darthtang aw
Active Member
Medicare and medicaid caused the budget crisis? Really? So the difference in spending now from 3 years ago is medicare and medicaid funding? Can you please show numbers on this?
S&P Downgrades US credit rating
- Thread starter beth
- Start date
Mantis, you are the prime example of someone I would categorize as a gun fanatic. You have this massive paranoia that someone would attack what you consider is the Holy Grail of Amendments, and put the 2nd on some pedestal to the point that if it were even slightly tweaked to deter the use of weapons no normal citizen really needs to have in their possession, the end of our nation would cease to exist.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If we tweaked our constitution over the past 200 years, it would be unrecognizable by now. The 2nd Am was meant so that citizens of our free society would always be able to rise up against tyranny. Defend ourselves, yes, even against an imposing government.
The model of a socialist democracy that controls a good deal of its populace is Great Britain. I wonder how Londoners feel about that right now? Where as citizens there is no defense against the bad guys running amok in the streets.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407300
Medicare and medicaid caused the budget crisis? Really? So the difference in spending now from 3 years ago is medicare and medicaid funding? Can you please show numbers on this?
Here's a pie chart of the 2010 Federal Budget. Which 3 programs take the biggest "piece of the pie" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
Same pie chart, but for 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Not much difference, but those programs take up the bulk of our anual debt. Democrats didn't want to touch Medicare/Medicaid, Republicans and Tea Party did. They finally came up with some sort of compromise, but too little, too late.
Useless discretionary spending only takes up approximately 15% of the annual budget. Our revenues and tax receipts were $1.2 trillion short of balancing the budget. Even if you whacked all of the discretionary spending, you'd still come up short around $700 billion to balance the budget. Where do you come up with the money to cover the shortfall?
Spending is only going to get worse. We're at the beginning of all the Baby Boomers retiring. They'll want their benefits. Where's the money going to come from?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407300
Medicare and medicaid caused the budget crisis? Really? So the difference in spending now from 3 years ago is medicare and medicaid funding? Can you please show numbers on this?
Here's a pie chart of the 2010 Federal Budget. Which 3 programs take the biggest "piece of the pie" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
Same pie chart, but for 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Not much difference, but those programs take up the bulk of our anual debt. Democrats didn't want to touch Medicare/Medicaid, Republicans and Tea Party did. They finally came up with some sort of compromise, but too little, too late.
Useless discretionary spending only takes up approximately 15% of the annual budget. Our revenues and tax receipts were $1.2 trillion short of balancing the budget. Even if you whacked all of the discretionary spending, you'd still come up short around $700 billion to balance the budget. Where do you come up with the money to cover the shortfall?
Spending is only going to get worse. We're at the beginning of all the Baby Boomers retiring. They'll want their benefits. Where's the money going to come from?
There are a handful of agencies in that pie that could be gotten rid of. We could cut our foreign aid, and eliminate welfare to non-citizens.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407356
Here's a pie chart of the 2010 Federal Budget. Which 3 programs take the biggest "piece of the pie" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
Same pie chart, but for 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Not much difference, but those programs take up the bulk of our anual debt. Democrats didn't want to touch Medicare/Medicaid, Republicans and Tea Party did. They finally came up with some sort of compromise, but too little, too late.
Useless discretionary spending only takes up approximately 15% of the annual budget. Our revenues and tax receipts were $1.2 trillion short of balancing the budget. Even if you whacked all of the discretionary spending, you'd still come up short around $700 billion to balance the budget. Where do you come up with the money to cover the shortfall?
Spending is only going to get worse. We're at the beginning of all the Baby Boomers retiring. They'll want their benefits. Where's the money going to come from?
Social security and Medicare had not added a cent to the deficit until last year. Until then the feds collected more than they paid out with the excess going into the general fund and spent. Going forward the programs will add to it because the bonds the government placed in the so called trust fund must be cashed, by the federal government to pay benefits. The shock to the bottom line is no different than if a family got used to getting 10 hours of overtime every week in dad's paycheck and one day his boss called him in and not only knocked out the overtime but cut him back to 30 hours a week.
So who you gonna screw to fix the problem? Taxing the rich wont do it. Removing the cap on FICA taxes, another tax on the "rich" wont do it. You wanna raise their income taxes, FICA taxes AND means test their social security? Great, that STILL doesn't do it. Most people have been blind to the train wreck but it's been predictable since the 90's. Too damned many programs created based on BS assumptions and nobody watching the bottom line.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407356
Here's a pie chart of the 2010 Federal Budget. Which 3 programs take the biggest "piece of the pie" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
Same pie chart, but for 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Not much difference, but those programs take up the bulk of our anual debt. Democrats didn't want to touch Medicare/Medicaid, Republicans and Tea Party did. They finally came up with some sort of compromise, but too little, too late.
