I've never understood why a person who has money above a certain amount should pay everyone else's taxes. What about this is sound logic? I was under the assumption that people with money benefitted the economy when they didn't give their money to the government.
Open invitation for someone to drop some knowledge on me, because that point has always been confusing to me.
It would be nice if Reaganomics panned out in reality, but they don't. You can make a case for industrial and corporate tax cuts as beneficial to the economy, but individuals? They just spend their extra money on luxury and competitive goods, which only effects a small part of the economy. Trickle down just doesn't happen, and certainly not on a significant scale.
These polls aren't caught up to Palin's speech yet, but at least for the start of the convention there hasn't been a bounce towards McCain. Tomorrow is when we will see any polling changes from Palin's speech.
I've never understood why a person who has money above a certain amount should pay everyone else's taxes. What about this is sound logic? I was under the assumption that people with money benefitted the economy when they didn't give their money to the government.
Open invitation for someone to drop some knowledge on me, because that point has always been confusing to me.
Well how about some numbers? The United States collects roughly $2.6 trillion in income tax revenue annually. If you split that evenly between the 117 million taxpayers, that comes out to roughly $22k a person. The average per capita income in the US is $38K, which would leave $16k or $1,333 a month to live on. Not too hot.
Granted I don't have at the moment the revenue without corporate income tax, but I also didn't include any taxes other than federal income, so I imagine the numbers would balance out reasonably well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Someone that talented must have gotten some scholarships and bursaries though. Regardless, surely you admit that anyone in that situation is in a very, very rare one.
Oh, absolutely. I never said it was a very commonplace situation, but it definitely exists out there, and deserves consideration when Obama plans to tax people grossing $200,000 a year because they are "rich".
If they aren't bankrupting themselves, then why should I care? What are the higher taxes denying them?
Significantly higher taxes - let's make a fairly conservative estimate and say they make about $30,000 less a year under Obama - could easily pass that threshold and greatly penalize them financially.
I already noted that NYC and San Fran were possible exceptions. But you see, when it comes to high living costs and real estate especially, giving upper classes tax cuts will only exacerbate the problem. Because when they have more money, they are willing to spend more on intrinsically scarce resources, driving up prices more. So the money they spend on mortgages/rent will only get higher, and everyone will be back to square one. The benefit to these people will be minimal, unless they are INCREDIBLY rich and can own 7 houses.
I don't know that tax cuts to the upper class is necessary, and I certainly don't like those tax cuts if they only affect rich citizens exclusively. I'm just not comfortable with saddling the nation's burdens on the rich and the rich alone - especially when a lot of those programs are probably superfluous in nature and actually inspire poorer citizens to essentially "live off the government". My big complaint with liberal policies is that they are too far-reaching, and just plain unnecessary in a lot of cases. Government influence should be as limited as possible in our daily lives, in my mind; I certainly don't want the government doing everything for me.
House debt? Debt on luxury goods? These are perfect reasons that they should be taxed more. If someone pulling in $230,000 a year is up to their neck in debt on their house, what sort of house are they owning? Unless they live in NYC or San Fransisco, they almost surely bought something beyond their means. Income tax breaks for incomes that high just go towards competitive consumption.
Someone making that much money is paying about 50% of it in income tax.
Someone that talented must have gotten some scholarships and bursaries though. Regardless, surely you admit that anyone in that situation is in a very, very rare one.
Not that rare. I have a cousin who went to Columbia, majored in finance, or management, or something (I'm not really sure, I like science and engineering, so I lump all money-related majors into one giant group). Anyway, he's making over $200k working for one of the big financial institutions in New York (a fact I get reminded about at every family gathering :mad:), and he got his degree 2 years ago. He's not a stupid guy, but he's no super-genius either.
If they aren't bankrupting themselves, then why should I care? What are the higher taxes denying them?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and answer "money that they deserve and you don't"
In more detail, People that earn that magical 600-1,200k a year are by and far the hardest working americans, and they can't afford accountants that'll give them 30% off of taxes from deductions.
Looking at the numbers posted to "own" me earlier, I've gotta say that Obama's side makes me pretty damn sick. 11% more for the top? What can you possibly use to justify such blatant theft? On the one hand, I want every high earner in the states to take all their money out and leave the poor the rot. On the other, I don't want to have to move. What a dilemma =/
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
I'm going to go out on a limb here and answer "money that they deserve and you don't"
In more detail, People that earn that magical 600-1,200k a year are by and far the hardest working americans, and they can't afford accountants that'll give them 30% off of taxes from deductions.
