Secession of States post Obama re-election page 9

244 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Some links about the deficit for you.

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33577.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-trade-deficit-grows-to-422b-because-of-fewer-exports-deficit-with-china-hits-record-high/2012/12/11/71ccb358-4398-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html

Some good links at last. Shocker. Thanks though. Yes, I know California's bankrupt. But that statement doesn't address the question, which was what they were going to do about existing pensions and entitlements.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Great. So Gay Marriage was locked. That was a long standing thread too. Must have been because of the flame war going on.

Ya notice it was unlocked.
I commend Admin-mod for doing the right thing of taking our toy away from us and sending us to a corner to stand w/ our noses pressed against it….LOL
Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by issendorf:
Seriously, congress needs to understand that RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH = LESS NATIONAL DEBT.

Contrary to popular belief by the left, $80b in taxes doesn’t actually solve a $1.2t budget deficit.

It’s a start…..
and most definitely a step IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION….eh?

Spurring economic growth is a step in the right direction. Raising taxes doesn’t do that. Reforming Medicare and Social Security addresses the drivers of the debt. Raising taxes doesn’t.


Doing something, raising taxes, that no one thinks will stimulate economic growth is the worst thing to do.


issen, I’m in full agreement w/ the {also} A step in the right direction.
In fact, it is the really important one.
However, I don’t think getting money from those who can most afford to “kick into the kitty-of-national-economic-crisis” is the WORST thing to do. I can accept it might be one of the LESSER productive things.

BUT, since it’s really hard to get blood from a turnip (the poor…a great number),,,
and, since it’s not really all that fiscally beneficial to squeeze small turnips, even though there are a great number of them (the middle class),,,
then, going after the “1%’ers” (10%‘ers?…it’s a “sliding scale”) who have extensive amounts of our economic wealth and it certainly isn’t going to impact them anywhere as much as it does those below their level.

Our govts operate much like a simple family household…..say one that becomes overly indulgent in fiscal management and overly optimistic about rational methods for handling fiscal issues and begins relying on massive credit to drive this economically foolish engine.

Upon getting themselves hugely behind a serious fiscal “eight ball”, they need to take a hard look at options to stop the hemmorhaging & begin to heal their budgetary issues.

There are several options to be considered:
1) Obtain a second job or seek one that pays better to enhance revenue//income (raise taxes)

2) Cut wasteful//unnceassary expenditures by taking an intelligent, hard look at “where the money is going”. Do they really need those 4 or 5 $4.00 fancy coffees per day from Starbucks. Do they really need to buy everything TV ads tell them will make them a much better person.

Back in my day, it was called: Keeping up w/ the Joneses.
Today, to be a good, greedy, succesful American….ya’re expected to surpass the Jones and leave them so far behind in your dust that they run to the nearest payday loan. Of course, this is the option that is used primarily by the lower economic families….the ones that are most likely to afford the high interests rates.

BUT,, like the over-extentions of home buying that got them (& the higher economicly fiscal family AND the country) into the finacial nightmares w/ call the “recession”,, their taking out loans from other pay days to cover the first one just makes the fiscal hemmorhaging even worse….usually sending them into bankruptcy.

This form of predatory lending promoted by advertisements featuring a big, fast, juicy-looking carrot infront of economically strapped families (ones that should stay the fuck away from these lenders like they are the plague—because THEY ARE THE FISCAL PLAGUE for them) has become such a nightmare that many govt entities are now cracking down on them.

High userage loans are typically considered illegal: “Congress opted to put a federal criminal limit on interest rates by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) definitions of “unlawful debt”, which make it a federal felony to lend money at an interest rate more than twice the local state usury rate and then try to collect that “unlawful debt”.39" I have no idea how these payday loan companies get around RICO to make these high-interest loans. “The interest rates for such transactions are staggering: 911% for a one-week loan; 456% for a two-week loan, 212% for a one-month loan.” The TV adds usually are pitched to those who can least afford this bullshit.

3 Get the fuck out of debt. Loaned money comes from those who already have tons of it. Their “job” is to let their money DO THE WORK FOR THEM. Buy as little on time as can. When I was young. There was no such thing as unsecured loans (credit cards). The only things bought “on time” were the home and most often (but not always) the ONE family car.