Useless discretionary spending only takes up approximately 15% of the annual budget. Our revenues and tax receipts were $1.2 trillion short of balancing the budget. Even if you whacked all of the discretionary spending, you'd still come up short around $700 billion to balance the budget. Where do you come up with the money to cover the shortfall?
Spending is only going to get worse. We're at the beginning of all the Baby Boomers retiring. They'll want their benefits. Where's the money going to come from?
Social security and Medicare had not added a cent to the deficit until last year. Until then the feds collected more than they paid out with the excess going into the general fund and spent. Going forward the programs will add to it because the bonds the government placed in the so called trust fund must be cashed, by the federal government to pay benefits. The shock to the bottom line is no different than if a family got used to getting 10 hours of overtime every week in dad's paycheck and one day his boss called him in and not only knocked out the overtime but cut him back to 30 hours a week.
So who you gonna screw to fix the problem? Taxing the rich wont do it. Removing the cap on FICA taxes, another tax on the "rich" wont do it. You wanna raise their income taxes, FICA taxes AND means test their social security? Great, that STILL doesn't do it. Most people have been blind to the train wreck but it's been predictable since the 90's. Too damned many programs created based on BS assumptions and nobody watching the bottom line.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407360
There are a handful of agencies in that pie that could be gotten rid of. We could cut our foreign aid, and eliminate welfare to non-citizens.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
Need a rebirth of personal responsibility. Many of the 47 or so percent of people who pay no income taxes are also getting thousands in government freebies including Cell Phones.. Gimmi a break. Nobody needs a cell phone. I've known plenty of people who didn't have their own phone through the years and they got by just peachy. I actually think the voucher plan for medicare is a good idea. I've have several people in the medical field from nurses to docs tell me some people come in because they have nothing better to do. You also have crooked medical people charging for services they never provided. Just making people responsible for tracking their own limited expenses would help greatly. I think vouchers for small time or routine stuff with a insurance plan backing up the serious stuff would work. You get a boo boo and you know if you go to the doc when a Tylenol would do you might run out of money before the end of the year. By the same token if you break a leg or have a heat attack there's insurance.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407360
There are a handful of agencies in that pie that could be gotten rid of. We could cut our foreign aid, and eliminate welfare to non-citizens.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
Need a rebirth of personal responsibility. Many of the 47 or so percent of people who pay no income taxes are also getting thousands in government freebies including Cell Phones.. Gimmi a break. Nobody needs a cell phone. I've known plenty of people who didn't have their own phone through the years and they got by just peachy. I actually think the voucher plan for medicare is a good idea. I've have several people in the medical field from nurses to docs tell me some people come in because they have nothing better to do. You also have crooked medical people charging for services they never provided. Just making people responsible for tracking their own limited expenses would help greatly. I think vouchers for small time or routine stuff with a insurance plan backing up the serious stuff would work. You get a boo boo and you know if you go to the doc when a Tylenol would do you might run out of money before the end of the year. By the same token if you break a leg or have a heat attack there's insurance.
rainbow grouper
Active Member
hey no offense anyone this is just a joke I heard on twitter
finally america is getting the credit it deserves
finally america is getting the credit it deserves
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407311
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If we tweaked our constitution over the past 200 years, it would be unrecognizable by now. The 2nd Am was meant so that citizens of our free society would always be able to rise up against tyranny. Defend ourselves, yes, even against an imposing government.
The model of a socialist democracy that controls a good deal of its populace is Great Britain. I wonder how Londoners feel about that right now? Where as citizens there is no defense against the bad guys running amok in the streets.
If the citizens in Britain had guns, you'd probably see about 20% more deaths during those riots than you would with them being unarmed. Look at the vilence in Mexico. You think the death statistics are high now, put firearms in the hands of normal citizens, and Baghad and Kabul would look like top vacation spots. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Rise above our tyranny? So you would resort to gun violence if you disagreed with how a government (whether it be city, state, or national) enacted laws? Yea, we see how well that's worked out in the Middle East. Nothing like walking down the sidewalk, when one of those Freedom Fighters launches a firefight attack against an opposing military force. Would you be able to pull a weapon on a fellow American that's a member of the National Guard, Army, Marines, etc.? What if it were a friend or relative you were facing down? Or does the 2nd make provisions for those serving in our Armed Forces to commit treason and go AWOL so they can fight for "the other side" without any reprecussions?
