|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110403/ap_on_re_us/us_gop2012_budgetThe short list of the plan involves: "Premium support system" for Medicare, so that plans are administered through private companies. Premium subsidies would be greatest for the elderly with the least in assets. In effect, would achieve a sort of means test for Medicare. Tax reform. Goal is to broaden the base instead of increasing rates. (No specifics here yet though). Capping nondefense discretionary spending at 2008 levels (before the recession). I actually think this is a very important, good step. Neither side has wanted to take the step forward with this political hot potato. I would say it took a lot of political guts for Ryan to come forward with this plan. These are good ideas that are worth debating. Some possible problems I see though. With the new Medicare system, would it really control costs? Right now, Medicare controls cost b/c it can dictate what it will pay. Under a market-driven system, I have read estimates (which I think are actually conservative) that a comparable plan for a younger person and an elderly person would cost the elderly person 3-5X more due to the much higher risk. I would have to see some projections, but my worry is that for this plan to actually achieve savings, seniors will have to pay a lot more. I really like the idea of tax reform, but I would like to see some specifics. I realize that we cannot sustain current discretionary spending levels in perpetuity. But it would really concern me if we started making drastic cuts right now. Our economy is still in a fragile state. For the same reason that I think extending the tax cuts two more years was probably a necessary evil, I believe that discretionary spending shouldn't be drastically cut until the recovery looks more stable. This most recent drop in the unemployment rate is actually the first time that it appears the job gain was by the private sector adding jobs. Previous fluctuations seemed to be more things like adding temporary census workers or having less people out looking for jobs. One cycle of significant private sector job gain is not enough for me to be overly confident.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
GOP 2012 budget to make $4 trillion-plus in cuts By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Apr 3, 9:53 PM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican plan for the 2012 budget would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, more than even the president's debt commission proposed, with spending caps as well as changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, its principal author said Sunday. The spending blueprint from Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is to be released Tuesday. It deals with the budget year that begins Oct. 1, not the current one that is the subject of negotiations aimed at preventing a partial government shutdown on Friday. In an interview with "Fox News Sunday," Ryan said budget writers are working out the 2012 numbers with the Congressional Budget Office, but he said the overall spending reductions would come to "a lot more" than $4 trillion. The debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama recommended a plan that it said would achieve nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Ryan said Obama's call for freezing nondefense discretionary spending actually locks in spending at high levels. Under the forthcoming GOP plan, Ryan said spending would return to 2008 levels and thus cut an additional $400 billion over 10 years. Speaking broadly about the proposal, Ryan said it would include: -A "premium support system" for Medicare. In the future, older people would choose plans in the marketplace and the government would subsidize those plans. Ryan said that would differ from the voucher system he has proposed in the past. Those 55 and older would remain under the present Medicare system. Ryan acknowledged that the "premium support system" would shift more costs to Medicare recipients, especially what he called "wealthy seniors." He did not define at what level someone would be considered wealthy. -Block grants to states for Medicaid, the health program for the poor. Ryan disputed reports that the plan would seek savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, but would say only that the details would be in the plan. "Medicare and Medicaid spending will go up every single year under our budget. They don't just go up as much as they're going right now," he said. Ryan said governors have told members of Congress they want "the freedom to customize our Medicaid programs. ... We want to get governors freedom to do that." -A statutory cap on actual discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy. While Ryan did not specify the amount during the interview, he said it would be at a lower level than proposed by Obama and would return the government to its "historic size." -Pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base. Ryan said overhauling taxes would boost the economy. The plan will not propose tax increases. Ryan was a member of the bipartisan debt commission but voted against its final recommendations, saying they failed to reduce spending on health care. The commission also endorsed tax increases along with painful spending cuts as necessary to dealing with the debt problem. "We're not going to go down the path of raising taxes on people and raising taxes on the economy. We want to go after the source of the problem, and that is spending," Ryan said Sunday. Ryan didn't mention how the budget plan would address Social Security. Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, slammed Ryan's plan in a press release Sunday. "It is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans," Van Hollen said. