Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Cut deficit, but not on the backs of the Needy

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post Cut deficit, but not on the backs of the Needy

    Yes. We must address the very serious problem of a $16 trillion national debt and a $1 trillion federal deficit.

    But at this pivotal moment in American history, it’s essential that we understand how we got into this deficit crisis in the first place and who was responsible for it. More important, we must address the deficit in a way that is fair and does not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor — people who are already hurting.

    Let us never forget that when Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, this country enjoyed a healthy $236 billion surplus, and the projections were that this surplus would grow by a total of $5 trillion over a 10-year period.

    What happened? How did we go from a significant federal budget surplus to a massive deficit? Frankly, it is not that complicated.

    President George W. Bush and the so-called deficit hawks chose to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and put the funding for those wars on our nation’s credit card. By the time the last wounded veteran is cared for, those wars will end up adding more than $3 trillion to our national debt.

    During this same period, Bush and the “deficit hawks” provided huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who were already doing phenomenally well. These tax breaks for the very rich will increase our national debt by about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

    In addition, Bush and the “deficit hawks” established a Medicare prescription drug program written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. This program, which is far more expensive than it should be because it prohibits the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, was not paid for. As a result, about $400 billion will be added to our national debt over a 10-year period.

    Further, as a result of the deregulation of Wall Street, and the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of the major financial institutions, this country was driven into the worst recession since the 1930s, which resulted in a massive reduction in revenue coming into the federal government.

    And now, as we approach the election and a lame-duck session of Congress, these very same Republican “deficit hawks,” the folks who, to a significant degree, created the deficit crisis, are presenting some horrendous ideas about how we should get out of the mess that they caused. Sadly, they have been joined by some Democrats.


    First, in order to cover the cost of the unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want to make significant cuts to Social Security that will affect not only seniors but disabled veterans as well. They want to do this despite the fact that Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, has not caused the deficit and has a $2.7 trillion surplus. Their favorite approach to cutting Social Security is through a reformulation of the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated through the creation of a so-called chained consumer price index. Enacting this policy would result in a $560-a-year cut in Social Security benefits for 65-year-olds once they turn 75 and about a $1,000-a-year cut when they reach 85. The chained CPI will also make substantial cuts to the benefits of more than 3 million veterans, with the largest cuts affecting young, permanently disabled veterans who were seriously wounded in combat.

    Second, in order to cover the cost of tax breaks given to millionaires and billionaires, they want to increase the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and throw millions of families with children off of Medicaid.

    Third, in order to cover the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program, they want to cut Pell Grants, student loans, nutrition and other programs vitally important to working families.

    Fourth, at a time when the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, their deficit-reduction plan calls for lowering the top tax rates for the rich to about 28 percent or even lower.

    Fifth, while the United States military budget has virtually tripled since 1997 and we now spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, they want to increase defense spending.

    There are fair and sensible ways to reduce deficits, but balancing the budget on the backs of the weak and vulnerable while lowering tax rates for the rich and increasing military spending are not among them.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...C-091E9C4644D7

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Define "needy" please.

    I have a feeling there will be very little universal agreement on that definition.

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can explain why I am on here. I am retired and we have potential T-storms today so no boat.
    Why is IJF, a teacher (overworked at that) on here? No lessson plans?
    cpa and others are self employed. Even PK has time on his hands in the private sector. I do wonder about all the civil servants on here. Perhaps they should have a "patriotic" give back of what THEY make. Obama's new theme line. "It's Patriotic".

    The food stamp program - SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - what a laugh. Money so welfare queens can trade for cigarettes, beer and crack. Abused program. " I lost my card, I demand another".
    People getting non pay back student loans and doing art history, black studies, women's studies, music theory, etc. And then unemployable.
    Disabled veterans and badly handicapped children. We owe it to help those. People who have squandered their lives - NO! And that includes the elderly too stupid, lazy and self indulgent to have saved anything.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Yes. We must address the very serious problem of a $16 trillion national debt and a $1 trillion federal deficit.

    But at this pivotal moment in American history, it’s essential that we understand how we got into this deficit crisis in the first place and who was responsible for it. More important, we must address the deficit in a way that is fair and does not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor — people who are already hurting.

    Let us never forget that when Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, this country enjoyed a healthy $236 billion surplus, and the projections were that this surplus would grow by a total of $5 trillion over a 10-year period.

    What happened? How did we go from a significant federal budget surplus to a massive deficit? Frankly, it is not that complicated.