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407390
Need a rebirth of personal responsibility. Many of the 47 or so percent of people who pay no income taxes are also getting thousands in government freebies including Cell Phones.. Gimmi a break. Nobody needs a cell phone. I've known plenty of people who didn't have their own phone through the years and they got by just peachy. I actually think the voucher plan for medicare is a good idea. I've have several people in the medical field from nurses to docs tell me some people come in because they have nothing better to do. You also have crooked medical people charging for services they never provided. Just making people responsible for tracking their own limited expenses would help greatly. I think vouchers for small time or routine stuff with a insurance plan backing up the serious stuff would work. You get a boo boo and you know if you go to the doc when a Tylenol would do you might run out of money before the end of the year. By the same token if you break a leg or have a heat attack there's insurance.
Obamacare mirrors the voucher plan. However, it wants to make individuals invest their own money into the system, instead of the governemnt handing them a check to go and find adequate insurance. Many of the 47%? I would guesstimate that number is probably less than 10% Just like raising taxes isn't the cure all to balance the budget, you wouldn't put a dent in it if you completely did away with Welfare and Unemployment assistance. You need an approach that raises revenues AND cuts spending. Our tax receipts have dwindled ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were put in place. Then a major recession hits, and fewer people have jobs, which just adds to the problem because those tax revenues aren't coming in. Een if you got unemployment down into the 4% range, those tax revenues still wouldn't get us out of the hole.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407390
Need a rebirth of personal responsibility. Many of the 47 or so percent of people who pay no income taxes are also getting thousands in government freebies including Cell Phones.. Gimmi a break. Nobody needs a cell phone. I've known plenty of people who didn't have their own phone through the years and they got by just peachy. I actually think the voucher plan for medicare is a good idea. I've have several people in the medical field from nurses to docs tell me some people come in because they have nothing better to do. You also have crooked medical people charging for services they never provided. Just making people responsible for tracking their own limited expenses would help greatly. I think vouchers for small time or routine stuff with a insurance plan backing up the serious stuff would work. You get a boo boo and you know if you go to the doc when a Tylenol would do you might run out of money before the end of the year. By the same token if you break a leg or have a heat attack there's insurance.
Obamacare mirrors the voucher plan. However, it wants to make individuals invest their own money into the system, instead of the governemnt handing them a check to go and find adequate insurance. Many of the 47%? I would guesstimate that number is probably less than 10% Just like raising taxes isn't the cure all to balance the budget, you wouldn't put a dent in it if you completely did away with Welfare and Unemployment assistance. You need an approach that raises revenues AND cuts spending. Our tax receipts have dwindled ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were put in place. Then a major recession hits, and fewer people have jobs, which just adds to the problem because those tax revenues aren't coming in. Een if you got unemployment down into the 4% range, those tax revenues still wouldn't get us out of the hole.
darthtang aw
Active Member
If the citizens in Britain had guns, you'd probably see about 20% more deaths during those riots than you would with them being unarmed. Look at the vilence in Mexico. You think the death statistics are high now, put firearms in the hands of normal citizens, and Baghad and Kabul would look like top vacation spots. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Rise above our tyranny? So you would resort to gun violence if you disagreed with how a government (whether it be city, state, or national) enacted laws? Yea, we see how well that's worked out in the Middle East. Nothing like walking down the sidewalk, when one of those Freedom Fighters launches a firefight attack against an opposing military force. Would you be able to pull a weapon on a fellow American that's a member of the National Guard, Army, Marines, etc.? What if it were a friend or relative you were facing down? Or does the 2nd make provisions for those serving in our Armed Forces to commit treason and go AWOL so they can fight for "the other side" without any reprecussions?
We also saw how it worked many centuries ago. You live in this country because of guns. No ifs and or buts about it.
20% more killings? Way to sensationalize. How many killings were there during the watts riots and rodney king riots? Only involving guns that is. The citizens of mexico are not armed...it is the cartels and criminals armed....your analagy does not fit.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407360
There are a handful of agencies in that pie that could be gotten rid of. We could cut our foreign aid, and eliminate welfare to non-citizens.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
Ah, so Baby Boomers just need to "suck it up" and continue working because the Feds squandered all of their retirement funds decades ago. My two teenage daughters can't even find a job at a local burger joint. How do you expect some 60 year old to find one? Could you exist on a minimum wage? Corporations are dumping the older generation and their high salaries, and bringing in young guns straight out of college to take those positions at half the cost. How many businesses do you know that would pay a guy in his late 60's a large salary knowing they could only get maybe another 5 or 10 years out of them?
