BengalRep85-9 Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [size="5"]Republicans bail on budget talks, blame Democrats [/size] WASHINGTON – Republicans pulled out of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Joe Biden with a flourish on Thursday, blaming Democrats for demanding tax increases as part of a deal rather than accepting more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and other government programs. "Let me be clear: Tax hikes are off the table," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Boehner spoke shortly after the House GOP second-in-command, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, announced he would not attend a planned negotiating session and said it is "time for President Obama to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue." White House spokesman Jay Carney quickly obliged, while announcing that the talks were "in abeyance." He said Obama supports a "balanced approach" to debt reduction. "I would point that the president supports a balanced approach," Carney said. "He does not support an approach that provides for a $200,000 tax cut for millionaires and billionaires paid for by a $6,000 a year hike in expenses and costs for seniors." Numerous officials have said in recent days that Obama and Boehner would soon take a more public role in the negotiations, as time grows short for confronting politically vexing questions over taxes and Medicare and other benefit programs. As a result, it appeared that the day's events marked an eruption of political maneuvering rather than a blow-up that would jeopardize the success of negotiations. "The goal of these talks was to report our findings back to our respective leaders," Biden said in a statement. "The next phase is in the hands of those leaders, who need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. For now the talks are in abeyance as we await that guidance." In general, the negotiations are aimed at producing legislation to cut future deficits while simultaneously lifting the $14.3 trillion limit on Treasury borrowing. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said that without an increase in the debt limit by Aug. 2, the United States faces a first-ever default, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the economy. Carney told reporters that Boehner had met unannounced with Obama at the White House Wednesday evening. The meeting was at the president's initiative, and the first known encounter between the two men since their widely publicized round of golf last weekend. Nor was it likely Democrats were taken by surprise by the day's events, since Cantor informed Biden of his plans before making any public announcement. Adding to the intrigue, one GOP leadership aide said Cantor did not inform Boehner of his plan to withdraw from the talks until shortly before he did so. Nor was Cantor aware of Boehner's trip to the White House the evening before, this aide said. For his part, Cantor said the secretive Biden-led talks had "established a blueprint" for agreement on significant cuts in spending, but had reached an impasse because of the Democratic demand for taxes. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the other Republican participant, also said he would not attend the scheduled session, and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell spoke in unusually biting terms of Democratic demands for new government spending as part of a debt-reduction deal. "What planet are they on?" McConnell wondered aloud. While accepting a need to raise the debt limit, Boehner has said that deficit cuts must exceed the size of any increase in borrowing authority — a position that neither Obama nor any other Democrat has challenged. The president and Biden were meeting with House Democratic leaders at the White House when Cantor made his announcement. One of the Democratic negotiators, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said at a news conference that Republicans "are playing with fire and really putting the very fragile economy at greater threat by playing the games that we've been seeing." In several weeks of talks, Biden and congressional negotiators had largely completed a review of the federal budget, focusing at first on areas where the two sides were amenable to cuts. They quickly identified higher pension contributions for federal employees as one area of savings, and cuts in farm programs and student loan subsidies as others. Additional items include a federal auction of parts of the spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property. Discretionary programs, which bore the brunt of an earlier agreement to cut spending by $38 billion, would be ticketed for additional cuts. Other steps had been discussed to rein in future government spending automatically if deficit targets were not reached. But in recent days, officials said, the two sides were increasingly at an impasse, with Democrats demanding higher taxes to accompany spending cuts, while Republicans ruled out tax hikes and pushed for deeper cuts in benefit programs. The conflicts long predate the current negotiations. Republicans long ago branded themselves as the party of lower taxes, while Democrats, looking to the 2012 elections, are already campaigning hard against a new Republican plan to turn Medicare into a system of private insurance coverage beginning with anyone currently under 55 years of age. Privately, Republicans bristle at the suggestion that taxes be traded off for Medicare. They argue that official reports make it clear that without significant changes, the Medicare program is financially unsustainable. Yet polls show that while there is general support for spending cuts, there is opposition to benefit cuts in Medicare. The imperative to cut spending has gained impetus since Republicans won control of the House