Hello:

There's a balanced budget amendment, and then THERE'S a balanced budget amendment... They SOUND like they're same, but one AIN'T like the other...

Now, you've got your Republicans looking, oh so sincerely, into the camera's BLAMING the Democrats for NOT wanting to balance the budget -- those wasteful spendthrifts... Only Republicans can save the day... But, when you look into THEIR balanced budget amendment, you find that not only does their plan balance the budget, but it HAMSTRINGS congress from raising revenues - EVER. It won't SAVE us money. It'll COST us a fortune.

Here's an example. We'll have to MAINTAIN an army BIG enough to defend us from ALL comers, for ALL time. That's because if we're attacked, we won't be able to BORROW to buck up our forces... It ties the government's hands just like the pledge Republicans made to Grover Norquist does, only this won't be a pledge. It will be the law.. In my view, that's national SUICIDE.

But, there IS a REAL balanced budget amendment around... It's called the CLEAN one.. Why? Here's how Republican, Mike Pence explains it, "It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."

I agree with Mike Pence. The Democrats agree with Mike Pence. I think EVERYBODY agrees with Mike Pence. So, what's wrong with your ordinary Republican?

DON'T be fooled when they talk about THE "balanced budget amendment".. It AIN'T a balanced budget amendment. It's Republican IDEOLOGY!

excon

Having just lived through a state shutdown because Republicans wouldn't bend and Democrats gave in to not raising taxes for those who can AFFORD the taxes (and how many members of Congress are in that 1% of Americans, hmmmm?), I despair of anyone ever doing ANYTHING to not only balance the budget, but to balance the disparity between the rich and the poor. Hell, just between the rich and the middle class would be great. That gulf is HUGE.

Tax big business, and take 10% away from EVERY area we spend money on our budget (including those benefits and salaries that Congress gets) and I'm betting we not only BALANCE the budget, we start paying back what we already owe in deficits.

SOME generation has to start giving government benefits up or start paying back the money that previous generations DIDN'T pay in taxes. Why not start now, BEFORE we hit rock bottom and have a revolution in our country?

Tax big business...

Yeah, we can start with Apple (http://business.financialpost.com/2011/07/28/u-s-balance-now-less-than-apple-cash/), "the second largest company on the planet".

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.

Perhaps if they had to give out of their own pockets to make up the difference every time they gave out tax CUTS, they'd do the same.


I'm still waiting for all those billionaires and others begging to be taxed more to just forward their extra to the feds. Obama himself said he didn't need any more money so he could lead by example and walk it down to the treasury.

In principle I am opposed to a balance budget amendment because that would add Court involvement in the budget process .

I also oppose it because ,like Hamilton ,I think maintaining a well managed bebt is essential . I only oppose a debt that has gone out of control .Hint ,when obligations exceed the national GDP then it's time to reign in the debt.

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.Hello again, Steve:

So, Republicans continually repeating the talking point that Democrats DON'T want A balanced budget amendment IS true?? It's absolutely NOT!

Look, Steve. I'm an exconvict on a website. I don't RUN sh*t. In fact, you'd EXPECT me to lie... But, our LEADERS?? The people running things?? I don't want them to LIE to me. You do?

excon

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues", that Republicans are "running the country over the cliff" and especially, Democrats are saving the world and life as we know it.

Of course not, I'm fed up with hearing Democrats repeat ad nauseum about their "balanced approach", "increasing revenues", Hello again, Steve:

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart. You certainly don't believe in trickle down... You're certainly going to be drawing SS, and carrying a Medicare card. You have relatives who BANK on those services, don't you?

If tax cuts create jobs, I'm still waiting...

excon

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.

Aside from the social issues, I can't understand why a working stiff supports people who DON'T have your interests at heart.

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.

*greenie*

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.Hello again, Synn:

I agree. But, you can't stop people from associating with whomever they want. You CAN pass term limits, though, and that would do the same thing.

excon

Dude, and Democrats do? We're at the point now where we're running out of other people's money and they just want to spend trillions more. I can't understand why someone who thinks the government should stay out of our lives supports people that are increasing the nanny state by leaps and bounds.Hello again, Steve:

What you say, is essentially TRUE. However, I don't distinguish between the trillions they want to spend on domestic programs, from the trillions they want to spend on empire building. You do.

Let's speak some truth, here. BOTH sides want BIG GOVERNMENT. So, it boils down to what kind of country we want... If we're going to HAVE big government, I'd RATHER my big government tell me what to eat, than SPY on me.

excon

How about getting rid of the two party system entirely?

If we didn't have party interests, maybe something would get done.I think it's less the fact that is a two=party system and more the fact that campaign donations direct the politician's voting.

My husband and I were talking about campaign donations.

I'd LOVE to see a cap on them. If you can't get elected on $1 million or less as a president and $500k or less as a Congressperson, then you shouldn't be in office, IMO.

If they couldn't take ANY donations above that mark, I'm betting they'd get a lot more efficient about their campaigns AND their spending of taxpayer money.

"It's the historic balanced budget amendment that passed both houses of Congress 15 years ago," Pence explained. That was the version of the amendment that had no caps on how much Congress was allowed to spend, no new rule that required two-thirds of Congress to approve new tax cuts. "That's the one that has an opportunity to get 290 votes, to pass by the sufficient two-thirds majority. We can make a good faith effort to pass the version that has a fighting chance."


Here is the 1995 version of BBA


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

Article--

SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll call vote.

SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

Yeah it was better .It required a 3/5 vote of Congress to approve spending above revenues .

However ,I oppose both versions. I'd go with the Jefferson plan however .
But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison)

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .

And term limits would make much of the spending in campaigns obsolete .It's not so much as the spending during the campaign itself but rather the subsequent voting for issue that support the corporate donors versus supporting the constituents in their riding.

Don't you worry folks, the leader of the chamber that hasn't put forth any budget resolution as required by law for over 800 days is going to swoop in to save the day (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60212.html).


Calling his plan “the last train out of the station,” Reid said there are only hours to act before Tuesday's Treasury deadline, so he plans to file a procedural motion Friday to move towards a final vote in the next few days.

“That is why, by the end of the day today, I must take action on the Senate's compromise legislation,” he said.

The man who hasn't done his job in over two years is going to save us. I wonder if he's going to push the best known plan out there (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/28/where-is-the-plan-carney-says-obamas-is-the-best-known-debt-plan/) , the non-existent Obama plan.

Odd that Obamas concept of compromise "give me exactly what I want or else" is completely ignored by the drive by media. That's not compromise.. thats parading around like a pompous azz.

When was his coronation as King? The never taught the "smartest man to ever reside in the Whitehouse " the concept of co-equal branches of government? Apparently not.

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around??

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around???