My mother has been in a nursing home now for 1 year. The one we have her in is pretty decent, and the services they provide keep her happy and comfortable. Her monthly costs are around $3600/month. I believe Medicaid covers about half of the expenses, and my family covers the rest. How many middle income families do you know that could afford $30K - $40K per year PER PERSON to keep grandma, grandpa, mom, and dad comfortable in a nursing home? Homes where Medicaid pays the entire amount for someone to stay at those facilities? I saw some of those places. I wouldn't let them take care of my dog, much les my mother. You egt what you pay for.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407360
There are a handful of agencies in that pie that could be gotten rid of. We could cut our foreign aid, and eliminate welfare to non-citizens.
Most baby boom errs are realizing that early retirement is not going to be an option for them and are taking on new careers as they retire from old careers.
Medicare reform is needed. Not so much cutting medical services but just watching how much waste occurs that could be cracked down on without effecting medical services. As for Medicaid nursing home, which is a big expense, most families would take care of their old folks themselves if they could just get 1/4 of the assistance that the government throws at total nursing care on old folks.
Ah, so Baby Boomers just need to "suck it up" and continue working because the Feds squandered all of their retirement funds decades ago. My two teenage daughters can't even find a job at a local burger joint. How do you expect some 60 year old to find one? Could you exist on a minimum wage? Corporations are dumping the older generation and their high salaries, and bringing in young guns straight out of college to take those positions at half the cost. How many businesses do you know that would pay a guy in his late 60's a large salary knowing they could only get maybe another 5 or 10 years out of them?
My mother has been in a nursing home now for 1 year. The one we have her in is pretty decent, and the services they provide keep her happy and comfortable. Her monthly costs are around $3600/month. I believe Medicaid covers about half of the expenses, and my family covers the rest. How many middle income families do you know that could afford $30K - $40K per year PER PERSON to keep grandma, grandpa, mom, and dad comfortable in a nursing home? Homes where Medicaid pays the entire amount for someone to stay at those facilities? I saw some of those places. I wouldn't let them take care of my dog, much les my mother. You egt what you pay for.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407531
We also saw how it worked many centuries ago. You live in this country because of guns. No ifs and or buts about it.
20% more killings? Way to sensationalize. How many killings were there during the watts riots and rodney king riots? Only involving guns that is. The citizens of mexico are not armed...it is the cartels and criminals armed....your analagy does not fit.
If the citizens in Mexico were armed, the violence would be tenfold. You think the firefights between the cartels and the Federales are bad? Throw a bunch of citizens into the mix, and you might as well call it Bagdhad.
Have you seen the images from those riots in England? If those gangs had weapons, you honestly don't think thee would be massive bloodshed because of it? Put an AR-15 in their hand instead of a baseball bat, and what kind of outcome do you think would happen?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407531
We also saw how it worked many centuries ago. You live in this country because of guns. No ifs and or buts about it.
20% more killings? Way to sensationalize. How many killings were there during the watts riots and rodney king riots? Only involving guns that is. The citizens of mexico are not armed...it is the cartels and criminals armed....your analagy does not fit.
If the citizens in Mexico were armed, the violence would be tenfold. You think the firefights between the cartels and the Federales are bad? Throw a bunch of citizens into the mix, and you might as well call it Bagdhad.
Have you seen the images from those riots in England? If those gangs had weapons, you honestly don't think thee would be massive bloodshed because of it? Put an AR-15 in their hand instead of a baseball bat, and what kind of outcome do you think would happen?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Ah, so Baby Boomers just need to "suck it up" and continue working because the Feds squandered all of their retirement funds decades ago. My two teenage daughters can't even find a job at a local burger joint. How do you expect some 60 year old to find one? Could you exist on a minimum wage? Corporations are dumping the older generation and their high salaries, and bringing in young guns straight out of college to take those positions at half the cost. How many businesses do you know that would pay a guy in his late 60's a large salary knowing they could only get maybe another 5 or 10 years out of them?
My mother has been in a nursing home now for 1 year. The one we have her in is pretty decent, and the services they provide keep her happy and comfortable. Her monthly costs are around $3600/month. I believe Medicaid covers about half of the expenses, and my family covers the rest. How many middle income families do you know that could afford $30K - $40K per year PER PERSON to keep grandma, grandpa, mom, and dad comfortable in a nursing home? Homes where Medicaid pays the entire amount for someone to stay at those facilities? I saw some of those places. I wouldn't let them take care of my dog, much les my mother. You egt what you pay for.