last fall, benefiting hugely from tea party activists demanding a smaller and less intrusive government. In addition, sputtering recovery from the worst recession in decades and stubbornly high unemployment have helped form a bipartisan agreement that long-avoided steps are needed to reduce federal red ink. The Congressional Budget Office warned on Wednesday that unless steps are taken to rein in deficits, the country risks a "sudden fiscal crisis," with investors losing faith in the U.S. government's ability to manage its fiscal affairs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_debt_showdown;_ylt=Ak2vBdQ31L2dIYVT.GwS8GOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5djE5NW84BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNjI0L3VzX2RlYnRfc2hvd2Rvd24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMxBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNiaWRlbg-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='BengalRep85-9' timestamp='1308876331' post='998376'] [size="5"]Republicans bail on budget talks, blame Democrats[/size][/quote] Of course. [quote name='BengalRep85-9' timestamp='1308876331' post='998376'] "Let me be clear: Tax hikes are off the table," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. ... White House spokesman Jay Carney quickly obliged, while announcing that the talks were "in abeyance." He said Obama supports a "balanced approach" to debt reduction. "I would point that the president supports a balanced approach," Carney said. "He does not support an approach that provides for a $200,000 tax cut for millionaires and billionaires paid for by a $6,000 a year hike in expenses and costs for seniors."[/quote] Heaven forbid people with exorbitant sums of income pay their fair share of taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalRep85-9 Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 How anyone that makes less than $250,000 a year votes repub i'll never understand. They prove time and time again they only care about the wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='BengalRep85-9' timestamp='1308879980' post='998387'] How anyone that makes less than $250,000 a year votes repub i'll never understand. [/quote] You and me both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1308879132' post='998385'] Of course. [b]Heaven forbid people with exorbitant sums of income pay there fair share of taxes.[/b] [/quote] Well, that's just crazy talk right there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enon Bengal Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 So is it poliical suicide or a sure way to win the White House in 2012? I'd vote for the first candidate to come out and say they are going to raise taxes on the top 1% or top 10% wealthiest Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xombie Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1308879132' post='998385'] Of course. Heaven forbid people with exorbitant sums of income pay their fair share of taxes. [/quote] And that amount would be...? What percentage of their income to be taxed is fair? Is 50% of their annual income what you deem to be fair? 60%? 65%? And what is your definition of "fair share"? A balance or equality of the consensus burden? It is real easy to be for the take from others mentality when it only benefits you. We are are going to keep taking from the individuals that can and do drive employment until they have all they can stand and then there will be an exodus of money from our country in a way that makes this recession seem tame in comparison. Do we not already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Do not our top 10% of America's richest individuals already shoulder approximately 50% of the tax burden? It is not that taxes need to be raised or lowered; the tax code in this country needs a new path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1308935705' post='998462'] And that amount would be...? What percentage of their income to be taxed is fair? Is 50% of their annual income what you deem to be fair? 60%? 65%? And what is your definition of "fair share"? A balance or equality of the consensus burden? It is real easy to be for the take from others mentality when it only benefits you. We are are going to keep taking from the individuals that can and do drive employment until they have all they can stand and then there will be an exodus of money from our country in a way that makes this recession seem tame in comparison. Do we not already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Do not our top 10% of America's richest individuals already shoulder approximately 50% of the tax burden? It is not that taxes need to be raised or lowered; the tax code in this country needs a new path. [/quote] As a percentage of their income they are paying less tax than most of the rest of us. I don't think it unfair to balance those percentages out. Especially when you consider many of them report their wealth as capital gains which is taxed at a pretty low rate as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Further if they "can and do drive employment" where are the jobs? (Other than in China) As far as the corporate tax how many actually pay that rate? Many of the largest corporations dont pay taxes at all in fact some pay negative tax. I really hope you dont believe that bill of goods the plutocracy sells folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Enon Bengal' timestamp='1308935339' post='998460'] So is it poliical suicide or a sure way to win the White House in 2012? I'd vote for the first candidate to come out and say they are going to raise taxes on the top 1% or top 10% wealthiest Americans. [/quote] Well you wont be voting republican then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Xombie' timestamp='1308935705' post='998462'] And that amount would be...? What percentage of their income to be taxed is fair? Is 50% of their annual income what you deem to be fair? 60%? 