patrick.net

I guess the fact that some people cheat to get on disability means it should be lowered for everyone ?

I guess the fact that Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts most of which went to the wealthy (the last 10 years), and two unfunded wars (that Obama started putting on the books) and medicare part D, all of this spending that Paul Ryan voted for, is a reason why all senior should have to wait until 67 to start receiving benefits ?

WE all know means testing is coming for medicare whcih is one way the cost will be reduced, but raising the age doesn't seem fair.

Consider, as a prime example, the push to raise the retirement age, the age of eligibility for Medicare, or both. This is only reasonable, we’re told — after all, life expectancy has risen, so shouldn’t we all retire later? In reality, however, it would be a hugely regressive policy change, imposing severe burdens on lower- and middle-income Americans while barely affecting the wealthy. Why? First of all, the increase in life expectancy is concentrated among the affluent; why should janitors have to retire later because lawyers are living longer? Second, both Social Security and Medicare are much more important, relative to income, to less-affluent Americans, so delaying their availability would be a far more severe hit to ordinary families than to the top 1 percent.

Or take a subtler example, the insistence that any revenue increases should come from limiting deductions rather than from higher tax rates. The key thing to realize here is that the math just doesn’t work; there is, in fact, no way limits on deductions can raise as much revenue from the wealthy as you can get simply by letting the relevant parts of the Bush-era tax cuts expire. So any proposal to avoid a rate increase is, whatever its proponents may say, a proposal that we let the 1 percent off the hook and shift the burden, one way or another, to the middle class or the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/opinion/krugman-class-wars-of-2012.html?source=Patrick.net&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB&_r=0

they need to cut the unemployment benefits. i know people who have no interest in looking for a new job because the fat unemployment checks keep coming.

A constant conservative charge against President Obama is that he is inherently anti-business. However, businesses keep defying the storyline by making larger and larger profits, rebounding nicely out of the Great Recession.

In the third quarter of this year, “corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago.” Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low, as this chart shows. (The red line is corporate profits; the blue line is private sector wages.):

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, “a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.”

kentm says

Here, averagebear you boob, if you want something real to bitch the Obama admin about you can use this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-liberty-lost-america?wtf
"Compare this aggressive prosecution of Bradley Manning to the Obama administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes

------------------------------------
Name calling doesn't make you look good. Trust me....Same goes for off-topic rants that have nothing to do with the conservation.

Now if you want to discuss how Obama's tax hike on the rich will help, please join in. In particular, I'm interested in how long the $80 billion that's generated w/ the 'rich people' tax hikes will last if Obama gets his way. Seeing that Obama's deficit alone was 120 Billion for ONE MONTH, it should last 3 weeks, at most? And you call this 'balanced' approach to the fiscal cliff? To me, the CONS outweigh the PROS in this tax hike....Finally, "How much is enough" for liberals to be satisfied w/ the rich paying more in Federal tax? 50, 60 75% (like France, IIRC)? Keep in mind the recent #'s listed below paint a picture that hard for even liberals to ignore....

....."Here’s the latest IRS breakdown on who paid taxes—and who paid nothing, but still got IRS “refund” checks anyway:

Adjusted gross income % income paid as fed taxes

$1 to under $10,000 -13.6

$10,000 to under $20,000 -11.5

$20,000 to under $30,000 -3.7

$30,000 to under $50,000 3.1

$50,000 to under $100,000 7.5

$100,000 to under $200,000 12

$200,000 to under $500,000 19.6

$500,000 to under $1,000,000 24

$1,500,000 to under $2,000,000 25.1

AverageBear says

with the conservation.

--------
I meant conversation....

marcus says

I guess the fact that some people cheat to get on disability means it should be lowered for everyone ?
I guess the fact that Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts most of which went to the wealthy (the last 10 years), and two unfunded wars (that Obama started putting on the books) and medicare part D, all of this spending that Paul Ryan voted for, is a reason why all senior should have to wait until 67 to start receiving benefits ?
WE all know means testing is coming for medicare whcih is one way the cost will be reduced, but raising the age doesn't seem fair