Let me put it this way. If all those people suddenly paid no taxes, and the government was reduced to some libertarian ideal, those people would not have their money much longer. Or their lives, most likely. Those people have to pay higher taxes because otherwise society as it exists, the one that allowed them to make so much money, would fall apart.
It always makes me laugh when people claim that they don't owe their success to anybody. What egoistic claptrap. If you lived in a 3rd world country you would have nothing. You owe everything to the society that gave you the opportunities to learn, the culture to choose your best path, and the market to make that path so immensely profitable.
Looking at the numbers posted to "own" me earlier, I've gotta say that Obama's side makes me pretty damn sick. 11% more for the top? What can you possibly use to justify such blatant theft? On the one hand, I want every high earner in the states to take all their money out and leave the poor the rot. On the other, I don't want to have to move. What a dilemma =/
And where will you go? Expand Paulville and make Paulland, somewhere in the middle of the ocean? Face it. No matter where you go it will be the same, or worse.
Hodoku, I know your not such a huge fan of redistribution of wealth and the like, but that's not all the higher taxes on the rich would cover. How about all that outstanding debt, our outrageous military spending, rebuilding infrastructure, and other such programs that you either benefit from or support. And honestly, just leave the poor to rot? Have you no sense of charity for those less fortunate than you?
It always makes me laugh when people claim that they don't owe their success to anybody. What egoistic claptrap. If you lived in a 3rd world country you would have nothing. You owe everything to the society that gave you the opportunities to learn, the culture to choose your best path, and the market to make that path so immensely profitable.
Exactly you take a possible financial genius on the level that makes Bill Gates look like a moron. Have him born in Ethiopia and lets see his billions amassed within a very short time.
Hodoku, I know your not such a huge fan of redistribution of wealth and the like, but that's not all the higher taxes on the rich would cover. How about all that outstanding debt, our outrageous military spending, rebuilding infrastructure, and other such programs that you either benefit from or support. And honestly, just leave the poor to rot? Have you no sense of charity for those less fortunate than you?
I DO, but what I simply can't tolerate is this:
I mean, 62% of SOCIAL SERVICES AND INTEREST? While under 2% goes to education? And dems want EVEN MORE? Mind you, this is Bush's budget - a demo would probably increase social service to 66% or so - roughly 2/3 of our budget. To me, this system reeks of training our people to be retarded leeches on the ass of the government. Now, I am totally okay with social service on a small scale. But, when it gets to the point where it vastly dwarfs everything else, and then the dems want to increase it by punishing those that have managed to fight their way out of this terrible system, I just get mad =/
IMO, we need to vastly decrease the budgets for welfare and medicare (the one for poor, not the one for old/disabled), and eliminate social security instead of growing these badly managed and outdated programs out of the wallets of the rich - essentially the opposite of what obama and the radical far-left pseudocommunists want.
EDIT: Basically, take 1/3 off of the social service budget, and put it into paying off debt and education, then cut taxes for -EVERYONE- from whatevers left over.
Oh, absolutely. I never said it was a very commonplace situation, but it definitely exists out there, and deserves consideration when Obama plans to tax people grossing $200,000 a year because they are "rich".
Please show me where in the graph it shows him increasing taxes on households making 200k a year?
I see NO CHANGE for that family 0 dollars more 0 dollars less.
Actually looks like those will receive a 12 dollar tax break according to Obama. So yeah its not as big as good old McCains rich people tax break but it is a tax break.
Please show me where in the graph it shows him increasing taxes on households making 200k a year?
I see NO CHANGE for that family 0 dollars more 0 dollars less.
Actually looks like those will receive a 12 dollar tax break according to Obama. So yeah its not as big as good old McCains rich people tax break but it is a tax break.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that that particular graph was the be-all, end-all of what Obama has said.
BY THE WAY using all caps just makes you look like a moron. Avoid it in the future.
Hodoku, I know your not such a huge fan of redistribution of wealth and the like, but that's not all the higher taxes on the rich would cover. How about all that outstanding debt, our outrageous military spending, rebuilding infrastructure, and other such programs that you either benefit from or support. And honestly, just leave the poor to rot? Have you no sense of charity for those less fortunate than you?
It is a good thing Obama stopped his past protectionist rhetoric, or else I would say he didn't care much for the poor either.
My problem with social services is not with the idea itself; just with the fact that it is a government program.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
Thanks for the flame dude I normally do that when I would raise my voice. But sure whatever you don't like it who cares, not me!
