Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Bill in Dville]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an excellent point you made. There was a quote that I think is appropriate:
"While increasing taxes on any group has negative economic effects, the reality of the current federal fiscal situation dictates that a balanced approach of spending cuts in tandem with rising rates and expanding the base of taxpayers is needed....since we are all in this together, EVERYONE (emphasis mine) must participate in funding federal government operations in some form, whether it includes a loss of some benefits at the lower end of the income spectrum, or middle and upper income individuals having to pay higher tax rates."
The most important components of that quote to me are spending cuts, expanding the base of taxpayers and the idea that (as you stated) everyone must participate. Currently almost half the country apparently couldn't care less about the budget crisis as long as they get their check. They don't seem to realize that this country cannot sustain its spending levels or we will be on the road to Greece and all the riots they are experiencing as they try and put their fiscal house in order by cutting their spending. The tax increases Obama is pushing CANNOT keep up with the spending (and in fact would run the govt for EIGHT DAYS) and will NOT lessen the deficit. Spending must be cut.

Yep. There are MANY people that don't know enough (or care) to realize we have a spending problem, there just isn't enough tax revenue available. That's why we're borrowing about 40% of what is spent.

The politicians exacerbate the problems by saying (in so many words), "Vote for me, I'll take stuff from the evil rich and give it to you". Isn't that class warfare? When people just want to know "what's in it for me?", you have an issue. Once something is given, it's quite difficult to reduce or take it away. I've yet to see anyone explain how everything will be paid for...

[ChickenFlorentin e]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
There are MANY people that don't know enough (or care) to realize we have a spending problem

Please explain what we are spending too much on. Which bills (let's leave the complications of ACA out of this) should not have been funded? I hear all the time that we're spending too much, but nobody ever seems to say what on. Maybe they'll mumble something about entitlements, but never specific programs.

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't that class warfare?

Class warfare? It's already come and gone. The rich won.

http://politicsdecline.files.wordpress.com/20...

[Aggie23]

ChickenFlorentine wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Class warfare? It's already come and gone. The rich won.
http://politicsdecline.files.wordpress.com/20...

Our economy is not a zero sum game. It is not as though there is a finite amount of income available that must be divided among all the citizens. The rise or fall of the incomes of the wealthy have nothing to do with the rise or fall of the incomes of either the middle class or the lower class, that graph is meaningless in this context.

[ChickenFlorentin e]

Interesting subject - we're spending too much. All those poor people being lazy taking our money.

In 2010 JUST Exxon Mobil generated revenues of $383,000,000,000.00, up 35%, during the recession while most Americans were struggling. That same year they paid an effective tax rate of 17%.

In 2010 we spent about 409 Billion on oil subsidies.

In the 2010 Federal Budget we spent about 191 Billion (5.5%) on actual aid to the poor.

[ChickenFlorentin e]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Our economy is not a zero sum game. It is not as though there is a finite amount of income available that must be divided among all the citizens. The rise or fall of the incomes of the wealthy have nothing to do with the rise or fall of the incomes of either the middle class or the lower class, that graph is meaningless in this context.

Tell that to the 95% of America who hasn't seen an increase in earnings since 1979.

[Aggie23]

ChickenFlorentine wrote:

<quoted text>
Please explain what we are spending too much on. Which bills (let's leave the complications of ACA out of this) should not have been funded? I hear all the time that we're spending too much, but nobody ever seems to say what on. Maybe they'll mumble something about entitlements, but never specific programs.
<quoted text>

It took five minutes to find the following information:
The Government Accountability Office has issued two reports identifying $400 billion in annual duplication and overlap in funds.
The 2012 Pig Book Summary includes these as just a sample:$255 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank - which is opposed by the Pentagon.$5,870,000 for the EastWest Center, a pet project of Daniel Inouye.$239,000,000 for peer reviewed cancer research, but $5.1 billion has already been provided for research in the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act of 2012.$50,000,000 for National Guard Counter Drug Programs, but again $2 billion has already been allocated to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the same thing.$9,500,000 for high energy cost grants to the Rural Utilities Service, but this is a duplication of the Dept of Agriculture's Electric Loan Program.
That is just a small sampling. There is plenty of waste, duplication and just sheer pork that can be cut from the budget before ever touching entitlements.

