Union Scum (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
$21,700 per year. THAT is below the poverty line. Sounds like they need to get a better paying job. IBEW all the way!!
$21,700 per year. THAT is below the poverty line. Sounds like they need to get a better paying job. IBEW all the way!!
credito (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
$21,700 per year, $142,710 in debt, and still able to borrow another 16,500 every year! Perhaps this family prints its own evil fiat money?
$21,700 per year, $142,710 in debt, and still able to borrow another 16,500 every year! Perhaps this family prints its own evil fiat money?
333 (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
21700 per year is 1808 per month. That's large amount of money outside of USA.
21700 per year is 1808 per month. That's large amount of money outside of USA.
LogiC (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
Shouldn't that be $385 dollars off the debt? $385[00,000,000].
Also don't forget Romney would have saved $0.22 or so off that debt by cutting funding for Sesame Street! See he would have saved the budget.
Shouldn't that be $385 dollars off the debt? $385[00,000,000].
Also don't forget Romney would have saved $0.22 or so off that debt by cutting funding for Sesame Street! See he would have saved the budget.
Freddo (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
Just because PBS earns 100s of millions in merchandising every year doesn't mean they shouldn't get government support! After all they have an important public function (much more important than schools and healthcare, where the money could also have been spend).
Just because PBS earns 100s of millions in merchandising every year doesn't mean they shouldn't get government support! After all they have an important public function (much more important than schools and healthcare, where the money could also have been spend).
ReasoN (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
Because cutting spending to PBS was Romney's ENTIRE BUDGET PROPOSAL and certainly not one of many programs that can easily be cut.
Why so intellectually dishonest LogiC?
Because cutting spending to PBS was Romney's ENTIRE BUDGET PROPOSAL and certainly not one of many programs that can easily be cut.
Why so intellectually dishonest LogiC?
LogiC (Friday, 28 Dec 2012)
Well I was just trying for a sarcastic remark, seems Freddo didn't catch it.
As for honesty well here: (visit link)
2011 federal budget, 58% of tax payer money goes into military. In 2011 it seems the US budget total was US$3.84 trillion. 58% of that ~US$2.23 trillion (this includes indirect military spending btw). So like saying cutting PBS is something that will help the budget is a joke, when the US spends more on the military than *ALL* other services combined. In fact no other service can really be cut in the order of hundreds of billions without it being totally gutted. So military spending really is the only place to make a significant cut in spending. Now Romney wouldn't touch military spending, but Obama seems pretty limp on trying to touch that too.
Well I was just trying for a sarcastic remark, seems Freddo didn't catch it.
As for honesty well here: (visit link)
2011 federal budget, 58% of tax payer money goes into military. In 2011 it seems the US budget total was US$3.84 trillion. 58% of that ~US$2.23 trillion (this includes indirect military spending btw). So like saying cutting PBS is something that will help the budget is a joke, when the US spends more on the military than *ALL* other services combined. In fact no other service can really be cut in the order of hundreds of billions without it being totally gutted. So military spending really is the only place to make a significant cut in spending. Now Romney wouldn't touch military spending, but Obama seems pretty limp on trying to touch that too.
Exactly! (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
A president with a latin american speech and latin american policies can bankrupt any country they wish.
A president with a latin american speech and latin american policies can bankrupt any country they wish.
The Fiscal Cliff (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
Is a lie. Just like the debt, the deficit, and the debt ceiling. Why? Because the USA is a currency ISSUER, not a currency USER. The household/US budget comparison doesn't work.
Is a lie. Just like the debt, the deficit, and the debt ceiling. Why? Because the USA is a currency ISSUER, not a currency USER. The household/US budget comparison doesn't work.
It's a good thing (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
that governments don't work the same way as families, and that the GOP isn't going to be in power again for a loooong time.
that governments don't work the same way as families, and that the GOP isn't going to be in power again for a loooong time.
Just some Nitpicker (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
"Total budget cuts" should say $385, not $38,50. But I admit, it doesn't change the point.
"Total budget cuts" should say $385, not $38,50. But I admit, it doesn't change the point.
The Plumber (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
Perhaps you should find the Defense-spending clog that filled your house full of shit first. You know... so it doesn't happen again, and again, and again...
Perhaps you should find the Defense-spending clog that filled your house full of shit first. You know... so it doesn't happen again, and again, and again...
Ed Wallis (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
Must be nice...always pretending to have SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME for your own problems.
Must be nice...always pretending to have SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME for your own problems.
Curious George (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
So, how much of the new debt was spent attacking people in other countries, and who the hell is still lending the USA more and more money to buy SHIT.
So, how much of the new debt was spent attacking people in other countries, and who the hell is still lending the USA more and more money to buy SHIT.
Ed Wallis (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012)
Oh yeah: "war is not the answer"...except to the Nazis, Communists.... Your fantasy world is as practical as the Democrats' spending record.
Oh yeah: "war is not the answer"...except to the Nazis, Communists.... Your fantasy world is as practical as the Democrats' spending record.
Curious George (Friday, 28 Dec 2012)
You all have guns so why not attack each other? You don't need to spend any more money to go hard at each other, and it will give the rest of the world a rest from you trying to save all of us from drowning in our oil, and our lack of freedom, and the fact that we aren't all pointless twerps like Ed Wallis who can't be happy unless they are supporting some other brainless twit to attack somebody else because they have the temerity to want to live in their own country by their own rules. Some of you are so desperate to attack anybody, that others of us can still remember the CNN reporters interviewing US Troops as they ATTACKED GRENADA. Hell, you will be working your way up to special forces attacking kindergartens next?