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia was skeptical that Ryan's proposal could achieve its targets without damaging social programs. He also questioned whether reductions in defense spending and seeking more revenue through tax reform would be part of the plan. "I don't know how you get there without taking basically a meat ax to those programs who protect the most vulnerable in the country," Warner said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I'll give anybody the benefit of a doubt until I get a chance to look at the details," he said, "but I think the only way you're going to really get there is if you put all of these things, including defense spending, including tax reform, as part of the overall package." Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., part of a six-member group of Republicans and Democrats forging their own budget proposal, said that the lawmakers would be looking for "real balance" in Ryan's plan and wanting all options considered. "I think we'll come at it differently," Durbin said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "The idea of sparing the Pentagon from any savings, not imposing any new sacrifice on the wealthiest Americans, I think goes way too far. We have got to make certain that it's a balanced approach and one that can be sustained over the next 10 years." Ryan criticized Obama, telling Fox that the president was "punting on the budget and not doing a thing to prevent a debt crisis, which every single economist tells us is coming sooner rather than later in this country." "You have to address the drivers of our debt," he said. "We need to engage with the American people on a fact-based budget, on stopping politicians from making empty promises to people and talk to the country about what is necessary to fix these problems." © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. web page I will just throw this out there, I am NOT among the wealthiest Americans.. not even close. But if they are willing to take this kind of an approach to cutting spending, then I will consider having my taxes raised a bit and I would consider raising taxes on the "rich" as well... I would also like to see them raised at all ends of the spectrum so everybody pays something, no matter how little. My big gripe on taxes has always been that I'm not giving you more so you can waste it...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
It's a courageous budget proposal start ..... one that gives the Democrats plenty of opportunities to demonize the Republicans ..... but is it also a pretty honest attempt at starting to balance the budget without raising taxes.
I wish that they would look at the "New Year Celebration" known as the Earned income Tax Credit that puts thousands of dollars into the pockets of people who pay no taxes to start with ..... and also puts tons of money into the pockets of "instant tax refund" providers who charge $500 or more to file a simple EZ form and give an advance loan check.
I feel that there are tons of areas that can immediately be cut dramatically .... in social spending, tax credits, defense, and all layers of beauracracy.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
To be fair, I'd have to read through the thing, but off the top of my head, I'm a little concerned that not only does this bill not take on corporate welfare and subsidies, but it actually includes plans for more of it.
Also, I didn't see any mention of significant cuts to defense spending.
Again, haven't read anything concrete, can't comment too much ... though I imagine if it's coming from the GOP, it will be a load of bunk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
So, the GOP has a budget plan eh?
How much you want to bet that it targets the poor and middle class and gives bonuses to the wealthy?
Let's see:
- Block grants to states for Medicaid, the health program for the poor.
BLOCK GRANTS?! Are you kidding me? What if there is a natural disaster or something with the economy? Would it's funding rise, when needed? No. It wouldn't. Just another way to screw the poor. Typical Republicans - going after the poor.
-A statutory cap on actual discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy. While Ryan did not specify the amount during the interview, he said it would be at a lower level than proposed by Obama and would return the government to its "historic size."
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Restore it to its "historic size"? Does that mean there will only be 13 states? What the hell does he mean its "historic size"? But, whatever it is, it will be better than Obama's plan. Why? Because anything and everything they do will be better than Obama's plan even when it isn't better simply because they hate Obama.
-Pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base. Ryan said overhauling taxes would boost the economy. The plan will not propose tax increases.
Pro-Growth tax changes? Just another way of saying tax breaks for the wealthy.
-Ryan criticized Obama
Really? He's a Republican. When don't Republicans criticize Obama? They criticized Obama for not going into Libya. Then, they criticized Obama for going into Libya.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Here's a hint Charlie ......
Many of us are far from rich ....... but are still being asked to support the lazy and unmotivated. We are asked to pay exorbitant taxes to supprt excessive government spending, and programs that are wasteful and ineffective. Guess what? We're tired of it.
You can rant all you want .... but I can work hard and make a good life for myself. Unfortunately, this is made harder because of the tax load put upon me by a government convinced that it has a responsibility, not to help people ..... but to support them. This is the epitome of ineptitude, and also a cruel and mean spirited thing to do to people. Robbing people of the right to earn their own way, to earn their own belongings, and to earn the joy and satisfaction that comes from earning your own way is stripped away from them in the name of compassion.
It is one of the most evil and abhorrent acts of "kindness" ever committed. It is time for it to end.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
I got an idea...Quit all your bitching and get a job. That way the government can have more tax dollars so it can pay for all your socialist programs.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So, the GOP has a budget plan eh?