Why can't she stay with you?
Why is it when someone saays cut...you immediatly jump on the wagon of old people getting the cuts? Beth didn't specify how to cut the programs.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407537
Why can't she stay with you?
Why is it when someone saays cut...you immediatly jump on the wagon of old people getting the cuts? Beth didn't specify how to cut the programs.
My mother has severe Dementia and Alzheimer's. She doesn't even remember what she did two hours ago. I live in San Antonio. All her doctors and medical care are in Houston. My sister visits her at least 4 times per week. You have no clue what it takes to care of an 83 year old with medical problems. Just 3 years ago, we had her in an assisted living apartment. She enjoyed her freedom. Is she the exception to caring for an elderly person? Looking at the people I see living in the nursing home she's at, I can say not. My father-in-law recently passed away from cancer at the age of 82. He was still living in the same house he's been in for the last 30 years with my sister in law. She's lived at home with her parents for as long as I've known them. Fortunately, she was able to take care of him until he became bed ridden and required constant care. We looked at home health, but it was cheaper to put him in a nursing home since he had bothe Medicaid and his military benefits.
She didn't? She implied that families could easily take care of their elderly on their own. I'm just showing you my experience of what it cost to accomplish that.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407537
Why can't she stay with you?
Why is it when someone saays cut...you immediatly jump on the wagon of old people getting the cuts? Beth didn't specify how to cut the programs.
My mother has severe Dementia and Alzheimer's. She doesn't even remember what she did two hours ago. I live in San Antonio. All her doctors and medical care are in Houston. My sister visits her at least 4 times per week. You have no clue what it takes to care of an 83 year old with medical problems. Just 3 years ago, we had her in an assisted living apartment. She enjoyed her freedom. Is she the exception to caring for an elderly person? Looking at the people I see living in the nursing home she's at, I can say not. My father-in-law recently passed away from cancer at the age of 82. He was still living in the same house he's been in for the last 30 years with my sister in law. She's lived at home with her parents for as long as I've known them. Fortunately, she was able to take care of him until he became bed ridden and required constant care. We looked at home health, but it was cheaper to put him in a nursing home since he had bothe Medicaid and his military benefits.
She didn't? She implied that families could easily take care of their elderly on their own. I'm just showing you my experience of what it cost to accomplish that.
rainbow grouper
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407535
Have you seen the images from those riots in England? If those gangs had weapons, you honestly don't think thee would be massive bloodshed because of it? Put an AR-15 in their hand instead of a baseball bat, and what kind of outcome do you think would happen?
I recently started a post on those riots
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407535
Have you seen the images from those riots in England? If those gangs had weapons, you honestly don't think thee would be massive bloodshed because of it? Put an AR-15 in their hand instead of a baseball bat, and what kind of outcome do you think would happen?
I recently started a post on those riots
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407528
Obamacare mirrors the voucher plan. However, it wants to make individuals invest their own money into the system, instead of the governemnt handing them a check to go and find adequate insurance. Many of the 47%? I would guesstimate that number is probably less than 10% Just like raising taxes isn't the cure all to balance the budget, you wouldn't put a dent in it if you completely did away with Welfare and Unemployment assistance. You need an approach that raises revenues AND cuts spending. Our tax receipts have dwindled ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were put in place. Then a major recession hits, and fewer people have jobs, which just adds to the problem because those tax revenues aren't coming in. Een if you got unemployment down into the 4% range, those tax revenues still wouldn't get us out of the hole.
0bama care didn't do a thing a voucher program would. You want to make people accountable for the money they spend on their health care. All 0bacare does is give more people access to more services.
Anyone earning less than about 30 grand a year with a kid is getting paid to work through the child care and earned income credit instead of paying taxes. I'm betting that is gonna be the vast majority of the non tax payers. In fact I would be supremely confident in say your 10% number is closer to the number of those who don't get something back and I'd bet thats way high. I'd place it closer to .1%. Think about it, EIC and Child care credits are both refundable. What are the odds that someone is going to owe exactly 0 in taxes? Even a single payer with no kids can get up to 450 in EIC.
On tax receipts They increased following the Bush tax cuts. 03 and 04 decreased and they started going up from there and in 06 they exceeded the high water mark of 2000.
