Agreed. In my generation, I doubt there's anyone that expects social security in its current form to be around for them. So keep the plan the same for those close to retirement, reconfigure it for everyone else. Stepping up investigation of Medicare fraud could save us a bundle, as would re-evaluating folks on social security disability that are fully capable of working. A co-worker of mine had an interesting idea regarding our military. Announce the closure of the majority of our foreign bases. Those countries who still want our presence must pay the US for us to remain. Sounds good to me.Jay wrote:
Perhaps, but in this instance he is right. Raising taxes is not an option. They need to gut social security, medicare and the military.eleven bravo wrote:
eric cantor looks as bad of douchebag as really is.
That's your response? You don't think that investing the money that people pay into social security every month instead of paying it out to current beneficiaries is a good idea? You'd rather just keep tossing money into the current trainwreck? I envy the Aussies for exactly one thing, their superannuation system. They saw retirement systems for the ponzi schemes they are and instead created a robust system where people actually end up getting back more than they put in when they retire. Amazing.eleven bravo wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJkxFhFRFDA
Precisely. Make the cutoff 45 years of age or so. That gives people under 45 over 20 years to plan for their own retirement. There's no way in hell that I'd ever let myself be dependent on social security when I retire anyway.Stingray24 wrote:
Agreed. In my generation, I doubt there's anyone that expects social security in its current form to be around for them. So keep the plan the same for those close to retirement, reconfigure it for everyone else. Stepping up investigation of Medicare fraud could save us a bundle, as would re-evaluating folks on social security disability that are fully capable of working. A co-worker of mine had an interesting idea regarding our military. Announce the closure of the majority of our foreign bases. Those countries who still want our presence must pay the US for us to remain. Sounds good to me.Jay wrote:
Perhaps, but in this instance he is right. Raising taxes is not an option. They need to gut social security, medicare and the military.eleven bravo wrote:
eric cantor looks as bad of douchebag as really is.
The proof is in the pudding dilbert. All government spending is not equal. You have to weigh the benifts and returns of each program. I listed just a miniscule amount of technology generated by nasa. Expediency is important when it comes to who developes what technology first. NASA has without a doubt played a major role in pushing leading edge technology and job growth. Its rather easy to put two and two together. .. for most people.Dilbert_X wrote:
And where's the proof that NASA provides a better Return/Tax $ than other forms of govt spending?Kmar wrote:
Consider all of the jobs that have been created from NASA spinoff technology.Dilbert_X wrote:
Lets see the figures, I bet it hasn't.
Compare and contrast with govt spending on the military and private investment in technology generally.
Let me give you a quick handful of products NASA has had a role in developing.
- Implantable Heart Aid
- Cardiac Imaging System
- Laser Angioplasty
- Thermal Video
- Blood Analyzer
- X-Ray Imaging System
- Collision Avoidance System
- Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
- Solar Energy
- Cordless tools
- Memory Metals
- Heart Rate Monitor
- Water Filter/Conditioner
- Digital Image Processing
- Laser Technology
- Satellite Dish
- Advanced Plastics
- Smoke Detectors
- Thermal Gloves and Boots
.. and on and on and on.
Now consider all of the taxes paid as a result of those jobs that manufacture, use, and sell those products everyday. It's exceedingly obvious that NASA pays for itself.
'Advanced Plastics' - They'd never have been developed without NASA
Applies to many of the other items you mentioned
There is a federally mandated debt ceiling that the government has been pushing back for decades. Come up close to the cap? Push the cap out further. The Republicans in Congress are now using it as a weapon to force down government spending and threatening to let it expire which would cause a default. Our economy isn't in imminent danger of collapse, but we are at a crossroads where we can either raise taxes, or cut spending in order to stop our debt growth. Obama wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want to cut programs without raising taxes. They're at an impasse and playing chicken.Jaekus wrote:
I haven't followed none too closely tbh but clearly you guys have. Is the US e anomy really in such dire straits right now? I know trillions have been borrowed from China. I also don't understand how a nation of US' size could default on their debts. Wouldn't that be close to economic meltdown?