    President George W. Bush and the so-called deficit hawks chose to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and put the funding for those wars on our nation’s credit card. By the time the last wounded veteran is cared for, those wars will end up adding more than $3 trillion to our national debt.

    During this same period, Bush and the “deficit hawks” provided huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who were already doing phenomenally well. These tax breaks for the very rich will increase our national debt by about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

    In addition, Bush and the “deficit hawks” established a Medicare prescription drug program written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. This program, which is far more expensive than it should be because it prohibits the federal government from using its purchasing power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, was not paid for. As a result, about $400 billion will be added to our national debt over a 10-year period.

    Further, as a result of the deregulation of Wall Street, and the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of the major financial institutions, this country was driven into the worst recession since the 1930s, which resulted in a massive reduction in revenue coming into the federal government.

    And now, as we approach the election and a lame-duck session of Congress, these very same Republican “deficit hawks,” the folks who, to a significant degree, created the deficit crisis, are presenting some horrendous ideas about how we should get out of the mess that they caused. Sadly, they have been joined by some Democrats.


    First, in order to cover the cost of the unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want to make significant cuts to Social Security that will affect not only seniors but disabled veterans as well. They want to do this despite the fact that Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, has not caused the deficit and has a $2.7 trillion surplus. Their favorite approach to cutting Social Security is through a reformulation of the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated through the creation of a so-called chained consumer price index. Enacting this policy would result in a $560-a-year cut in Social Security benefits for 65-year-olds once they turn 75 and about a $1,000-a-year cut when they reach 85. The chained CPI will also make substantial cuts to the benefits of more than 3 million veterans, with the largest cuts affecting young, permanently disabled veterans who were seriously wounded in combat.

    Second, in order to cover the cost of tax breaks given to millionaires and billionaires, they want to increase the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and throw millions of families with children off of Medicaid.

    Third, in order to cover the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program, they want to cut Pell Grants, student loans, nutrition and other programs vitally important to working families.

    Fourth, at a time when the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, their deficit-reduction plan calls for lowering the top tax rates for the rich to about 28 percent or even lower.

    Fifth, while the United States military budget has virtually tripled since 1997 and we now spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, they want to increase defense spending.

    There are fair and sensible ways to reduce deficits, but balancing the budget on the backs of the weak and vulnerable while lowering tax rates for the rich and increasing military spending are not among them.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...C-091E9C4644D7

    And no mention of Obummer making the deficit 3x worse. You're as bad as Busterbot5000.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Certainly a great deal of the farm subsidies and oil subsidies should go by the way side. But even before then, we need to cut foreign aid. If we are to make Americans whose backs these other get monies from it only makes sense that they lose theirs before the Americans do.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I can explain why I am on here. I am retired and we have potential T-storms today so no boat.
    Why is IJF, a teacher (overworked at that) on here? No lessson plans?
    cpa and others are self employed. Even PK has time on his hands in the private sector. I do wonder about all the civil servants on here. Perhaps they should have a "patriotic" give back of what THEY make. Obama's new theme line. "It's Patriotic".

    The food stamp program - SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - what a laugh. Money so welfare queens can trade for cigarettes, beer and crack. Abused program. " I lost my card, I demand another".
    People getting non pay back student loans and doing art history, black studies, women's studies, music theory, etc. And then unemployable.
    Disabled veterans and badly handicapped children. We owe it to help those. People who have squandered their lives - NO! And that includes the elderly too stupid, lazy and self indulgent to have saved anything.






    Keep it real here. These corporations make a killing off of the backs of Americans Sports franchises hold cities and states hostage like t get a new stadium.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post






    Keep it real here. These corporations make a killing off of the backs of Americans Sports franchises hold cities and states hostage like t get a new stadium.

    Dawg, get a grip please. What are you saying? That Walmart is making money off of sports franchises? Walmart makes money, but not that much as a %. And these banks?
    No city NEEDS to have a team. LA is doing just fine. Lots of college cities way outdraw the NFL.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    These corporations get huge tax breaks/bailouts to build stadiums and businesses with tax payer dollars. They don't share the profits like they share the WELFARE they get

    This is the ultimate in WELFARE QUEENISM

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Define "needy" please.

    I have a feeling there will be very little universal agreement on that definition.
    need·y/ˈnēdē/
    Adjective:
    (of a person) Lacking the necessities of life; very poor.

    Seems simple enough.

    Of course we played this word game before with 'greed'. Remember no individual or corporation (which of course, is an individual as well) can be considered greedy because, we'll, there is just not a universal definition suitable

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    These corporations get huge tax breaks/bailouts to build stadiums and businesses with tax payer dollars. They don't share the profits like they share the WELFARE they get

    This is the ultimate in WELFARE QUEENISM
    Why can't you be against both?

