First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Government Shutdown
50506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Wisconsin
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

Cecilthedarkknight234 wrote:

didn't shut down, what a shame I was looking forward anarchy lol

There's still the debt ceiling debate to look forward too, to say nothing about Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget. We can fail yet.
21250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/9/11
a majority of the politicians right now are full of it and don't care about people like they should.
just concerned with getting their money from all the big companies that they help pass bills for.

i can't tell you how many people i saw come in with outrageous tax return checks and i know they don't have a job, but they have like seven kids ranging in age from 6 mo. to 10 years old. i just don't think its a good decision to reward laziness and MEDIOCRITY!! if your going to pay them money make them do something, like i dunno clean up trash off the highway or something.

24248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Right behind you
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

fatbarbE wrote:

a majority of the politicians right now are full of it and don't care about people like they should.
just concerned with getting their money from all the big companies that they help pass bills for.

i can't tell you how many people i saw come in with outrageous tax return checks and i know they don't have a job, but they have like seven kids ranging in age from 6 mo. to 10 years old. i just don't think its a good decision to reward laziness and MEDIOCRITY!! if your going to pay them money make them do something, like i dunno clean up trash off the highway or something.



So you'd rather let a family starve instead of helping them out? And when you talk about parents with 7 or more kids I'm assuming you're trying to reference the octomom, she's a unique case.

Also haven't you heard? Times are tough in America, many people are struggling to get jobs, and after pregnancy the woman has to take at least a month or so off to recover from their pregnancy.
21250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/9/11
Not talking about octomom at all, I'm talking about people who get monthly assistance from the government for having a bunch of kids when they don't have jobs and can't take care of them. There are people who live paycheck to paycheck and don't get assistance because they are actually trying to work.

I'm just saying our government or at least the way its being run is ridiculous
24248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Right behind you
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

fatbarbE wrote:

Not talking about octomom at all, I'm talking about people who get monthly assistance from the government for having a bunch of kids when they don't have jobs and can't take care of them. There are people who live paycheck to paycheck and don't get assistance because they are actually trying to work.

I'm just saying our government or at least the way its being run is ridiculous


Well would you want to give up YOUR child up for adoption?

Well the government as it is right now is helping out corporations more than helping out the people, why? Blame the politicians who lobbied to get these bills passed. What I hate about people in general when it comes to politics is that they blame the people in charge (Currently Democrats, but I don't like what they're doing either) without really going into the facts of what is actually happening and just listening to Cable News like Fox or CNN.
69987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Where the heart is
Offline
Posted 4/9/11 , edited 4/9/11

Pikachu_kun wrote:

The main reason the government was going to shut down was because America had passed it's borrowing budget. The Democrats and the Republicans in congress couldn't negotiate a budget/didn't want to compromise, hence we have this issue.


No, this issue came about when the dems who were in charge of the White House, Senate, and House of Reps. did not pass a 2010 budget at all, and waited until now to do anything. And of course they're only dealing with that now, because the republicans are making them face it. Largely I'm very disappointed that the Republicans caved in to the dems in their idea of a spending cut.


Protip: Politicians only care about themselves. They rarely care about the people.



This is a universal truth

On other notes. My tax dollars shouldn't be used for other people's mistakes, I pay for my own mistakes as I feel I should. The cheap alternative to abortion is birth control, both parties have a role in this. The free method is to keep your legs closed. Granted sex IS fun, but this is one hell of a costly mistake, even if you love the child after its birth. I have no kids (intentional or not) and I'm not regretting anything, but that's just me.

Secondly people do in FACT have kids just to get huge tax returns that they largely did not contribute to. Imagine for a second that you don't have a job, did not apply one penny into the system, but in January you're entitled to $5,000+ of my money? I don't think so, this is where the term "Baby factory" comes from. My own term Baby Farming comes from adopting several children (benefits without the initial pain) have the state/country paying these people so much money per child, and this is no small amount. Do you think people who adopt several children to reap the benefits actually apply all of this money to the kids? Some, but not all I would imagine.