BUT, someone showed lending institutes (banks) that unsecured loans might have a small number of “fails”.
BUT, the huge returns on the much higher rates than collateraled loans far more than offset the loses. The gamble paided off. Appealing to the greed & “Joneing” of Americans caused an insane credit frenzy which put many families into situations that a 3 month loss of income would have disasterous fiscal consequences.

Sure, this fiscal nightmare took time to build. Dismantaling it overnight would be equally disasterous because the products being bought on time are made by ppl making those products who them spend their earned money on products (that other ppl make and earn paychecks) and pay huge credit interest to have the “priviledge” of having the latest, bestest products.

Stopping this spending cycle is called a recession. Starting it up is where a lot of fiscal disagreements are found. BUT, instead of all the fucking bickering about how to go about it (similar to national healthcare reform)….SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

 
Flag Post

It seems the wealthy are the problems for everything wrong in our country now. People think they don’t pay their fair share and should give ever more to the politicians in Washington to spend. This is a fallacy started by the Democrats to misdirect the attention of the citizenry from the real problems in this country. It seems to be working as people like KarmaKoolKid seem determined to continue pushing the talking points of his party. Let’s look at some specifics.

46.4 percent of U.S. households didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2011.

This tends to shoot holes in the talking points of the Democratic party considering the wealthy are actually paying 33% of the tax revenue supporting Washington.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

If you take the time to read the link supplied, you will have to reevaluate you support for such an ill advised agenda. This is especially true when you consider jobs are created by the wealthy you intend to extort more money from.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

46.4 percent of U.S. households didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2011.

Lovely graph, especially how it has absolutely no source in the slightest and, in all honesty, looks kinda cheap.

Also, does the term “U.S. households” include or exclude those who have unemployed family members (like children or retired grandparents) or just can’t get jobs? (Like people who are handicapped, or those on welfare.)

I know it probably wont make a huge difference, but I would still like to know.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Also, does the term “U.S. households” include or exclude those who have unemployed family members (like children or retired grandparents) or just can’t get jobs? (Like people who are handicapped, or those on welfare.)

Include. It’s been brought up before. Students are also included in the total of unemployed. Although last time it wasn’t ‘households’ but ‘US Citizens’. It wouldn’t produce any usable data if you did it for households, as in most you would have at least one person paying taxes, regardless of how many were not.

 
Flag Post

Here is a link from the source from which the graph came.

FYI: About 10% are elderly and about 7% are income under 20K a year.

The article had this to say:

“Only about 7.9 percent of households are not paying any federal taxes at all. That’s usually because they’re either unemployed or on disability or students or are very poor.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:

It seems the wealthy are the problems for everything wrong in our country now. People think they don’t pay their fair share and should give ever more to the politicians in Washington to spend. This is a fallacy started by the Democrats to misdirect the attention of the citizenry from the real problems in this country. It seems to be working as people like KarmaKoolKid seem determined to continue pushing the talking points of his party. Let’s look at some specifics.

46.4 percent of U.S. households didn’t pay any federal income taxes in 2011.

This tends to shoot holes in the talking points of the Democratic party considering the wealthy are actually paying 33% of the tax revenue supporting Washington.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

If you take the time to read the link supplied, you will have to reevaluate you support for such an ill advised agenda. This is especially true when you consider jobs are created by the wealthy you intend to extort more money from.

the funniest thing about this whole thing is that in that link, it says the top 1% richest people in the USA make 19% of all the income, while the bottom 50% only make 13%. everything else is just…why bother reading?

 
Flag Post

LOL….
why bother….indeed?
HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T! ! ! !
LMAO

OR, he isn’t able to “comprehend”,,,,
or chooses to NOT do so.
I’m going w/ a 50-50….LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:


http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

If you take the time to read the link supplied, you will have to reevaluate you support for such an ill advised agenda. This is especially true when you consider jobs are created by the wealthy you intend to extort more money from.

No i notice a person trying to spin the facts to his liking. Forgetting most importantly to take into an account inflation. More than 80% of his arguments simply fall apart if you figure in inflation. Just because somebody earns more Money than they did 10 or 20 years ago it does not mean that they can buy as much as they did then, same goes for paying more Taxes.