--------------------------------------
Now we are on to something. God forbid the Democrats even let us LOOK at where our $$ is going within these benefit programs. Here in Massachusetts, the Dem-run state senate shot down a bill that even LOOKS at welfare fraud. (EBT credit cards used for lap dances, booze, bail, lottery tickets)... They said the probe would 'cost too much'. Too fuckin' funny it's sad, really....IT'S CALLED REFORM, LIBERALS. Let's first LOOK, then decide where fraud exists, then remove it, while allowing benefits to continue to go the people that need it. But Liberals won't even allow this. Perpetuated insanity, I think....Recently, someone in my family passed away, after living in a nursing home. We are getting all sorts of unjustified bills for services not done by doctors and the nursing home. I think this should go under the microscope, but NOOOO, say the Democrats. This is called reform and NOT allowed. Well, time to wake up. Clinton had benefit/welfare reform (w/ some added pressure by Gingrich), and the sky didn't fall. Money was saved and helped the economy to continue to do well, and those that still needed help got it. I know, this makes too much sense, but I digress....

Marcus, the till is empty for Medicare. Obama's solution is already making it worse. He and Pelosi lied to us when they said Obamacare would save $$. Surprise, surprise!! It's not. Oh, and how come no liberals fail to mention that Obama already gutted Medicare to the tune of $716 BILLION. During the campaign, I laughed my ass off when Obama said the Republicans will cut Medicare, WHEN OBAMA ALREADY SWIPED 716 BILLION. How can anybody support Obama's #'s, when it's obviously a shell game?

Finally, when you say....."Bush screwed us over with his tax cuts"..... you do know that the $$ earned first belonged to the earners, right? hey, I encourage ANYONE to screw me over w/ tax cuts, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Cheers.

Bellingham Bill says

blah blah blah just blather from a bullshit ideological attachment to defending the wealthy in this country.

----------------------------
Bill, on a smaller scale, the democrat run Senate here in Mass shot down a bill to look at EBT fraud, which has been confirmed ad nauseum. Does this make sense to you, or do you file it under "B" for "bullshit idelogical attachment to dending the wealthy in this country". Because from what I know, there are MANY tax payers who are NOT rich, but sending away TONS of State tax dollars that go to these losers who are abusing their EBT cards. Do you agree that this should be fixed? Looking at this from the state level, what are your thoughts to Mass EBT card abuse? Are you that opposed to looking for fraud? I think this story is relevant to the thread, ie, is a microcosm of what's happening now w/ our fiscal cliff problem, but at a state level.

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument. However, I am interested in your opinion of our EBT abuse here in Massachusetts, and how the liberals here don't want to address it.

AverageBear says

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument.

Is that how it works now? You can dismiss facts that you don't like because they are tired and stale?

OK--the US debt argument is tired and stale. Don't bore me with that BS anymore.

AverageBear says

the balance of 'producers' to 'takers' has swung to the 'takers'.

You are right. The 0.1% is taking from the productive middle class, who are the real makers.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

Somehow you don't seem to notice that most wealth in America is inherited, not earned.

AverageBear says

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

Yes--so how about we create some jobs so that these people are working?? Believe it or not, the vast majority of them would rather work for a living.

With record profits in the private sector, why aren't companies hiring? It isn't lack of capital. It's lack of demand. And why is there lack of demand? Because all of the money is concentrated in the top 1% and they don't spend it. If the money isn't spend, there's no need to make products or services.

That's why the distribution of wealth is so important and why the economy stops functioning when it gets to current levels.

AverageBear says

Those that failed a few times, and either finally succeeded, or changed their plan to earn a living. God forbid they enjoy the rewards, after risking their own money, lives, and time.

Yeah, and those people with so much money from the tax break caused the housing bubble which crushed our economy. Money can be printed most indefinitely, but the resource to make the profit is limited. If you have less money to invest, you would be more selective.

So how did the last housing bubble got started? I remember it started because the bank lend money recklessly. And it was all because the investors demanded more profit by promoting the recklessness fervor.

Now, we are still insisting that we need more money for investment. Did we learn anything?

Bubbles are natural to mass movements. They are not good or bad. We just need to be conscious of their existence.

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

dublin hillz says

I believe that we need more middle class jobs in this country if you guys are talking about getting the money in the hands of people who will spend it on "products and services" to stimulate the economy. I don't believe that tax hikes or tax cuts for that matter will accomplish this. The problem is that companies view economy at the global level whether we are talking about the customer pool or the labor pool. Thus, the tax structure is largely irrelevant to the larger problem. Additionally, if we had more middle class jobs, perhaps people would actually spend their money on "products and services" instead of financing various shit on credit cards.

Or we just need to do away with class labels. People need to see employers as customers, not providers.