How much you want to bet that it targets the poor and middle class and gives bonuses to the wealthy?
It's GOP so you aren't going to like it no matter what it says... so no thinking person is really going to care what you think about it.
Phil showed some objectivity.. I haven't read it either, I'm sure it's far from perfect but I can guarantee you that it is better than that joke of budget Obama put forth.. it is the first real attempt to establish a place from which to start a debate that has been put forward...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Many of us are far from rich ....... but are still being asked to support the lazy and unmotivated. We are asked to pay exorbitant taxes to supprt excessive government spending, and programs that are wasteful and ineffective. Guess what? We're tired of it.
The lazy and unmotivated? That's what you call the poor? It is so very wasteful and ineffective to help the poor. After all, nature will take it's course right? The strong rule over the weak and if the weak don't like it and can't sustain themselves - they die. Who knew Republicans were Social Darwinists! Oh wait, I already suspected as much.
Quote:
You can rant all you want .... but I can work hard and make a good life for myself.
Yep, because that's all that's important - right? Yourself.
Quote:
Unfortunately, this is made harder because of the tax load put upon me by a government convinced that it has a responsibility, not to help people ..... but to support them. This is the epitome of ineptitude, and also a cruel and mean spirited thing to do to people.
Yea, helping the poor is so mean spirited. We should just let them die instead, right?
Quote:
Robbing people of the right to earn their own way, to earn their own belongings, and to earn the joy and satisfaction that comes from earning your own way is stripped away from them in the name of compassion.
Yea, robbing the rich to help the poor is such an evil thing to do. Why, it is like denying a millionaire the right to own a gold plated dinner table for 500 part guests (even though he only eats by himself) and instead giving that money to 1500 homeless people who haven't eaten a decent meal in weeks.
Quote:
It is one of the most evil and abhorrent acts of "kindness" ever committed. It is time for it to end.
Yea, it is so evil and abhorrent. That poor millionaire....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Some are poor because they choose to be. Because they choose not to work and freeload off the system while paying nothing into it. Like you. I'm willing to help someone in need, but they need to be willing to help themselves first.
Given your hatred for religion, I thought you'd be all for Darwinism.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
The lazy and unmotivated? That's what you call the poor? It is so very wasteful and ineffective to help the poor. After all, nature will take it's course right? The strong rule over the weak and if the weak don't like it and can't sustain themselves - they die. Who knew Republicans were Social Darwinists! Oh wait, I already suspected as much.
To hell with them.
Quote:
Yep, because that's all that's important - right? Yourself.
Absolutely.
Quote:
Yea, helping the poor is so mean spirited. We should just let them die instead, right?
I'm good with that.
Quote:
Yea, robbing the rich to help the poor is such an evil thing to do. Why, it is like denying a millionaire the right to own a gold plated dinner table for 500 part guests (even though he only eats by himself) and instead giving that money to a man who hasn't eaten a decent meal in weeks.
Let them earn their own money. Not my problem.
I hope these are all the answers you were looking for.
How is it that you have managed to be in school until your late 20's without working?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Some are poor because they choose to be. Because they choose not to work and freeload off the system while paying nothing into it. Like you. I'm willing to help someone in need, but they need to be willing to help themselves first.
Given your hatred for religion, I thought you'd be all for Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It was created by 19th century aristocrats to explain why they should not feel obligated to give to charities nor to help the poor.
This is the last time I am going to tell you this - I am sick and tired of having to tell you all this. I have a job. You are not paying me anything. You may want to sit here and try to belittle me by claiming such to make yourself feel like a "better" person. It is a lie created by you to justify your own delusions of grandeur.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
You can rant all you want .... but I can work hard and make a good life for myself.
Yep, because that's all that's important - right? Yourself.
I'm sure as hell not going to work hard to make a good life for you. 
And this is just me sort of going out on a limb but I bet the average person on this board who advocates the type of economy where a person gets to reap the fruits of their own hard work.. I'll bet that average personpays more taxes AND gives more to charity than you do... but that's just a guess...and you have nothing but contempt for those people...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
No ... I call lazy and unmotivated, lazy and unmotivated.