[ChickenFajitas]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
It took five minutes to find the following information:
The Government Accountability Office has issued two reports identifying $400 billion in annual duplication and overlap in funds.
The 2012 Pig Book Summary includes these as just a sample:$255 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank - which is opposed by the Pentagon.$5,870,000 for the EastWest Center, a pet project of Daniel Inouye.$239,000,000 for peer reviewed cancer research, but $5.1 billion has already been provided for research in the Labor/HHS Appropriations Act of 2012.$50,000,000 for National Guard Counter Drug Programs, but again $2 billion has already been allocated to the Drug Enforcement Agency for the same thing.$9,500,000 for high energy cost grants to the Rural Utilities Service, but this is a duplication of the Dept of Agriculture's Electric Loan Program.
That is just a small sampling. There is plenty of waste, duplication and just sheer pork that can be cut from the budget before ever touching entitlements.

And you won't get any arguments from almost ANYBODY that we need should aggressively look for those types of items and cut them out of our budget. Even so - those things mentioned add up to what? A Billion? Not really a drop in the bucket.

But - you know as well as I do, EVERYBODY that parrots Hannity - "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is talking about cutting entitlements for the poor. They think some bum crack dealer is getting freebies from "Santa" while they have to go to work.

They're idiots, and I think you realize that, and I realize that - but most don't. Cutting to the truth is a difficult job when they DON'T WANT to know the truth.

[Aggie23]

ChickenFlorentine wrote:

Interesting subject - we're spending too much. All those poor people being lazy taking our money.
In 2010 JUST Exxon Mobil generated revenues of $383,000,000,000.00, up 35%, during the recession while most Americans were struggling. That same year they paid an effective tax rate of 17%.
In 2010 we spent about 409 Billion on oil subsidies.
In the 2010 Federal Budget we spent about 191 Billion (5.5%) on actual aid to the poor.

You seem to have a problem with Exxon - In actuality, less than 3% of Exxon's earnings are from US gasoline sales (they are a world wide company.) For every gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel or other products sold in the US, Exxon earns a little over 2 CENTS A GALLON in profit. At the same time, the US government (which does nothing to produce or sell that gas) gets 40-60 cents a gallon in taxes. That US tax rate they paid was offset by the taxes they paid in other countries (to the tune of 15 billion)- for example, in Nigeria, Exxon pays an 85% tax rate. In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.

And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.

[Aggie23]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
And you won't get any arguments from almost ANYBODY that we need should aggressively look for those types of items and cut them out of our budget. Even so - those things mentioned add up to what? A Billion? Not really a drop in the bucket.
But - you know as well as I do, EVERYBODY that parrots Hannity - "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem!" is talking about cutting entitlements for the poor. They think some bum crack dealer is getting freebies from "Santa" while they have to go to work.
They're idiots, and I think you realize that, and I realize that - but most don't. Cutting to the truth is a difficult job when they DON'T WANT to know the truth.

Please read what I wrote, I said those were a quick sample of items I found. And there is a reason so many are saying we have a spending problem - WE DO. I know first hand about government spending, I used to work for the government. There was nothing like the end of the fiscal year to suddenly have use working overtime to spend the money we were allocated. If you don't spend what you are allocated - instead of getting your budget increased, you get that much deducted from the next year's budget - there is no incentive to save. My aunt worked for a congressman in Washington - it was the same thing. At the end of the fiscal year, congressional staff travel home like crazy to spend their travel allotments so the money wouldn't be cut for the next year. And do you really believe that there are not people on the government dole who shouldn't be? For the umpteenth time, Republicans are as willing as anyone to see those who are truly in need get assistance, but there are many people for whom the government check is their way of life when they are perfectly capable of working.