Bellingham Bill says

Eisenhower letter to his brother:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Yep. FDR had permanent destroyed the country.

This vapid argument needs to die regarding takes and providers. Are soldiers in our military takers? Are the police? Is the FBI, the CIA? Last I saw, they're employed by the government.

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Are you ready for defense spending cuts? Because "private" industry with consistent 150 to 200% cost overruns (F-22, F-35) etc is killing our procurement budget.

As for "obama's budget", when the last serious Republican budget that incorporates substantive meaningful cuts? Unless you touch Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending, you're just talking bullshit. Cutting millions from the FDA or NPR etc. isn't getting you anywhere.

Finally, the weird thing about the "takers" argument is that it's a lot of the "takers" propagating talking about cutting down on it when they're the beneficiaries. Just slightly hypocritical (like when the Republicans complain about Benghazi security after "cutting 476 million" from the security budget). Go figure.

DukeLaw says

Do you really think people want to live on food stamps? I'm not sure how many studies you can cite saying yes. I can find quite a few saying no.

Worse. These people have no wants. They only have others telling them what they need.

Yes. Public-private partnerships can be worse.

Whenever you exert too much governance, you get bullshit like that. Be it USSR or USA.

We ought to be systemically natural and individually willful.

AverageBear says

And you naturally tax the shit out of those small business owners who happen to net over $250K through their business, yet quite often take home less than 80K when all business expenses have been taken care of.

Business expenses? I thought they were above the line write-offs.

Nevertheless, 20-25% is a joke. Tax rate should not be higher than 15%.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Finally, if you care to respond, don't bore me w/ the whiney "oooh, the 1% have all the money" bullshit. It's a very tired, stale argument.
Is that how it works now? You can dismiss facts that you don't like because they are tired and stale?
OK--the US debt argument is tired and stale. Don't bore me with that BS anymore.

-----------------------------------------------------
yes, Tatupu, that's how it works. Why? Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt. I dismiss the tired 1% argument because it doesn't apply to this thread. Go start a 1%'er thread and I'll be happy to stick to the topic, unlike you.

Obamacare does not go far enough.

Government-provided healthcare needs to be an option for everyone. Healthcare is the last place you want for public-private collusion.

Clinton was awesome.

AverageBear says

You do know he raped Medicare of $716 BILLION this year before the election. You do know this happened, right?

Nope, he "raped" Medicare Part C, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the 1990s.

Next on the block is Medicare Part D, the idiot Republican addition to Medicare from the previous decade.

It's really amazing how much damage your idiot Republican congress did to this nation, 1995-2006. They didn't leave a stone unturned in their search for how to destroy this country.

Mission Accomplished!

Peter P says

Clinton was awesome.

------------------------------------
You know, even though I voted against him, Clinton was WAAAAAAY better than the current clown we have for president. He genuinely brought the country together. Yet he didn't promise this. Obama on the other hand did promise this, and has severed the country like I've never seen before. We can't even get a budget passed since he got elected.

Clinton was more conservative than many Republicans.

AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.

Oh, my mistake. When I read this:

AverageBear says

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.
110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.
How is this possible? How can four American workers be paying THREE people either through welfare or a government job?

I thought you were discussing why the debt is so high and how we can reduce it. The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

tatupu70 says

The wealth disparity is one of the core issues that has led to the deficit. Until we fix it, the economy will continue to underperform and tax receipts will be low.

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.

The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Peter P says

Again, wealth disparity is not an issue. It is somewhat desirable.
The only way wealth disparity can lead to the deficit is a misguided attempt to fight it.

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

It's a lose/lose situation. Less tax revenues and more welfare spending. Surely you can see how that would increase the deficit.

tatupu70 says

Nope. When 1% of the people have 30% of the wealth, it should be pretty simple to see that there isn't enough left for the other 99%. And that lots of those people will be on welfare/food stamps.

Of course not. If the top 1% own any less we have a problem. Most people do not own anything and they are not entitled to owning anything.

When the richest family owns 1% of the GDP then we may have a wealth gap.

Just require welfare recipients to work and perhaps we will see a difference. With 99-week unemployment, who will want to work?

A lot of people have zero or negative net worth. This does not prevent them from living.

They will just work to live.

And sadly investment is now driven by excess liquidity.

Lockean Proviso is quite laughable.

Come on.

Greed is good, as long as you are greedy for something beautiful.

Quite the contrary, we are very supportive other people's greed. They should go get it. Just don't cry and insist that you are entitled to it.