Anyways your site says different whatever there's always conflicting info on everything.
I'm sure I can find an article that says the Holocaust never happened. Hopefully this doesn't turn the debate into reports and conflicting info about the Holocaust though.
Its also not like I used caps for the whole post or something silly like that.
Anyways your site says different whatever there's always conflicting info on everything.
I'm sure I can find an article that says the Holocaust never happened. Hopefully this doesn't turn the debate into reports and conflicting info about the Holocaust though.
If you can find a New York Sun article about how the Holocaust never happened, I'd love to see it. Things called "credible sources" exist, and the Sun is one of them.
@Hodoku,
I really like your idea for the budget. Its ashame that this will never happen though because there are to many lazy bastards abusing welfare and the other handout programs that our government offers.
@Hodoku,
I really like your idea for the budget. Its ashame that this will never happen though because there are to many lazy bastards abusing welfare and the other handout programs that our government offers.
Thanks =3
Come 2009, I think I'll post my budget proposal and see what the forums think. Suffice to say:
-Social service is cut down a bit
-Education is tripled
-There is a budget category called "debt repayment"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
I mean, 62% of SOCIAL SERVICES AND INTEREST? While under 2% goes to education? And dems want EVEN MORE?
I like how you blame this on the Democrats. You do realize that the majority of social service spending is on the elderly, whom neither party ever dares piss off by cutting spending.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Come 2009, I think I'll post my budget proposal and see what the forums think. Suffice to say:
-Social service is cut down a bit
-Education is tripled
-There is a budget category called "debt repayment"
I honestly wonder when the government is going to decide to pay off our debts.
It is only a matter of time before China 'calls in some favors' or something.
On another matter, my friend decided to look up the bills that McCain and Obama have been involved in. McCain has 38. Obama has 129.
Some of Obama's: (That were accepted)
71. S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 41 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
75. S.AMDT.338 to S.4 To require consideration of high-risk qualifying criteria in allocating funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/5/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 3/6/2007 Motion to table amendment SA 338 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 58 - 41. Record Vote Number: 62.
107. S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/31/2007) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
111. S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 9/6/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 9/6/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2692 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
116. S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 9/26/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 9/27/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 3073 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
122. S.AMDT.4114 to S.2663 To require the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study and report on the effectiveness of authorities relating to the safety of imported consumer products.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/5/2008) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 3/6/2008 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 4114 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
And McCain's:
28. S.AMDT.1190 to S.1348 To require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 5/24/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 5/24/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 1190 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Anyway, lets notice how many reform bills Obama got passed...and some national security related ones? Hrm. The above bill is the only non-military bill McCain was involved in. (All which were not...really shocking or sweeping bills, unanimously passed.)
I said that attacking Obama would backfire, and it already did. He raised 10 million dollars for his campaign last night. The Republicans still haven't presented any policies, as it has been almost confirmed that they are pitting biography versus biography, personality versus personality. (I guess they follow the high school election model of politics?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I honestly wonder when the government is going to decide to pay off our debts.
It is only a matter of time before China 'calls in some favors' or something
Some speculate that it's more likely for the US Government to ask that the world forgive its debts than that they'll ever actually pay them off.
Is anyone else troubled by the RNC speeches that view McCain's troublemaking past in a positive light?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
I like how you blame this on the Democrats. You do realize that the majority of social service spending is on the elderly, whom neither party ever dares piss off by cutting spending.
You and I both know that medicaid and welfare have almost NOTHING to do with the elderly, Kraj More importantly, the democrats want to EXPAND these programs, while the republicans want to tame them down a little. Cutting just 2-3% off of each social service program and using that money to pay off debt and fund education would elicit a HUGE change in this country, and better educated people will require less of a government crutch.
But for the record, yeah - SS needs to be eliminated, and I would be FINE with paying for it now if it was gone by the time I was old enough to receive it.
I honestly wonder when the government is going to decide to pay off our debts.
It is only a matter of time before China 'calls in some favors' or something
At least we can agree on ONE thing >_>
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
You and I both know that medicaid and welfare have almost NOTHING to do with the elderly, Kraj
Sure. But I'm pretty confident Medicare is a much bigger expenditure than Medicaid, and I'm damn positive Social Security spending is immense compared to unemployment and food stamps. And those programs are primarily benefiting the elderly. So my points stands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I just don't understand how our country can be a world power or even relevant when we owe money to EVERYONE and are in this endless hole of debt.