I needed to borrow the Google calculator for this. 38.5 billion / 1 trillion = 0.0385 or 3.85%. Ok with that in mind Obama added four Trillion to the deficit in only two years. Getting back on topic 38.5 billion / 4 trillion = 0.009625 or 0.9%. This 38.5B cut is less that 1% of all that spent in just under three years. This example is not a Obama vs. anyone, but an Obama with a blank check vs everyone. What? with 1% savings over the next year will it take us 100 years to get back to where we were, or just to keep from falling further at a higher rate?
59230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M / USA
Online
Posted 4/9/11
>I'm not too big on politics, yet I fail to see how cutting funding to abortion clinics is going to cure America's debt.

There are no federal dollars going to fund abortions. There are federal dollars being spent on Planned Parenthood, which advises on pregnancy choices including sex education, pregnancy prevention, prenatal care, and abortion.

The entire argument over the discretionary part of the budget was completely bogus, especially in the last few days. 60 billion in cuts, against a deficit of over 3 trillilon. How, exactly, is that going to balance things?

House Representative Paul Ryan also presented the Republicans' idea of how to rein in debt this week - soak the middle class and those due to retire in about 20 years, and cut the tax rate for the wealthiest. Like Obama's initial budget, it relies on some pretty nebulous data to achieve its goals.

Here's an interesting item to contemplate - if the federal government had shut down, Congress would still have been paid. Perhaps it's time to get that changed.
59713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/9/11
The government does not know the word "thrifty" and they don't know when to stop spending money. Honestly the government should not have to pay for abortions but just because they are not going to pay for them does not mean they are outlawing it or something. They are talking about raising the national debt limit...what good is that going to do? We will still have the same problem and until someone is able to balance the books we are screwed as a nation!
69987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Where the heart is
Offline
Posted 4/9/11 , edited 4/9/11
Tax cuts for the wealthy huh. Let's examine that one won't we?

Let's say a large corporation has more money to spend because they get the "tax breaks" that we the middle class do not. What would the corporation do with this money? Shareholders are the legal owners of a publicly traded company, so they get a cut off of profits of course, but that's a part of owning a successful business. The rest goes into researching the market to produce what you may want to buy, securing materials and parts to produce it, machines to streamline the production process as well as keeping some money in an account in case of repairs; these machines are not cheap, nor are the people who repair them. Upgrade existing infrastructure to get better results and fewer defects (defects cost too). This is all the process of just running the place and making something. It costs more to market it in newspapers, TV adds of all sorts, or even hold conferences for people who work outside of that company who do influence how that product works once it enters the market.

Even more money goes to people who run these companies at all levels including the grunts who's only purpose is to take out the trash and if it costs the company more and more to make their product then where do you think the first cuts are going to be made? First (not necessarily) people will be forced to take fewer hours or lose their jobs entirely. Next they may discontinue a mildly performing sales item, or close a plant to improve profit margins, as all the other stuff doesn't stop, or prevent mechanical failure just because they don't make as much money as they used to and 3rd party services aren't getting cheaper either (looking at their own bottom lines).

Corporations and the rich already pay for a decent percentage of all the country takes in as tax revenue (I'm uncomfortable with the idea of calling our tax dollars "revenue"). If corporations where to get tax breaks they keep more of their money to use for equipment, and more importantly to us as personnel. The better/important the position you have the better you're paid, of course the more you're paid the more you're taxed or just as likely you're going to be targeted to be released if there's a belt tightening. If that company can keep more of its money to provide products and services they would need people to work to sell/provide these things and employees must get paid, so if these employees get paid then they might have some disposable income to pour into the economy provides more money to the government with Fed/State income taxes, and sales taxes. Now if we really are at a near 20% employment rate as it's suggested then who's paying for them or the taxes they once paid? Companies are laying off to stay in business and to produce less would mean to pay less into taxes and if they let people go then those people aren't paying taxes either. Those people are receiving benefits from those who are still working and the number of working class is dropping. Or in some cases looks like it's improving only by the fact that once you're unemployed for several months you are not counted in the unemployment numbers, so the 10% unemployment rate is much closer to 20%.

The last time I checked it wasn't the middle class who employed me. I was working 48 hours a week with 16 hours overtime pay per pay period, and now I cannot go a minute above 40 hours. I'm losing to the tune to $150 per week because the big company I work for doesn't have the money it used to. If it means the big and rich people who run the company I work for gets tax breaks that will trickle down to me by getting my overtime back then, so be it.

