Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by humonculus1987, Sep 11, 2011.
Well said JohnMaclane. Absolutely hit the nail on the head.
Yeah and a lot of them are trying to live above their means as well. You can see it everywhere. People want to push their income as far as they can, go into debt, just so they can live the "good life". People spend a lot of money on non-essential items, then complain that they don't have enough for the essential ones.
Yeah looks like there's room for improvement all around in this example.
$25k a year is not 2 people working full time jobs, maybe one person. But that person certainly is either just starting out in their low wage job or has not tried in life.
If you can't find something under $1000 your either not looking (looking in the wrong area) or your standards are too high.
$500 a month per person in food???? Yeah living too good. $150 gas? maybe depending on how far you have to drive to work, and what vehicle you drive but I'm sensing there's likely room for improvement there as well.
The greed would be from those who want the rich to pay for them.
Things like the minimum wage are apart of the problem.
The doom and gloom is bs. A livable wage will be paid, or the job wont get done.
How is that equal to them contributing, besides most people make more than minimum wage. Minimum wage is thrown around as if that's what most people are being paid.
The best solution is a consumption tax rather than income.
SS and medicare are FICA, they are separate taxes from the federal income tax. Remove SS and medicare, remove the taxes. Plan for your own retirement, instead of the government playing the ponze scheme game.
Paid for education and healthcare are not human rights. Rights don't come at the expense of others.
Why aren't the parents held responsible, why isn't anyone ever held responsible in these socialist stories?
Theft isn't morally justifiable,I can tell you that.
I choose the US.
I was saying, that if you want to live that good, you need to work hard/etc to succeed.
Where the rich's money came from or how it was earned, is none of your business. Yes, they could have inherited, doesn't matter one bit. Its not your money, you are not entitled to it.
If someones wealth was redistributed to pay for you, then yes you didn't deserve it. You weren't entitled to it. You received stolen property as far as I'm concerned.
Whats the problem with baring your own responsibility and going into debt to better yourself? Either its worth it to you or its not.
As for the education system....spending is NOT the problem...
Someone is voting Rick Parry 2012
I agree with every word you've written (hence the reason I'm no longer responding, you're taking the retorts against these brainwashed guys right out of my mouth) except the above.
He wasn't a socialist. Hell, he set in place containment policies before WWII ended (since he, uh, died...), and was a strong promoter of capitalism in developing countries which were attempting to overthrow shackles.
Might be arguing on a technicality here, but he was a social democrat, not a socialist. As absurd as it might sound to a European to have to make a big deal about it, it's definitely necessary in the U.S., where the right wing just LOVES painting everything they dislike with the word "socialist."
To them, anything that is not laissez-faire capitalism, is apparently socialist.
And since socialism means ownership of the means of production and the eventual removal of capitalism and the market-based economy, right-wingers need to have a distinction drawn for them, between socialism and social democracy.
Social democracy is not opposed to capitalism and markets. It just involves a few regulations and a few state-controlled areas (which is basically every country with common sense). Hell, the U.S. is a social democracy, although not as fully evolved as it should be (several European countries have progressed at this much better than we have).
Like, they get carried away (especially Fox News and its viewers). They don't know the difference between social democracy, socialism, and communism. It brings upon epic amounts of facepalming and the wish that someone would force-educate these wackos in some political science classes.
Sometimes I wish the left here would take a page out of the right-wing's book and start labeling all Republicans as fascists. It'd be equally-incorrect as labeling the Democrats as socialists, but it'd finally be mudslinging at the same level.
Then again, I guess I don't want my side to stoop low enough to spread that kind of misinformation.
LOL...the left is too busy labeling anyone that disagrees with their policies as racist instead of debating the issue. There's plentyof mudslinging from the left...heck Obama refers to the right as "enemies", "need to sit in the back of the bus"...Biden calls them "barbarians"...Maxine Waters says "they need to go to hell"....so yea they stoop low all the time open your ears.