We don't really have 'poor people', poor is all those living on less than a dollar a day. We need to wean a bunch of our 'poor people' off the government teat and save our money for those who really need it. Our 'poor people' drive nicer cars than I do.

Hello again, Steve:

Well, I suppose if it was MY view that there AREN'T any poor people, and EVERYBODY gets all the health care they need, then I, like you, would want the rich people to get more.

But, I DON'T share your view of this country.. Why?? Because it AIN'T a CORRECT view.

excon

Show me how to balance a budget with 50 million poor people and their kids running around???

Tal it's not hard you take it off the military and make the fat cats pay. So long as tax isn't 100% they will still earn money. A balanced budget becomes possible when you get people to work so that you turn that outflow from social security around and some may even pay some tax. You see; those 50 million poor aren't socking away their money they are supporting the economy by spending. There is another way too you make a set of standard deductions and do away with the wastefull cheat sheet tax returns

Fact is Tal you don't need any more aircraft carriers and the planes you have will last fifty years. They are still using warthogs aren't there that's a Vietnam war plane. If you keep your army within your own borders then you don't need so many. Let MAD do its job. The Russians, that other superpower, get by with a derelect fleet and half an army

Hello again, Steve:

Well, I suppose if it was MY view that there AREN'T any poor people, and EVERYBODY gets all the health care they need, then I, like you, would want the rich people to get more.

But, I DON'T share your view of this country.. Why?? Because it AIN'T a CORRECT view.

Excon

Um, again with the speaking for me? Enough of that BS, speak for yourself. I keep waiting for all those billionaires that want to be taxed more, and the president himself who says he has more than he needs, to walk their extra cash down to the treasury. You know why they won't? They ARE the rich people that are screwing this country over and they're nothing but fat cat hypocrites...
(http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/07/29/obamas_exclusive_george_soros_waivers)

Obama's Exclusive George Soros Waivers
By Michelle Malkin
7/29/2011

"Millionaires and billionaires," President Obama says derisively, must make more "sacrifices" and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: "And that means you, too, George Soros."

For all his (and his wife's) bashing of greedy Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Obama has shown nothing but love to the world's most famous hedge-fund mogul. The feeling is mutual and deep(-pocketed).

Soros and his family shelled out $250,000 for Obama's inauguration, $60,000 in direct campaign contributions and untold millions more to liberal activist groups pushing the White House agenda. While the class warrior-in-chief assails conniving financiers who exploit loopholes and corporate titans who imperil the planet, he lets the Soros exemptions to his attack-the-rich rules slide like butter on a hot plate.

This week, for example, Soros announced he was "quitting" the hedge-fund industry. The headlines emphasized his decision to return about $750 million to outside investors (a drop in his $30 billion bucket of personal wealth). He's reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine's "wealthiest people" list as a "family" interest. But the move has "self-serving politics" written all over it.

Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats' Byzantine financial "reforms" under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: "The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework."

Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however.

Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new "Financial Stability Oversight Council."

Somehow, in touting its one-year anniversary last week, there was nary a peep about the myriad loopholes and de facto waivers being granted to Obama's powerful benefactors whose names start with "S" and end in "-oros."

GOP Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama called Soros' hypocrisy out, telling Reuters this week: "It appears that Mr. Soros talked up financial reform only to sell it short. Don't be surprised to see his fellow Wall Street financiers follow suit."

This comes on top of the Obama administration's $2 billion offering in 2009 to Brazilian state-owned offshore oil-drilling company Petrobras -- in which Soros and his management company own an $811 million stake.

Offshore drilling for they, but not for the rest of the USA. Membership in the self-exempting progressive billionaires' club has its privileges.

OK ex, sure sounds like Obama and his buddy share that "incorrect view" of wanting the rich people to get more. What are you going to do about it?

And NK, I don't care that you don't approve of the source, it's the facts that matter.

save our money for those who really need it.
Who are they?

And NK, I don't care that you don't approve of the source, it's the facts that matter.Hello again, Steve:

Does your butt pucker up when you read something from Paul Krugman?? Now you know how NK and I feel reading something from Michell Malkin.

excon

We don't really have 'poor people', poor is all those living on less than a dollar a day. We need to wean a bunch of our 'poor people' off the government teat and save our money for those who really need it. Our 'poor people' drive nicer cars than I do.

Lets see, at the minimum wage times 40 hrs/week, that's $14,400 dollars a year, add a few kids, try living off that anywhere in America, and let me know how that works for you, and your family. Tell me about where, and how you live, and the kind of car you drive, and the health insurance you have. Oh, and lets not forget, most people making that minimum wage don't even get 40 hours a week, because the boss has 'em on part time.

You have to have something to wean them off that government teat, and pray tell what is that? Ever wean a baby off a mama's teat, WITHOUT a bottle of milk? That's where you get those images late at night about starving children around the world.

If only the poor would be a bit more ambitious, right?? Are you kidding me??

Tal it's not hard you take it off the military and make the fat cats pay. So long as tax isn't 100% they will still earn money. A balanced budget becomes possible when you get people to work so that you turn that outflow from social security around and some may even pay some tax. You see; those 50 million poor aren't socking away their money they are supporting the economy by spending. There is another way too you make a set of standard deductions and do away with the wasteful cheat sheet tax returns

Fact is Tal you don't need any more aircraft carriers and the planes you have will last fifty years. They are still using warthops aren't there that's a Vietnam war plane. If you keep your army within your own borders then you don't need so many. Let MAD do its job. The Russians, that other superpower, get by with a derelict fleet and half an army

Do you see how hard it is to get taxes raised on the rich here? The so called job creators, that have taken the loot to other countries for the cheap labor? And poor people aren't supporting the economy, the are surviving, not thriving! But you are right, nobody has a military like ours in the world. NOBODY, so why are their economy's in such a funk?

LOL, and since we have so many that don't understand that now raising the debt ceiling is a calamity, don't expect some NATIONS understanding Mutually Assured Destruction. Pakistan, India, and Iran come to mind.

But you have a great point about the military, except any place we can make a dollar is subject to invasion in our own interest. Specially if they got oil. We drink it by the gallon here you know. Even the poor people here, according o Steve.

Hello again, Steve:

Does your butt pucker up when you read something from Paul Krugman??? Now you know how NK and I feel reading something from Michell Malkin.

excon

She makes my liver quiver, until she starts talking, and then I get sick. As bad as listening to the Bachman-Palin Overdrive... yargh!

I'd like to see Obama take all of his campaign donations and put them toward the national debt.

I'd vote for his re-election for that act alone.

Same with any OTHER government official.

If they took their MILLIONS in campaign donations and gave them to the COUNTRY---that would make me HAPPY.

But they won't. Nor will they "raise revenue" at all because EVERYONE is sick to death of being taxed to support fat-cat politicians.

