Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
    Results 36 to 70 of 328

    Thread: Stephen King says: "Tax Me, for F@%k's Sake!"

    1. Member
      Join Date
      Aug 12th, 2001
      Location
      Northeast, MA
      Posts
      1,289
      Vehicles
      01 Passat Wagon V6-5spd
      05-01-2012 09:30 PM #36
      Quote Originally Posted by vwtool View Post
      With people who think "Al Gore" is the ever-ready punchline to their tired jokes?

      You bet.
      I'd bet you'd like to be the one that releases Al Gore's second chakra.....


    2. Member personman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 24th, 2008
      Location
      TX
      Posts
      1,147
      Vehicles
      03 Golf, 94 GS500, 13 WRX
      05-01-2012 09:35 PM #37
      http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

      "Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

      Gifts to the United States
      U.S. Department of the Treasury
      Credit Accounting Branch
      3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
      Hyattsville, MD 20782"

      Go for it.

    3. Member 1Point8TDan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 4th, 2003
      Location
      Calgary, AB
      Posts
      8,272
      Vehicles
      D40 Frontier CC 4X4, 3BG Passat .:RS Variant
      05-01-2012 09:40 PM #38
      Quote Originally Posted by rsj0714 View Post
      I would start with people who get payed under the table, illegal occupations, and tax dodgers.
      So you would rather go after the hard working people trying to make a living and get by, rather than the really rich people who in essence would be easier to tax?

    4. Member seymore15074's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 23rd, 2007
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      1,567
      Vehicles
      2007 Audi S6
      05-01-2012 09:40 PM #39
      Quote Originally Posted by 2.0T_Convert View Post
      Stephen King has more cred than Romney in my book.
      x1000

    5. Member rsj0714's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 3rd, 2006
      Location
      Greensboro, NC
      Posts
      3,215
      Vehicles
      2003 Nissan Maxima 3.5 6-Speed. 2001 GMC Sierra (RIP)
      05-01-2012 09:51 PM #40
      Quote Originally Posted by 1Point8TDan View Post
      So you would rather go after the hard working people trying to make a living and get by, rather than the really rich people who in essence would be easier to tax?
      You're concluding that rich people aren't hard working. Besides that I think everyone should pay taxes no matter how "hard workin" they are. I pay taxes on a minimum wage job, so should everyone else that gets paid at least what I do, which they have a right to make.

      I am not saying go after them but it is important for everyone to contribute as a citizen and as someone who uses infrastructure built and maintained on the tax payers dollar.

      It's about paying in, even if it's a small percentage of your check.
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave Zero View Post
      Station wagons are for moms and Europe.

    6. Banned Chris Stack's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 27th, 2008
      Location
      'Murica. F yeah.
      Posts
      11,637
      Vehicles
      Hondas, regular and extra-pricey
      05-01-2012 09:59 PM #41
      That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden
      People who say this are either stupid, or liars, because it simply. Isn't. True.

    7. Banned Chris Stack's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 27th, 2008
      Location
      'Murica. F yeah.
      Posts
      11,637
      Vehicles
      Hondas, regular and extra-pricey
      05-01-2012 10:01 PM #42
      Quote Originally Posted by Egilbe View Post
      oh jeez, this again? Poor people pay taxes, it's just not federal income tax. Someone with very little income is paying a larger amount in taxes, proportionately, when buying a gallon of milk or gas, than the multimilionair buying the same gallon of milk, or gas. Do you see the difference?
      No. Wrong. Some starving Marvin might pay more IN PERCENTAGE than Archie Rich, but so fukin what? Do you pay your mortgage in percents? Can you buy a Porsche in percents? Ever paid for beer with percents?

    8. Banned dubinsincuwereindiapers's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 16th, 2008
      Location
      InYourMom
      Posts
      13,394
      Vehicles
      Bugatti Veyron
      05-01-2012 10:06 PM #43
      Quote Originally Posted by rsj0714 View Post
      What do you expect? America was founded on the principle of not paying high taxes.

      If King and Buffet want their money taken so badly then the government should act on them independently.
      This





      Quote Originally Posted by sjt1985 View Post
      Put yourself in their shoes. I'm sure there are plenty of people in my own income range that would happily give 50-60% of their income, but why should they expect it to be forced on me also? I have no problem with people giving every red cent they earn, but don't tell me I have to do it too. It's easy for us to look at the super rich and say that we would be so much more charitable if we had that kind of money, but it's mostly just hot air.
      And this




      Quote Originally Posted by Uberhare View Post
      If I recall the IRS statistic it said something like 46% of Americans do not pay Federal income tax. Zip, zero, nada. Think about that.....almost 50% do not pay income tax. The other half support the people who don't pay income tax. I have a serious problem with this. I fully support some form or simplified proportional tax system where EVERYONE contributes regardless of income level. PAying no income tax is just wrong and totally unfair.

