U
Male, 18-29, Southern US
354 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:47:08 PM
All the numbers or percentages or tax cuts/increases do not translate into quality of life. It is all about what is done with the "product" that matters.
Sure wal-mart or (insert fortune 500 company) is good for the economy and creates jobs, no problem there. With that extreme growth comes extreme power, again no problem there. The problem lies in what is done with that power.
The agenda of big companies is the $ and not the quality of life for its workers.
Our government is helping them.
What is being done is screwing the average Joe for the benefit of mighty Bob in the hopes that Bob will one day turn around and help out Joe. (bailouts, loans, closing your eyes while you know there is going to be a bubble etc.)
Don't even know who the hell the guy in the post is or even if he's accurate enough, but I do know that I'm witnessing more and more control by smaller and smaller groups. |
|
Hephaestus
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
35 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:35:05 PM
CrakrJak
I'm not terribly familiar with government databases and even when I am, they aren't all as easy to look through.
I'd still appreciate your source though, very interested to see it. Helps to be sure I'm looking at the same information as others.
The only recent spending chart I've seen put military, healthcare and social security as an overwhelming amount of the spending (over 60%?). As much as I do try to keep sources of interesting data, I may have failed to capture that one. I can take a look though. |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:27:15 PM
Hephaestus: all I have to say is take a good look at the 2009 and 2010 government budgets, It's all in there. |
|
Hephaestus
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
35 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 7:04:01 PM
Thanks auburnjunky... I'll delve into it more when I'm not cooking in the kitchen on high heat (is that smoke I smell?).
The text seems to be referring to the marginal tax rate. The chart seems to be showing what the effective rate would be, though I hope the data source is easy to get to, I want to see the data that composes that chart. Should I assume this is before tax deductions or credits, charitable donations or is it the end effective rate? Just wondering given how easy it is to monkey with numbers.
The tax rate may be beside the point and the real question of interest for me is "what is a dollar worth" to those groups. Saying 39% of income is tax means different things to a 30K earner and a 370K+ earner.
Side note, when I made 35K, I was supposedly in the top 50% bracket for earning according to the IRS website... think that was in 2009.
Back to the kitchen **whoosh** |
|
 LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
10503 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:45:44 PM
If you tax the rich too much you slow the flow of money in the market
And how is that exactly? You people keep saying that but have you ever proved it?
The video may be completely wrong, but I don't see much of an argument against it here.
AJ if that chart is correct, then your society is more segregated than I thought.
Imagine for a moment that you make $10M/year. How are you possibly going to spend that? Money becomes meaningless to you. I don't see how you wouldn't be able to live the most luxurious, comfortable life one can live on a mere 2 million/year.
From what I've seen, the rich don't spend their money nearly as much as the other classes do for the simple reason that they don't need to. |
|
 auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
8666 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:03:55 PM
to expound on randomxnp's point, most McDonald's, are locally owned franchises, therefore they are considered small business. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
769 Posts
|
Monday, June 20, 2011 5:59:25 PM
I-See-You
"You drive down the street and see a wal-mart and a McDonalds at every corner. While also seeing an empty shopping center where small businesses where once thriving."
What relevance does that have to the issue? These are businesses (in the case of McD mostly small businesses) supplying consumer demand. In the case of Walmart increasing retail efficiency which is great for the economy - with its low prices especially beneficial to those with low income. There existence does not support anything in this idiotic propaganda piece. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
|
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}