Porforis
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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
12 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. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
dfosterf (3h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (5h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (5h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (5h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (7h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (18h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (23h) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23h / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.