      And taxing the "rich" more won't solve a damn thing and will drive most rich folks away from the US defeating the purpose of the tax increase. You need to curtail the out of control spending habits of the government first BEFORE addressing taxes.
      What he said


      Quote Originally Posted by GRNWNV View Post
      So just to play devils advocate here,
      If we take the post above, what would these 1% do when the American economy colapses (eg. Greece)?
      Go occupy something

    9. Banned Chris Stack's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 27th, 2008
      Location
      'Murica. F yeah.
      Posts
      11,637
      Vehicles
      Hondas, regular and extra-pricey
      05-01-2012 10:10 PM #44
      The other thing that kills me is that people act like if Bill Gates would just pay an extra $100 in taxes, there would be 10 fewer starving babies. Or something.

      In reality, Gates paying $100 more means the gov't would blow about $95 more on something completely stupid. Paying more taxes is like giving in to your heroin addict son's request for more money; he's already blowing through your money on stupid isht, why would you give him MORE? Does anyone really, truly believe the federal government is a good steward of their money, or do they just want rich people to pay more out of spite and envy?

    10. Member XiaoNio's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 22nd, 2005
      Location
      MD
      Posts
      2,579
      Vehicles
      13 Si, 07 Speed Triple
      05-01-2012 10:14 PM #45
      There's a pretty big fallacy in the... "we need to shrink government" argument. Operating budgets of entire departments can be paid for in a few days of military deployment. I recently read an article supporting the expansion of free education. You could send every college bound high school student to college for ~50 billion. That's basically our military presence in the Middle East for about a week.

      I'm not saying we need a reduction in forces, just that keeping them deployed is incredibly expensive. In my mind it's difficult to argue for a reduction in services provided by the government when most of what's being argued is a proverbial drop in the bucket. Until we unfrack ourselves regarding multiple front endless conflicts and spiraling health care costs, everything else is kind of moot.

      As for a progressive tax system, I'm with Egilbe. The relative cost of living is so much higher as you approach the poverty line and practically insignificant as you approach Mitt Romney. As a moderately well paid, actually middle class individual who's finally made it past living month to month, I can understand why people who make less than me should pay a lower effective tax rate. I find it a little harder to understand why people who make 20x what I make sometimes also pay a lower effective rate.

    11. 05-01-2012 10:14 PM #46
      Quote Originally Posted by speaker View Post
      Koch brothers, that's what you are going with?
      It's become the new Godwin's law.

    12. 05-01-2012 10:17 PM #47
      Quote Originally Posted by vwtool View Post
      I see the "Al Gore" card has already been played by your team, so it's fair play!
      How so? People have been complaining about government waste long before the Koch brothers had any money or were even heard about. But because you are unable to refute those arguement you are left with "Koch, Koch, Koch". It's extremely weak.

      Now, was Al Gore exrtemely stingy with his money (ie: gave almost none to charity) but still called for higher taxes or not?

      Then, what is wrong with directing your wealth to the programs you want to help out others as opposed to giving it to the government to split many different ways with so much of it going to waste?

    13. 05-01-2012 10:19 PM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by vwtool View Post
      With people who think "Al Gore" is the ever-ready punchline to their tired jokes?

      You bet.
      No, I brought up Gore and you didn't say a word to me. Coward.

    14. Banned dubinsincuwereindiapers's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 16th, 2008
      Location
      InYourMom
      Posts
      13,394
      Vehicles
      Bugatti Veyron
      05-01-2012 10:20 PM #49
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stack View Post
      The other thing that kills me is that people act like if Bill Gates would just pay an extra $100 in taxes, there would be 10 fewer starving babies. Or something.

      In reality, Gates paying $100 more means the gov't would blow about $95 more on something completely stupid. Paying more taxes is like giving in to your heroin addict son's request for more money; he's already blowing through your money on stupid isht, why would you give him MORE? Does anyone really, truly believe the federal government is a good steward of their money, or do they just want rich people to pay more out of spite and envy?
      Chris you are a true pragmatist.

    15. 05-01-2012 10:21 PM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stack View Post
      The other thing that kills me is that people act like if Bill Gates would just pay an extra $100 in taxes, there would be 10 fewer starving babies. Or something.

