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
dfosterf (9h) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (11h) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (11h) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

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