Porforis
11 years ago

this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..

I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:

Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot

ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."

or am i over simplifing it? I have no loyalties to any party, and even debated in favor of getting rid of them altogether.

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 



To some extent I think you're oversimplifying things but at the core you've got it right. The problem is that you're going to be eaten alive if you try to raise taxes on the middle or lower classes or cut spending to just about anything. As wasteful as government is, people DO benefit from the vast, vast majority of the money it spends.

The big ticket items that make up the bulk of our budget are (in no particular order) military spending, social security, and medicare. All three need reform and attention, but all three will put your head on the block if you as a politician touch it.
RajiRoar
11 years ago


The big ticket items that make up the bulk of our budget are (in no particular order) military spending, social security, and medicare. All three need reform and attention, but all three will put your head on the block if you as a politician touch it.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



I added in an edit that said i think there could be a middle-ground, sorry.

while it would be nice for our gov't to be able to cover all these things... they can't. we have years of deficit-spending to prove it. I just don't see how you fix it without A or B.

the political runaround on every issue can't help either.



MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Porforis
11 years ago

I added in an edit that said i think there could be a middle-ground, sorry.

while it would be nice for our gov't to be able to cover all these things... they can't. we have years of deficit-spending to prove it. I just don't see how you fix it without A or B.

the political runaround on every issue can't help either.

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 



I've used this metaphor before and I'll use it again. When you've dug yourself a really deep hole, you can't just step out of it. You need to get dirty and climb out. The right isn't going to want to touch defense spending, the left isn't going to want to touch entitlements. Both need to be touched. The left and right don't seem seriously interested in reforming our mess of a tax code - surprisingly, about the only positive thing I've heard Romney suggest is capping itemized deductions and bracketing capital gains taxes. I've heard nothing else from either party besides "Add this deduction" or "raise rates on the rich", neither of which addresses the reasons why we're in this mess to begin with. Many of the rich can afford paying so little income taxes because of all the loopholes out there - if you want to fix the problem, kill ALL (or almost all) deductions, adjust rates downwards. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less. But there will be a TON less waste and potential for abuse.

But at least that's my opinion, and it'll never happen.
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago

this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..

I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:

Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot

ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."

or am i over simplifing it?

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 



No that is about the basics of the deficit issue. Were the separation is, how do we go about doing it.

Obama and Democrats claim to want to raise taxes (only the rich they say), and cut spending to come to a point where revenue mets spending. Where conservative/republicans want more of just Spending cuts.

I am on the side of the Conservatives. For a couple reasons. I want us all to know that what government is spending is not being wasted. If we raise taxes and cut spending, eventually spending and revenue will meet, and government will look and say. Hey we are balanced, but I don't just want to be balanced. I want to be balanced without waste. I think we need to cut, until we find the bottom amount that government needs. Once that is determined, then we can look and see, are we taxing enough or do we need to tax more, or are we already taxing too much. But then we will know, and we can set a fair tax rate for all to obtain that amount. Until then any talk about raise or lower is just guessing.

And also, no matter where a tax is applied, it impacts all of us. Whether the rich, corporations, small business or the rest of us. It impacts salaries, number of employees, benefits and prices of goods. The goal should always be the least amount of tax and spending possible by government.

I look at East coast and the impact of Sandy, and I see all the people that are giving out of their pockets. Not because they are forced to, but because they choose to. The country has an extreme amount of giving it can provide by choice. And over the years, more and more of us, have come to think that we cannot do this or that without government. I think that is selling us very short.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Formo
11 years ago

I wasn't trying to disprove your point. However, to say they both received equal amounts of cash from SuperPacs is far from the truth. Romney clearly received much more money from undisclosed sources and bigger donors. It was just an attempt to be accurate being saying otherwise is false.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



I know you weren't trying to disprove anything. Just said that you helped make my point. If one's going to bitch about a side of the isle getting money from the rich, at least be fair about it instead of using agenda laden rhetoric.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
11 years ago
New IRS code - first $50,000 tax free for married filing jointly. Singles get first $25,000. After that no deductions, but there is a tax credit of $300 per kid. No more caps on the SS tax, which means wealthier Americans continue to pay SS taxes on income above and over $125,000. No more differentiation of income - all income subject to the same graduated tax rates. It has always pissed me off that the pussy prospectors get to pay less income tax for moving paper around but the working man gets no such breaks.