65%? And what is your definition of "fair share"? A balance or equality of the consensus burden? It is real easy to be for the take from others mentality when it only benefits you. We are are going to keep taking from the individuals that can and do drive employment until they have all they can stand and then there will be an exodus of money from our country in a way that makes this recession seem tame in comparison. Do we not already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Do not our top 10% of America's richest individuals already shoulder approximately 50% of the tax burden? It is not that taxes need to be raised or lowered; the tax code in this country needs a new path. [/quote] Dont ever try to use rational thought in this forum, it completely falls on deaf ears. This forum really should be renamed to "Far Left Political Banter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308941837' post='998476'] Dont ever try to use rational thought in this forum, it completely falls on deaf ears. This forum really should be renamed to "Far Left Political Banter". [/quote] Rational thought? None of what he stated is even true by any data available to anyone who willing to look at the truth and not just their bias opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1308942170' post='998478'] Rational thought? None of what he stated is even true by any data available to anyone who willing to look at the truth and not just their bias opinions. [/quote] EVERY opinion in this forum is biased (in fact, I think thats the nature of the beast when it comes to opinion). Most people in this forum have a real hard time seeing the truth regardless. Personally, I lose about 37% of my paycheck to taxes, and I consider that too high. I dont want current seniors to be affected, but I would love to see all other entitlement programs and welfare programs reverted back to what they were intended for. Stop rewarding sloth, irresponsible breeding and laziness. Support those who need it temporarily, and get them on the right path. Make them earn their own money if they are of sound body and mind. There is absolutley no reason why someone who cannot support one child, should have 3 and receive bonus money. There is no reason why someone who is addicted to drugs should receive benefits that enable them to continue. There is no reason why Twinkies, Mt Dew and other terribly unhealthy foods should be allowed to be purchased with food stamps/taxpayer money (as down the line is re-burdens the healthcare system). Budget talks, to really start making sense, MUST slash social program giveaways. I personally dont care about the top 1% and if they are taxed more. Do I think its unfair? Yes. DO I think they already pay their fair share? Yes. But if thats what it takes to start the wheels moving of getting a HUGE chunk of Americans to take personal responsibility, then so be it. Compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308942855' post='998481'] EVERY opinion in this forum is biased (in fact, I think thats the nature of the beast when it comes to opinion). Most people in this forum have a real hard time seeing the truth regardless. Personally, I lose about 37% of my paycheck to taxes, and I consider that too high. I dont want current seniors to be affected, but I would love to see all other entitlement programs and welfare programs reverted back to what they were intended for. Stop rewarding sloth, irresponsible breeding and laziness. Support those who need it temporarily, and get them on the right path. Make them earn their own money if they are of sound body and mind. There is absolutley no reason why someone who cannot support one child, should have 3 and receive bonus money. There is no reason why someone who is addicted to drugs should receive benefits that enable them to continue. There is no reason why Twinkies, Mt Dew and other terribly unhealthy foods should be allowed to be purchased with food stamps/taxpayer money (as down the line is re-burdens the healthcare system). Budget talks, to really start making sense, MUST slash social program giveaways. I personally dont care about the top 1% and if they are taxed more. Do I think its unfair? Yes. DO I think they already pay their fair share? Yes. But if thats what it takes to start the wheels moving of getting a HUGE chunk of Americans to take personal responsibility, then so be it. Compromise. [/quote] The 37%, is that state and federal combined, or including any other deductions? And do you work in a commission heavy\all commission environment? Not meaning to pry, I'm just trying to reconcile that % with the current federal tax rate. I'm no tax expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the top 1% might pay a large [b]amount[/b] of taxes, but I just don't buy that they pay a larger [b]proportion[/b] of taxes. Not when [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece"]Warren Buffet paid a lower tax rate than you or I did.