My vote is irrelevant. My state will vote for Obama.Shocking wrote:
so what are you going to vote in 2012?
US doesn't have superannuation? AFAIK it's actually compulsory for most employers to make contributions into a nominated fund each and every pay of around 9% I believe. The employee can also opt to make additional payments, which isn't taxed.Jay wrote:
That's your response? You don't think that investing the money that people pay into social security every month instead of paying it out to current beneficiaries is a good idea? You'd rather just keep tossing money into the current trainwreck? I envy the Aussies for exactly one thing, their superannuation system. They saw retirement systems for the ponzi schemes they are and instead created a robust system where people actually end up getting back more than they put in when they retire. Amazing.eleven bravo wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJkxFhFRFDA
We have a 401K system, but it's not government mandated. It's usually a perk with the company matching up to 3% or so.Jaekus wrote:
US doesn't have superannuation? AFAIK it's actually compulsory for most employers to make contributions into a nominated fund each and every pay of around 9% I believe. The employee can also opt to make additional payments, which isn't taxed.Jay wrote:
That's your response? You don't think that investing the money that people pay into social security every month instead of paying it out to current beneficiaries is a good idea? You'd rather just keep tossing money into the current trainwreck? I envy the Aussies for exactly one thing, their superannuation system. They saw retirement systems for the ponzi schemes they are and instead created a robust system where people actually end up getting back more than they put in when they retire. Amazing.eleven bravo wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJkxFhFRFDA
Oh yeah, don't you just love politics?Jay wrote:
There is a federally mandated debt ceiling that the government has been pushing back for decades. Come up close to the cap? Push the cap out further. The Republicans in Congress are now using it as a weapon to force down government spending and threatening to let it expire which would cause a default. Our economy isn't in imminent danger of collapse, but we are at a crossroads where we can either raise taxes, or cut spending in order to stop our debt growth. Obama wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want to cut programs without raising taxes. They're at an impasse and playing chicken.Jaekus wrote:
I haven't followed none too closely tbh but clearly you guys have. Is the US e anomy really in such dire straits right now? I know trillions have been borrowed from China. I also don't understand how a nation of US' size could default on their debts. Wouldn't that be close to economic meltdown?
That's because of the electoral votes system right?Jay wrote:
My vote is irrelevant. My state will vote for Obama.Shocking wrote:
so what are you going to vote in 2012?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-16 08:50:49)
Yes, that would be the right compromise except the current administration has squandered any and all goodwill that it had upon being elected. Obamacare? Dreadful. Stimulus spending? Even worse. They've spent money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. Now they're asking daddy to pay the bill and instead he is threatening to sell off their toys to pay for it.Jaekus wrote:
Oh yeah, don't you just love politics?Jay wrote:
There is a federally mandated debt ceiling that the government has been pushing back for decades. Come up close to the cap? Push the cap out further. The Republicans in Congress are now using it as a weapon to force down government spending and threatening to let it expire which would cause a default. Our economy isn't in imminent danger of collapse, but we are at a crossroads where we can either raise taxes, or cut spending in order to stop our debt growth. Obama wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want to cut programs without raising taxes. They're at an impasse and playing chicken.Jaekus wrote:
I haven't followed none too closely tbh but clearly you guys have. Is the US e anomy really in such dire straits right now? I know trillions have been borrowed from China. I also don't understand how a nation of US' size could default on their debts. Wouldn't that be close to economic meltdown?
I know it's oversimplified but wouldn't the solution be somewhere in the middle? Raise a few taxes and cut spending? That way both measures would not have to be severe to achieve a similar result.
Its impossible for some people to break free of it. Dilbert is a perfect example. The op read equally as offensive to both major parties. However a political cultist can only see points to be scored for or against one 'team'. The box they occupy is embarrassingly transparent and close minded. They've lost their grip.Jay wrote:
That's nice. She's an idiot normally, but she's right on this. Just because it's a Republican talking point doesn't make it incorrect. Don't fall into the Red Team vs Blue Team trap. That stuff is for morons.
