Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NOT REALLY dear Redfish, what I said is a FACT....the gvt TOLD US that they were creating these tax cuts because we had a projected budget surplus of +/- $5 trillion over the next 10 years, and they said we had to give this surplus money back to the people who paid in to taxes.....You are suppose to save money during good periods and spend money during slow/bad periods....
Our problem is that congress wayyyyyy over spent during the good period, during the economic boom in the 2000's making it much more difficult to spend and pay for the things that go UP in the bad and slow periods such as unemployment expenditures and food stamp expenditures....
We don't live in a vacuum....there are consequences to congress's actions...
the deficit has gone down tremendously, each and every year of Obama's term....it has been cut in half since our peak under President Bush's last fiscal year....we are moving in the right direction, NOT in the wrong direction....why is that so hard to understand? the numbers are right before your eyes???
That being said, we will always have debt, at least for the next 2-3 decades, BECAUSE we need to pay social security back for it's surpluses that were used to mask the budget and pay for what Income taxes should have been paying for....soooo the federal govt will HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BORROW AND ADD to the national debt in order to essentially pay back social security what it borrowed from it to pay the discretionary 'bills' that they wracked up over 2-4 decades....
Those of us in the working class who have paid those surpluses in to Social Security were ROBBED when we gave tax cuts to the very wealthiest who never paid in to social security on every dollar they make...they were not a part of the surplus social security yet we took this surplus of social security and GAVE it to THEM in tax cuts....
yes, that's what our country did....REVERSE ROBIN HOOD, stole from the working class and gave it to the richest among us in tax cuts...and we were told that the government had a 5 trillion dollar projected surplus and the gvt was just giving it back to the "people" who paid it..........WHAT UTTER BULL CRAP.....
the projected surplus was the Social Security Surplus money, not a surplus from the top 1%....giving this surplus money from social security to the richest who did not pay it on most all of their money was a SLIGHT OF HAND and pure theft from the working class....
Well, NOW this has come back to bite us....what gvt 'borrowed' has to be paid back, and as far as I am concerned the top 1% who freely grabbed our social security surpluses through their tax cuts, need to pay it BACK...every trillion of it.....gosh darn it!
your envy of successful people is noted. The Bush tax cuts (now the obama tax cuts) cut taxes for every person that pays taxes--not just the rich.
you are very good at repeating the dem/lib lying talking points on this topic. But nothing you said is true.
Now, if you want my fix for social security---collect the SS tax (FICA) on all income, not just the first 110K. Problem solved. SS is no longer a forced saving plan, it is a tax, and as a tax it should be collected on all income.
SURPLUS ESTIMATE HITS $5.6 TRILLION - New York Times
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia2001/01/31/us/surplus-estimate-hits-5.6-trillion.html*
Even as projections of the federal budget surplus were revised upward once again, the Bush administration squared off with ... Published: January 31, 2001.
What they NEGLECTED to expound on, is telling us that these projected surplus monies CAME FROM SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES, yet they gave:
Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent....
The TOP 1% should not have been part of the tax cuts at all, it was NOT projected surplus from their federal income taxes, it was a projected surplus from the working class who paid in to social security for every dime they made or near every dime they made....these were social security projected surpluses, PERIOD.....
I have no reason to be jealous of the top 1% young man, my parents are in the top 1%, my husband and I when both working were one edge from the top 1%, I didn't pay social security on nearly half of what I singularly made, because I went over the cap....
all I am telling you is the truth...it WAS projected social security surpluses, the top 1% in the realms of Gates, and Hilton, and Buffet and Romney pays NOTHING in social security taxes...yet they were given 24% of the tax cuts coming from the projected SS surplus.....
it was a slight of hand.....period.
Now this money has to be paid back over the next 30 years...the working class will pay their share with taking smaller benefit payments, with raising the age they can retire, etc etc, and the very wealthiest will have to pay it back with higher taxes....
We will have national debt for a very long time, until the boomers are all gone, in the very least....
I want everyone to feel the pain - especially the scumbag loosers, and illegal assholes, so where do you get off on saying I don't? It is a shit sandwich the republicans, and democrats made - I am neither!Unfortunately the American people are spoiled, and they will never vote for a candidate that offers pain now, as opposed to a future of doom. As long as they can maintain now - fuck the future. That's someone elses problem, or they will stay in denial.
It is a mathmatical certainty that it will soon come crashing down unless we accept the pain of reform.
Ayup.
Everyone wants the other guy to feel the pain while not taking any of the burden themselves.
It's a $17 trillion shit sandwich we all made together and sooner or later everyone has to take a bite.
Lets go back to the debt limit.
I would like one of you liberals to tell us how much national debt is too much. Is it 25 trillion? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?
At what point does the country have to stop spending more than it collects?