The ONLY way to dig out is to grow the economy. Raising taxes isn't a great way to do that in our consumer based economy.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407528
Obamacare mirrors the voucher plan. However, it wants to make individuals invest their own money into the system, instead of the governemnt handing them a check to go and find adequate insurance. Many of the 47%? I would guesstimate that number is probably less than 10% Just like raising taxes isn't the cure all to balance the budget, you wouldn't put a dent in it if you completely did away with Welfare and Unemployment assistance. You need an approach that raises revenues AND cuts spending. Our tax receipts have dwindled ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were put in place. Then a major recession hits, and fewer people have jobs, which just adds to the problem because those tax revenues aren't coming in. Een if you got unemployment down into the 4% range, those tax revenues still wouldn't get us out of the hole.
0bama care didn't do a thing a voucher program would. You want to make people accountable for the money they spend on their health care. All 0bacare does is give more people access to more services.
Anyone earning less than about 30 grand a year with a kid is getting paid to work through the child care and earned income credit instead of paying taxes. I'm betting that is gonna be the vast majority of the non tax payers. In fact I would be supremely confident in say your 10% number is closer to the number of those who don't get something back and I'd bet thats way high. I'd place it closer to .1%. Think about it, EIC and Child care credits are both refundable. What are the odds that someone is going to owe exactly 0 in taxes? Even a single payer with no kids can get up to 450 in EIC.
On tax receipts They increased following the Bush tax cuts. 03 and 04 decreased and they started going up from there and in 06 they exceeded the high water mark of 2000.
The ONLY way to dig out is to grow the economy. Raising taxes isn't a great way to do that in our consumer based economy.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407594
0bama care didn't do a thing a voucher program would. You want to make people accountable for the money they spend on their health care. All 0bacare does is give more people access to more services.
Anyone earning less than about 30 grand a year with a kid is getting paid to work through the child care and earned income credit instead of paying taxes. I'm betting that is gonna be the vast majority of the non tax payers. In fact I would be supremely confident in say your 10% number is closer to the number of those who don't get something back and I'd bet thats way high. I'd place it closer to .1%. Think about it, EIC and Child care credits are both refundable. What are the odds that someone is going to owe exactly 0 in taxes? Even a single payer with no kids can get up to 450 in EIC.
On tax receipts They increased following the Bush tax cuts. 03 and 04 decreased and they started going up from there and in 06 they exceeded the high water mark of 2000.
The ONLY way to dig out is to grow the economy. Raising taxes isn't a great way to do that in our consumer based economy.
I keep hearing the "grow the economy" phrase from the Right. Exactly how do you grow it, and what are the effects of doing it? I suppose it's more incoming taxes for revenues?
I also keep hearing the "47% of Americans don't pay". Yes, that is true. But that's our current tax laws. Don't blame the people who are simply following the rules and taking the legal deductions and credits they are due.
The voucher program has too many loopholes. They want to hand these tail-end Baby Boomers some check that in turn they are suppose to go to some insurance provider and get health insurance. What guarantees the insurance companies will comply and provide them insurance just on the value of the voucher? If not, how much more in premiums will they have to pay? Can the insurance companies deny coverage due to preexisting conditions? What does someone who contracts cancer, or has a current heart condition do when the insurance company won't accept them? All they have is a useless piece of paper, and absolutely no where else to go to get health care. At least with Obamacare, you have options. They're suppose to create these "insurance pools" that emulate the discounts that large corporations receive for insurance a large base of employees.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407594
0bama care didn't do a thing a voucher program would. You want to make people accountable for the money they spend on their health care. All 0bacare does is give more people access to more services.
Anyone earning less than about 30 grand a year with a kid is getting paid to work through the child care and earned income credit instead of paying taxes. I'm betting that is gonna be the vast majority of the non tax payers. In fact I would be supremely confident in say your 10% number is closer to the number of those who don't get something back and I'd bet thats way high. I'd place it closer to .1%. Think about it, EIC and Child care credits are both refundable. What are the odds that someone is going to owe exactly 0 in taxes? Even a single payer with no kids can get up to 450 in EIC.
On tax receipts They increased following the Bush tax cuts. 03 and 04 decreased and they started going up from there and in 06 they exceeded the high water mark of 2000.
The ONLY way to dig out is to grow the economy. Raising taxes isn't a great way to do that in our consumer based economy.
I keep hearing the "grow the economy" phrase from the Right. Exactly how do you grow it, and what are the effects of doing it? I suppose it's more incoming taxes for revenues?