Yes, but it does make sense to a limited extent. It gives more power to smaller states that would otherwise be irrelevant when it came to elections. If it was based solely on population no one would ever campaign outside of New York, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Michigan and California. It's the same reason every state has two senators.Shocking wrote:
That's because of the electoral votes system right?Jay wrote:
My vote is irrelevant. My state will vote for Obama.Shocking wrote:
so what are you going to vote in 2012?
Doesn't that mean that someone can lose although more % of the total population voted on him if he/she won in only a few states?
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-16 08:57:31)
Coulter is a hack that says whatever is needed to sell books. You should always consider that whenever you hear her whoring herself out for attention.eleven bravo wrote:
ann coulter said those exact same words on bill maher last week.
Parroting other peoples talking points is always easier than doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions. I despise the Republicans as much as I do the Democrats but I'm objective enough to like some stances from either. I just happen to view economics as supremely important in national politics so I tend to lean Republican because of it. I despise their social stances however (outside of gun control).Kmar wrote:
Its impossible for some people to break free of it. Dilbert is a perfect example. The op read equally as offensive to both major parties. However a political cultist can only see points to be scored for or against one 'team'. The box they occupy is embarrassingly transparent and close minded. They've lost their grip.Jay wrote:
That's nice. She's an idiot normally, but she's right on this. Just because it's a Republican talking point doesn't make it incorrect. Don't fall into the Red Team vs Blue Team trap. That stuff is for morons.
And of course neither side will compromise, yet that is exactly what needs to be done. I find it curious how both parties can be simultaneously remarkably similar and yet totally polarised on a range of issues. But that's politics.Jay wrote:
Yes, that would be the right compromise except the current administration has squandered any and all goodwill that it had upon being elected. Obamacare? Dreadful. Stimulus spending? Even worse. They've spent money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. Now they're asking daddy to pay the bill and instead he is threatening to sell off their toys to pay for it.Jaekus wrote:
Oh yeah, don't you just love politics?Jay wrote:
There is a federally mandated debt ceiling that the government has been pushing back for decades. Come up close to the cap? Push the cap out further. The Republicans in Congress are now using it as a weapon to force down government spending and threatening to let it expire which would cause a default. Our economy isn't in imminent danger of collapse, but we are at a crossroads where we can either raise taxes, or cut spending in order to stop our debt growth. Obama wants to raise taxes, the Republicans want to cut programs without raising taxes. They're at an impasse and playing chicken.
I know it's oversimplified but wouldn't the solution be somewhere in the middle? Raise a few taxes and cut spending? That way both measures would not have to be severe to achieve a similar result.
Jaekus wrote:
And of course neither side will compromise, yet that is exactly what needs to be done. I find it curious how both parties can be simultaneously remarkably similar and yet totally polarised on a range of issues. But that's politics.Jay wrote:
Yes, that would be the right compromise except the current administration has squandered any and all goodwill that it had upon being elected. Obamacare? Dreadful. Stimulus spending? Even worse. They've spent money like a teenager with an unlimited credit card. Now they're asking daddy to pay the bill and instead he is threatening to sell off their toys to pay for it.Jaekus wrote:
Oh yeah, don't you just love politics?
I know it's oversimplified but wouldn't the solution be somewhere in the middle? Raise a few taxes and cut spending? That way both measures would not have to be severe to achieve a similar result.
We have massive debt and a massive annual deficit and he wants to create more programs. This is why I'm firmly in the court of the Republicans when it comes to reining in spending. This administration is out of its fucking mind.Obama wrote:
"I'd rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes, like new programs."
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-16 10:01:30)
That's why I don't understand why anyone thinks Obama wins in this situation. Increased spending is no longer a viable option at this point. If there is negative fallout from this situation, it won't be those in favor of spending cuts who take the blame.Jay wrote:
We have massive debt and a massive annual deficit and he wants to create more programs. This is why I'm firmly in the court of the Republicans when it comes to reining in spending. This administration is out of its fucking mind.