      In reality, Gates paying $100 more means the gov't would blow about $95 more on something completely stupid. Paying more taxes is like giving in to your heroin addict son's request for more money; he's already blowing through your money on stupid isht, why would you give him MORE? Does anyone really, truly believe the federal government is a good steward of their money, or do they just want rich people to pay more out of spite and envy?
      Gates gives a ton of money to charity. It does far, far more good that way than if he was giving it to the government, IMO.

    16. Member XiaoNio's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 22nd, 2005
      Location
      MD
      Posts
      2,579
      Vehicles
      13 Si, 07 Speed Triple
      05-01-2012 10:21 PM #51
      Quote Originally Posted by Chris Stack View Post
      No. Wrong. Some starving Marvin might pay more IN PERCENTAGE than Archie Rich, but so fukin what? Do you pay your mortgage in percents? Can you buy a Porsche in percents? Ever paid for beer with percents?
      As a throwback to college microecon, I tend to look at it with indifference curves. How much more utility are you getting per amount of money. When you're making <$10 an hour, a $4 gallon of milk or a $40 tank of gas is a pretty sizable portion. It's true you don't pay for things in percent, but the costs of goods becomes increasingly important the less affluent you are.

      Regarding government and spending. I'd say the government for all its faults actually does a fair bit of decent work. It's not like my mutual fund is taking great care of my money lately either.

    17. 05-01-2012 10:23 PM #52
      Quote Originally Posted by XiaoNio View Post
      There's a pretty big fallacy in the... "we need to shrink government" argument. Operating budgets of entire departments can be paid for in a few days of military deployment. I recently read an article supporting the expansion of free education. You could send every college bound high school student to college for ~50 billion. That's basically our military presence in the Middle East for about a week.
      So, your arguement is that we need to shrink the government and yet you call the arguement a big fallacy?

    18. Member 20DYNAMITE07's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 21st, 2007
      Location
      DC Metro Area
      Posts
      5,543
      Vehicles
      MKV GTI / RIP MKIV Jetta / Burn in HADES GLS Beetle 1.8T!
      05-01-2012 10:24 PM #53
      Quote Originally Posted by Uberhare View Post
      If I recall the IRS statistic it said something like 46% of Americans do not pay Federal income tax. Zip, zero, nada. Think about that.....almost 50% do not pay income tax. The other half support the people who don't pay income tax. I have a serious problem with this. I fully support some form or simplified proportional tax system where EVERYONE contributes regardless of income level. PAying no income tax is just wrong and totally unfair.

      And taxing the "rich" more won't solve a damn thing and will drive most rich folks away from the US defeating the purpose of the tax increase. You need to curtail the out of control spending habits of the government first BEFORE addressing taxes.
      Do you also recall the statistic where approximately 50% of Americans live at or below the poverty level? So your solution is to tax the poor?
      "We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"

      MKV GTI : 4dr / TR / 50mm Vogtland & FK cup kit / 27mm Hotchkis RSB / S6 Reps / Stubby Antenna / Baby seat!!!

    19. Member 1Point8TDan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 4th, 2003
      Location
      Calgary, AB
      Posts
      8,272
      Vehicles
      D40 Frontier CC 4X4, 3BG Passat .:RS Variant
      05-01-2012 10:27 PM #54
      Quote Originally Posted by rsj0714 View Post
      You're concluding that rich people aren't hard working. Besides that I think everyone should pay taxes no matter how "hard workin" they are. I pay taxes on a minimum wage job, so should everyone else that gets paid at least what I do, which they have a right to make.

      I am not saying go after them but it is important for everyone to contribute as a citizen and as someone who uses infrastructure built and maintained on the tax payers dollar.

      It's about paying in, even if it's a small percentage of your check.
      My point is that its easier to track and generate revenue from the rich than finding and getting money from the poor. If someone is solely making by accepting cash, they are making less money by doing so and have no chance of home ownership. They end up putting money into the economy differently but yeah they should be still paying something. The government should also be more accountable at how they manage our money too.

      I think corp taxes should be low but higher personal taxes (especially for the rich).

    20. Member rsj0714's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 3rd, 2006
      Location
      Greensboro, NC
      Posts
      3,215
      Vehicles
      2003 Nissan Maxima 3.5 6-Speed. 2001 GMC Sierra (RIP)
      05-01-2012 10:33 PM #55
      Quote Originally Posted by 1Point8TDan View Post
      My point is that its easier to track and generate revenue from the rich than finding and getting money from the poor. If someone is solely making by accepting cash, they are making less money by doing so and have no chance of home ownership. They end up putting money into the economy differently but yeah they should be still paying something. The government should also be more accountable at how they manage our money too.