I'm sick to death of ALL of it, but I know it will NEVER change as long as CORPORATIONS are the ones running the country through our puppet politicians.

I'd like to see Obama take all of his campaign donations and put them toward the national debt.

I'd vote for his re-election for that act alone.

Same with any OTHER government official.

If they took their MILLIONS in campaign donations and gave them to the COUNTRY---that would make me HAPPY.

But they won't. Nor will they "raise revenue" at all because EVERYONE is sick to death of being taxed to support fat-cat politicians.

I'm sick to death of ALL of it, but I know it will NEVER change as long as CORPORATIONS are the ones running the country through our puppet politicians.

Two greenies

But "We the people" elected those politicians, so we sort of got what we paid for, or what they(corporations, and rich guys) paid for.

Do you see how hard it is to get taxes raised on the rich here?

I have observed and basically I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay tax In my nation adjustments to income tax are part of the budget process and they happen because most people pay tax. Mind you we haven't needed to raise tax in a while because we have control of other factors in the economy


The so called job creators, that have taken the loot to other countries for the cheap labor?
Hey it's happened here too but we have gotten past it and instead of sitting on our duffs lamenting it we have dealt with it and unemployment is only structural. In fact we need skilled people

And poor people aren't supporting the economy, the are surviving, not thriving!
Poor people are always supporting the economy, they have to eat and thy have to live somewhere. It's a small but important contribution.
But you are right, nobody has a military like ours in the world. NOBODY, so why are their economy's in such a funk?
People in other places bought into the same dream you did, affordable housing, and just like your dream, it evaporated and in some places welfare, etc is just too generous and some don't pay. For example in Greece tax evasion is a national pastime, and there are some places too unstable for industries to set up there


LOL, and since we have so many that don't understand that now raising the debt ceiling is a calamity, don't expect some NATIONS understanding Mutually Assured Destruction. Pakistan, India, and Iran come to mind.

Tal raising the ceiling isn't a calamity, that your nation should tear itsself apart over a simple mechanism is the calamity, that your politicians don't understand simple economics is calamity

A little MAD applied to India, Pakistan and Iran would do them good, clear the decks so to speak but Iran has the message. You have more oil in your own territory than you know what to do with why would you invade to get more?

I have observed and basicly I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay taxHello again, clete:

You didn't "observe" anything.. You just got the right wing email. Of course, it's basically a LIE.

Oh, it IS true, that about HALF of us don't pay federal INCOME taxes - but, there's PLENTY of federal taxes they DO pay. For instance, they PAY federal UNEMPLOYMENT taxes. They pay federal PAYROLL taxes.. They pay federal SOCIAL SECURITY taxes. They pay federal GASOLINE taxes. They pay federal TELEPHONE taxes. They pay federal INTERNET taxes. And, THOSE federal taxes are just the ones a dumb old exconvict like me knows about. Surely there's dozens more... Do you want me to mention STATE taxes?? They pay PLENTY of those...

The truth is that more than 50% of our federal budget is paid for by taxes that our working poor DO pay. Now, you may want them to pay more... Our right wingers do.

Now, if you want to talk about the scum who SUCK off society, I'll have that conversation with you.. But, our working poor ain't them.

excon

The truth is that more than 50% of our federal budget is paid for by taxes that our poor DO pay. Now, you may want them to pay more... Our right wingers do.

If you wanna talk about the scum who SUCK off society, I'll have that conversation with you.. But, our working poor ain't them.

excon

Yes ex there are plenty of taxes but who are these scum suckers, are they the welfare cheats who burden the system while crying poor? The way I hear it ex the idea was to raise tax on people with incomes over $250000, hardly working poor. More than 50% of your federal budget isn't paid by tax Ex it's paid by money you borrowed and continue to borrow so future citizens will pay, now that's scum suckin because the only way it can work is with massive inflation.

What has happened these days is that the tools used to manage the economy, taxation, interest rates and debt have been taken away until in the case of the US only one remains DEBT, It used to be that government could raise or lower tax, raise or lower interest rates, borrow or contract debt, but they can't anymore so the economy goes nowhere because the signals are stuck to keep those scum sucking fat cats rich

The debt limit is but a smoke screen as its about political posturing. We all know that and its frustrating, but that's the way we fight over here. Better than some places, and it's the price of our democracy.


I have observed and basically I think it is because only about 50% of your people actually pay tax In my nation adjustments to income tax are part of the budget process and they happen because most people pay tax. Mind you we haven't needed to raise tax in a while because we have control of other factors in the economy

That's misinformed crap, as everyone that works pays a payroll tax, and have to wait for April 15th, the following year to claim a refund. Unlike the rich guys who pay no payroll tax, just file in April. See the difference? It's a big one because working people have no access, and get no interest from that money until they file and get a refund. What you think that cash just sits and doesn't make interest for the government??


people in other places bought into the same dream you did, affordable housing, and just like your dream, it evaporated and in some places welfare, etc is just too generous and some don't pay. For example in Greece tax evasion is a national pastime, and there are some places too unstable for industries to set up there

Well we ain't Greeks, and all due respect, we had some slick swindlers and maybe affordable housing is a bit rocky, its still doable, and lets me clear we are a rather large nation, bigger than the Australia you put up as perfect, I mean you have 20 million folks and a trillion dollar budget. I understand your national pride, but we are all a works in progress moving to solve problems. You still have your national challenges too, as do all nations, so lets not act like Australia leads the world in living. That's very condescending. Sorry we don't meet your standards of civilized, but I really don't think we're trying to.

Get some popcorn, and enjoy the show, we will eventually get 'er done. We may not be as pretty as you Aussies, or the Greeks for that matter, but we are pretty capable.

Well we ain't Greeks, and all due respect, we had some slick swindlers and maybe affordable housing is a bit rocky, its still doable, and lets me clear we are a rather large nation, bigger than the Australia you put up as perfect, I mean you have 20 million folks and a trillion dollar budget. I understand your national pride, but we are all a works in progress moving to solve problems. You still have your national challenges too, as do all nations, so lets not act like Australia leads the world in living. Thats very condescending. Sorry we don't meet your standards of civilized, but I really don't think we're trying to.