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,164
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Yes. We must address the very serious problem of a $16 trillion national debt and a $1 trillion federal deficit.
    And we must do so without uttering Obama's name!

    Who's Obama? Why he's the sitting president who took us from $10T to $16T in one term after campaigning he'd half the debt. No Obama, no bias.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,494
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    The food stamp program - SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - what a laugh. Money so welfare queens can trade for cigarettes, beer and crack.
    How much does Chase Bank make from the SNAP program?

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Why can't you be against both?
    Certainly. It is harder for me to consider the larger entities charity cases or needy people.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    need·y/ˈnēdē/
    Adjective:
    (of a person) Lacking the necessities of life; very poor.

    Seems simple enough.
    One would think.

    Until they meet a liberal in charge of an entitlement.

    Then "needy" is only teh first word t be redefined and expanded.

    "poor" and "necessities of life" quickly follow suit.

    I'd go so far as to say that I doubt you and I would agree to a specific threshold or definition to qualify for any of those terms, in re: Governmental Aid Policies.

    Of course we played this word game before with 'greed'.
    I'd think a Teacher would have more respect for the meanings of words, and honesty in discourse.

    Well, maybe not.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    One would think.

    Until they meet a liberal in charge of an entitlement.

    Then "needy" is only teh first word t be redefined and expanded.

    "poor" and "necessities of life" quickly follow suit.

    I'd go so far as to say that I doubt you and I would agree to a specific threshold or definition to qualify for any of those terms, in re: Governmental Aid Policies.



    I'd think a Teacher would have more respect for the meanings of words, and honesty in discourse.

    Well, maybe not.
    With respect, it is you who fails the word honesty test when you refuse to admit that some of the corporate-types you protect can be called greedy because (you believe) there is not an adequate definition.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greed

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 10-03-2012 at 07:09 AM.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    How much does Chase Bank make from the SNAP program?
    Yet Chase is doing the work cheaper than the government used to which is why it was outsourced in the first place. The government was botching the program. Chase bid it out and did it more efficiently for less. I guess you expect them to do it for free?

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    These corporations get huge tax breaks/bailouts to build stadiums and businesses with tax payer dollars. They don't share the profits like they share the WELFARE they get

    This is the ultimate in WELFARE QUEENISM

    I may not be on top of things here, Walmart has a stadium? Where? In Bentonvillle Arkansas?
    Citi, BOA, WF? They have naming rights. It's not THEIR stadium. It's advertising. Companies advertise. Metlife, Gilllete, Prudential etc.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    With respect, it is you who fails the word honesty test when you refuse to admit that some of the corporate-types you protect can be called greedy because (you believe) there is not an adequate definition.
    I'm well aware ofthe term and what it means, and how you mis-apply it to other by inserting your own morality onto them, as if they are expected to simply accept that. The purpose of a corporation is to provide a return to it's investors. Thats why it exists. Calling them greedy for doing a good job (within the law) at what they exist to do it exactly the kind of political dishonesty I'm speaking of.

    I do not defend lawbreakers. If you wish to call lawbreakers greedy, by all means, have at it. My defense is only for those who follow the law.

    It all mirrors what I said in the posts above. You use words, you define them, and define who you say they should apply to and how they should apply (regardless of their actual meaning), then expect me to simply accept it as the word of God.

    Again, define Needy in real world, social policy terms. Give me SPECIFIC income levels, and specific policies of aid, who qualifies, how, why, the rules, etc, and we have a starting point for a legitimate debate on policy.

    Continue to use empty talking-point phrases such as "needy", "poor" or "fairness", which provide no basis for a debate, as they mean only what you want them to mean at that moment to suit your politics, and we have no where to go and nothing of any substance to discuss.

    Far FAR too much of politics is a Hollywood Show, and far too little an actual, specificly and narrowly defined discussion of policy, and who/why/how policy functions.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,877
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who are the needy? The ones that are down on their luck because being fired or ill OK, The ones they feel entitled to the money(NOT). The farmers no more subsidies, the only subsidies the oil companies are the ones that allow them to write off the equipment at a faster rate(tax) not subsidy. How about companies that receive subsidies like GM(The Volt) which no one buys.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    We could save 3 billion a year by ending the free monthly cell phone program but that would be savings on the backs of poor. Many of these folks make extra income reselling those free cell phones each month. Mean old white men want to take away poor peoples businesses. Awful.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us