I could go on, but I'll stop here by saying that the more money you make the more you're taxed for it. We pay a couple thousand or more in income tax just on the Federal level. Even with tax breaks large companies are paying multi-millions in taxes.

http://nowandfutures.com/taxes.html
66780 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Lagrange, KY
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

NoBreyner wrote:

Tax cuts for the wealthy huh. Let's examine that one won't we?

Let's say a large corporation has more money to spend because they get the "tax breaks" that we the middle class do not. What would the corporation do with this money? Shareholders are the legal owners of a publicly traded company, so they get a cut off of profits of course, but that's a part of owning a successful business. The rest goes into researching the market to produce what you may want to buy, securing materials and parts to produce it, machines to streamline the production process as well as keeping some money in an account in case of repairs; these machines are not cheap, nor are the people who repair them. Upgrade existing infrastructure to get better results and fewer defects (defects cost too). This is all the process of just running the place and making something. It costs more to market it in newspapers, TV adds of all sorts, or even hold conferences for people who work outside of that company who do influence how that product works once it enters the market.

Even more money goes to people who run these companies at all levels including the grunts who's only purpose is to take out the trash and if it costs the company more and more to make their product then where do you think the first cuts are going to be made? First (not necessarily) people will be forced to take fewer hours or lose their jobs entirely. Next they may discontinue a mildly performing sales item, or close a plant to improve profit margins, as all the other stuff doesn't stop, or prevent mechanical failure just because they don't make as much money as they used to and 3rd party services aren't getting cheaper either (looking at their own bottom lines).

Corporations and the rich already pay for a decent percentage of all the country takes in as tax revenue (I'm uncomfortable with the idea of calling our tax dollars "revenue"). If corporations where to get tax breaks they keep more of their money to use for equipment, and more importantly to us as personnel. The better/important the position you have the better you're paid, of course the more you're paid the more you're taxed or just as likely you're going to be targeted to be released if there's a belt tightening. If that company can keep more of its money to provide products and services they would need people to work to sell/provide these things and employees must get paid, so if these employees get paid then they might have some disposable income to pour into the economy provides more money to the government with Fed/State income taxes, and sales taxes. Now if we really are at a near 20% employment rate as it's suggested then who's paying for them or the taxes they once paid? Companies are laying off to stay in business and to produce less would mean to pay less into taxes and if they let people go then those people aren't paying taxes either. Those people are receiving benefits from those who are still working and the number of working class is dropping. Or in some cases looks like it's improving only by the fact that once you're unemployed for several months you are not counted in the unemployment numbers, so the 10% unemployment rate is much closer to 20%.

The last time I checked it wasn't the middle class who employed me. I was working 48 hours a week with 16 hours overtime pay per pay period, and now I cannot go a minute above 40 hours. I'm losing to the tune to $150 per week because the big company I work for doesn't have the money it used to. If it means the big and rich people who run the company I work for gets tax breaks that will trickle down to me by getting my overtime back then, so be it.

I could go on, but I'll stop here by saying that the more money you make the more you're taxed for it. We pay a couple thousand or more in income tax just on the Federal level. Even with tax breaks large companies are paying multi-millions in taxes.

http://nowandfutures.com/taxes.html


I usually hate posting memes over again but this one stick's out the most and it's the damn truth, i stupidly quit my job last year out of concern for my dying uncial.. but that's the past and i have tried 10 different places to even get a job, i don't care where and I still can't get nothing, not a damn thing.
vaza13 
77299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 4/9/11 , edited 4/9/11
the thought that Politicians would actually consider shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood and the $363 million they receive in federal funding is beyond ludicrous. Holding the entire nation hostage over this issue is completely insane and some of the absolute worst "governing" I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.

the political process here has deteriorated into even more of a joke than in was before

ohh...plz, plz, plz stop giving tax breaks to the rich. they clearly don't need it. this has been going on for 25 years because someone once said that giving them tax breaks would help them to create more jobs and the wealth would then "trickle down to the rest of us". well the last 3 decades have proven that false over and over and over again. all they do is horde their wealth and watch as politicians cut funding for the poorest Americans time and again. I wish our government would actually start working for all of America instead of just the extremely rich individuals and corporations [which are now also considered individuals in this country. way to go on that stinking pile of a ruling supreme court]
24248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Right behind you
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

vaza13 wrote:

the thought that Politicians would actually consider shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood and the $363 million they receive in federal funding is beyond ludicrous. Holding the entire nation hostage over this issue is completely insane and some of the absolute worst "governing" I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.