Herein lies the rub Tal when we speak about tax we are talking about the final outcome i.e. money you ultimately don't have. We all have stupid tax systems that take with one hand and give with another we are steadly reforming ours with plans for less and less people to lodge tax returns. You know that there is a reason companies test products in a small market and it is that it is easier to sort out the problems. What you call national pride is a recognition that we might have solved some of these problems you are finding to be a hump. It wasn't without pain. When we took on removing the protection of our industries there was great pain but our economy is booming today. I think you might be at that stage of development. Actually in living standards Australia is up there currently rated number 2 on the Human Development Index. Another small nation Norway is number 1. What that means is we might have got a good deal right despite having some extremely disadvantaged people in our midst. Your national pride prevents you from taking a solution from a "smaller" nation. We don't expect you to achieve our standards of civilisation because you seem to be going in the opposite direction and because you started with an entirely different ethos. You see Tal the twentieth century was your century and maybe this is ours, maybe not

Thats misinformed crap, as everyone that works pays a payroll tax, and have to wait for April 15th, the following year to claim a refund. Unlike the rich guys who pay no payroll tax, just file in April. See the difference? Its a big one because working people have no access, and get no interest from that money until they file and get a refund. What you think that cash just sits and doesn't make interest for the government???


Not sure where your getting your information from but many that are self employed or have taxable income must pay an estimated tax quarterly. Also there is a self employment tax.

Estimated Taxes (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=110413,00.html)

Tax Topics - Topic 554 Self-Employment Tax (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc554.html)

Not sure where your getting your information from but many that are self employed or have taxable income must pay an estimated tax quarterly. Also there is a self employment tax.

Estimated Taxes (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=110413,00.html)

Tax Topics - Topic 554 Self-Employment Tax (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc554.html)

Looks like a catch all there

That was my point though that when you say half the people don't pay taxes, its not accurate, what's accurate would be that working people do pay a tax. Now some get most or all back, some don't but that depends on filing status, and the way you are set up.

Now a hedge fund manager making a few billions, pays at very low rates indeed, and don't have a payroll tax. But most of us aren't hedge fund managers making billions, and for sure we don't own our own business. So even the working stiff PAYS taxes, to the GOVERNMENT, which they use to raise a few bucks with, and then they give it back.

Hey we all have to manage debt responsibly, not saying we shouldn't, but historically, working folks get less when you are cutting government, and balancing the nations debt, irresponsibly. Create some jobs, and the deficit will go down. But until then... somebody has to pump money into the economy.

We don't have a spending problem, per se, we have a CIRCULATION problem. Ain't nothing trickling down. What's wrong with that picture.

We don't have a spending problem, per se, we have a CIRCULATION problem. Ain't nothing trickling down. Whats wrong with that picture.

Well Tal it is because the money is being spent in the wrong place like the government buying back its own bonds, who owns those bonds? Not the captains of industry but the banks, the funds, so buying them back does nothing for the economy because the banks aren't lending. What's wrong with the picture is that the traditional remedies aren't working. See you already have low interest rates, low taxation, government programs, but it hasn't worked, it hasn't created employment, you could say it just cleared the shelves.. So what the government has to do is take the money away from these fund managers and highly paid decision makers and the only tool they have available short of nationalisation is taxation and that is blocked. Money can only come from two places, either you earn it (called revenue) or you borrow it (called debt), if you can't do either, you are stuffed like a thanksgiving turkey, so you have to stop spending. Right now your debt turkey is well and truly stuffed, you need a bigger turkey

I agree the money is plugged up in the wrong places, but nothing a massive building project won't fix. I don't think you can tax, or cut your way through this, you have to work your way back to stability, and there is more than enough work to be done, so really there has to be a will to do so, and that's how circulation is restored to the system. That's how we have come through many crisis before, and no doubt once the financial, and political tricks, and traps are put aside, that's exactly what will happen.

We are hardly Greece, and have many more options to consider, and tools to work with. Don't panic cool heads will prevail over the scared ones. We will see who carves that fat stuffed turkey.

I agree the money is plugged up in the wrong places, but nothing a massive building project won't fix. I don't think you can tax, or cut your way thru this, you have to work your way back to stability, and there is more than enough work to be done, so really there has to be a will to do so, and thats how circulation is restored to the system. Thats how we have come thru many crisis before, and no doubt once the financial, and political tricks, and traps are put aside, thats exactly what will happen.

We are hardly Greece, and have many more options to consider, and tools to work with. Don't panic cool heads will prevail over the scared ones. We will see who carves that fat stuffed turkey.

No Greece is a basket case because they won't work, been educated to expect handouts, that's the trap implicit in government programs. Even Italy with all its debt can balance the budget, You can build dams or their modern day equivalents, wind farms, but lots of that money now goes overseas for the expensive raw materials. The projects you need are the ones where you supply it all yourselves like nuclear reactors or construction. Big vision stuff is needed. Have to bulldoze a few old houses or neighbourhoods. Build some new cities like the Chinese, how about some high speed railways? No sitting on your duff on welfare over there. Whatever happened to tied foreign aid, used to be an economic mainstay? Nowadays they say you can't afford it

Great idea.. build Potamkin Villages like the Chinese ! We tried that in 2009 and wasted almost a trillion dollars . Oh but wait... that didn't give a job to a single poor person . All it did was to keep union people employed .

Geez Tom, why is okay if Wall Street get together and gets the government it wants, but working people cannot? A union is the difference between slavery, and poverty, but we all know Wall Street would rather have slavery, but they settle for cheap labor, any where they can find it. Plus they are allowed to make money among the rich, and completely ignore the middle class.

What's funny is after we cut to balance a budget, and shrunk government to its bare essentials, will the job creators finally take over?? I mean the states, most any way already have to balance their budgets don't they? How has that done for schools, teachers and police, snow removal, and garbage collection?

Daily Kos: How do you kill the economy? Pass a balanced budget amendment. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/30/1000695/-How-do-you-kill-the-economyPass-a-balanced-budget-amendment?detail=hide)

Articles & Commentary (http://www.aei.org/article/103883)


The need for countercyclical policy became apparent in the 1930s, after the opposite response to economic trouble caused a dizzying collapse; its application early in Franklin Roosevelt's presidency succeeded in pulling the United States out of the Depression (until a premature tightening in 1937-38 pulled us back down into it).


And while the Obama stimulus did not jump-start a robust economic recovery, any objective analysis would find that absent the $800 billion stimulus, the economy would have spiraled down much further.


State balanced-budget requirements make the option of a federal balanced-budget amendment dangerous. When state revenue declines during economic downturns, state spending on unemployment and Medicaid increases. To balance their budgets, states have to raise taxes and/or cut spending, the opposite of what is needed to emerge from a fiscal funk. This is the economic equivalent of the medieval practice of bleeding to cure any ailment, including anemia. In 2009, the fiscal drag from the states amounted to roughly $800 billion; in effect, the stimulus from Washington merely replaced the blood lost by the state-level bleeding.

Sound great when the right rallies around it, but the flaws are very evident, especially in times of economic downturns. More importantly, this whole debt ceiling crisis distracts us from any meaningful discussion of recovery from an economic downturn, much the same as happened when the Great Depression hit us, and it took a war, and a building project to get us out of it. Well we got a few wars going, so all we need are the building projects, NOT ill timed idealogical schemes that sound great but are a disaster to the economic realities of THIS century.