      I think corp taxes should be low but higher personal taxes (especially for the rich).
      I would agree on the corporate tax being lower, it is currently pretty damn high. Personal taxes should be raised on the wealthy( nothing above 45%) I don't feel like anyone elses taxes should be raised, just that more of the population needs to be paying in.

      As far as working for cash I have made the equivalent of 10-12 dollars an hour for a position that should be 8 because no taxes were taken.
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave Zero View Post
      Station wagons are for moms and Europe.

    21. Member XiaoNio's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 22nd, 2005
      Location
      MD
      Posts
      2,579
      Vehicles
      13 Si, 07 Speed Triple
      05-01-2012 10:36 PM #56
      Quote Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
      So, your arguement is that we need to shrink the government and yet you call the arguement a big fallacy?
      A withdrawal of our troops from deployment isn't shrinking government, just reducing what it spends. There's a difference. We could have the same size force, but if we didn't have to supply them halfway across the world, our costs would be significantly lower.

      The same thing can be partially applied to medical care. We have a ludicrously complicated system of reimbursement. You could streamline the payment system while still maintaining the same staffing of healthcare providers.

      My argument is that before we talk about shrinking government or cutting funding to relatively small programs, we need to remember that we're hemorrhaging money in a few very specific places. Sorting them out will have a much bigger affect than bailing out auto, supporting venture clean energy firms or changing rates on student loans.

    22. 05-01-2012 10:42 PM #57
      Quote Originally Posted by XiaoNio View Post
      There's a pretty big fallacy in the... "we need to shrink government" argument. Operating budgets of entire departments can be paid for in a few days of military deployment.
      Know how I know that you havn't a clue? Try reading the basics of the Federal Budget sometime...

      FWIW, we could cut the entire DoD - every $ - and we'd still be cranking out debt by the bushel.

    23. Member personman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 24th, 2008
      Location
      TX
      Posts
      1,147
      Vehicles
      03 Golf, 94 GS500, 13 WRX
      05-01-2012 10:50 PM #58
      Quote Originally Posted by XiaoNio View Post
      A withdrawal of our troops from deployment isn't shrinking government, just reducing what it spends. There's a difference.
      I'm pretty sure that when most people talk about "shrinking government", they mean one of two things.

      1) Reducing spending
      2) Reducing government interference in what they consider to be private matters.

      I don't think anyone cares how many millions of people are involved, unless it's tied to one of the two things I just mentioned.

    24. 05-01-2012 10:58 PM #59
      Quote Originally Posted by XiaoNio View Post
      A withdrawal of our troops from deployment isn't shrinking government, just reducing what it spends. There's a difference. We could have the same size force, but if we didn't have to supply them halfway across the world, our costs would be significantly lower.
      So your arguement is to just continue paying people to? What? If we bring thousands of troops home, what will they do? We just create make do work for them?

      The same thing can be partially applied to medical care. We have a ludicrously complicated system of reimbursement. You could streamline the payment system while still maintaining the same staffing of healthcare providers.
      Streamlining is going to cause less people. Unless again, you are argueing for keeping people on to just sit around and take space.

      My argument is that before we talk about shrinking government or cutting funding to relatively small programs, we need to remember that we're hemorrhaging money in a few very specific places. Sorting them out will have a much bigger affect than bailing out auto, supporting venture clean energy firms or changing rates on student loans.
      Your arguement does not make sense. When a business streamlines unfortunately it means less people. You are argueing that the government should keep people on to do basically nothing IMO.

      But please, I'm willing to listen to where I have your arguement wrong.

    25. Member rsj0714's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 3rd, 2006
      Location
      Greensboro, NC
      Posts
      3,215
      Vehicles
      2003 Nissan Maxima 3.5 6-Speed. 2001 GMC Sierra (RIP)
      05-01-2012 10:59 PM #60
      Quote Originally Posted by personman View Post
      I'm pretty sure that when most people talk about "shrinking government", they mean one of two things.

      1) Reducing spending
      2) Reducing government interference in what they consider to be private matters.