[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308942855' post='998481'] EVERY opinion in this forum is biased (in fact, I think thats the nature of the beast when it comes to opinion). Most people in this forum have a real hard time seeing the truth regardless. Personally, I lose about 37% of my paycheck to taxes, and I consider that too high. I dont want current seniors to be affected, but I would love to see all other entitlement programs and welfare programs reverted back to what they were intended for. Stop rewarding sloth, irresponsible breeding and laziness. Support those who need it temporarily, and get them on the right path. Make them earn their own money if they are of sound body and mind. There is absolutley no reason why someone who cannot support one child, should have 3 and receive bonus money. There is no reason why someone who is addicted to drugs should receive benefits that enable them to continue. There is no reason why Twinkies, Mt Dew and other terribly unhealthy foods should be allowed to be purchased with food stamps/taxpayer money (as down the line is re-burdens the healthcare system). Budget talks, to really start making sense, MUST slash social program giveaways. I personally dont care about the top 1% and if they are taxed more. Do I think its unfair? Yes. DO I think they already pay their fair share? Yes. But if thats what it takes to start the wheels moving of getting a HUGE chunk of Americans to take personal responsibility, then so be it. Compromise. [/quote] I absolutely am biased, I have never pretended otherwise, but my bias is in favor of the poor/middle class who have been getting it in the ass by the ultra wealthy for a very long time and against those who defend them because asking them to pay their fair share might be in their eyes "socialism". Sure there are some of them that take advantage of that system but I view that as an unfortunate cost of business for a system that should be in place to help the many that dont take advantage of it. Please explain to me how Warren Buffet paying less in tax [b]percentage[/b] than his secretary that only makes 60K and asking that that be fixed is unfair? Please explain to me how General Electric, ExxonMobil, Verizon ect paying negative taxes and asking that that be fixed is unfair? Please explain to me how moving their money offshore or declaring it as capital gains and asking that that be fixed is unfair? We really have to get away from this ideal that the ultra wealthy are doing their fair share, creating jobs (they are, in China) ect.. because its just not true by any stretch of the imagination. Further the biggest reason we have a "budget crisis" is because the ultra wealthy specifically those on Wall St gambled away the money and as a result many people who were otherwise working and paying into the system are out of work and cant pay into the system. So cutting those programs that may help those people get back into the system makes about how much sense? To me it's absolutely insane. To the ultra wealthy corporations that would rather just use Chinese "sweatshop cost" labor it is fine because they no longer need those people and would rather end everything they pay towards them be it in wages or in social programs designed to get them back to work in jobs that the elite have no reason to create. We really need to end free trade and stop allowing them to send our jobs overseas, then get back to paying people a fair wage that would allow them to participate in this economy again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308942855' post='998481'] EVERY opinion in this forum is biased (in fact, I think thats the nature of the beast when it comes to opinion). Most people in this forum have a real hard time seeing the truth regardless. Personally, I lose about 37% of my paycheck to taxes, and I consider that too high. I dont want current seniors to be affected, but I would love to see all other entitlement programs and welfare programs reverted back to what they were intended for. Stop rewarding sloth, irresponsible breeding and laziness. Support those who need it temporarily, and get them on the right path. Make them earn their own money if they are of sound body and mind. There is absolutley no reason why someone who cannot support one child, should have 3 and receive bonus money. There is no reason why someone who is addicted to drugs should receive benefits that enable them to continue. [b]There is no reason why Twinkies, Mt Dew and other terribly unhealthy foods should be allowed to be purchased with food stamps/taxpayer money (as down the line is re-burdens the healthcare system).[/b] [b]Budget talks, to really start making sense, MUST slash social program giveaways.[/b] I personally dont care about the top 1% and if they are taxed more. Do I think its unfair? Yes. DO I think they already pay their fair share? Yes. But if thats what it takes to start the wheels moving of getting a HUGE chunk of Americans to take personal responsibility, then so be it. Compromise. [/quote] Some people call that shit crazy, but I would definitely vote for an issue like this. You're paying the lazy to make themselves sick; which in turns costs millions of dollars in unpaid healthcare. We've had guys come to our place here and try to sell us $50 of food stamps for $25 so they can go out and buy a bag of weed. Ridiculous. edit: I just realized I posted exactly what you said in different words. I overlooked an entire line while reading your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Also maybe spending trillions of dollars killing brown people overseas was a really bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1308943708' post='998482'] The 37%, is that state and federal combined, or including any other deductions? And do you work in a commission heavy\all commission environment? Not meaning to pry, I'm just trying to reconcile that % with the current federal tax rate. I'm no tax expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the top 1% might pay a large [b]amount[/b] of taxes, but I just don't buy that they pay a larger [b]proportion[/b] of taxes. Not when [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece"]Warren Buffet paid a lower tax rate than you or I did.