Major cuts made to the War Machine - they have to come in with a 60% budget - the other 40% goes to domestic infrastructure and jobs creation.

Yeah, my plan bends the wealthy over the table - but I figure since they have been doing that to the middle class forever - it's about time to turn the tables.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago

New IRS code - first $50,000 tax free for married filing jointly. Singles get first $25,000. After that no deductions, but there is a tax credit of $300 per kid. No more caps on the SS tax, which means wealthier Americans continue to pay SS taxes on income above and over $125,000. No more differentiation of income - all income subject to the same graduated tax rates. It has always pissed me off that the pussy prospectors get to pay less income tax for moving paper around but the working man gets no such breaks.

Major cuts made to the War Machine - they have to come in with a 60% budget - the other 40% goes to domestic infrastructure and jobs creation.

Yeah, my plan bends the wealthy over the table - but I figure since they have been doing that to the middle class forever - it's about time to turn the tables.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



But why bend them over, when you don't know how much money is needed for government?

Do you realize that the war machine has been the the part of government that has been growing about the least? Defense is about 25% of the budget. It use to be 35% and 50% at times. If you would keep the dollar amount of defense and lower all other government spending so the current amount was again 35% of the budget. We would have no deficit today.

Why not go through and cut what can be cut out of government. Move what can be moved to the private sector. And find out exactly what government needs to spend. And then determine the proper tax rates across the board for everybody. Raising this tax, lower this tax when you don't know how much is actually needed is working backwards.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
11 years ago

But why bend them over, when you don't know how much money is needed for government?

Do you realize that the war machine has been the the part of government that has been growing about the least? Defense is about 25% of the budget. It use to be 35% and 50% at times. If you would keep the dollar amount of defense and lower all other government spending so the current amount was again 35% of the budget. We would have no deficit today.

Why not go through and cut what can be cut out of government. Move what can be moved to the private sector. And find out exactly what government needs to spend. And then determine the proper tax rates across the board for everybody. Raising this tax, lower this tax when you don't know how much is actually needed is working backwards.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



I don't agree with you because I'm not a right wing asstard. Millions of people have needs that they can't provide for themselves. It's real easy to be an able bodied intelligent man like you and take a position that "I have to work why do I have to take care of others?" But it takes a real fuckin man to say, I'm going to work my ass off, pay my taxes and take care of others.

Yes there is no doubt government excesses and reform is necessary, but this subject has turned into how we get out of this shithole - and paying more taxes is the only way.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago

I don't agree with you because I'm not a right wing asstard. Millions of people have needs that they can't provide for themselves. It's real easy to be an able bodied intelligent man like you and take a position that "I have to work why do I have to take care of others?" But it takes a real fuckin man to say, I'm going to work my ass off, pay my taxes and take care of others.

Yes there is no doubt government excesses and reform is necessary, but this subject has turned into how we get out of this shithole - and paying more taxes is the only way.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Once again, why? How much money does government need? How much of our money does it need?

Where in my post did I say anything about not providing for those who actually need assistance? The problem with people like you is, you don't have the ability to comprehend the difference between reduce and eliminate. reducing and getting those off the government dollar, that don't NEED to be on it, only makes it easier for those who actually do need it.

Why would you be against actually finding out what government needs so the proper amount of tax can be set instead of closing your eyes and throwing a dart.