I also keep hearing the "47% of Americans don't pay". Yes, that is true. But that's our current tax laws. Don't blame the people who are simply following the rules and taking the legal deductions and credits they are due.
The voucher program has too many loopholes. They want to hand these tail-end Baby Boomers some check that in turn they are suppose to go to some insurance provider and get health insurance. What guarantees the insurance companies will comply and provide them insurance just on the value of the voucher? If not, how much more in premiums will they have to pay? Can the insurance companies deny coverage due to preexisting conditions? What does someone who contracts cancer, or has a current heart condition do when the insurance company won't accept them? All they have is a useless piece of paper, and absolutely no where else to go to get health care. At least with Obamacare, you have options. They're suppose to create these "insurance pools" that emulate the discounts that large corporations receive for insurance a large base of employees.
darthtang aw
Active Member
My mother has severe Dementia and Alzheimer's. She doesn't even remember what she did two hours ago. I live in San Antonio. All her doctors and medical care are in Houston. My sister visits her at least 4 times per week. You have no clue what it takes to care of an 83 year old with medical problems. Just 3 years ago, we had her in an assisted living apartment. She enjoyed her freedom. Is she the exception to caring for an elderly person? Looking at the people I see living in the nursing home she's at, I can say not. My father-in-law recently passed away from cancer at the age of 82. He was still living in the same house he's been in for the last 30 years with my sister in law. She's lived at home with her parents for as long as I've known them. Fortunately, she was able to take care of him until he became bed ridden and required constant care. We looked at home health, but it was cheaper to put him in a nursing home since he had bothe Medicaid and his military benefits.
She didn't? She implied that families could easily take care of their elderly on their own. I'm just showing you my experience of what it cost to accomplish that.
I know exactly what you are talking about. All the men on both sides of my family have contracted alzheimers. B oth my grandfathers were cared for by their children. My grandmother died of cancer at age 52. Also cared for in her home by my motner. I was 10 at the time and helped. I hope when my parents reach this same predicament, my brother and myself wiol do the same for them.......my mom quit her job to care for her parents. This is the way it should be. Now days we as society are" to busy" to be bothered with such things, or to concerned with maintaining our current lifestyle. And all the state and such to pick up such tabs. We know what your house cost...we know what you and your wife do for a living....could you not live with a little less amenitis to care for your parents in home?
Darth ( hope my kids don't" home" me when I am craping diapers) Tang
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407712
I know exactly what you are talking about. All the men on both sides of my family have contracted alzheimers. B oth my grandfathers were cared for by their children. My grandmother died of cancer at age 52. Also cared for in her home by my motner. I was 10 at the time and helped. I hope when my parents reach this same predicament, my brother and myself wiol do the same for them.......my mom quit her job to care for her parents. This is the way it should be. Now days we as society are" to busy" to be bothered with such things, or to concerned with maintaining our current lifestyle. And all the state and such to pick up such tabs. We know what your house cost...we know what you and your wife do for a living....could you not live with a little less amenitis to care for your parents in home?
Darth ( hope my kids don't" home" me when I am craping diapers) Tang
My mother is more than comfortable where she is. When her mind was with her, she was adamant to tell all of us that she would never want to be burdened with someone taking care of her in their home. My older brother asked her to come stay with him, and she flatly refused.
You live in the self-righteous fantasy world where you take the simplistic approach to life. "Don't like your taxes? Don't like some of the laws in your city or state? Just move." Yea, that's sounds REAL easy to you. Let's throw a $350,000 home on the market in an environment where houses are sitting empty for months at a time. Let's just do away with our careers. There's always Burger King. Kids rooted into their school's and social life? Who cares. Now I'm supposed to stop working and take care of my elderly mother because "That's the right thing to do." Sorry, but that's not how life works these days. This isn't the 50's or 60's any longer where you can live off of one income, unless you don't want your kids to go college, r you on't want to have the nicer things in life. That's why you become successful, so you can have anything you want withinh reason. My parents taught me to be self sufficient. They taught me that because that's how they were brought up. You don't want to be put in a home and have to worry about someone taking care of you? Save up enough money and insure you can afford to have home health care until you finally kick off and die. Don't expect your kids to throw away their life savings just to pamper you when you're unable to take care of yourself.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/387164/s-p-downgrades-us-credit-rating/80#post_3407712
I know exactly what you are talking about. All the men on both sides of my family have contracted alzheimers. B oth my grandfathers were cared for by their children. My grandmother died of cancer at age 52. Also cared for in her home by my motner. I was 10 at the time and helped. I hope when my parents reach this same predicament, my brother and myself wiol do the same for them.......my mom quit her job to care for her parents. This is the way it should be. Now days we as society are" to busy" to be bothered with such things, or to concerned with maintaining our current lifestyle. And all the state and such to pick up such tabs. We know what your house cost...we know what you and your wife do for a living....could you not live with a little less amenitis to care for your parents in home?