I'm pretty straight forward. There's not much gray area with my statements. I don't nuance much. Many poor people are poor because they have been "generationalized" into a cycle of poverty. They are poor .... their parents (if they even know their father) were poor .... grandparents ... great gandparents ... and back 10 generations. There is no motivation ..... because they've never had to learn motivation. There's no need to be an adult, and function as an adult .... because government will always be the adult. It's a mean spirited and hateful cycle disguised as compassion. It is a way to keep poor people "in line" so they never try to rise up. It is a way to ensure that a lower class will always exist, and a way to ensure that certain, specific jobs will always have access to some low wage employees.
Further, it is a way to take away hope, incentive, and ambition from entire segments of our society. It is telling people that "this is what you are, and it is what you will always be .... even if we have to pa to ensure that this is what you stay."
It is abhorrent. It is disgusting. The worst part is that many people see it as kindness. That is about the most abominable part of the entire welfare state. This is many peoples' only "hope" ..... and he who controls hope, controls all.
What this country needs is a dose of tough love, and a lesson in personal and civic responsibility. Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen any time soon .... because too many are invested in keeping poor people poor (and it's not "only" who you think it is) ....... and no one has the courage to truly bring about change that would be painful at first ..... but incredibly benefical in the long run.
Oh .. and Charlie ...... your problem is not fairness .... it's jealousy. You are jealous of anyone who has worked their ass off to get ahead, and create a decent life for themself. "Those people" don't "deserve" what they have earned ..... do they? You should have the right to work 5 days/month and take their stuff because that's "fair", right?
No ..... it's ridiculous.
Hopefully, one day, you'll grow up and actually contribute to the world, rather than taking from it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
And this is just me sort of going out on a limb but I bet the average person on this board who advocates the type of economy where a person gets to reap the fruits of their own hard work.. I'll bet that average personpays more taxes AND gives more to charity than you do... but that's just a guess...and you have nothing but contempt for those people...
That's because they all believe in the false promise that lured many people to America. That you can become rich and snobby just like Carnegie! Yea, that's what everyone wants to be - the Monopoly man.
Utter horse manure. People do not want to be a tycoon. People want to live their lives and ensure their family is well cared for - simple as that.
How is your family better taken care of? A society where monetary possession determines if they live or die. Or, a society where medical care is given universally to all the citizens of the country?
I go with option B. Because option A you are not guaranteed that they will be able to get whatever medical care they need unless you have millions to buy off greedy corporatists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Quote:
How is your family better taken care of? A society where monetary possession determines if they live or die. Or, a society where medical care is given universally to all the citizens of the country?
What you leave out is that "universal" care doesn't mean that everyone will get all of the care they want/need. Care will be rationed, because that's the way it goes. Someone still has to pay for the care ..... and even if it's government .... then they have to fit a budget.
Watch what happens with this crap if it continues. Hospitals will close. Care will be rationed. Doctors will go out of business. Fewer people will go to school to become doctors. Pharmaceutical companies will cut their developmental budgets because there won't be a large enough profit margin to pay for R&D.
Yep. Utopia. 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Watch what happens with this crap if it continues. Hospitals will close. Care will be rationed. Doctors will go out of business. Fewer people will go to school to become doctors. Pharmaceutical companies will cut their developmental budgets because there won't be a large enough profit margin to pay for R&D.
Yea, probably. But that is because there is a political party that cares more for the top 1% than it does for its regular everyday citizens. Instead of keeping all that money for them it should go to the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
That is such utter BS.
How much does the bottom 50% pay in taxes to support the operation and facilities in thie country?
How do poor people currently pay for hospital care?
Top 1% my ass. If it weren't for the top 50% or so, there would be no services in this country, because we pay the damn bills.
All of them.
Every last stinking one.
You pay nothing. You contribute nothing. You must be so proud.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
That is such utter BS.
How much does the bottom 50% pay in taxes to support the operation and facilities in thie country?
How do poor people currently pay for hospital care?
Top 1% my ass. If it weren't for the top 50% or so, there would be no services in this country, because we pay the damn bills.
All of them.
Every last stinking one.
You pay nothing. You contribute nothing. You must be so proud.
It is really funny. Everytime I mention where most of the money is, you all claim that they pay too much already when they still have so much money. You are acting like they have had 98% of their total money taken away from them. Though, honestly, even that would leave them enough to live comfortably.