When the right-wing holds the entire U.S. economy hostage, for what was ALREADY PREVIOUSLY DEBATED AND RESOLVED, they can rightfully be called enemies.
Forget Cantor's declaration of holding the U.S. economy hostage?
There's no misinformation there. The right-wing wants nothing more than to see Obama out of office, NO MATTER THE COST. Costs involve the bankruptcy of the U.S. and the world economy, the lowering of credit ratings, and further unemployment.
The House leadership has ADMITTED THIS, publicly.
The right has done nothing to create jobs. Any time Obama proposes something, all that happens is "no!" The GOP is nothing more than the Party of No.
The American public AGREES to higher taxes on the filthy rich. The American public AGREES with Obama's jobs plan. The American public AGREED with raising the debt ceiling.
Guess what? The GOP went against/is going against the majority public wishes, IN ALL OF THE ABOVE CASES.
Did you know that the GOP in Congress has a 19% approval rating? That's LOW. IIRC, the lowest in history. Democrats in Congress are at 28% approval, which is low too, but not as bad as the GOP.
You assume your sides on the right course of action and that the opinions of people make it so.
I believe you are wrong.
Oh blow it out your ass.
Obviously you didn't even read the article. Israel is the smallest, lowest populated country in the world we give money too, yet they receive the most from the US than any other country we give to.
My argument is we are giving away massive amounts of money, when people here in the US are suffering.
And the next time you call someone racist, remember this. If you see racism in an article that is 100% factual, and not racist. YOU are the racist.
Both sides do this, all they do is name call and demand bipartisan politics, yet in the same sentence bash one another. The sheer hypocrisy in it drives me nuts!
It's a household. It could be 1 person, could be 3. There are plenty of jobs out there that pay under 10k a year with no benefits. You might not have worked any of them to know that they're there.
In my area, rock bottom ghetto is $800 bucks a month. (I looked for a cheap apartment a couple years ago. Nothing under $800. Zero.)
And even then you gotta find a spot that's open.
30 days a month.
500 / 30 = 16.6 dollars.
Say 4 bucks breakfast, 6 lunch, 6 dinner.
That's hardly extravagant.
$150 is cheap. I low balled that figure by a lot.
That's only $1800 a YEAR in gas. That's a joke.
Most people spend double that per year.
Do you even drive??? I'm honestly amazed that you would think $150 a month in gas is a lot.
Versus the greed of people who want others working for unlivable wages?
The money you spend on your taxes come from the customers of your employer. People paying for you, so you can pay your taxes. You're lucky the customers are willing to pay you enough so that you can afford food, housing, and taxes.
I sense that you don't own property, or don't care how much it devalues.
Agreed. People will just find something elsewhere ... if there is something elsewhere.
Otherwise they'll work 3x jobs for a pittance each - like many do now.
You can't have both low wages and pay taxes. Something has to give.
The minimum cost of living doesn't go down with lower income. You run up against a wall.
At some point, it's between starving, freezing, or paying taxes.
Society (our representative government : "we") has already made the decision that we're willing to pay salaries at or lower than the cost of living, leaving no spare income for taxation.
Paying a few pennies above minimum wage does not change the situation.
And also eliminating property tax, so that when you lose your job, you don't have to lose your house.
Replace it with a county consumption tax.
They are paid from my income.
Being itemized out changes nothing.
Retirement wise, I personally don't care.
But healthcare wise, I would be happy if they made an opt-in government program.
Where depending on how long you've been paying, your benefits vest.
So all the "socialized medicine" people can get their system, and the other folks can simply not participate (and can't start participating in the last minute when they get old and medical bills start popping up, and expect a free ride either).
Labels, labels and more labels. It really saddens me when intelligent people choose a political side, either in general or in regard to policy. Left-wing this right-wing that... Your side is evil, your side is the enemy. Blah blah blah... Use your brain.
It's one thing to argue for some policy or issue, but when you choose one political side over another it's very easy to assume the other side is practically completely or always wrong - you tend to have a blind eye to anything they say or do and assume it's just wrong because "your" side said something else.
