PDA

View Full Version : Why the "12 desciples" will fail.



Uncle Bill
08-23-2011, 03:04 PM
Because all the lefties are ONLY concerned about the Democrat mantra of raising taxes, but it won't matter if they took every dollar, there isn't enough to cover for the debt and spending.

Here's a popular view that's been shown for what it is:

Shocker: Warren Buffet’s “Tax The Rich” Plan Would Only Cut Budget Deficit By 12%

Rob Port (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/author/admin/) • August 22, 2011






Billionaire and close Obama ally Warren Buffet has been waking waves for some time advocating for higher taxes on the rich. And the notion of a very rich man calling for much higher taxes on himself makes for good politics, to be sure, especially for those who want to raise taxes.
But as policy, it wouldn’t solve anything.

(CNSNews.com) (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/warren-buffett-s-tax-solution-won-t-solv) – Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.
“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation’s deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.
“There’s simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country’s problems by waving some magic tax wand,” said Logan.
The problem isn’t revenues. The problem is spending.


The latest analogy making the email rounds is the couple returning to their home and finding the sewer has backed up and their home is full of Shewage. So the question is, should you raise the ceiling???? Or should you drain the Shewage.

UB

zeus3925
08-23-2011, 03:43 PM
Since you are a learned sage, what would you cut and how much would each contribute to debt reduction?

Uncle Bill
08-23-2011, 04:03 PM
You might want to start with the gazillions of $$$ the Obama administration used to increase the Federal payroll.

Watch this, and tell me you can't find any 'cuts'....and for a change I mean REAL cuts, not just reductions in base-line increases. That 34 billion of reductions that was 'achieved' in the last pathetic attempt when giving the messiah a 2.4 trillion dollar blank check was a complete joke. You could put all the bureaucracies by name on the wall, and throw a dart at them while blindfolded, and whatever bloated governmental bureaucracy you hit, you could have taken that crummy 34 billion cut out of it.

UB










If this doesn't open you eyes nothing will







Http:// (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded)www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded)

road kill
08-23-2011, 04:07 PM
Here is an idea....no Social Security unless you are at least 62.

Now, pretend like you don't know what I am talking about!!!!:cool:


RK

Franco
08-23-2011, 04:44 PM
[quote=Uncle Bill;843399]You might want to start with the gazillions of $$$ the Obama administration used to increase the Federal payroll.

Watch this, and tell me you can't find any 'cuts'....and for a change I mean REAL cuts, not just reductions in base-line increases. That 34 billion of reductions that was 'achieved' in the last pathetic attempt when giving the messiah a 2.4 trillion dollar blank check was a complete joke. You could put all the bureaucracies by name on the wall, and throw a dart at them while blindfolded, and whatever bloated governmental bureaucracy you hit, you could have taken that crummy 34 billion cut out of it.

UB

.................................................. ...............................................

UB, we agree on something!

The cuts are pathetic and that is a measly 34B over 10 years, which we know they won't cut!

The 2.4 TRILLION is already spent, Obama just wants to cover his butt for this fiscal year.

Question:

Who is the only candidate that has proposed eliminating entire Federal departments and agencies? I don't mean token cuts but elimination.

Which candidate has been championing a Balanced Budget Amendment the longest?

Of all the candidates, which one has been talking about reducing the size of the Fed Government the longest?

Which is the only candidate that has written books about all of the above?

zeus3925
08-24-2011, 12:06 AM
Let's start with a few of simple ones. Move the early retirement age of Social Security from age 62 to age 65.

How about merging the US Marshall's office with the FBI?

How about mothballing four carrier battle groups?

How about collecting on all those unpaid gas and oil payments?

luvmylabs23139
08-24-2011, 07:54 AM
Eliminate the Dept of Education. It hasn't improved education at all. Let's go back to leaving it up to local and state governments. The US ranked higher before the feds got in the middle of education. This would save billions!

road kill
08-24-2011, 08:47 AM
Let's start with a few of simple ones. Move the early retirement age of Social Security from age 62 to age 65.



I am with you.
The inordinate amount of "disabilty" payments made out of SS to those far younger than retirement age is insane.

SS should be paid back to those that paid in, not a cushion for drug addicts, alcoholics and those with "depression" that prevents them from a useful participation in the American society!

Please, someone pretend like they don't know what I am talking about and demand a link.....PLEASE!!!!

OH, wait, those are VOTES!!!:rolleyes:


RK

Jason Glavich
08-24-2011, 09:06 AM
You might want to start with the gazillions of $$$ the Obama administration used to increase the Federal payroll.

Watch this, and tell me you can't find any 'cuts'....and for a change I mean REAL cuts, not just reductions in base-line increases. That 34 billion of reductions that was 'achieved' in the last pathetic attempt when giving the messiah a 2.4 trillion dollar blank check was a complete joke. You could put all the bureaucracies by name on the wall, and throw a dart at them while blindfolded, and whatever bloated governmental bureaucracy you hit, you could have taken that crummy 34 billion cut out of it.

UB





[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]If this doesn't open you eyes nothing will







Http:// (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded)www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=xOAgT8L_BqQ&feature=player_embedded)









The guy who makes those videos speaks very well but...this video and his other have been posted before. The downside is alot of what he says is correct but alot is straying from the truth. That is the problem with his statistical numbers he presents. It uses all the outliers, doesnt cover education requirements for Gov jobs vs private sector jobs, or the fact that the higher ups making all the money are not retiring and they are getting raises which makes the avg go up. This has been getting a cap due to changes in Fed pay standards to ensure they cannot make any more. His numbers also represent job numbers incorrectly by adding in DHS into DoD numbers, when actually DHS has more SES than all of DoD.

I could make all his same numbers seem like a good thing. it is all about salesmanship. He is just using the numbers that work with him. His voting numbers are off, he includes local govt employees in his numbers, he fails to see where the electoral votes come from. Half the population does not mean someone will win. Look at the Obama win and how many votes he got and where they came from.

He seems to be a good spin guy though.

I could make a video as wel but I used cuss words way to much when talking gubbermint.