Fact is that many of the figures that are compared generally need extra information to understand. But that understanding would be opposite to the desired spin thats being given.
For example it often compares changes in % of wealth to % of total income taxes paid. But it never mentions the differences in growth between wealth and taxes paid. So group X has gained a B% of wealth and also has a higher C% of total income taxes paid. Nice information especially if i can use it to show that the C% has grown more than the B%.
But it does not tell the whole story. It does not mention that wealth total has increased more than tax total. It does not tell that the lower groups are mostly not paying more but less income taxes because their % of wealth gain was so negative that most of them even with a job do not longer earn enough to be taxed income tax at all or much if they do make it past the income tax threshold.

Hell the graph you presented does not shoot any holes in Democratic talking points it enforces them. Its not that 46,4% of the people get a free ride on the backs of the other 53,6%. Its that most of the 46,4% do not have anything left over to take.

 
Flag Post

LOL…nice info, Johnny.
However, I deeply doubt it will ever “sink into” the very ignorant minds that have been so warped into believing a plutocracy form of “capitalism”,,resulting in “rich ppl” which these minds haven’t a clue as to who//what they are,,that a realistic view of where our U.S. social//financial PROBLEMS are generated could ever be achieved.

Here is a blog that discusses the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and gives a weeebit of “insight” as to what 99%-1% means.

In an effort to pique (or for some: PICK) your interest, I’m gonna cite some of the more relevant parts:

“Formulating the specifics of separate demands is not what the Occupy Walls Street movement is about. Rather, its goal is dealing with the inequality between the 99% and the 1%, the concentration of power in the banks on economic issues, the lack of real democracy in political decision-making, the organization of society around the accumulation of wealth, consumerism, violence, conformity. Their goal is a different world, in which the specific demands of the 99% would be realized, together. The slogans: OCCUPY WALL STREET and OCCUPY TOGETHER go hand in hand. The Occupy Wall Street movement supports a wide variety of demands, as all of the placards and signs and posters show. But the Occupy Wall Street demand itself incorporates those demands, but its own demand is broader, more general. It calls for a society organized around the needs, desires, dreams, of the 99%, not the 1%.”

“Yet there is a necessary link between the more specific demands and the general demand, and it goes from the aggregation of individual demands into a realization of their general unity and larger meaning. Judging from history, if a real revolution were possible today, it would include all the specific demands of the Occupy Wall Street signs as part of its general demand for comprehensive change. The patriots who dumped tea in Boston harbor in the American Revolution were not just after repeal of the tax on tea; they wanted independence and democracy. In the French Revolution the participants marched on the Bastille wanted not just the opening of that hated prison, and not even just, bread for the hungry, but Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. In the English Revolution the Puritans and the Levelers wanted not just freedom of religion and from feudal tithing, but an end to the monarchy and feudal constraints over-all.”

“But how can this linkage between the specific demands and the general goal be forged today, in practice as well as in rhetoric? The question needs to be addressed, not only to the occupiers, but to those who press for the specifics, and their organizations – the no-occupiers who are sympathetic to the occupations and constitute at least 58% or so of the total population in the United States. It seems to me that the essence of the Occupy Wall Street movement is its understanding that issues of poverty, of peace, of education, of health, of environmental change, of exploitation in the work place, dissatisfaction in the community, discrimination on ethnic and gender lines, cultural discontent, all in the end have to do with the division of society between the top and the bottom, symbolized by the relations between the1% and the 99%, calling attention to the structural features of a system that benefits the one at the expense of the other. It is this understanding that must be brought to inform all the specific demands that it encompasses.”
.
.
.
It kinda hits the ol’ nail squarely on the head….eh?
Maybe it will hit squarely the ignorant heads that still believe we need “the SUPER rich” for America to be the “land of the free”.

 
Flag Post

A blog? Really? Right after you lambasted Colt for his links? Talk about hypocritical.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

A blog? Really? Right after you lambasted Colt for his links? Talk about hypocritical.

Except that they shot down the contents of the link as opposed to the link alone, from what’s in your post here… You’re just argung that that Karma poseted a link to a blog, rather than respond to the contents inside of it.

Unfortinately for you, it’s getting harder to twist things to fit your needs scince the users here have (for the most part) gotten use to you, and have (again, for the most part) bettered themselves for debates, and you’re progressing… Slower, I think, I don’t really know if repeating yourself counts as going backwards.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by ColtArmy:


http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

If you take the time to read the link supplied, you will have to reevaluate you support for such an ill advised agenda. This is especially true when you consider jobs are created by the wealthy you intend to extort more money from.