      I don't think anyone cares how many millions of people are involved, unless it's tied to one of the two things I just mentioned.
      The issue is that those two things directly affect millions employed by the government. A large blow to the American job force could be considered in ideal economic situations, but until the economy is healed layoffs are just silly. More efficient government is important, but it shouldn't be used simply by eliminating labor.
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave Zero View Post
      Station wagons are for moms and Europe.

    26. Member rsj0714's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 3rd, 2006
      Location
      Greensboro, NC
      Posts
      3,215
      Vehicles
      2003 Nissan Maxima 3.5 6-Speed. 2001 GMC Sierra (RIP)
      05-01-2012 11:01 PM #61
      Quote Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
      So your arguement is to just continue paying people to? What? If we bring thousands of troops home, what will they do? We just create make do work for them?
      What do you think the us government did during the great depression? Creating projects and keeping as many people as possible employed is important to individuals and the perceptions that stability exists. With stability comes growth.
      Quote Originally Posted by Dave Zero View Post
      Station wagons are for moms and Europe.

    27. Senior Member Fritz27's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 8th, 2003
      Location
      Brickell
      Posts
      26,005
      Vehicles
      1986 Legs and/or 2014 Blue Non-MANual European Turbo Hatch
      05-01-2012 11:01 PM #62
      Anyone know what Dean Koontz thinks about taxation?
      PSN: PhilipGTI
      Quote Originally Posted by joness0154 View Post
      If your ass looks like a Jeep after playing off-road, I don't know what to say. Change up your diet, maybe?

    28. Banned dubinsincuwereindiapers's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 16th, 2008
      Location
      InYourMom
      Posts
      13,394
      Vehicles
      Bugatti Veyron
      05-01-2012 11:03 PM #63
      Quote Originally Posted by rsj0714 View Post
      The issue is that those two things directly affect millions employed by the government. A large blow to the American job force could be considered in ideal economic situations, but until the economy is healed layoffs are just silly. More efficient government is important, but it shouldn't be used simply by eliminating labor.
      Someone has to take the hit. IMO the illegally unionized, overpensioned, as well as overcompensated government workforce should be #1 on the chopping block..

    29. 05-01-2012 11:11 PM #64
      Quote Originally Posted by rsj0714 View Post
      What do you think the us government did during the great depression? Creating projects and keeping as many people as possible employed is important to individuals and the perceptions that stability exists. With stability comes growth.
      We stagnanted in the 30's. There is no proof that the government programs actually helped. We started growing only after WWII when the good feelings of winning WWII overtook the country and there was a feeling that we could do anything.

      FDR was a great war president. Not so much a great peacetime president.

      But, that aside.........if we were going to go into debt we would have been better off building bridges than giving people money to buy cars.

    30. Member 20DYNAMITE07's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 21st, 2007
      Location
      DC Metro Area
      Posts
      5,543
      Vehicles
      MKV GTI / RIP MKIV Jetta / Burn in HADES GLS Beetle 1.8T!
      05-01-2012 11:12 PM #65
      Quote Originally Posted by dubinsincuwereindiapers View Post
      Someone has to take the hit. IMO the illegally unionized, overpensioned, as well as overcompensated government workforce should be #1 on the chopping block..
      overcompensated? over pensioned???

      Dude, I have a 401k, just like you. Not a pension. Pensions were phased out about 10 years ago. And FYI, I'd make quite a bit more in the private sector than in gov... i just happen to love the mission of my agency and enjoy my work, so I've chosen to stay here.

      As for unionization, well - I don't support the union. But I will say this... like every corporation there is the potential for abuse of the workforce in the government too. Employees (public and private) should be able to expect certain levels of fairness in treatment. The unions are there because the workforce has been abused in the past. Do they hinder a crap ton of work though? You betcha.

      The rest of your post was worth a serious chuckle though.
      "We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"

      MKV GTI : 4dr / TR / 50mm Vogtland & FK cup kit / 27mm Hotchkis RSB / S6 Reps / Stubby Antenna / Baby seat!!!

    31. Member 20DYNAMITE07's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 21st, 2007
      Location
      DC Metro Area
      Posts
      5,543
      Vehicles
      MKV GTI / RIP MKIV Jetta / Burn in HADES GLS Beetle 1.8T!
      05-01-2012 11:13 PM #66
      Quote Originally Posted by Fritz27 View Post
      Anyone know what Dean Koontz thinks about taxation?
      Pretty sure he views it as theft.
      "We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"

      MKV GTI : 4dr / TR / 50mm Vogtland & FK cup kit / 27mm Hotchkis RSB / S6 Reps / Stubby Antenna / Baby seat!!!