You all have guns so why not attack each other? You don't need to spend any more money to go hard at each other, and it will give the rest of the world a rest from you trying to save all of us from drowning in our oil, and our lack of freedom, and the fact that we aren't all pointless twerps like Ed Wallis who can't be happy unless they are supporting some other brainless twit to attack somebody else because they have the temerity to want to live in their own country by their own rules. Some of you are so desperate to attack anybody, that others of us can still remember the CNN reporters interviewing US Troops as they ATTACKED GRENADA. Hell, you will be working your way up to special forces attacking kindergartens next?
Just sayin' (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
And what do you do when you find out your employer has been underpaying you for the last 10yrs? (As in, the Top 1% haven't been paying their fair share of tax revenue - and the rest of us suffer for it.)
And what do you do when you find out your employer has been underpaying you for the last 10yrs? (As in, the Top 1% haven't been paying their fair share of tax revenue - and the rest of us suffer for it.)
U know (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
Getting elected has a price. They just borrow the money in the name of the people who elect them.
Getting elected has a price. They just borrow the money in the name of the people who elect them.
Semantics Sam (Thursday, 27 Dec 2012) Reply
Thank you mass media for missleading the average voter on the definition of "Debt Ceiling" and allowing people like this to feel smug. Also, those figures are fictional and taken from the extremes. That budget is taken from the year we had a bailout. And anyone that understands the basics of economics has nothing against the bailout unless they're fishing for votes. This is why democracy fails, because it is more effective to lie and mislead than it is to educate and reason.
Thank you mass media for missleading the average voter on the definition of "Debt Ceiling" and allowing people like this to feel smug. Also, those figures are fictional and taken from the extremes. That budget is taken from the year we had a bailout. And anyone that understands the basics of economics has nothing against the bailout unless they're fishing for votes. This is why democracy fails, because it is more effective to lie and mislead than it is to educate and reason.
Christy (Friday, 28 Dec 2012) Reply
Maybe try getting a better job and INCREASE REVENUE instead of just cutting all of your expenses?
Maybe try getting a better job and INCREASE REVENUE instead of just cutting all of your expenses?
jose (Saturday, 29 Dec 2012) Reply
get rich people to pay for it. they can pay it off and won't hurt for food at all.
get rich people to pay for it. they can pay it off and won't hurt for food at all.
Just saying (Saturday, 29 Dec 2012) Reply
The top 1% paid on average $343,927 per household and 36.73% of the total Federal Income tax revenue.
Precisely what is their "fair share" if they're paying 37% of all income tax receipts?
The top 1% paid on average $343,927 per household and 36.73% of the total Federal Income tax revenue.
Precisely what is their "fair share" if they're paying 37% of all income tax receipts?
Zelda (Saturday, 29 Dec 2012)
The problem is the Top 1% get 80% of the income. So the rest of us have to make up the remaining 63% of the revenue out of the 20% of the income leftover.
The problem is the Top 1% get 80% of the income. So the rest of us have to make up the remaining 63% of the revenue out of the 20% of the income leftover.
ReasoN (Saturday, 29 Dec 2012) Reply
Except your numbers are flat out false. In reality, the highest amount paid out by the government is done in the name of Medicare and Medicade, it being 23% of the federal budget. The next highest? Social Security with 20%. Then we get to Defense at 19%.
(visit link)
Now, I'm not going to pretend that Defense doesn't need to be cut. It absolutely does. Get the troops home from Afganistan and Iraq, cut our military bases abroad by at least 10% and work toward 20-50% over 5-10 or so years. But even if you do that, you're still looking at a huge deficit being made every year by entitlement programs. Our biggest spenders need to be cut, but they'll never even be looked at because if you even suggest maybe the people should take care of themselves in this supposedly "rugged individualist" country everyone's going to say you hate poor people and old people.
Except your numbers are flat out false. In reality, the highest amount paid out by the government is done in the name of Medicare and Medicade, it being 23% of the federal budget. The next highest? Social Security with 20%. Then we get to Defense at 19%.
(visit link)
Now, I'm not going to pretend that Defense doesn't need to be cut. It absolutely does. Get the troops home from Afganistan and Iraq, cut our military bases abroad by at least 10% and work toward 20-50% over 5-10 or so years. But even if you do that, you're still looking at a huge deficit being made every year by entitlement programs. Our biggest spenders need to be cut, but they'll never even be looked at because if you even suggest maybe the people should take care of themselves in this supposedly "rugged individualist" country everyone's going to say you hate poor people and old people.
nzgeek (Tuesday, 8 Jan 2013)
How is it that 23% of the federal budget is spent on medical care, in a country where the vast majority of patients are supposed to have their own private medical insurance?
Let's compare New Zealand, which has a socialised health care system where it's uncommon to have health insurance. In 2011, health care made up 19.5% of all government expenditure. That's a lower percentage of overall expenditure on a socialised health care system! (And no, the standard of care is not at all terrible .)
Source: (visit link)
How is it that 23% of the federal budget is spent on medical care, in a country where the vast majority of patients are supposed to have their own private medical insurance?
Let's compare New Zealand, which has a socialised health care system where it's uncommon to have health insurance. In 2011, health care made up 19.5% of all government expenditure. That's a lower percentage of overall expenditure on a socialised health care system! (And no, the standard of care is not at all terrible .)
Source: (visit link)
Just saying (Sunday, 30 Dec 2012) Reply
Great! Now, give me a specific number as to what EXACTLY is the "fair share" of the rich. 50%? 80%? 100%? What is their "fair share?"
Full disclosure: I've never heard someone give me a direct answer to that and I sincerely believe you wont be the first.
Great! Now, give me a specific number as to what EXACTLY is the "fair share" of the rich. 50%? 80%? 100%? What is their "fair share?"
Full disclosure: I've never heard someone give me a direct answer to that and I sincerely believe you wont be the first.
You scrolled all the way down here? Good job! Proceed to Next >> picture?