What happens when the entire revenue of the govt is needed to pay the interest on the debt?
They won't respond - it is just an erroneous number to them. All they know is that they wan't to borrow, and spend more, more, more...Lets go back to the debt limit.
I would like one of you liberals to tell us how much national debt is too much. Is it 25 trillion? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?
At what point does the country have to stop spending more than it collects?
What happens when the entire revenue of the govt is needed to pay the interest on the debt?
Bump----waiting libs, how much is too much?
First of all, Reagan nearly tripled the debt, so he didn't grow our way out of it, or anything our way out of it.At some point this spending WELL BEYOND our income is going to bite us. I don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this.
I want to see presidential candidates take an oath that they won't sign any bill with an increase in the debt limit. As well as a commitment to offset any new increases in spending with equal (immediate) offsets in spending cuts. For example, corporate welfare & foreign aid.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle your on, this is a reasonable position. The alternative is bankruptcy.
Everybody knows that something must be eventually done about the debt limit.
There are two sides to how to deal with it....
One side, ours, is to grow our way out of it. We did it under Reagan although it didn't make itself known until the administration of the rapist.
The other side, dimocraps, is to tax our way out of it.
dimocraps will let eh economy fall, inflation will set in, the jobs market will go to hell because the federal Government will be sucking all the Money out of the Markets and nothing will be left for the Private Economy and --
dimocraps will try to raise taxes.... Sucking more money out of the economy.
dimocraps want a European based economic model. You know... The one that has failed so miserably time and again over the last 200 years.
Second of all, "the administration of the rapist"? I presume you're referring to what Reagan himself did to Selene Waters. That's the closest we come to having a rapist become President.
Third of all, we HAD a President who was growing us out of our debt. His name was Bill Clinton. And how did he do it? He raised taxes.
Fourth of all, the European countries that are currently doing well are the socialist ones; the ones that aren't are the ones that have been stabbed in the back with austerity.
Lying as loudly and as intensely as you can doesn't make what you say true.
They won't respond - it is just an erroneous number to them. All they know is that they wan't to borrow, and spend more, more, more...Lets go back to the debt limit.
I would like one of you liberals to tell us how much national debt is too much. Is it 25 trillion? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?
At what point does the country have to stop spending more than it collects?
What happens when the entire revenue of the govt is needed to pay the interest on the debt?
Bump----waiting libs, how much is too much?
At some point this spending WELL BEYOND our income is going to bite us. I don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this.
I want to see presidential candidates take an oath that they won't sign any bill with an increase in the debt limit. As well as a commitment to offset any new increases in spending with equal (immediate) offsets in spending cuts. For example, corporate welfare & foreign aid.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle your on, this is a reasonable position. The alternative is bankruptcy.
Will you take an oath not to use any tax deductions or credits the next time you pay your taxes? Will the GOP take an oath to eliminate the $1.4 trillion of tax expenditures which are bankrupting us?
Didn't think so.
Matthew 7:5
At some point this spending WELL BEYOND our income is going to bite us. I don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this.
I want to see presidential candidates take an oath that they won't sign any bill with an increase in the debt limit. As well as a commitment to offset any new increases in spending with equal (immediate) offsets in spending cuts. For example, corporate welfare & foreign aid.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle your on, this is a reasonable position. The alternative is bankruptcy.
Will you take an oath not to use any tax deductions or credits the next time you pay your taxes? Will the GOP take an oath to eliminate the $1.4 trillion of tax expenditures which are bankrupting us?
Didn't think so.
Matthew 7:5
.........................................................
I think this is the most dangerous Marxists thinking of all...and it seems to be spreading.
The idea that some law which allows a person to keep a little more of HIS money is welfare, and that is exactly what this nonsensical post claims....well, its not actually Marxist....but Marx wishes he had thought of it.
It is a purely socialist notion that every nickel you make actually belongs to the Government the moment you earn it....and any they decide to let you keep is equivalent to welfare.
I can only assume that it is driven by a virulent form of jealousy of anyone that makes more money than you.
At some point this spending WELL BEYOND our income is going to bite us. I don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this.
I want to see presidential candidates take an oath that they won't sign any bill with an increase in the debt limit. As well as a commitment to offset any new increases in spending with equal (immediate) offsets in spending cuts. For example, corporate welfare & foreign aid.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle your on, this is a reasonable position. The alternative is bankruptcy.
At some point this spending WELL BEYOND our income is going to bite us. I don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this.
I want to see presidential candidates take an oath that they won't sign any bill with an increase in the debt limit. As well as a commitment to offset any new increases in spending with equal (immediate) offsets in spending cuts. For example, corporate welfare & foreign aid.
Doesn't matter what side of the isle your on, this is a reasonable position. The alternative is bankruptcy.
