birdog1960 Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Yes, because the poor and middle class are the only ones who pay into social security, the upper middle class and rich don't pay anything, and the endless Democrat spending programs are NOT the main reason that Social Security has been raided . Any more pearls of wisdom you would like to share? Are you trolling? I doubt anybody can reach these idiot conclusions and not be trolling. contributions are only made on the first $106800 thus the mddle class and poor pay more as percentage of income than the wealthy. since there are substantially more middle class and poor folks than wealthy, they contribute more to the fund. and theres more than enough blame to be spread for the deficit. had a look at the cumulative costs of the wars lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Magox you do realize that in general the Blue states are subsidizing the Red states you must realize things like Social Security has been running surpluses for years is owed almost 3 trillion from the general fund- that at current rules would be solvent until 2037- is in trouble through no fault of it's own but because it has been systematically robbed for years and the chances of being paid back is almost nil. Which means the poor and Middle-class have been subsidizing everyone else. No, that is not true. It is a fact, that the blue states are the one's that are much more dependent of Federal subsidies and aid. That is 100% fact. The red states are fiscally more responsible. Cali nj nevada rhode island arizona NY delaware florida DC alabama mass minn virgina ill maryland Generally speaking, the leaches are the blue states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back? (From Tax Foundation) New Mexico $2.03 Mississippi $2.02 Alaska $1.84 Louisiana $1.78 West Virginia $1.76 North Dakota $1.68 Alabama $1.66 South Dakota $1.53 Kentucky $1.51 Virginia $1.51 Montana $1.47 Hawaii $1.44 Maine $1.41 Arkansas $1.41 Oklahoma $1.36 South Carolina $1.35 Missouri $1.32 Maryland $1.30 Tennessee $1.27 Idaho $1.21 Arizona $1.19 Kansas $1.12 Wyoming $1.11 Iowa $1.10 Nebraska $1.10 Vermont $1.08 North Carolina $1.08 Pennsylvania $1.07 Utah $1.07 29 Indiana $1.05 Ohio $1.05 Georgia $1.01 Rhode Island $1.00 Florida $0.97 Texas $0.94 Oregon $0.93 Michigan $0.92 Washington $0.88 Wisconsin $0.86 Massachusetts $0.82 Colorado $0.81 New York $0.79 California $0.78 Delaware $0.77 Illinois $0.75 Minnesota $0.72 New Hampshire $0.71 Connecticut $0.69 Nevada $0.65 New Jersey $0.61 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back? (From Tax Foundation) New Mexico $2.03 Mississippi $2.02 Alaska $1.84 Louisiana $1.78 West Virginia $1.76 North Dakota $1.68 Alabama $1.66 South Dakota $1.53 Kentucky $1.51 Virginia $1.51 Montana $1.47 Hawaii $1.44 Maine $1.41 Arkansas $1.41 Oklahoma $1.36 South Carolina $1.35 Missouri $1.32 Maryland $1.30 Tennessee $1.27 Idaho $1.21 Arizona $1.19 Kansas $1.12 Wyoming $1.11 Iowa $1.10 Nebraska $1.10 Vermont $1.08 North Carolina $1.08 Pennsylvania $1.07 Utah $1.07 29 Indiana $1.05 Ohio $1.05 Georgia $1.01 Rhode Island $1.00 Florida $0.97 Texas $0.94 Oregon $0.93 Michigan $0.92 Washington $0.88 Wisconsin $0.86 Massachusetts $0.82 Colorado $0.81 New York $0.79 California $0.78 Delaware $0.77 Illinois $0.75 Minnesota $0.72 New Hampshire $0.71 Connecticut $0.69 Nevada $0.65 New Jersey $0.61 Once again, an overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid as if it's proof of anything other than the government processes money in an inequitable manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Once again, an overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid as if it's proof of anything other than the government processes money in an inequitable manner. I like how you guys work in teams, it's very social how you defend your buddies flank, I notice a trend on how team right-wing works - A) dispute the facts and if that doesn't work b) claim the facts while true are meaningless. and for (overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid) look in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I like how you guys work in teams, it's very social how you defend your buddies flank, I notice a trend on how team right-wing works - A) dispute the facts and if that doesn't work b) claim the facts while true are meaningless. That would be true if I were right wing. That's another tactic of the partisan retard. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously an extremist from the other side. You're such a victim. In this case, my argument is completely correct and yours is an overly simplistic regurgitation. I'm not sure if any state, red or blue, could stand on its own financially regardless of how the largess from Washington breaks down. and for (overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid) look in the mirror. If this is a sample of you thinking you're "winning" at something, you're even dumber than I thought. At the end of the day, some states are going to bring in more revenue than they send to Washington while some are going to get back less. It has very little to do with how the state votes overall and far more to do with the way politics work in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I like how you guys work in teams, it's very social how you defend your buddies flank, I notice a trend on how team right-wing works - A) dispute