Peter P says

Greed is good, as long as you are greedy for something beautiful.

Quite the contrary, we are very supportive other people's greed. They should go get it. Just don't cry and insist that you are entitled to it.

Peter,

You are watching too much TV. TV and Internet should not be your whole world.

Nothing to do with TV. But when Gordon Gekko made a speech that resonated so well you tend to have it burned in your head.

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!

http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100204obamas_auntie_still_freeloading

I'd love to be treated like an illegal alien here in Massachusetts. I'd be much better off......

This is what happens when one party rules a state. And this particular state is run by democrats....

......"Aunt Zeituni donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign for president - which is also against the law because she’s not a U.S. citizen. How against the law is it? Remember when the president launched his unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union? His complaint was that foreigners might donate money to influence U.S. elections.

All these crimes extend from the first crime - violating our immigration laws. It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.

But it’s not the illegal stuff that Aunt Zeituni’s doing that’s so outrageous. It’s what she’s apparently able to do legally and openly.

She is shamelessly - and happily - living in taxpayer-subsidized housing intended for citizens and legal immigrants. Is there some poor American veteran living in a shelter because she’s got this apartment? Aunt Zeituni doesn’t care - why should she? Menino and the Boston Housing Authority don’t.

And now she’s back in court, using taxpayer resources with another bogus bid for asylum. She says she can’t go back to Kenya because of “political turmoil.” Sorry lady, but if that’s the basis for an appeal, nobody would have been allowed back in the White House since Scott Brown’s election.

Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work. She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing. In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American. She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes."

AverageBear says

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!

But I thought:

AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.

How does Aunt Zeituni factor in to that again?

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

OBAMA's AUNTIE ZEITUNI THINKS YOU ARE A SUCKER TOO!!
But I thought:
AverageBear says

Because this thread is about the illogical requests from Obama to avoid the fiscal cliff, and how his 'balanced' approach to the spending problem, doesn't address the spending, but piles on more debt.
How does Aunt Zeituni factor in to that again?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Because obama's aunti Zeituni is an illegal alien who's been living off of tax payers for a LOOONG time, and doesn't work. See the title of this thread for some guidance.

- She's definitely in "Obama's world"; in fact, she's in Obama's Family (HAHAHAHAAA).

- She doesn't work, hasn't worked for years, and has no plans to work.

- And the quotes/remarks/comments of this arrogant asshole DEFINITELY tells me she thinks we workers are suckers. I can give you more quotes/links on this little peach of a woman if you want...

It dovetails into the spending problem that's caused the fiscal cliff. A spending problem that Obama wants to address by ........SPENDING MORE. Got it?

Oh, and if we do decide to go 'off topic', I'd be happy to tell everyone here in Patrick.Net-Land about Obama's Uncle living illegally here in Framingham. You know all about Uncle Omar, don't you? Nabbed for driving drunk? But I digress. Maybe I'll consider a new thread that addresses the massive drain of tax dollars here in Massachusetts that goes to illegal aliens, that should be going to LEGAL aliens, and you know, actual citizens of this fine commonwealth...

AverageBear says

It dovetails into the spending problem that's caused the fiscal cliff. A spending problem that Obama wants to address by ........SPENDING MORE. Got it?

Sorry--I was just messing with you. But, that's not really true. Obama wants more revenues and spending cuts both. That's where the "balanced approach" comes from. And yes, he does advocate some increased one time only spending. The economy is still weak and, more than anything, we need to create jobs. If you get people working a lot of the defict problem goes away.

Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that the economy can create the jobs if income/wealth disparity remain at their current levels.

tatupu70 says

Sorry--I was just messing with you. But, that's not really true. Obama wants more revenues and spending cuts both. That's where the "balanced approach" comes from. And yes, he does advocate some increased one time only spending. The economy is still weak and, more than anything, we need to create jobs. If you get people working a lot of the defict problem goes away.

--------------------------------------------
No worries. I do understand that the feds do need to spend something to keep the economy afloat, but I think where he's put that $$ in that past was misguided ($90 Billion in Green jobs that hasn't created any jobs)...I'm at least glad that the spending problem is Front and Center in the media's eye. Although their message usually gets warped in the delivery, I'm glad people are at least talking about it....I'm actually fine w/ us 'going over the cliff'.... spending cuts, tax hikes and all....I think many (myself included) get carried away on the 'what if's'.... If this isn't resolved, I'm inclined to think it we'll be affected like Y2K....