Instead of focusing on them, you try instead to change the subject to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
It is really funny. Everytime I mention where most of the money is, you all claim that they pay too much already when they still have so much money. You are acting like they have had 98% of their total money taken away from them. Though, honestly, even that would leave them enough to live comfortably.
Instead of focusing on them, you try instead to change the subject to me.
While you present a valid point, the idea of America is not about taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Could you still have enough to get by if all that you had was your family and a tent in the wild? I mean, it wouldn't be ideal but you are still able to get by. That is your argument exactly. The only thing you are doing is changing the relativitiy of it. Someone who is a billionaire could get by comfortably on a million dollars ... sure? But it's not about what they could get by on. It's about what they actually earned and accomplished, and you continue to think that it's ok for them to have more and more taken from them because they can still live comfortably.
Here's a question. What will you do when the "rich" move out of America and go to a country where they can avoid these taxes? I know if I had millions I would be siphoning my money into foreign accounts and preparing to leave. As long as people like you continue to disrespect and belittle the risk that those "rich" took as well as their means to start businesses and provide jobs for others, America won't be safe. People like you won't ever work hard or solve their own problems... their number one solution is "don't worry about it ... let's just go take more from the haves!"
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Here's a question. What will you do when the "rich" move out of America and go to a country where they can avoid these taxes? I know if I had millions I would be siphoning my money into foreign accounts and preparing to leave. As long as people like you continue to disrespect and belittle the risk that those "rich" took as well as their means to start businesses and provide jobs for others, America won't be safe. People like you won't ever work hard or solve their own problems... their number one solution is "don't worry about it ... let's just go take more from the haves!"
Those accounts would be seized and that person would be named an international criminal. Also, you are assuming that in a society where everyone was equal that there still would be "have's" and "have nots".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I don't think you get my question. It's possibly my mistake.
I meant what WILL you do when the individual businesses liquidate their funds to other countries? They can already tie their cash up in either tax free accounts, put it into supplies and assets (like factories and equipment) that they store overseas, and other fine tricks. The fact that I know and I'm not even a CPA (at least yet) means that there are those FAR smarter than me with means of doing so.
So when all the money leaves LEGALLY I might add ... where do you go to solve your problems? You can't shake the money tree forever.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
I meant what WILL you do when the individual businesses liquidate their funds to other countries? They can already tie their cash up in either tax free accounts, put it into supplies and assets (like factories and equipment) that they store overseas, and other fine tricks. The fact that I know and I'm not even a CPA (at least yet) means that there are those FAR smarter than me with means of doing so.
So when all the money leaves LEGALLY I might add ... where do you go to solve your problems? You can't shake the money tree forever.
Well, in that situation I am the government. So, I can change the laws to go after their assets and prevent them from making such an act.
Look at Russia and what it did with its oligarchs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
Quote:
This is the last time I am going to tell you this - I am sick and tired of having to tell you all this. I have a job. You are not paying me anything. You may want to sit here and try to belittle me by claiming such to make yourself feel like a "better" person. It is a lie created by you to justify your own delusions of grandeur.
Well, let's set the record straight. You choose to live a meager lifestyle and work about 5 days a month substitute teaching. Those were your words, correct me if I'm wrong. Most of us here can not understand how you can live on that without assistance.
You claim to pay taxes. Is the refund check more than what you've paid in? On a 5 day a month substitute teacher's wage, it would have to be given the allowable exemptions and credits.
Something isn't right here, tell us what it is.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I don't think you understand. If a company theoretically has 80% of their assets tied up in foreign markets and assets ... by you "going after" those assets you would be seizing millions of dollars of assets from foreign countries?
I apologize I just don't think you understand my point and I don't think I get yours haha.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Well, let's set the record straight. You choose to live a meager lifestyle and work about 5 days a month substitute teaching. Those were your words, correct me if I'm wrong. Most of us here can not understand how you can live on that without assistance.
That would be an accurate description of my first month substitute teaching. There are many more months though. At the time, it was accurate. But, like all estimates they do not always stay the same. For instance, after posting that I had a long period were every day I subbed (period was roughtly a month and a half).
Quote:
You claim to pay taxes. Is the refund check more than what you've paid in? On a 5 day a month substitute teacher's wage, it would have to be given the allowable exemptions and credits.
My refund is not done yet and if it were done I would not share that with you.
Quote:
Something isn't right here, tell us what it is.