You can believe that if you wish... I think it's clear that after 8 years of flawed spending policies... Roosevelt did little to bring the country out of the depression. He would have lost the 1940 election if the economy was the only factor . But WWII had started by then ;and yes... becoming the munitions supplier to the Allies did create jobs finally.

Actually he did reverse the course of the depression, but it double dipped because the darned fools tried to balance the budget, with all kinds of austerity measures that lead to a double dip, or "Roosevelts Recession",

Roosevelt Recession - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Recession)


New Deal critics often like to gloss over FDR's policy reversal in 1937 to paint the New Deal as a failure in its entirety. The Roosevelt Recession was a setback and without it, it's entirely plausible that the US would have been out of the Depression entirely before World War II. The US actually took longer to get out of the Depression than most other nations. Sweden, for example, ran a very hardcore stimulative policy and was back to pre-crash levels by the early '30s. The fact is, 100% of the time during the Great Depression, the economy was improving when FDR ran deficits and faltering when he practiced fiscal conservatism.[citation needed] Occasionally, critics will point to "increased regulations" or "poor business confidence" as a result of these regulations as causes of the recession. This is bull**** for multiple reasons. One, they rarely if ever point to anything specific, making this explanation extremely weasily. Occasionally, they will point to the Wagner Act passed in 1935, which... (gasp!) protected workers' right to unionize. And it wasn't even heavily enforced at that point. Two, the most harshly regulatory of FDR's policies, the NRA, was ruled unconstitutional in 1935. And even under the NRA, the economy was still growing quite speedily.

Change the names and dates it sounds like today, so conservatives were watering things down then, as now, and standing in the way of true recovery. History repeats itself. Now about that jobs bill? And a BETTER round of stimulative spending, without conservatives crying "its to much"!

no bias in the writing of the unnamed author of Rationalwiki (?).Of course we never recovered with all the Obama stimulus so even their flawed explanation breaks down in the comparison.
A better explanation is that artificial priming creates addicts of government funding who demand continuance of the flawed Keynesian policies. Withdrawal of stimulus leaves a void not filled by cyclical forces and the greater the intervention, the greater and more prolonged the void.
What you have today is no net change with all the money spent ;and the government trying to force the consumer's hand with artificial inflation (why be thrifty when your savings are losing value ?) Their stimulus doesn't work ,so consumer spending is the answer... one forced end didn't work so let's try another flawed government control and command policy. China under Mao used to do them every 5 years too.

What you have today is no net change with all the money spent ;and the government trying to force the consumer's hand with artifical inflationHello tom:

The car Bush was driving was OFF the cliff headed for a crash landing... The stimulus, threw a lifeline to the car BEFORE it hit bottom, and is slowly bringing it back up to the top. But, because Republicans forced HALF of the stimulus to be in the form of tax cuts, which DON'T stimulate an economy, it was less than it could have been.

excon

Gee... I suppose Bush is at fault for Obamas constipation too...

I seem to remember the left arguing Bush didn't inherit a Clinton recession because he was president for months...

Obama has been president for over 2.5 years and still refuses to accept responsibility for his own screw ups.

Perhaps if the half of the population that pay NO federal income tax actually had to pay it like the productive half of society... their attitudes would change about handouts.

Does your butt pucker up when you read something from Paul Krugman??? Now you know how NK and I feel reading something from Michell Malkin.

No, it puckers up when I see or hear Nancy Pelosi. The question stands, what are you going to do about Obama and Soros' "incorrect view" of wanting the rich people (themselves) to get more?

Who are they?

Gee, I said something abut all those in the world living on less than a dollar a day. How about starting there? I'm particularly fond of helping single moms busting their a$$es for little or nothing as well, but I've already said these things before. I'm not fond of helping deadbeats doing nothing to better themselves, I don't care much for parasites.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006


So why is the chief blowhard fighting against exactly what he agreed with not so many years ago?

Lets see, at the minimum wage times 40 hrs/week, that's $14,400 dollars a year, add a few kids, try living off that anywhere in America, and let me know how that works for you, and your family. Tell me about where, and how you live, and the kind of car you drive, and the health insurance you have. Oh, and lets not forget, most people making that minimum wage don't even get 40 hours a week, because the boss has 'em on part time.

Keep throwing up those straw men, tal. I've been clear over and over about who we should help.


You have to have something to wean them off that government teat, and pray tell what is that? Ever wean a baby off a mama's teat, WITHOUT a bottle of milk? That's where you get those images late at night about starving children around the world.

Again, I DO MY PART, I don't wait for the government to redistribute YOUR MONEY.


If only the poor would be a bit more ambitious, right?? Are you kidding me??

Zzzzzzz. Yeah, if only they would be as ambitious as Obama. Soros and Biden, who is charging the Secret Service $2,200 in rent per-month (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/31/biden-charging-secret-service-cottage-rental/).

Make about 15 million jobs and then see what the deficit is.

Hello tom:

The car Bush was driving was OFF the cliff headed for a crash landing... The stimulus, threw a lifeline to the car BEFORE it hit bottom, and is slowly bringing it back up to the top. But, because Republicans forced HALF of the stimulus to be in the form of tax cuts, which DON'T stimulate an economy, it was less than it could have been.

excon

You know I'm right . They make rules that require lending institutions to keep more capital in reserve and then go on the stump belly aching that they aren't lending the money they have in reserve.
Consumers are overextended and not making purchases beyond what's necessary.
So they remedy that by making it a disadvantage for consumers to save .
Then they wonder where the demand is ? Keynesian idiocy.

So they remedy that by making it a disadvantage for consumers to save .

How?

How ? Their non-inflation inflation with QEII . What ? You don't think prices that directly impact consumers haven't gone up big time in the last 3 years ? You don't think CDs and money markets giving almost no return of interest doesn't impact consumer behavior?? High and rising prices on one end and low savings returns on the other end is government command and control through monetary manipulation .
It is not the result of market forces . It's the result of government trying to force consumers to spend and create demand .

I think that's more free market forces than the Fed. I mean there are too many outside forces that affect price, and as you know disruption in supply for any reason can change the price of anything, whether demand is there or not. The Fed can only do so much, but I do agree that their concerns about inflation tends to go to far. Conversely though, it would be equally as hard for consumers if prices fell sharply, so its hard to understand how Fed adjustments have a profound effect on prices since interest rates have held study, and can't really go any lower.

Obama is a damn failure... the democrat party is a damn failure... and out of the lefts messiah himself.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 2006


By his own words Obama himself is a complete failure... he should man up and resign.

By his own words Obama himself is a complete failure......he should man up and resign.

Not much chance of that

but I do agree that their concerns about inflation tends to go to far.

They aren't concerned at all .If they were they wouldn't have weakened and debased the dollar to the level of 3rd world currency.