At any rate, what does everyone think about the senate records?
Hodoku, if you want to talk wasted money, lets look at the Iraq war...imagine (just suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend Iraq didn't exist) using all that money on our own country directly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Sure. But I'm pretty confident Medicare is a much bigger expenditure than Medicaid, and I'm damn positive Social Security spending is immense compared to unemployment and food stamps. And those programs are primarily benefiting the elderly. So my points stands.
Fair enough, but that doesn't undermine my point that ALL of these programs are deprecated and need to be eliminated or torn down and built from the ground up in order to free up a massive amount of wasted money.
AS for the iraq war: what is done is done. Though I'd rather have spent that money on us, we can't simply leave now and let them all kill themselves - it would simply be another repeat of history, and we'd create even more people that hate us.
It would be nice if Reaganomics panned out in reality, but they don't. You can make a case for industrial and corporate tax cuts as beneficial to the economy, but individuals? They just spend their extra money on luxury and competitive goods, which only effects a small part of the economy. Trickle down just doesn't happen, and certainly not on a significant scale.
It appears I was correct, both bases were energized. What is interesting is the huge boost in Obama donations as a result of her speech.
Some light confirmation that Palin does not help bring in Hillary supporters.
Link 1
Link 2
Maybe McCain's speech will focus more on independents? I think he has to at this point.
Also somewhat strange.
These polls aren't caught up to Palin's speech yet, but at least for the start of the convention there hasn't been a bounce towards McCain. Tomorrow is when we will see any polling changes from Palin's speech.
- Enslaught
You do realize that the Republicans base taxes on this as well, right?
Well how about some numbers? The United States collects roughly $2.6 trillion in income tax revenue annually. If you split that evenly between the 117 million taxpayers, that comes out to roughly $22k a person. The average per capita income in the US is $38K, which would leave $16k or $1,333 a month to live on. Not too hot.
Granted I don't have at the moment the revenue without corporate income tax, but I also didn't include any taxes other than federal income, so I imagine the numbers would balance out reasonably well.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Oh, absolutely. I never said it was a very commonplace situation, but it definitely exists out there, and deserves consideration when Obama plans to tax people grossing $200,000 a year because they are "rich".
Significantly higher taxes - let's make a fairly conservative estimate and say they make about $30,000 less a year under Obama - could easily pass that threshold and greatly penalize them financially.
I don't know that tax cuts to the upper class is necessary, and I certainly don't like those tax cuts if they only affect rich citizens exclusively. I'm just not comfortable with saddling the nation's burdens on the rich and the rich alone - especially when a lot of those programs are probably superfluous in nature and actually inspire poorer citizens to essentially "live off the government". My big complaint with liberal policies is that they are too far-reaching, and just plain unnecessary in a lot of cases. Government influence should be as limited as possible in our daily lives, in my mind; I certainly don't want the government doing everything for me.
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
Someone making that much money is paying about 50% of it in income tax.
Not that rare. I have a cousin who went to Columbia, majored in finance, or management, or something (I'm not really sure, I like science and engineering, so I lump all money-related majors into one giant group). Anyway, he's making over $200k working for one of the big financial institutions in New York (a fact I get reminded about at every family gathering :mad:), and he got his degree 2 years ago. He's not a stupid guy, but he's no super-genius either.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and answer "money that they deserve and you don't"
In more detail, People that earn that magical 600-1,200k a year are by and far the hardest working americans, and they can't afford accountants that'll give them 30% off of taxes from deductions.
Looking at the numbers posted to "own" me earlier, I've gotta say that Obama's side makes me pretty damn sick. 11% more for the top? What can you possibly use to justify such blatant theft? On the one hand, I want every high earner in the states to take all their money out and leave the poor the rot. On the other, I don't want to have to move. What a dilemma =/
It always makes me laugh when people claim that they don't owe their success to anybody. What egoistic claptrap. If you lived in a 3rd world country you would have nothing. You owe everything to the society that gave you the opportunities to learn, the culture to choose your best path, and the market to make that path so immensely profitable.
And where will you go? Expand Paulville and make Paulland, somewhere in the middle of the ocean? Face it. No matter where you go it will be the same, or worse.