The idea/assumption that the variables would never change.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
What will you do when the "rich" move out of America and go to a country where they can avoid these taxes?
Work in their calls centers and sew their clothing? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
I don't think you understand. If a company theoretically has 80% of their assets tied up in foreign markets and assets ... by you "going after" those assets you would be seizing millions of dollars of assets from foreign countries?
I apologize I just don't think you understand my point and I don't think I get yours haha.
The CEO's of those companies are guilty of tax evasion. Russia had several tycoons (called oligarchs) that attempted such a thing. Putin went after them and had their assets seized and they were imprisoned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Quote:
The CEO's of those companies are guilty of tax evasion.
Wrong. Under the current Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Tax Codes and Corporate codes they are not guilty of any tax evasion. That was part of the premise. There are ways to report joint profit through subsidiaries, foreign investment and other more complicated matters as well that I would be fine with explaining with you. Some of which I don't fully know though I will say.
Point being. 100% LEGAL.
Quote:
Russia had several tycoons (called oligarchs) that attempted such a thing. Putin went after them and had their assets seized and they were imprisoned.
Once again. It's not illegal. I'm not talking about smuggling money over the border in briefcases or having it wired. I'm talking about 100% legal tax forms that if a guy like ME knows how to do ... I almost shudder to think what the really sneaky "S.O.B.s" can do.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Wrong. Under the current Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Tax Codes and Corporate codes they are not guilty of any tax evasion. That was part of the premise. There are ways to report joint profit through subsidiaries, foreign investment and other more complicated matters as well that I would be fine with explaining with you. Some of which I don't fully know though I will say.
Point being. 100% LEGAL.
You are basing this hypothesis on if I was the government. If I am the government I have the ability to change law. So, that loophole would theoretically be closed - thus making it tax evasion.
Your questions all fall under "what if". I really hate "what if" games.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
I never based it on if you were the government. I am basing it on what you as a PERSON would do if the rich left. You as a person who thinks it's up to the rich to solve all of the money related problems.
Go back and look at my posts I never said you were the government. BUT even if I did .. if the money is already overseas what are you going to do? Call those people criminals? You need their help more than ever if they as the billionaires are gone. There goes most all of you money, most all of your business, no more exports, and etc. You could call them all in as criminals but the nations that are harboring them and their billions of dollars probably won't help you out. Besides, you would be busy dealing with the (most likely) revolting citizens who want to know why you drove out their business?
But pretending you weren't in charge... and you were only Charlie the guy who hates those who have money and think that they don't deserve what they have earned .... what would you do if all of those rich bolted overseas in a legal way? You think your problems would be solved now that all the rich are gone? If so then you are probably mad at Obama for bailing out the Auto unions. Because they probably wouldn't have had ANY money there let alone the rich. Then they would all be happy because no rich people would be there to ruin their lives with greed and money.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
I think I'm done with your hypotheticals.
If I was little old me I would be little old me and people would not be revolting because I am little old me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,590 |
Haha well I didn't mean to get you all tired out But seriously. I just think that (as I have said) the majority of your argument continues to say that the rich and the money are the problem and we should take from them to fix the problems of the poor. But what if they were gone? Because it can happen. We would have to go out and fix our own society and build our own systems and then we would inevitably find out that no matter how you govern, some people just plain work harder and contribute more than others. Can you punish a guy who works 10 hours a day for 7 days a week for working hard? No. And you can't just pay him what the guy who doesn't care about working so just half-behinds it for 20 hours a week ... so you reward them for their services. Compound that over a few decades and the people who are the go getters and the hard workers will be at the top (the majority) or if they were born into poverty will be pushing their family up through the top and breaking through. Likewise those who don't do much will either be at the bottom or squandering their wealth and heading on down.
"Believe deep down in your heart that you're destined to do great things."
@pstu24
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,122 |
Quote:
I think I'm done with your hypotheticals.
If I was little old me I would be little old me and people would not be revolting because I am little old me.
No hypothetical at all. You want the rich to pay for everything. When the rich leave, the funds for all your freeloading programs will dry up. What then? Where will the money come from when you can't steal from the rich anymore?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc
A budget thread has become a thread replying to Charlie.
One thing is clear. Charlie doesn't know or care what anyone thinks or says, all he wants is for you all to respond to him, it makes him feel important.