I can understand why you would say 'concerns about inflation tends too go to far'.
You want more taxation ;and as you know ,inflation is a hidden tax.

Not much chance of that

I'm not holding my breath... because I don't consider him a real man. He isn't capable of doing the right thing.

Not much chance of that

I'm not holding my breath... because I don't consider him a real man.

Besides people with Napoleon complexes never step away from their power fix.

I keep waiting for him to declare himself emperor, and for the democrat party to argue its his constitutional right.

Excuse me?

I live in MN, and frankly, it's the REPUBLICANS that I see as failures.

RAISE TAXES, dammit. But the REPUBLICANS won't do that, oh no.

We had a state shutdown for several weeks because the REPUBLICANS would not compromise on that issue---it was the democrats who finally had to cave and cut spending. Guess where the chosen REPUBLICAN place to cut was?

Education.

Quit freaking blaming one party or the other. They're ALL idiots who are out only for themselves and the rich companies and lobbyists paying them off. It has NOTHING to do with parties, and EVERYTHING to do with holding on to the goodies they have right now.

Quit freaking blaming one party or the other. They're ALL idiots who are out only for themselves and the rich companies and lobbyists paying them off. It has NOTHING to do with parties, and EVERYTHING to do with holding on to the goodies they have right now.

Well Sy I would say they are holding on to something

I don't WANT my taxes raised... I pay too much now already... to make up for the nearly half the population that pay no federal taxes now. And nobody that knows me would consider me rich... hell, I barely qualify as middle class.

Let that half pay their share and I bet they lose their taste for the freebies real fast when they realize they are paying for them, themselves.

I don't want MINE raised either.

But the TWO GENERATIONS before you and I screwed us out of that option, thank you very much.

Either that, or we stop ALL government funding for ALL special interest groups. No more tobacco money, no more MADD, no more Rural Electrification Project, no more subsidies on gasoline.

I firmly believe that corporations should pay a LOT higher taxes than they do, but we all know that will NEVER happen, because they just buy the votes away from it---just like any other entity that can afford it BUYS the vote away from raising their taxes.

There's no way we can decrease spending enough to not only balance the budget but also get us out of debt.

Where do YOU suggest that money comes from?

There's no way we can decrease spending enough to not only balance the budget but also get us out of debt.

Where do YOU suggest that money comes from?

I would suggest that we take a good look at what is really going on based upon need and not just some presumed baseline that is pure fiction. That would be the best way for balancing the need against the income. If money can be saved then save it. Where extra is needed then prove the need before an increase can occur. With 10% increase in baseline budgeting it doesn't take long to expend programs at a fast pace even without a need for them. Why create a need where is doesn't exist ?

Baseline Budgeting Makes Real Cuts Impossible in Washington InvestmentWatch (http://investmentwatchblog.com/baseline-budgeting-makes-real-cuts-impossible-in-washington-2/)

I personally suggest we make a 10% CUT every year until our budget is balanced and our debt is paid off.

I have to tighten MY belt.

Why can't programs our government funds do the same thing?

Where do YOU suggest that money comes from?Hello Synn:

Glad you asked. I'm a crash, slash and burner even MORE so than my winger friends.. They LIKE big government - just THEIR form of big government...

So, I'd cut the DEA, the TSA, the NSA, and the B of A. I'd cut the BOP, Homeland Security, the Education Department, and end two, maybe three wars. Then, I'd end the Bush tax cuts.

If this were done, we could take care of our old people and the needy amongst us, and have MONEY left over, so we can again take our leadership in the world.

excon

Are you running for office, excon? If so, my vote is for you.

But... *gasp* what about all of those JOBS?

(I'm with you--but you know that would be the rallying cry from the other side)

But...*gasp* what about all of those JOBS??Hello again, Synn:

Frankly, the country could do with FEWER drug cops, jailers, warriors, occupiers and snoops.

excon

Hello again, Synn:

Frankly, the country could do with FEWER drug cops, jailers, warriors, occupiers and snoops.

excon

And drug users, criminals, gang members, terrorists... etc.

And drug users, criminals, gang members, terrorists....etc.
Dude we ALL want those people killed.

Dude we ALL want those people killed.

Well without THAT crowd... you don't need as many of the others.

And FYI since ex isn't being completely honest here, "raising revenues" means "tax increases". Perhaps if the government was required to pass tax increases by a 2/3 vote they might learn to live within their means.

Hi speech would you like to add to your suggestion with the same rider on expenditure, if that were done nothing would get done which is almost the status quo. How did you like the world reaction to the deal? A massive dive on stock values as if everything suddenly became riskier.

A government can enjoy higher revenues by improvement in the level of economic activity, higher employment, higher profits, economic expansion, it doesn't necessarily mean higher taxes but it does mean more tax revenues

Well without THAT crowd....you don't need as many of the others.

REALITY CHECK-That "crowd" is here, and we seem to needall the cops and jailers etc, we can get. AND THEN SOME, because they seem to be multiplying faster than you can jail 'em.

What needs to be done is make the RICH people pay their taxes. What really galls me is when I worked for a man who was onlyworth $300.000,000 (that's 300 million with an M) he paid practically NO taxes and was very proud that he had super smart people working for him that he happily paid to make sure he paid LESS taxes per year than I did! He should be made to pay his share and not be able to take advantage of all those swell loopholes his employees could find. Pelosi needs to pay her fair share also. She talks out of both sides of her mouth saying rich people should pay more taxes. Betcha she'll never vote on that in a million years. Most rich people get that way as they pay practically no taxes and bank the money.

AND make the corporations pay their proper tax OR bring our jobs back from overseas to get ANY kind of tax break. Hey, they got tax breaks when they mailed our jobs overseas, now let's make them pay OR bring our jobs back here. Makes too much sense to me.

I figured this would be a down to the wire photo finish on this "deal" and it was. BUT it really didn't solve one blasted thing - except protect the rich who don't come up with any real jobs and protect the corporations who happily send our jobs overseas. And cutting the entitlement programs went nowhere as well.

And we need to shut down the "wars" that the USA is currently in that are not wars at all but a dumping trough of money for Haliburton to cash in. Bring all troops home. We cannot be the babysitter for the world. Think of all the money that would save in a few months! But no, Bammy wants his wars as he is now a dictator and has delusions of grandeur.

What needs to be done is make the RICH people pay their taxes. What really galls me is when I worked for a man who was onlyworth $300.000,000 (that's 300 million with an M) he paid practically NO taxes and was very proud that he had super smart people working for him that he happily paid to make sure he paid LESS taxes per year than I did!! He should be made to pay his share and not be able to take advantage of all those swell loopholes his employees could find. Pelosi needs to pay her fair share also. She talks out of both sides of her mouth saying rich people should pay more taxes. Betcha she'll never vote on that in a million years. Most rich people get that way as they pay practically no taxes and bank the money.