    32. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 17th, 2003
      Posts
      22,853
      Vehicles
      LG G2 / Notes 3 / Nexus 5
      05-01-2012 11:18 PM #67
      Quote Originally Posted by 1Point8TDan View Post
      My point is that its easier to track and generate revenue from the rich than finding and getting money from the poor. If someone is solely making by accepting cash, they are making less money by doing so and have no chance of home ownership. They end up putting money into the economy differently but yeah they should be still paying something. The government should also be more accountable at how they manage our money too.

      I think corp taxes should be low but higher personal taxes (especially for the rich).
      Actually the opposite of what you're saying is true today. It's extremely hard to track and generate money from the rich. They offshore their money, tax write offs from their biz, and execs of big fortunate 500 eat/sleep fully paid by their employer.

      The working poor are the easiest to track, all their income and money can be easily traced to their bank accts and their employers. Making it extremely easy to tax, levy new taxes, and audits. How many avg Joe can afford a tax attorney to represent them?

      There's no easy solution to the pay imbalances. Simply upping the tax rates of the rich would actually hurt the economy. When the rich cuts back, jobs will be lost and economy will slow down. The rich can also easily manipulate the economy by speculating on commodities such as energy.

    33. Member bluerabbit0886's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 19th, 2003
      Location
      Phoenix, AZ
      Posts
      8,819
      Vehicles
      2012 Golf TDI
      05-01-2012 11:25 PM #68
      Quote Originally Posted by 2VWatatime View Post
      Know how I know that you havn't a clue? Try reading the basics of the Federal Budget sometime...

      FWIW, we could cut the entire DoD - every $ - and we'd still be cranking out debt by the bushel.
      But, but, but I was told the military is spending all of the Federal Government's money!

      Oh, wait.

      http://www.heritage.org/federalbudge...ement-programs

      Military spending for FY 2012 is only 19% of the budget, while entitlement spending is 62%.

      Quote Originally Posted by butterface View Post
      It isn't whether a government can represent its people that is the best measure of its effectiveness. Rather, it's whether a government is designed to leave its people alone.

    34. 05-01-2012 11:34 PM #69
      Quote Originally Posted by 20DYNAMITE07 View Post
      overcompensated? over pensioned???

      Dude, I have a 401k, just like you.
      No, you don't. I'm guessing FERS - so how many private "funds" (similar to TSP) get to invest in specially issued bonds (created just for TSP)?

      Here's a hint: Zero. Plus, TSP's operating funds are partially funded by non vested separations - a move that would put a private fund operator behind bars.

      Not a pension. Pensions were phased out about 10 years ago
      .
      Again, No - new pensions (100% defined benefit) were dumped, but current employees & pensioners will still get theirs - for many years to come - and in some cases, for longer than they were employed. Trust me, I know - I play golf w/more than a few.

      [QUOTE]And FYI, I'd make quite a bit more in the private sector than in gov../QUOTE]



      Not on this planet - Fed. Employees have decent security & pay hikes - something most of us in the private sector haven't had for a half decade or so.

      I just happen to love the mission of my agency and enjoy my work, so I've chosen to stay here.
      Swell. Seriously - glad you like the job - but don't pretend it's some hair shirt. You've got it good, especially compared to the private sector over the past 1/2 decade. Plus, there's what, 180,000 new Federal employees in 3 years? Sounds rough....

    35. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 11th, 2009
      Location
      Lewiston, Maine
      Posts
      4,545
      Vehicles
      2001 Wolfsburg Jetta
      05-01-2012 11:36 PM #70
      Quote Originally Posted by bluerabbit0886 View Post
      But, but, but I was told the military is spending all of the Federal Government's money!

      Oh, wait.

      http://www.heritage.org/federalbudge...ement-programs

      Military spending for FY 2012 is only 19% of the budget, while entitlement spending is 62%.

      oh you mean that 62% is entitlement spending? Not that 42% of that is what we already pay into it for social security and medicare and medicaid taxes. It's not entitlement spending if I pay for it. And I'm paying for it. That money is mine.

      so, a more realistice argument is that military spending is 19% and entitlement spending (you know, congressmen and the like) is also 19%.
      Quote Originally Posted by winstonsmith84 View Post
      Tax? I don't mind paying state sales tax. Every time a see a pothole, a school that is falling down or a canceled essential state program, I remind myself why.
      Quote Originally Posted by Tornado2dr View Post
      535 members of congress plus 1 pres screwing us all the time...that's dirty pirate hooker level gang rape.

    Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

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