Darth ( hope my kids don't" home" me when I am craping diapers) Tang
My mother is more than comfortable where she is. When her mind was with her, she was adamant to tell all of us that she would never want to be burdened with someone taking care of her in their home. My older brother asked her to come stay with him, and she flatly refused.
You live in the self-righteous fantasy world where you take the simplistic approach to life. "Don't like your taxes? Don't like some of the laws in your city or state? Just move." Yea, that's sounds REAL easy to you. Let's throw a $350,000 home on the market in an environment where houses are sitting empty for months at a time. Let's just do away with our careers. There's always Burger King. Kids rooted into their school's and social life? Who cares. Now I'm supposed to stop working and take care of my elderly mother because "That's the right thing to do." Sorry, but that's not how life works these days. This isn't the 50's or 60's any longer where you can live off of one income, unless you don't want your kids to go college, r you on't want to have the nicer things in life. That's why you become successful, so you can have anything you want withinh reason. My parents taught me to be self sufficient. They taught me that because that's how they were brought up. You don't want to be put in a home and have to worry about someone taking care of you? Save up enough money and insure you can afford to have home health care until you finally kick off and die. Don't expect your kids to throw away their life savings just to pamper you when you're unable to take care of yourself.
darthtang aw
Active Member
My mother is more than comfortable where she is. When her mind was with her, she was adamant to tell all of us that she would never want to be burdened with someone taking care of her in their home. My older brother asked her to come stay with him, and she flatly refused.
You live in the self-righteous fantasy world where you take the simplistic approach to life. "Don't like your taxes? Don't like some of the laws in your city or state? Just move." Yea, that's sounds REAL easy to you. Let's throw a $350,000 home on the market in an environment where houses are sitting empty for months at a time. Let's just do away with our careers. There's always Burger King. Kids rooted into their school's and social life? Who cares. Now I'm supposed to stop working and take care of my elderly mother because "That's the right thing to do." Sorry, but that's not how life works these days. This isn't the 50's or 60's any longer where you can live off of one income, unless you don't want your kids to go college, r you on't want to have the nicer things in life. That's why you become successful, so you can have anything you want withinh reason. My parents taught me to be self sufficient. They taught me that because that's how they were brought up. You don't want to be put in a home and have to worry about someone taking care of you? Save up enough money and insure you can afford to have home health care until you finally kick off and die. Don't expect your kids to throw away their life savings just to pamper you when you're unable to take care of yourself.
Yes, become succesful to do those things. As you stated, self sufficient. Yet YOU feel the government should be involved with lives and care. Is that self sufficient? Kids can work their way through college......families can care for their own. No one WANTS 5go be a burden. But sometimes families need to shoulder the load for each other. You call my view simple. Yet my views have allowed me to make two successfull businesses. One started in this crap economy......
See you find excuses and fault for everything. But honestly, it doesn't matter what party is in office, what laws are passed, what wars are fought...family is the structure the perceivers through it all. Family takes care of each other instead of relying on others. Family gets you through.
There is a family member that was addicted to meth. Her children were cared for by family during this time. Not the state, not medicaid, not the fed. Family services was not called to care for them. Mom is now better and free of the addiction...the child is growing into a fine boy...he has not seen his real father since he was Two. He is now in middle school. He has no mental problems.......I and his grandfather are his male role models. As well as his 2nd cousin. Instead of relying on others the family unit did what it was suppossed to do, sacrifice for the well being of a family member. My grandmother in law lived with my in laws the last 20 years of her long life. Not because she needed the medical care...but because she started having rough times and it was better for all. No retirement home, family. Would you live with your mother in law for 20 years?
This is th single biggest issue and why our country is so screwed up....the family structure is broken...and I am not just meaning the immediate family...the extended family as well.
I would sell my businesses at a loss as well as my house to ensure my family was together and cared for. And not rely on state to do this...or the fed..........but that is just me....
Yes I am simple.
The first rule in business is keep it simple stupid. Life is the same way. Ghe simpler it is...the less problems you have.
B ut disregard my point of view....call me simple and outdated. Simple fact is...it has worked for centuries....while governments and policies...change as often as my depends will when I contract alzheimers.