AND make the corporations pay their proper tax OR bring our jobs back from overseas to get ANY kind of tax break. Hey, they got tax breaks when they mailed our jobs overseas, now let's make them pay OR bring our jobs back here. Makes too much sense to me.

I figured this would be a down to the wire photo finish on this "deal" and it was. BUT it really didn't solve one blasted thing - except protect the rich who don't come up with any real jobs and protect the corporations who happily send our jobs overseas. And cutting the entitlement programs went nowhere as well.

And we need to shut down the "wars" that the USA is currently in that are not wars at all but a dumping trough of money for Haliburton to cash in. Bring all troops home. We cannot be the babysitter for the world. Think of all the money that would save in a few months!! But no, Bammy wants his wars as he is now a dictator and has delusions of grandeur.

Hi Twinkie you make some good points but you know there are people here that are protesting that the USA is not Greece but the problems common that are to both, high debt, poor employment situation and people not paying tax make the comparison valid. Because of this Greece is on the ropes with only a few billion comparitavely in debt and there are people in the US saying hey we are big, we are nothing like Greece, it's not going to happen to us. I would like to see the US pull back, not to be isolationist, but less involved in solving the world's problems and exploiting. Only today Putin (Russia) called the US a parasite, so it is time to swat that blood suckin mosquito

What nation will fill the vacuum ? Maybe some regional hegemons ? Twinks problem should be redirected .It's not the boss . The boss is living with rules the boss didn't create . A simpler tax system would at very least increase the unemployment rate of tax accountants and lawyers .

By the way Canada ;who's economy is doing very well ;dropped their corporate tax rates to 15%

REALITY CHECK-That "crowd" is here, and we seem to needall the cops and jailers etc, we can get. AND THEN SOME, because they seem to be multiplying faster than you can jail 'em.

So you Agree with me then... because that's exactly what I was saying.

What needs to be done is make the RICH people pay their taxes. What really galls me is when I worked for a man who was onlyworth $300.000,000 (that's 300 million with an M) he paid practically NO taxes and was very proud that he had super smart people working for him that he happily paid to make sure he paid LESS taxes per year than I did!! He should be made to pay his share and not be able to take advantage of all those swell loopholes his employees could find. Pelosi needs to pay her fair share also. She talks out of both sides of her mouth saying rich people should pay more taxes. Betcha she'll never vote on that in a million years. Most rich people get that way as they pay practically no taxes and bank the money.

AND make the corporations pay their proper tax OR bring our jobs back from overseas to get ANY kind of tax break. Hey, they got tax breaks when they mailed our jobs overseas, now let's make them pay OR bring our jobs back here. Makes too much sense to me.

I figured this would be a down to the wire photo finish on this "deal" and it was. BUT it really didn't solve one blasted thing - except protect the rich who don't come up with any real jobs and protect the corporations who happily send our jobs overseas. And cutting the entitlement programs went nowhere as well.

And we need to shut down the "wars" that the USA is currently in that are not wars at all but a dumping trough of money for Haliburton to cash in. Bring all troops home. We cannot be the babysitter for the world. Think of all the money that would save in a few months!! But no, Bammy wants his wars as he is now a dictator and has delusions of grandeur.

How about the nearly half the population that pay no federal taxes now... and worse... get taxpayers money handed to them. Make them pay their fair share... after all, the unproductive half of society should have their free ride brought to a sudden stop.

Let every breathing citizen pay an equal share and see if the idea of entitlements become less palitable to them when they have to pay for them out of their OWN pockets.

I don't see a bunch of non-taxpaying leeches creating jobs or hiring anyone.

Its this idea that coprorations and the so called "rich" should foot the bill for the lazy ones too that's causing the crappy economy.

If I was really rich... and not just so-called rich... think I would be opening myself up to lose everything... hell no... I'd cut back and try to save what I actually worked hard to earn before the looters try to take it all. Even if it means moving it off-shore.

This socialist concept of "Spread the wealth" is what's killing the economy.

Why would anyone work hard if some sloth is going to be profiting while they draw their welfare check and breeding like rabbits because they don't actually work for a living... at the expense of the ones doing ALL the work.

How abiout the concept of you are only entitled to what you actually worked for? THAT is what creates jobs... and makes for a healthy economy.

A high-school dropout isn't entitled to a share of what a PHD that works his butt of to earn makes.

The dropout picked his path in life... the easy way out... he isn't entitled to a penny more than he earns himself.


I have to live within my budget, exactly why shouldn't the government do the same.

Your lumping every poor person into the same "lazy" bucket is typical of right wing pseudo facts. Since most are children, disabled, and elderly. What do you say for the 45 year old with 15 years on the job, 4 kids and a mortgage, who was laid off last year? Screw him too huh?? Or the guy who works at McDonald's or Walmart, with a few kids, who can't afford a car so he catches a bus back, and forth, and rents? Screw him too huh?

No wonder you can't see beyond your own hate, since you broad brush and categorize every one as beneath you, therefore, THE PROBLEM!! I sincerely hope you can evolve beyond your own simplicity, and see the real problems we face, and not be so influenced by your own prejudices. What are you running for president of the Tea Party or something??

Your lumping every poor person into the same "lazy" bucket is typical of right wing pseudo facts. Since most are children, disabled, and elderly. What do you say for the 45 year old with 15 years on the job, 4 kids and a mortgage, who was laid off last year? Screw him too huh??? Or the guy who works at McDonald's or Walmart, with a few kids, who can't afford a car so he catches a bus back, and forth, and rents? Screw him too huh?

No wonder you can't see beyond your own hate, since you broad brush and categorize every one as beneath you, therefore, THE PROBLEM!!!! I sincerely hope you can evolve beyond your own simplicity, and see the real problems we face, and not be so influenced by your own prejudices. What are you running for president of the Tea Party or something???
Greenie.

Your lumping every poor person into the same "lazy" bucket is typical of right wing pseudo facts. Since most are children, disabled, and elderly. What do you say for the 45 year old with 15 years on the job, 4 kids and a mortgage, who was laid off last year? Screw him too huh??? Or the guy who works at McDonald's or Walmart, with a few kids, who can't afford a car so he catches a bus back, and forth, and rents? Screw him too huh?

No wonder you can't see beyond your own hate, since you broad brush and categorize every one as beneath you, therefore, THE PROBLEM!!!! I sincerely hope you can evolve beyond your own simplicity, and see the real problems we face, and not be so influenced by your own prejudices. What are you running for president of the Tea Party or something???

Oh... I upset the poor Liberal.. Liberals believe people are NEVER responsible for the choices they make in life... ever.