Exactly you take a possible financial genius on the level that makes Bill Gates look like a moron. Have him born in Ethiopia and lets see his billions amassed within a very short time.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
I DO, but what I simply can't tolerate is this:
I mean, 62% of SOCIAL SERVICES AND INTEREST? While under 2% goes to education? And dems want EVEN MORE? Mind you, this is Bush's budget - a demo would probably increase social service to 66% or so - roughly 2/3 of our budget. To me, this system reeks of training our people to be retarded leeches on the ass of the government. Now, I am totally okay with social service on a small scale. But, when it gets to the point where it vastly dwarfs everything else, and then the dems want to increase it by punishing those that have managed to fight their way out of this terrible system, I just get mad =/
IMO, we need to vastly decrease the budgets for welfare and medicare (the one for poor, not the one for old/disabled), and eliminate social security instead of growing these badly managed and outdated programs out of the wallets of the rich - essentially the opposite of what obama and the radical far-left pseudocommunists want.
EDIT: Basically, take 1/3 off of the social service budget, and put it into paying off debt and education, then cut taxes for -EVERYONE- from whatevers left over.
Please show me where in the graph it shows him increasing taxes on households making 200k a year?
I see NO CHANGE for that family 0 dollars more 0 dollars less.
Actually looks like those will receive a 12 dollar tax break according to Obama. So yeah its not as big as good old McCains rich people tax break but it is a tax break.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that that particular graph was the be-all, end-all of what Obama has said.
BY THE WAY using all caps just makes you look like a moron. Avoid it in the future.
My source on taxes: http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-aides-say-he-would-lower-taxes/83970/
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
It is a good thing Obama stopped his past protectionist rhetoric, or else I would say he didn't care much for the poor either.
My problem with social services is not with the idea itself; just with the fact that it is a government program.
Thanks for the flame dude I normally do that when I would raise my voice. But sure whatever you don't like it who cares, not me!
Anyways your site says different whatever there's always conflicting info on everything.
I'm sure I can find an article that says the Holocaust never happened. Hopefully this doesn't turn the debate into reports and conflicting info about the Holocaust though.
Its also not like I used caps for the whole post or something silly like that.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
If you can find a New York Sun article about how the Holocaust never happened, I'd love to see it. Things called "credible sources" exist, and the Sun is one of them.
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
I really like your idea for the budget. Its ashame that this will never happen though because there are to many lazy bastards abusing welfare and the other handout programs that our government offers.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
Thanks =3
Come 2009, I think I'll post my budget proposal and see what the forums think. Suffice to say:
-Social service is cut down a bit
-Education is tripled
-There is a budget category called "debt repayment"
I like how you blame this on the Democrats. You do realize that the majority of social service spending is on the elderly, whom neither party ever dares piss off by cutting spending.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I honestly wonder when the government is going to decide to pay off our debts.
It is only a matter of time before China 'calls in some favors' or something.
On another matter, my friend decided to look up the bills that McCain and Obama have been involved in. McCain has 38. Obama has 129.
Some of Obama's: (That were accepted)
And McCain's:
Anyway, lets notice how many reform bills Obama got passed...and some national security related ones? Hrm. The above bill is the only non-military bill McCain was involved in. (All which were not...really shocking or sweeping bills, unanimously passed.)
I said that attacking Obama would backfire, and it already did. He raised 10 million dollars for his campaign last night. The Republicans still haven't presented any policies, as it has been almost confirmed that they are pitting biography versus biography, personality versus personality. (I guess they follow the high school election model of politics?)
Twitter
Is anyone else troubled by the RNC speeches that view McCain's troublemaking past in a positive light?
You and I both know that medicaid and welfare have almost NOTHING to do with the elderly, Kraj
But for the record, yeah - SS needs to be eliminated, and I would be FINE with paying for it now if it was gone by the time I was old enough to receive it.
At least we can agree on ONE thing >_>
Sure. But I'm pretty confident Medicare is a much bigger expenditure than Medicaid, and I'm damn positive Social Security spending is immense compared to unemployment and food stamps. And those programs are primarily benefiting the elderly. So my points stands.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I just don't understand how our country can be a world power or even relevant when we owe money to EVERYONE and are in this endless hole of debt.
At any rate, what does everyone think about the senate records?
Hodoku, if you want to talk wasted money, lets look at the Iraq war...imagine (just suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend Iraq didn't exist) using all that money on our own country directly.
Twitter
Fair enough, but that doesn't undermine my point that ALL of these programs are deprecated and need to be eliminated or torn down and built from the ground up in order to free up a massive amount of wasted money.
AS for the iraq war: what is done is done. Though I'd rather have spent that money on us, we can't simply leave now and let them all kill themselves - it would simply be another repeat of history, and we'd create even more people that hate us.