the political process here has deteriorated into even more of a joke than in was before

ohh...plz, plz, plz stop giving tax breaks to the rich. they clearly don't need it. this has been going on for 25 years because someone once said that giving them tax breaks would help them to create more jobs and the wealth would then "trickle down to the rest of us". well the last 3 decades have proven that false over and over and over again. all they do is horde their wealth and watch as politicians cut funding for the poorest Americans time and again. I wish our government would actually start working for all of America instead of just the extremely rich individuals and corporations [which are now also considered individuals in this country. way to go on that stinking pile of a ruling supreme court]


Or the people realize that this is happening. Seems like when it comes to politics people seem to follow whatever they see on tv.
69987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Where the heart is
Offline
Posted 4/9/11

Pikachu_kun wrote:


vaza13 wrote:

the thought that Politicians would actually consider shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood and the $363 million they receive in federal funding is beyond ludicrous. Holding the entire nation hostage over this issue is completely insane and some of the absolute worst "governing" I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.

the political process here has deteriorated into even more of a joke than in was before

ohh...plz, plz, plz stop giving tax breaks to the rich. they clearly don't need it. this has been going on for 25 years because someone once said that giving them tax breaks would help them to create more jobs and the wealth would then "trickle down to the rest of us". well the last 3 decades have proven that false over and over and over again. all they do is horde their wealth and watch as politicians cut funding for the poorest Americans time and again. I wish our government would actually start working for all of America instead of just the extremely rich individuals and corporations [which are now also considered individuals in this country. way to go on that stinking pile of a ruling supreme court]


Or the people realize that this is happening. Seems like when it comes to politics people seem to follow whatever they see on tv.



And that is exactly why they can get away with it. All the real news never makes it to us.
21250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 4/9/11
from what ive read it seems like the only funding to abortion clinics that was cut was those in washington d.c.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-wire/post/sources-budget-deal-includes-dc-abortion-rider-money-for-school-vouchers/2011/04/08/AF3ET24C_blog.html?hpid=z1
97968 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 4/9/11
Well, discussion about abortion aside you guys have it down pretty good. Actually, both mainstream US political parties have been sticking it to the vanishing middle class since the President Lyndon Baines Johnson era funding the Vietnam war and the Great Society programs. Occasionally I'll resurrect photos of "smokestack" America (1940's-late '60's) that some hosts harbinger as the last great era when America was a world leader with industrial might. I don't miss the acrid red oxide burning my eyes as I shifted my 18-wheeler downhill off Cajon Pass still many miles from the LA Basin or traversing past steel mills in Pittsburgh, PA back in the early '70's. I appreciate the cleaner air likely brought about by a governmental body or rules promulgated by such, both which I outwardly loathe.

Corporations are good until they get too large; damn government is good until it gets too bloated, arrogant and powerful. To do without either is to guarantee more instability for our societies. The 200+ yr old trick is to get a good balance between the "ruling" class and the achievers.

Rich folks employ people. Poor folks, sadly, justify the existence of and employ government program pushers. Some people will always be poor and downtrodden and we, as a caring society, must offer "something" to help them in their time of extreme need. Achievers need to be incentivised to expand both their businesses and employee count. Capitalism isn't the end-all, be-all but it sure is a better alternative than socialism.

My current concern is Mr Bernancke and the quantitative easing machinations. George Bush, who I voted for both times account lesser of 2 evils stratagem, never saw a blank check he wouldn't sign through both 4-year terms at the helm running our nation. And Mr. Obama with his hand-picked court jesters aka czars supposedly even has China concerned about spending. Inflation is going to harm us, I'm afraid, much worse than it did during the '70's. I didn't starve during that era (1972-1982) of self-employment but business as an independent trucker was very, very unstable. A lot of my friends went bust. I managed to eke by, thankful I wasn't married with children as I could barely afford to support myself and meet the obligations of financing the big rig.

Our purchasing power in the US has declined 40% in the last 6 years. The dollar (USD) has fallen 7% compared to the purchasing power of the British pound (GBP) within the last 7 months. I have not heard any news organization discuss inflation other than conservative talk radio.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.