[ChickenFajitas]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem with Exxon

They were just the first oil company I thought of. I didn't pick on them for any specific reason. But there IS plenty to pick on them about.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.

Well, then they shouldn't mind paying a few more points here in the US, should they?:) If they actually paid 35% it would still be a bargain.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.

The budget sub-categories you're using to get at 14%(most of the time it's quoted at 12%), actually include the funds for 3 things that shouldn't remotely be considered "welfare". These include - 1. General retirement and disability insurance
2. Federal employee retirement and disability
3. Unemployment compensation

Remove those from the welfare entitlement numbers,(as they should be), and you're at about 5.5%.

[Bill in Dville]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to have a problem with Exxon - In actuality, less than 3% of Exxon's earnings are from US gasoline sales (they are a world wide company.) For every gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel or other products sold in the US, Exxon earns a little over 2 CENTS A GALLON in profit. At the same time, the US government (which does nothing to produce or sell that gas) gets 40-60 cents a gallon in taxes. That US tax rate they paid was offset by the taxes they paid in other countries (to the tune of 15 billion)- for example, in Nigeria, Exxon pays an 85% tax rate. In total worldwide, Exxon in 2010 paid 78.6 billion in taxes for an effective tax rate of 47%.
And I don't know where you got your 191 billion figure for aid to the poor in 2010. About 14%($496 billion) of the 2010 federal budget went to support programs that provide aid (not counting health insurance or social security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships.

+1 (again)

Don't confuse anyone with the facts, it will drive them bonkers. It's rather disingenuous (and clueless) for someone to think we can continue to borrow 40% of our spending. Pure logic indicates we should live within our means...

Oh yeah, forgot about the approx.$82 trillion in unfunded liabilities, but that would be too hard to explain to some...

[ChickenFajitas]

As long as we're at this particular spot - looking at 5% of the federal budget - we could extrapolate a bit further.

Using very rough numbers for the sake of simplicity:

Let's say somebody makes 50,000 a year and pays a 20% federal tax rate. He pays 10k to the government. 5% of that goes to the poor. That's about $9.00 a week he pays to help the most needy amongst us.

That's what people are griping about. The government helping those in need at a cost of $9.00.

[Will Dockery]

Hello my friends... long time no see.

After the election of last month I was suffering severe election burnout, there wasn't either a satisfying victory or defeat for me, since, as I'd written here and said to people so many tims, I'm no fan of either Obama or Romney... I reckon that after a month sabbatical from all these discussions I'll be ready to chime in soon.

Maybe in January, maybe sooner!

--
Music & poetry from Will Dockery & Friends:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[ChickenFajitas]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't spend what you are allocated - instead of getting your budget increased, you get that much deducted from the next year's budget - there is no incentive to save.

I get that, along with your other arguments. And I agree - it's insane. Let's go after problems like that - it's the only smart thing to do. We can come up with example after example of stupid things that Federal money gets spent on. A lot of it just makes you shake your head and wonder "how?". Even if we were 100% efficient at reducing those types of things though (not counting defence), it still doesn't come close to being a problem solver.

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
And do you really believe that there are not people on the government dole who shouldn't be? For the umpteenth time, Republicans are as willing as anyone to see those who are truly in need get assistance, but there are many people for whom the government check is their way of life when they are perfectly capable of working.

Absolutely there are people like that. They're disgusting. And although they are highly publicized and easy to spot - they're a very small percentage of legitimate welfare needs. Unfortunately, they're the only ones simple-minded idiots think of when they hear the word "welfare" or "entitlement". The truth is most welfare recipients are on it for a short time and really do need some temporary help. If we truly are a great nation, we'd rather pay for a few welfare thugs that play the system than let kids grow up malnourished and uneducated in one of the wealthiest societies on earth. And if we can weed out those who play the system, the better.

The problem is that so much propaganda is being bandied about and so much BS being spread on "talk radio" that very few people look at the reality and practical side of this. They just repeat the mantra. "We're going broke feeding the takers!!!" It's not remotely true.