[/url] [/quote] Its combined State and Federal, but its the Federal thats the killer. Any yes, I work in what amounts to a 100% commission pay structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1308943932' post='998484'] I absolutely am biased, I have never pretended otherwise, but my bias is in favor of the poor/middle class who have been getting it in the ass by the ultra wealthy for a very long time and against those who defend them because asking them to pay their fair share might be in their eyes "socialism". Sure there are some of them that take advantage of that system but I view that as an unfortunate cost of business for a system that should be in place to help the many that dont take advantage of it. Please explain to me how Warren Buffet paying less in tax [b]percentage[/b] than his secretary that only makes 60K and asking that that be fixed is unfair? Please explain to me how General Electric, ExxonMobil, Verizon ect paying negative taxes and asking that that be fixed is unfair? Please explain to me how moving their money offshore or declaring it as capital gains and asking that that be fixed is unfair? We really have to get away from this ideal that the ultra wealthy are doing their fair share, creating jobs (they are, in China) ect.. because its just not true by any stretch of the imagination. Further the biggest reason we have a "budget crisis" is because the ultra wealthy specifically those on Wall St gambled away the money and as a result many people who were otherwise working and paying into the system are out of work and cant pay into the system. So cutting those programs that may help those people get back into the system makes about how much sense? To me it's absolutely insane. To the ultra wealthy corporations that would rather just use Chinese "sweatshop cost" labor it is fine because they no longer need those people and would rather end everything they pay towards them be it in wages or in social programs designed to get them back to work in jobs that the elite have no reason to create. We really need to end free trade and stop allowing them to send our jobs overseas, then get back to paying people a fair wage that would allow them to participate in this economy again. [/quote] As far as I'm concerned, the poor and middle class, in America, can work to better themselves. Everyone's ailments are not caused by corporate greed. You have the ability to more or less work your way into a higher standard of life in this country. It may be a steeper hill to climb for some rather than others, but individual decisions are more constricting on ones lifestyle than MegaCorp Incorporateds tax structure. And I would say the budget crisis is more due to war, giveaways in our country, giveaways to nearly every other country, and a trade environment that heavily favors overseas industry and severely handicaps the United States ability to maintain a competitive pricing structure for goods and services. Of course, that last one is also a result of union bullying. If we did three things in the next five years we'd be in much better shape (assuming no tax hikes citizen/corporate): Stop the giveaways/Freebies to 100 other countries- fix us first before trying to fix everyone else Stop the giveaways/Freebies to tens of millions of US citizens- get them on track toward personal responsibility (this takes leadership from communities too- instead of blame game/finger pointing) End the Wars. All of them. Keep it clandestine if you must, but no more large scale occupying forces. In no particular order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1308944241' post='998486'] We've had guys come to our place here and try to sell us $50 of food stamps for $25 so they can go out and buy a bag of weed. Ridiculous. [/quote] Thats another BIG flaw in the system. The person who is assigned the benefits, should be the ONLY one who can use them at the store. It shouldnt be treated as currency, it should be treated as a personal check to buy healthy food. Show ID and have it match, or dont go shopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308945451' post='998489'] Its combined State and Federal, but its the Federal thats the killer. Any yes, I work in what amounts to a 100% commission pay structure. [/quote] Makes perfect sense, and I feel your pain. Our combined income puts us in a higher bracket, and let me tell you, with no house and no kids, the IRS bends us over and fucks us ever year. We have extra money taken out of each check and still need to send in extra. Here's the difference with me and the Mrs. compared to many in this country; we would be willing to pay [b]even more[/b], particularly if some value were derived, say like a single-payer health care program, or a feasible mass transit system, or to rebuild our infrastructure or pay down the national debt. Unfortunately as Jamie mentioned a big chunk of that money goes to kill brown people half a world away that never did a goddamn thing to me and towards other useless endeavors (didn't I read something about government funded shrimp olympics or something?). Sadly we don't get to choose where our tax dollars are allocated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308945954' post='998490'] As far as I'm concerned, the poor and middle class, in America, can work to better themselves. Everyone's ailments are not caused by corporate greed. You have the ability to more or less work your way into a higher standard of life in this country. It may be a steeper hill to climb for some rather than others, but individual decisions are more constricting on ones lifestyle than MegaCorp Incorporateds tax structure. And I would say the budget crisis is more due to war, giveaways in our country, giveaways to nearly every other country, and a trade environment that heavily favors overseas industry and severely handicaps the United States ability to maintain a competitive pricing structure for goods and services. Of course, that last one is also a result of union bullying. If we did three things in the next five years we'd be in much better shape (assuming no tax hikes citizen/corporate): Stop the giveaways/Freebies to 100 other countries- fix us first before trying to fix everyone else Stop the giveaways/Freebies to tens of millions of US citizens- get them on track toward personal responsibility (this takes leadership from communities too- instead of blame game/finger pointing) End the Wars. All of them. Keep it clandestine if you must, but no more large scale occupying forces. In no particular order. [/quote] As far as I'm concerned your defending the morally indefensible. Point by point. The notion that you can more or less move up is based in the fact that these "union bullies" that you would call did alot to make that happen. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions started by Reagan's busting of them has in turn created wage stagnation for the larger populace (Seen here - http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/01/revisiting-wage-stagnation). Therefore the notion that you can more or less "move up" is no longer really all that true, in fact most are one paycheck away from being on the streets. Meanwhile the pay of executives has skyrocketed in 1980 executive pay was 42% of the average blue collar worker in 2010 it's 343% (Seen here - http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/chart_ceopay.cfm). I'm not asking for it to be equal I am asking for it to be fair so that the average blue collar worker can have a family and put dinner on the table. Now do you really believe that these corporations have to make the hard choices to continue to profit and that's why the workers have to make sacrifices? If so where is the sacrifice of the executives? Oh the budget crisis is absolutely [b]IN PART[/b] due to the wars on that much we agree, but I think your naive to say the Wall St gambling had nothing to do with it. From 2001 to 2007 we have lost 2 million jobs to china (Seen here - http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp219/) this is directly due to our trade policies and not to any war. And those trade policies are a direct effect of corporate greed buying our politicians to change policies that protected us from this so that those same politicians can get money to win their elections. All because shareholders demand higher profits, and the best way to get those profits is to get cheap Chinese labor. And now with all those folks out of work you want to end the programs designed to help them? That's just cruel. These people didn't ask for those corporations to send their jobs to China and they aren't some "welfare mom" that you folks on the right like to create (which by the way that welfare mom that Reagan kept going on about, never existed.) they are hard working Americans that were doing what they thought they should be doing to get by and they had the rug pulled out from under them. You are entirely capable of that happening to you too, and I think that may be the only way for many to wake up to exactly what is being done to them. I sadly have come to the realization that until things get so bad that the majority are effected it wont change and they will keep blaming it on the poor and the unions. Our political system is broken and I don't think its going to get fixed until the suffering is so great by everybody that they stop eating ourselves and start to demand that it stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1308948495' post='998495'] As far as I'm concerned your defending the morally indefensible. Point by point. The notion that you can more or less move up is based in the fact that these "union bullies" that you would call did alot to make that happen. It is no coincidence that the decline of unions started by Reagan's busting of them has in turn created wage stagnation for the larger populace. Therefore the notion that you can more or less "move up" is no longer true really all that true, in fact most are one paycheck away from being on the streets. Meanwhile the pay of executives has skyrocketed in 1980 executive pay was 42% of the average blue collar worker in 2010 it's 343% (Seen here - http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/jobs/chart_ceopay.cfm). I'm not asking for it to be equal I am asking for it to be fair so that the average blue collar worker can have a family and put dinner on the table. Now do you really believe that these corporations have to make the hard choices to continue to profit and that's why the workers have to make sacrifices? If so where is the sacrifice of the executives? Oh the budget crisis is absolutely [b]IN PART[/b] due to the wars on that much we agree, but I think your naive to say the Wall St gambling had nothing to do with it. From 2001 to 2007 we have lost 2 million jobs to china (Seen here - http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp219/) this is directly due to our trade policies and not to any war. And those trade policies are a direct effect of corporate greed buying our politicians to change policies that protected us from this so that those same politicians can get money to win their elections. And now with all those folks out of work you want to end the programs designed to help them? That's just cruel. These people didn't ask for those corporations to send their jobs to China and they aren't some "welfare mom" that you folks on the right like to create (which by the way that welfare mom that Reagan kept going on about, never existed.) they are hard working Americans that were doing what they thought they should be doing to get by and they had the rug pulled out from under them. You are entirely capable of that happening to you too, and I think that may be the only way for many to wake up to exactly what is being done to them. I sadly have come to the realization that until things get so bad that the majority are effected it wont change and they will keep blaming it on the poor and the unions. Our political system is broken and I don't think its going to get fixed until the suffering is