No i notice a person trying to spin the facts to his liking. Forgetting most importantly to take into an account inflation. More than 80% of his arguments simply fall apart if you figure in inflation. Just because somebody earns more Money than they did 10 or 20 years ago it does not mean that they can buy as much as they did then, same goes for paying more Taxes.

Fact is that many of the figures that are compared generally need extra information to understand. But that understanding would be opposite to the desired spin thats being given.
For example it often compares changes in % of wealth to % of total income taxes paid. But it never mentions the differences in growth between wealth and taxes paid. So group X has gained a B% of wealth and also has a higher C% of total income taxes paid. Nice information especially if i can use it to show that the C% has grown more than the B%.
But it does not tell the whole story. It does not mention that wealth total has increased more than tax total. It does not tell that the lower groups are mostly not paying more but less income taxes because their % of wealth gain was so negative that most of them even with a job do not longer earn enough to be taxed income tax at all or much if they do make it past the income tax threshold.

Hell the graph you presented does not shoot any holes in Democratic talking points it enforces them. Its not that 46,4% of the people get a free ride on the backs of the other 53,6%. Its that most of the 46,4% do not have anything left over to take.

Talk about spin. Why is it so important for you guys to just fall behind Obie-wan-Acorn-obi? Do you really think he is so godlike he will make all your dreams come true? What is it Ben Benaki said today? Oh yeah, unemployment is not expected to get any better for at least 3years from now? How in the hell is this growing our economy? They are expecting another, deeper recession this coming year. And you guys call this good leadership? I know, you can just blame it on Bush and conservatives, because the rabid left certainly won’t take the blame for this economic mess we have lived with for four years…much less the next four years.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Talk about spin. Why is it so important for you guys to just fall behind Obie-wan-Acorn-obi?

Wat?

Do you really think he is so godlike he will make all your dreams come true?

Do you really think that’s what “we” think?

Moreso, do you really believe that Obama’s the harbinger of doom that you keep making him out to be?

What is it Ben Benaki said today? Oh yeah, unemployment is not expected to get any better for at least 3years from now?

As long as it’s not getting worse, I’m going to stay optimistic.

How in the hell is this growing our economy?

What part? The bad economy, poor handling of money,

They are expecting another, deeper recession this coming year.

Wait, who’s “they?”

And you guys call this good leadership?

Who’s “you guys?” And why do you think you know what “you guys” thinks?

Also, I notice a distince lack of you responding to his post and instead just quoting a post like you’re responding to it, but then just making general statements to the other political spectrum.

I know, you can just blame it on Bush and conservatives,

Yes, we can. Just like you can blame Obama and the liberals.

because the rabid left certainly won’t take the blame for this economic mess we have lived with for four years…much less the next four years.

Because the rabid right certaily wont take blame for the economic downfall of our country for the time after Regan, much less the last decade.

 
Flag Post
Because the rabid right certaily wont take blame for the economic downfall of our country for the time after Regan, much less the last decade.

Based on what? Tax revenues? The highest we’ve ever had was in 2007. Oh, maybe you mean unemployment? Oh wait, it was 4.4% in December of 2006 – right before the Democrats took control of Congress oddly enough. Maybe you mean GDP growth? Oh wait, that was comfortably over 2% from ‘03-’07. This President has overseen the slowest growth after a recession since WWII. Seriously, what economic indicators are you looking at that blame the Republicans for ruining the economy from 1989-now?

 
Flag Post
Here is a blog that discusses the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and gives a weeebit of “insight” as to what 99%-1% means.

I’d be more inclined to listening to OWS’ points if there wasn’t a trail of thuggery following it around.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Seriously, what economic indicators are you looking at that blame the Republicans for ruining the economy from 1989-now?

The part where Rupublicans have held the Presidency for most of the time since the Reagan years, thus meaning that it is enitely their fault for the recession. And no-one cares about Clinton, so he doesn’t count.

 
Flag Post

Yes I do Tenco. Read the liberal posts. Obummer can do no wrong. Yes, he is not a leader to make America better, just to lead us down the dark tunnel of ruin. Look at how much debt we have accumulated since the election and it isn’t about to slow down unless we actually go over the fiscal cliff. I do think both parties want this so they can raise taxes on the whole of the people. After all, it is not them but the fiscal cliff that did it.

What is to be optimistic about? Yomama promised more of the same. Well, for those who voted for them, I hope they all lose their homes and live on the streets.

Both, the economy is stagnated and there are no signs of improvement, in fact since the election the indicators have gotten worse.

They in this this case are the liberals. You know, the ones who want more of the same we have had for four years?

Good, typical response, always blame someone else.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes I do Tenco. Read the liberal posts. Obummer can do no wrong.

Because you’re totally not seeing just what you want to see.

Yes, he is not a leader to make America better, just to lead us down the dark tunnel of ruin.

Because you’re totally not seeing just what you want to see.

Look at how much debt we have accumulated since the election and it isn’t about to slow down unless we actually go over the fiscal cliff.

Because you’re totally not seeing jus- I’m sensing a pattern here.

I do think both parties want this so they can raise taxes on the whole of the people.

Okay, now you’re just being full-blown paranoid.

What is to be optimistic about?

Word of not: I’m not always entirely serious with my posts.

Yomama promised more of the same. Well, for those who voted for them, I hope they all lose their homes and live on the streets.

This is not one of those times. Seriously, fuck you, those are still people.

Both, the economy is stagnated and there are no signs of improvement, in fact since the election the indicators have gotten worse.

And one way to fix that is for everyone on both sides to stop pointing fingers and blaming people, and try to find something to fix this.

Good, typical response, always blame someone else.

Just trying to comform to the norm.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

And one way to fix that is for everyone on both sides to stop pointing fingers and blaming people, and try to find something to fix this.

Exactly! But who is going to fix it? Obama had four years, did he fix it? Now he has four more and he is pushing the same rhetoric as before. See a trend there? More of the same?

 
Flag Post

Just out of curiosity:
Pre-election, it was “just you wait and see, Americans are going to stand up and fix this Nobarmar problem!”
Post-election, it’s “ZOMG NOBARMAR IS LEADING US TO RUIN!”

Shouldn’t you be blaming America?
I mean, it’s America that decided they wanted Obama for another four years.
Further, getting back on thread topic, ridiculous as it is;
If during the Bush years it was “love it or leave it”, shouldn’t the same hold true for the would be secessionists?
Stop trying to hijack the country you traitors!
Love it or leave it!
GTFO to wherever your supposed Right-wing paradise is!

 
Flag Post

Yes, I did softest. I really though there were still enough self-reliant people to take hold of the situation and change it for the better. You just can’t imagine how disappointing I am in the American people. There are so many getting money from the government each month now, self reliance lost out. Why would they vote a guy out who has given, or promised them free money, contraceptives, phones, etc. Yes, I do blame America. This isn’t the people of my generation where we worked for what we got and stood up when we were wronged. I am angry that people like Karma, with no values, only greed have won. There were a lot more of these type of people than I estimated. I guess we are in the gimmie generation now.

Yes, I do believe that if a state is unhappy with our eroding government, they should vote to leave the country. Our country’s founding fathers felt we needed to be armed so we could take back our country by force of arms if necessary, but now I’m wondering if we have enough men, real men willing to sacrifice, to do it. Since the election I wonder. You know, many soldiers have died protecting our way of life and it seems the people now spit on their graves. It is really disgusting.

Now as I read your post, it seemed you were serious about getting answers on my post, but then you come up with this childishly stupid comment at the end. Still, I will say this, although I gather you are one of those who don’t have the backbone to fight for your country, I do. Still in my old age, I am willing to fight for the freedoms we have lived by for 200+ years. It is ok if you are afraid, there are still some who overcome that fear and protect those like you.

 
Flag Post

Should I bother pointing out the holes in the “makers vs takers” BS that we just got spewed at us?
Should I point out how much harder it is to make a real living in a country that has devalued labor so far, or that the living wages people earned in “his” day were a direct result of intervention by strong unions on behalf of those workers?
Should I point out the hypocrisy of a group that tells war protesters they should leave the country, but then impotently threatens secession when they don’t get their way?
How about the hypocrisy of a group that claims how self reliant and strong willed they all are, but that takes those checks from the government when they show up in the mail every month?

Is it even worth it to point out what a bunch of echo chamber bullshit just got spewed out all over the page?

Probably not.

 
Flag Post

Oh, one last thing;

Is there any point to asking why, effectively, calling anyone who hasn’t served in the military a pussy, is anything resembling a valid argument?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

 
Flag Post

Sorry sorry, just one other thing;

Is it worth it to point out that calling protesters dangerous radicals, but supporting armed insurrection, is such a massive case of cognitive dissonance as to be completely laughable?