[Bill in Dville]

Hey Will: Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and stuff!

[Aggie23]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
The budget sub-categories you're using to get at 14%(most of the time it's quoted at 12%), actually include the funds for 3 things that shouldn't remotely be considered "welfare". These include - 1. General retirement and disability insurance
2. Federal employee retirement and disability
3. Unemployment compensation
Remove those from the welfare entitlement numbers,(as they should be), and you're at about 5.5%.

Defense and International Security Assistance 20%
Social Security 20%
Medicare, Medicaid and CHiP 21%
Safety Net 13%
Interest on the Debt 6%
Benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans 7%
Transportation Infrastructure 3%
Education 2%
Science and Medical Research 2%
Non-security International assistance 1%
All other 4
These figures are from the Office of Management and Budget. Medicaid and CHiP which should be included in the safety net figure, but aren't would raise that 13% even higher. And you will note that there is a separate line item for Federal Retiree and Vet benefits, so those are not in the safety net figure.

[Bill in Dville]

LMAO, someone MAKING $50K being in a 20% tax bracket.

What if a kitten could dunk a basketball?

----
An uneducated and clueless voter is a dangerous thing. They tend to vote Liberal…

“I don’t want someone who doesn’t pay ANY federal income taxes voting to determine how much I pay.”

"I'm not going to let half the country that doesn't pay income taxes be burdened by the other half that doesn't pay their fair share."

Wizard of ID Guard:“Shouldn’t voters have to pass an intelligence test?”
Wizard:“You don’t have to be intelligent to vote.”
Guard:“What if there are more stupid people than intelligent people?”
Wizard:“Then the democrat wins.”

Wealth envy is an ugly thing. They have it. You don't.

Somebody else got all the breaks. You didn't.

They got an education. You didn't.

They worked their a$$es off, including long hours and weekends. You didn't.

They took risks, including investing their own money if necessary, to build a business. You didn't.

"Shared prosperity" = Socialism...

“If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no head.” Winston Churchill

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill

“Common sense is a flower that doesn’t grow in everyone’s garden…”

[Synergy]

Doo wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you've got me mixed up with yourself freind. Obama won the election and all your hate keeps on spewing everyday. Take a back seat where you belong because you did not win and let the winner doo his job. I have a brain which is much more than you have. Fox has ruined yours.

No, Dude. I don't have YOU mixed up with anyone. Take a back seat???? To whom? YOU? lol
I have accepted that Obama won the election and my feelings for him have not changed. Why should they? Do you think that I am supposed to gulp his koolaid because he won the election? How naive can you possibly be? He's had a chance to do his job and didn't. Maybe he's a new man now. We'll see.
Why are you libs so obsessed with Fox News? That's all you have. You go on and on about Fox News. I'm curious. Would you like for Fox News to be shut down/disappear? Be honest.

[ChickenFajitas]

Aggie23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Defense and International Security Assistance 20%
Social Security 20%
Medicare, Medicaid and CHiP 21%
Safety Net 13%
Interest on the Debt 6%
Benefits for Federal Retirees and Veterans 7%
Transportation Infrastructure 3%
Education 2%
Science and Medical Research 2%
Non-security International assistance 1%
All other 4
These figures are from the Office of Management and Budget. Medicaid and CHiP which should be included in the safety net figure, but aren't would raise that 13% even higher. And you will note that there is a separate line item for Federal Retiree and Vet benefits, so those are not in the safety net figure.

The three areas I mentioned that shouldn't be included are subfunctions of "Income Security" - There's details somewhere at the government printing office that I couldn't find again - The subfunctions that should be counted are Housing assistance, Food and nutrition assistance and Other income security.

[Aggie23]

ChickenFajitas wrote:

<quoted text>
The three areas I mentioned that shouldn't be included are subfunctions of "Income Security" - There's details somewhere at the government printing office that I couldn't find again - The subfunctions that should be counted are Housing assistance, Food and nutrition assistance and Other income security.

Why in the world would you not want to include those three categories, they are part of the safety net.