Take a look around at what has happened with the hurricane. Look at how many people who work their ass off, have been giving by choice. Not because they were forced to. Those of us who work our asses off, have tons of ability to give, and take care of others without needing government to do it for us. If you don't and need government to do it for you, that is your shortcoming, not the rest of ours.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
zombieslayer
11 years ago
20 pages? Wow.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (5m) : because he's 1st
Mucky Tundra (1h) : Myers isn't even the 3rd best C on the roster atm
Martha Careful (2h) : I am not sure I understand the Myers hate. He was consistently our third best lineman. RG and LT were worse.
beast (7h) : Just saying I don't think moving Myers would help Myers.
beast (7h) : Center is usually considered the easiest position physically if you can handle the snap stuff.
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Bust it is then
Zero2Cool (23h) : Context. Sounds like Myers won't be cross-trained. C or bust.
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : @BookOfEli_NFL Packers pass game coordinator, Jason Vrable said that Jayden Reed and Dontayvion Wicks shared a placed in Florida while train
Mucky Tundra (8-May) : For now...
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers go about evaluating their "best five," OL coach Luke Butkus makes on thing clear: "Josh Myers is our center."
beast (8-May) : Though I'm a bit surprised letting go of CBs, I thought we needed more not less
beast (8-May) : It was confusing with two DB Anthony Johnson anyways
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers actually had Ray Lewis on the phone.
Zero2Cool (8-May) : Packers wanted to draft Ray Lewis. Ravens stole him.
Martha Careful (6-May) : Happy 93rd Birthday to the Greatest Baseball Player of All-Time...Willie Mays
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Walter Stanely's son
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : and released CB Anthony Johnson and DL Deandre Johnson and waived/injured WR Thyrick Pitts (thigh-rick).
buckeyepackfan (6-May) : The Green Bay Packers have signed WR Julian Hicks, OL Lecitus Smith (luh-SEET-us) and WR Dimitri Stanley
Zero2Cool (6-May) : Petty, but it's annoying me how the NFL is making the schedule release an event.
Mucky Tundra (4-May) : @mattschneidman Matt LaFleur on how he tore his pec: “Got in a fight with the bench press. I lost.”
Zero2Cool (3-May) : Jordan Love CAN sign an extension as of today. Might tak weeks/months though
TheKanataThrilla (3-May) : Packers decline 5th year option for Stokes
Mucky Tundra (3-May) : @ProFootballTalk Jaylen Warren: Steelers' special teams coach has discussed Justin Fields returning kicks.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Season officially ending tonight for Bucks ... sad face
Zero2Cool (2-May) : Giannis Antetokounmpo is listed as out for tonight's game.
dfosterf (2-May) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that
dfosterf (2-May) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.
Zero2Cool (2-May) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)
Zero2Cool (1-May) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!
earthquake (1-May) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage
beast (1-May) : Why can't the rookies be a day 1 starter? Especially when we grabbed 3 of them at the position
dfosterf (1-May) : Not going to be shocked if Gilmore goes to the Lions.
dfosterf (1-May) : I hear you dhazer, but my guess would be Gilmore Colts and Howard Vikings from what little has been reported.
Mucky Tundra (30-Apr) : S learn from McKinney who learns from Hafley who learns from the fans. Guaranteed Super Bowl
Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : could*
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Safeties should learn from Xavier.
dhazer (29-Apr) : And what about grabbing a Gilmore or Howard at CB ? Those are all Free Agents left
dhazer (29-Apr) : out of curiosity do they try and sign Simmons or Hyde to let these young safeties learn from, they can't be day 1 starters.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : I miss having Sam Shields.
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Not that he's making excuses, just pointing it out
Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : That's for dang sure. Make our erratic kicker have no excuse!
packerfanoutwest (28-Apr) : having a great long snapper is gold
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : LaFleur looking like he had some weight. Coachin will do that lol
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Thanks Mucky and whomever created topcos for each pick!
Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Insane about Kingsley
dfosterf (28-Apr) : Putring it here so Mucky sees it. He was our guy!
dfosterf (28-Apr) : Bowden long snapper Wisconsin. Consensus best LS in college.
dfosterf (28-Apr) : We got Peter Bowde
dfosterf (28-Apr) : I personally interpret that as a partial tear that can be recovered from with rehab
dfosterf (28-Apr) : MLF said Kingsley Enagbare did NOT tear his ACL and did NOT require surgery, and that he is "looking good" for the 2024 season!
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
11m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

7-May / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

5-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / beast

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

5-May / Packers Draft Threads / wpr

4-May / Packers Draft Threads / bboystyle

Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.