Politics is a very messy and nasty thing and should generally be ignored in my opinion. The only valid way to determine who does what are their actions, not their words. Rewarding rhetoric on either side is asinine and only serves political agendas, not progress.
Saying the right-wing is the party of "no" or the left-wing are a bunch of whinny socialist brats doesn't serve any of us - it only flames the fire, causing animosity and failures.
Minimum wage part time jobs with low hours. I made more then $10k my first year at a low wage part-time job.
Sounds like moving out of the area is in order.
Its still no where near as inexpensive as one can live on. I live on half of that.
In my car I might spend $80 a month on gas, but lets round it up to $100.
On my bike(motorcycle), I'd spend half that.
Foot/bicycle/public transportation.....are cheaper even.
Versus the opinion of what a livable wage is.
I sense it was a deserving answer to the questions.
3 part time jobs? Thats like 1 1/2 jobs.
That is a result of government manipulating the taxes, entitlements, wages, interest rates, inflationary policy, etc.
I don't care if they made a opt-in, but they would never ever do that. It defeats the whole purpose of how they plan to pay for the healthcare. Its not by lowering the costs, or by being better*
Not even Social Security is opt-in. Which it should be.
I know...Pr was the one that said the left don't do that mudslinging so I gave quotes to prove him wrong.
As for PR...great job on those pathetic dem talking points....You say the right wing holds the US economy hostage but fail to point out that the repub controlled house passed a budget. The senate controlled by the democrats have gone over 800 DAYS without passing a budget...that's holding the economy hostage. And don't blame the lack of jobs on the repubs...they passed Obama and the Dems stimulus that Obama promised would keep unemployment BELOW 8% yet after passing it it's still over 9%. The repubs passed cut, cap and balance bill so that's hardly the party of NO. We can't continue to borrow money from China and pass the costs down. We're already trillions in debt. Bush and those in Congress those 8 years started the problem and Obama has only made the problems worse which I didn't think was possible. Here's a quote from Obama when Bush was president and he agreed...
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means '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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
And for the millionth time the rich already pay a lot in taxes. Here's an aritcle from the AP to prove it.
The people agreed with the gop as we all saw with the elections this last November.
Well said sir, hats off.
I say the likewise to you - pathetic GOP talking points.
Also, sorry, but I disagree with every premise you made. Cutting spending in VERY important areas for future growth, stability, and prosperity is an AWFUL idea.
You do realize that the credit rating agencies kept urging for a debt ceiling raise? And basically anyone with half-a-brain in big businesses, financial analysts, economic researchers, and much of the people in economy-related departments URGED to NOT cut spending? Academics, historians, and multi-millionaire/billionaire investors VEHEMENTLY opposed cutting spending in such a weakened state and INSISTED upon a debt ceiling raise?
I assure you, these guys know more than any of the politicians, and especially more than laughably-biased media like Fox News (A.K.A. "Misinformation Central").
You need to spend money to earn money. These are long-term investments.
BTW, people didn't agree with the GOP in November, and they still don't. They just voted against Democrats because they were upset over unemployment.
And I don't think you analyzed your own link well:
The issues here, confirmed above, are exemptions, credits, and other loopholes.
And even then, the uber-rich are in a position to pay more, and still live absurdly-luxurious lifestyles, basically unchanged.
This also needs to be shown:
I cannot believe how spot-on the above is. Absolute truth. I'd love her to be president in the future. Problem is, she's honest, educated, and has common sense. It seems like politics these days is nothing more than deals-behind-the-back, money, and good looks (ha!).
so people that work hard don't deserve rewards? they should have just as crappy of an existence as the rest of us?
You did an awful job reading the comment you quoted.
Also, "work hard?" How many of these people are rich due to old money? Or scams? Or just lucky investment? Quite a bit.
someone worked hard. and a lucky investment is just that. scams get punished. i'm not seeing the benefits of stealing wealth that a family worked for to give to the people in the housing projects?