Essentially, he is a troll. And your all feeding him.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
That's because they all believe in the false promise that lured many people to America. That you can become rich and snobby just like Carnegie! Yea, that's what everyone wants to be - the Monopoly man.
Utter horse manure. People do not want to be a tycoon. People want to live their lives and ensure their family is well cared for - simple as that.
See Charlie, this is where you are wrong. The American dream is whatever you want it to be. Unfortunately you seem to think that you should get to decide what my American dream is... if you or anybody wants to be a Carnegie or a Rockefeller, the possibility exists for that to happen in this country like in no other country, if that is your dream, then go for it. If you want to live a stable upper middle class life in the suburbs with a decent home and your kids in little league and save a bit to retire to the coast of South Carolina.. you can have that too if that is your version of the dream... If you want to make just enough to get by, live off the land, and raise your family (or live by yourself) in a secluded cabin in the woods you are equally free to do that, just getting by on the bare essentials and what nature provides.. if that is your dream, by God man go get it.... what should not be the American dream, what should NEVER be the American dream, is to live a life where you consistently take more out of the government than you put into it.... and that has become the new American dream for a growing number of people, to live off the government and the hard work of others... and that is unsustainable.
Quote:
How is your family better taken care of? A society where monetary possession determines if they live or die. Or, a society where medical care is given universally to all the citizens of the country?
Who in this country is allowed to die because of lack of medical care? Monetary possessions don't determine if my family lives or dies, I have a job, a job that provides great benefits, I have very good insurance. I have that because I went to school and worked hard and got the education and sought out a job where I know I'm never going to be rich but it's a family friendly company that encourages me to take vacation and it encourages me to spend time with my family and it works hard to maintain good benefits even as the market sucks... So I would say I take A because that allows me to provide for my family.. Option B, where I get to work hard to provide for my family, then have the govenment steal a large portion of my money so they can use it to buy votes.. .errr, I mean take care of other peoples families.. is not my idea of utopia.
Quote:
I go with option B. Because option A you are not guaranteed that they will be able to get whatever medical care they need unless you have millions to buy off greedy corporatists.
I go with Option A because in the end, under option B, the overall quality of medical care for everybody will go down... considerably... and I don't want to live in a society that strives to achieve the lowest common denominator... and that is what your utopia would eventually achieve.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
That's because Charlie is the only one willing to openly argue that total socialism is a good thing and that it could work.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
That's because Charlie is the only one willing to openly argue that total socialism is a good thing and that it could work.
He's not even doing that, he just argues against any point people post.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
I go with Option A because in the end, under option B, the overall quality of medical care for everybody will go down... considerably... and I don't want to live in a society that strives to achieve the lowest common denominator... and that is what your utopia would eventually achieve.
You know....I always wondered why people weren't beating down the doors trying to get appoinments with those Cold War Soviet Doctors instead of American ones???? 
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,537 |
Y-Town... you crack me up.
I understand your frustration with "helping the poor" as you call it, BUT alot of those benefits are for retired folks who paid their dues. What do you say to them? Sorry you're getting screwed... sorry you drank the GOP coolaid and thought all you had to do was work really hard and pay your taxes...
I'm like a lot of you and feel taxation in any form is theft. But I can't justify in my mind spending tax dollars to increase the profits of big business while telling the so called poor to bugger off. The subsidising of medicaid and medicare... He wants to privatize it. That's what it needs, MIDDLE MEN!
The Republians are lost. The Democrats are lost. Nobody thinks in terms of good for everyone or even the best for eveyone... NO, NO it's my guys win your guys lose. NOTHING EVER CHANGES IN WASHINGTON.
This country needs a multi tiered (tax levels) flat tax with all tax breaks, credits and special interest crap removed. It needs to reduce defense spending by 50% or more. It needs to reduce fed employee wages by 30% or more. It needs a balanced budget with 20% annual reduction to the deficit.
BUT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
While your lumping everyone into the LAZY bracket please explain the following:
Americans with disabilities? Physical and Mental.
Disabled Vets?
The retired folks who paid thier dues?
Children who can't fend for themselves?
Did you forget about these people? I know they are not you, but come on man, even you gotta agree we can't screw these people.
IF you can justify this then you're not really a Republican, Democrat, or an Independent... You're a Tax Protester.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum GOP budget plan (both short term
and long term)
|
|