so great by everybody that they stop eating ourselves and start to demand that it stop. [/quote] 1. You can move up. Anyone can move up. Its about determination and hard work. Jealous of Executive pay? Bust your ass to become an exectutive. People who resent the success of others are a miserable sort. 2. I said in my previous post that a big issue was jobs being shipped overseas, and American companies not being able to compete. That we agree on. I didnt mention Wall Street. I know they've fucked up their fair share. Unions are as big a reason as any that our industry cannot maintain a competitive advantage. They single handidly destroyed the US Auto industry, among many others. Unions for public servants can be very useful. Unions for private industry is a death knell in a companies ability to maintain competitive advantage vs overseas industry. Look at the recent case for Boeing and right to work state of S. Carolina, while adding hundreds of additional union jobs in Washington. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. 3. You actually think the majority of welfare recipients for the past 30 years are just people down on their luck? Hardworking Americans who just happened to hit a rough spot? Hell... Hell... Hell no. Come on man. The economy has recently put people into a tough spot that otherwise wouldnt be, but the majority of welfare recipients are virtually worthless as far as contributing anything to a positive, productive society. I'm not talking about someone collecting unemployment for 6 months, this is an epidemic, and its a liberal government created disease. Welfare was never intended to reward laziness, crime, and excessive irresponsible breeding. Welfare has destroyed the nuclear family. It has made it possible for a single mother to have 5 kids without regard to personal responsibility, responsibility to her children to raise them in a positive environment, and without repercussion. Welfare has created a crutch where people no longer have the hard work to support your family mentality that other generations of lower class Americans did. You think "welfare moms" dont exist? What world do you live in? I know we will never agree with this type of thing, but dude, open your eyes. Take politics out of it. Our country is being poisoned from many angles, and just because you like to blame some, doesnt mean you cant realize the others. I think sometimes people on the far right and far left are so intensely focused on hating the other side, they cant see the forest through the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1308949570' post='998499'] 1. You can move up. Anyone can move up. Its about determination and hard work. Jealous of Executive pay? Bust your ass to become an exectutive. People who resent the success of others are a miserable sort. 2. I said in my previous post that a big issue was jobs being shipped overseas, and American companies not being able to compete. That we agree on. I didnt mention Wall Street. I know they've fucked up their fair share. Unions are as big a reason as any that our industry cannot maintain a competitive advantage. They single handidly destroyed the US Auto industry, among many others. Unions for public servants can be very useful. Unions for private industry is a death knell in a companies ability to maintain competitive advantage vs overseas industry. Look at the recent case for Boeing and right to work state of S. Carolina, while adding hundreds of additional union jobs in Washington. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. 3. You actually think the majority of welfare recipients for the past 30 years are just people down on their luck? Hardworking Americans who just happened to hit a rough spot? Hell... Hell... Hell no. Come on man. The economy has recently put people into a tough spot that otherwise wouldnt be, but the majority of welfare recipients are virtually worthless as far as contributing anything to a positive, productive society. I'm not talking about someone collecting unemployment for 6 months, this is an epidemic, and its a liberal government created disease. Welfare was never intended to reward laziness, crime, and excessive irresponsible breeding. Welfare has destroyed the nuclear family. It has made it possible for a single mother to have 5 kids without regard to personal responsibility, responsibility to her children to raise them in a positive environment, and without repercussion. Welfare has created a crutch where people no longer have the hard work to support your family mentality that other generations of lower class Americans did. You think "welfare moms" dont exist? What world do you live in? I know we will never agree with this type of thing, but dude, open your eyes. Take politics out of it. Our country is being poisoned from many angles, and just because you like to blame some, doesnt mean you cant realize the others. I think sometimes people on the far right and far left are so intensely focused on hating the other side, they cant see the forest through the trees. [/quote] 1.... Naw forget it I can see when I'm wasting my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I don't know why its so difficult to see that a certain percentage of both extremely wealthy and poor people are abusing the system and doing their fair share of fucking over everybody else Imo the problem lies in everyone's individual mentality, not willing to pay/spend a little more to keep jobs in the country or keep local/small businesses going, not willing to help out people less fortunate....if a lot more people had elflocko's mentality then I don't think we're in this mess at all I've come to terms with the fact that people are going to abuse the system, and it blows, but I refuse to believe its a majority Guess that makes me a commi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.