Its wasn't THEIR fault they are lazy... it wasn't THEIR fault they dropped out of school or didn't study. Its not THEIR fault they rather play on the X Box than working to impriove themselves because that's too much like work... but oh... lazy wasn't their fault.

Its MY fault they refuse to get off their butts or apply themselves... because I sucked all the motivation out of the air and kept it to myself.

I know plenty of disabled people that aren't fat and/or lazy... so that's not a valid excuse.

I know a woman that works three part time jobs... raised TWO kids as a single parent with no child support (put one through Military school in high school... ) managed to buy TWO houses in a nice area near where I live... and did it as a house keeper (all three are as a housekeeper part time).

Want to talk about predjudices... try looking at your own for once.

I grew up around this stuff and a lot of those people... I know how they think better than most.

You can sit down and whine about things... or you can suck it up and do what you have to. Until you grew up in Pittsburgh during the Jimmy Carter years... you don't know how hard it can get... local unemployment rates exceeded 30% in the late 70's because when the Steel industry collapsed due to Japanese dumping... the coal mines got hit equally hard. So yeah... I saw 50 year old men bagging groceries and anything else they could find to make ends meet.

And yeah... my father was one of them. He had several part time jobs as well as did my mother... I still got into and attended college (100% sudent loans) and had a part time job to pay my gas and insurance.

Liberals whine and complain and blame others... Conservatives get off their butts and find what they can and keep looking to get something better. Because they will eventually.

There are some people who can't even afford to pay their own medical bills, can you believe that!

I personally am of the opinion that it is BOTH sides.

I hate paying for Welfare. It ticks me off to no end.

But I ALSO hate that people who are TRULY rich get out of paying taxes through all sorts of shelters and tax breaks.

I work my butt off every single day at a job I HATE right now. I have no problem giving a hand UP to people who are also willing to work their butts off. I hate giving hand OUTS to people who have no concept of "work" and "personal responsibility".

And frankly--I'm REALLY tired of paying for kids that people have that they can't afford. If you can't afford your kid, either choose adoption or keep your legs crossed so the kid doesn't exist in the first place. Don't burden taxpayers because you can't control your sexual urges.

BUT---don't let large corporations continue to screw the general public. And they ARE in this country right now, thanks to Keynes and his economic policies that the rich jumped ALL OVER for the last 30 years---even though there is PROOF that Keynesian economics ONLY works for the rich.

We may be equal under the law, but we all don't have the same options, or opportunities that you seem to think we have, so we don't all have the same choices then do we? I laid out some very specific instances to you, and instead of debate and solutions you fall back on ideology, and venom. That's the problem! Not the choices people make.

Right now, people don't have a lot of choices. I suppose you do though, you educated hard working devil. There are a lot of educated, hard working devils, trying to eat, yet they have no choices. Nice to have choices, and you should be grateful for yours, because on the whim of someone else, your choices can be extremely limited.

There are some people who can't even afford to pay their own medical bills, can you believe that!?

But I bet they have Cell phones , and X box and Cable TV. And eat out.

We may be equal under the law, but we all don't have the same options, or opportunities that you seem to think we have, so we don't all have the same choices then do we? I laid out some very specific instances to you, and instead of debate and solutions you fall back on ideology, and venom. THATS the problem! Not the choices people make.

Right now, people don't have a lot of choices. I suppose you do though, you educated hard working devil. There are a lot of educated, hard working devils, trying to eat, yet they have no choices. Nice to have choices, and you should be grateful for yours, because on the whim of someone else, your choices can be extremely limited.

Grow up in an economicly depressed corner of rural Southwest PA that has NEVER had a lot of choices in the best of times... I have...

You always have options... but you have to work hard to exercise them.

But I bet they have Cell phones , and X box and Cable tv. And eat out.

Having worked at a collection agency trying to get some of these people to pay their bills--*GREENIE*

They can have multiple kids, too... especially since each kid ups how much aid they get.

Look--I have a sister on Welfare. I know that some people really NEED the help--she basically gets food stamps and some medical help because her good-for-nothing ex doesn't pay child support AND hasn't put the kids on his insurance like he's supposed to. Court hearing after court hearing later, he still has gotten nothing more than a slap on the wrist for it. She works two jobs trying to make ends meet for their FIVE kids. She basically just wants help making sure her kids are healthy. And she does NOT have cable, any video game systems, and her cell phone is provided by her job or she wouldn't have that either. She doesn't eat out (but her EX sure does!), doesn't buy anything absolutely unnecessary, and uses coupons for EVERYTHING. THOSE people need help.

The people on my block collecting their Welfare checks, but who have a better car, phone, and clothing than I do can just go to hell as far as I'm concerned though.

But I bet they have Cell phones , and X box and Cable TV. And eat out.

I don't know, do you?

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Trouble getting insurance claim paid for routine medical procedure (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/606597-post9.html)



... before I start trying to find a lawyer I can hardly afford to pay about a bill I can't afford to pay

I don't know, do you?




I know for sure... HOMLESS people walk around here talk on cell phones... I can't even afford to have my own because it would mean taking money out of my 401K contributions to pay for it. Because Social Security likely won't be there because fat lazy people collect it that never paid a dime into it.
I eat out maybe ONCE a month (and its always less than $20 for the total bill for me and my wife)... I don't own an Xbox OR playstation OR a WII.


SO you know THAT person personally... you know where every cent they pay goes... and they have no extravagances.. Cable TV.. Cell phones... game boxes and eating out even at McDonalds ARE extravagances.

Or is it they really don't want to give up something to pay for something else which is likely the real issue.

I hear people whining all the time and yet there they are... surfing the web on their cell phone... running up $200+ monthly charges when a wired home internet connection would cost about $20 for a basic one. And they don't have any money... like I'm hardly supprised the way they throw it around.

I'm convinced, I am moving to your zip code.

I'm convinced, I am moving to your zip code.

Actually you could do far worse... It's not my favorite part of the country... but in my job sector there are more jobs than some areas. That's why I am here. I can rattle off a long list of places I'd rather be. You do what you have to do.

I came from a LOWER class family. We didn't have meat unless my dad went hunting. We CERTAINLY never ate out and didn't have a TV until I was in high school, much less have cable.

I WORKED my way out of that.

And I'm a white female, so don't tell me I had a ton more opportunities than someone else. Poor white "trash" has fewer opportunities than any minority class.

You MAKE opportunities by CHOOSING the things that will pull you up instead of pulling you down---like I chose adoption instead of raising my child at 17.

EVERYONE makes choices. I shouldn't have to support another 17 year old who isn't strong enough to choose adoption just because she wants to raise her kid. Either her FAMILY should do that, or she should do it on her own---or she should make better choices. End of story.

EVERYONE makes choices EVERY day about whether they'll pull themselves up from where they are.