the facts and if that doesn't work b) claim the facts while true are meaningless. and for (overly simplistic argument regurgitated ad nauseum by the terminally stupid) look in the mirror. What do you mean by teams? Everyone here is DC Tom, except for you and me. Frankly, I have my doubts about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 What do you mean by teams? Everyone here is DC Tom, except for you and me. Frankly, I have my doubts about you. I normally hate these but that made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 "At the end of the day, some states are going to bring in more revenue than they send to Washington while some are going to get back less." ding ding ding we have a winner, and the same is true about individuals, hey I'd like to pay less or no taxes who wouldn't but it galls me to hear people complaining about spending on social programs as if they are the only ones who has their taxes going to programs they don't like- you don't like your taxes money going to head start? I don't like my taxes going for Homeland security- you don't like your taxes going for school lunches? I don't like my taxes supporting a grotesquely overgrown military, and so on and so on- maybe we should all get to vote with our tax money, you send your tax dollars to the programs you like and I'll send my tax dollars to the programs I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 "At the end of the day, some states are going to bring in more revenue than they send to Washington while some are going to get back less." ding ding ding we have a winner, and the same is true about individuals, hey I'd like to pay less or no taxes who wouldn't but it galls me to hear people complaining about spending on social programs as if they are the only ones who has their taxes going to programs they don't like- you don't like your taxes money going to head start? I don't like my taxes going for Homeland security- you don't like your taxes going for school lunches? I don't like my taxes supporting a grotesquely overgrown military, and so on and so on- maybe we should all get to vote with our tax money, you send your tax dollars to the programs you like and I'll send my tax dollars to the programs I like. I don't know what you're going for here but you seem to be passionate about it, so whatever. My feeling on taxes is probably not much different than most. We pay more than enough already. It's time for those who want to lead to make some tough decisions. That means cutting a whole lot of "uncuttable" things. DoD, SS, whatever. Nothing should be off the table. The biggest issue with it is how many jobs go with each thing. They could easily cut DoD's budget by half and get almost exactly the same bang but that's not how it'd work because too many entities are "owed" when someone gets elected. Same with education, unions, energy, etc. Until the American people wake the !@#$ up and realize that BOTH parties are COMPLETELY corrupt and need to be replaced, nothing is changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 maybe we should all get to vote with our tax money, you send your tax dollars to the programs you like and I'll send my tax dollars to the programs I like. I think you are on the right track here....certainly those who pay more for our common well-being should have a more direct voice in where the money is spent and who get responsibility for spending it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back? (From Tax Foundation) New Mexico $2.03 Mississippi $2.02 Alaska $1.84 Louisiana $1.78 West Virginia $1.76 North Dakota $1.68 Alabama $1.66 South Dakota $1.53 Kentucky $1.51 Virginia $1.51 Montana $1.47 Hawaii $1.44 Maine $1.41 Arkansas $1.41 Oklahoma $1.36 South Carolina $1.35 Missouri $1.32 Maryland $1.30 Tennessee $1.27 Idaho $1.21 Arizona $1.19 Kansas $1.12 Wyoming $1.11 Iowa $1.10 Nebraska $1.10 Vermont $1.08 North Carolina $1.08 Pennsylvania $1.07 Utah $1.07 29 Indiana $1.05 Ohio $1.05 Georgia $1.01 Rhode Island $1.00 Florida $0.97 Texas $0.94 Oregon $0.93 Michigan $0.92 Washington $0.88 Wisconsin $0.86 Massachusetts $0.82 Colorado $0.81 New York $0.79 California $0.78 Delaware $0.77 Illinois $0.75 Minnesota $0.72 New Hampshire $0.71 Connecticut $0.69 Nevada $0.65 New Jersey $0.61 An article from today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business...inois.html?_r=1 The federal dollars are nearly spent. Last month, local governments nationwide shed more than 20,000 jobs. Should the largest struggling states — like California, New York or Illinois — lay off tens of thousands more in coming months, or default on payments, the reverberations could badly damage a weakened economy and push housing prices down still further. “You’re not seeing these states bounce back, and that could be a big drag on the national economy,” said Susan K. Urahn of the Pew Center on the States. “It could be a very tough decade.” In Illinois, the fiscal pain is radiating downward. “We are a fiscal poster child for what not to do,” said Ralph Martire of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a liberal-leaning policy group in Illinois. “We make California look as if it’s run by penurious accountants who sit in rooms trying to put together an honest budget all day.” New Jersey isn't too far behind. Let's see here, are these blue or red states? And guess where most of the money has gone for STATE AID in the last Stimulus Bill? And no, I'm not talking about monies from the Stimulus bill, I'm referring to state aid to help close budget deficits. And guess where most of the money will be coming from in the next jobs bill that the Democrats are begging for now? And where do you think that money comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 What do you mean by teams? Everyone here is DC Tom, except for you and me. Frankly, I have my doubts about you. No, no, no. I explained all this awhile back... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1863107 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 An article from today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/business...inois.html?_r=1 New Jersey isn't too far behind. Let's see here, are these blue or red states? oh yeah, they are blue states. And guess where most of the money has gone for STATE AID in the last Stimulus Bill? And no, I'm not talking about monies from the Stimulus bill, I'm referring to state aid to help close budget deficits. And guess where most of the money will be coming from in the next jobs bill that the Democrats are begging for now? And where do you think that money comes from? That's right, us the taxpayer, which means that the red states are paying more than their fair shar. This Data is more recent than mine(2007) so I bow, it makes sense that during an major economic downturn that the larger more urban Blue States are hit harder and need more Federal help- but I hope you acknowledge that during better economic times that the richer Blue States carried the poorer Red States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 3, 2010 Share Posted July 3, 2010 I don't know what you're going for here but you seem to be passionate about it, so whatever. My feeling on taxes is probably not much different than most. We pay more than enough already. It's time for those who want to lead to make some tough decisions. That means cutting a whole lot of "uncuttable" things. DoD, SS, whatever. Nothing should be off the table. The biggest issue with it is how many jobs go with each thing. They could easily cut DoD's budget by half and get almost exactly the same bang but that's not how it'd work because too many entities are "owed" when someone gets elected. Same with education, unions, energy, etc. Until the American people wake the !@#$ up and realize that BOTH parties are COMPLETELY corrupt and need to be replaced, nothing is changing. On this we agree completely - if I sound passionate it's because I hate nothing more than hypocrisy, I hate it in others and I hate it in myself. I was a Reagan supporter for his first term (he ran as a fiscal conservative) he turned out to be a hypocrite. I think Obama is a hypocrite in about twenty different ways. I'm a 2nd amendment supporter but I don't think a lot of people get it, it's not about hunting or self defense against a mugger it's about self-defense against a tyrannical government and guns are not enough, it should be the right to have RPGs, IEDs, and stinger missiles the second amendment was written in a time where Muskets were pretty much the state of the art and the framers couldn't imagine the disparity of power between the citizenry and state government in comparison to the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Voting will not change american politics, no matter who we elect. The system is too far gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Voting will not change american politics, no matter who we elect. The system is too far gone. I sadly agree, especially the red part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 Voting will not change american politics, no matter who we elect. The system is too far gone. As a practical matter I think you are right, but I don't think it is impossible, with the Internet it is possible to find out from where and at what amounts candidates are being financed- what if there was a block of voters who vote for the candidates who received the least amount of special interest money, what if there was a block of voters who refuse to vote for those they see on TV or hear on radio- If you could make special interest money and expensive media ads a detriment instead of a benefit I think you'd see a profound change in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 No, that is not true. It is a fact, that the blue states are the one's that are much more dependent of Federal subsidies and aid. That is 100% fact. The red states are fiscally more responsible. Cali nj nevada rhode island arizona NY delaware florida DC alabama mass minn virgina ill maryland Generally speaking, the leaches are the blue states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 As a practical matter I think you are right, but I don't think it is impossible, with the Internet it is possible to find out from where and at what amounts candidates are being financed- what if there was a block of voters who vote for the candidates who received the least amount of special interest money, what if there was a block of voters who refuse to vote for those they see on TV or hear on radio- If you could make special interest money and expensive media ads a detriment instead of a benefit I think you'd see a profound change in government. The problem with this theory is you're banking on logic and reason to trump catch phrases, slogans, and MTV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts