Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol, I was trying to think where I saw that-- I didn't.
You've got to be kidding. That's the major takeaway the gop as a whole is pushing since the election - that we are past the tipping point because there are too many takers and not enough givers. That if only Romney had been elected, we could have saved the world, but now instead it will be the end of the world. Obamaphone this, 47% that, etc. Your main man O'Reilly stated it pretty plainly after the election and now everyone is on board.
Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the biggest line items on the budget. They are both for old people, and old people voted for Romney. So who is crying over their handouts now? Face it, you've been fooled. But don't feel bad, it's a political game, and now you know better. And knowing is half the battle.
As long as the 2 party system dominates, we will not have true spending reform. Neither party has the political will to make it happen, and we can easily and clearly see this by looking at history. So stop being a pawn in the game.
You've got to be kidding. That's the major takeaway the gop as a whole is pushing since the election - that we are past the tipping point because there are too many takers and not enough givers. That if only Romney had been elected, we could have saved the world, but now instead it will be the end of the world. Obamaphone this, 47% that, etc. Your main man O'Reilly stated it pretty plainly after the election and now everyone is on board.
Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the biggest line items on the budget. They are both for old people, and old people voted for Romney. So who is crying over their handouts now? Face it, you've been fooled. But don't feel bad, it's a political game, and now you know better. And knowing is half the battle.
As long as the 2 party system dominates, we will not have true spending reform. Neither party has the political will to make it happen, and we can easily and clearly see this by looking at history. So stop being a pawn in the game.
Here this might help you out for those that are a little reality-challenged
Because they are producing. Welfare, all they do is stick their hands out for freebies.. that's why.
Producing? They can't produce anything if there is not areason to do so such as hmmmmmm, a war!
Truth be told those people on welfare are consistent spenders. Besides the middleclass they are a big reason why our economy runs.
Producing? They can't produce anything if there is not areason to do so such as hmmmmmm, a war!
Truth be told those people on welfare are consistent spenders. Besides the middleclass they are a big reason why our economy runs.
Quote:
Policy changes that increased revenues would probably
affect the distribution of the tax burden, but the effects
would depend on the type of tax raised and the nature of
the increase. Raising income tax rates for higher-income
people would make the tax system more progressive. By
contrast, increasing most excise taxes—such as those
on tobacco or gasoline—would boost the relative tax
burdens of lower-income people, who tend to spend a
greater proportion of their income on those items.
The CBO was nice and left out alcohol, drugs and lottery tickets.
A while back they might have added in cable TV, cell phones and internet but since they now have "programs" to "help" with those items they no longer "desire" (let's face it, those are wants, not needs) to spend money (not their money at least) on those items.
The conservative talking point of "freebies for the poor" is getting old, but I would be more inclined to believe it if the economy was booming and there were jobs out there that paid decent, but since that is not always the case why are you demonizing people that can't get a job?
Descetionary spending, the only spending which is not automatic and actually CAN be cut, only went up 1.6% per year. You're trying to count mandatory spending (SSI, Medicare, payment of the debt) which is retarded. Are you suggesting ANY politician would stop spending on SSI or medicare or default on the debt? More old people mean more people on SSI and medicare and THAT is a TOTALLY separate issue from ANYTHING a president can cut spending on.
Again, your ignorance on this issue knows no bounds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
