About | GFraizer | Contact

Links

Drudge Report
Fox News
TMZ
Reddit

    Cali-Drivers-Suck.com

RSS


MANAGE BOOKMARKS


USER:

PASS:


LOST PASSWORD
CREATE NEW ACCOUNT

Political post round-ups?
- Keep them coming
- Whocares

Connect




Support Me on Patreon


Support Me
[Main Amazon Wishlist]
[Amazon Emergency Wishlist]


Exclusive Photos
[How to Pump Gas]
[Fat Lady + Donuts]
[Dog Bike]







Sunday, April 10th, 2016SUGGEST NEWS

Panama Papers reveal London as centre of 'spider's web'
Posted by: Nebuchadnezzar on April 10th, 2016 @ 2:31AM

4/10 - Cameron's £70,000 tax dodge revealed: PM received £200,000 gift from his mother in a bid to avoid death duties, new figures released by Downing St show

David Cameron admits he did have a stake in father's offshore investment fund after Panama Papers leak

prime Minister personally intervened to try to prevent EU transparency rules affecting offshore tax trusts. - Shady people. No one wants to pay taxes, haha.

Panama Papers reveal London as centre of 'spider's web


http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/sanders_ardently_opposed_the_trade_deal_that_helped_make_the_panama_papers_scandal_clinton_supported_it/

every time i see someone complain that the stuff sanders talks about (healthcare, education) that 'can't be paid for!' i think of this type of stuff and laugh.

plenty of money given to countess corporations, countless laws passed so the rich can hide their money and not pay taxes on it.

killer6600
- 2016-04-07 11:52:28

Source: Drudge
COMMENTS (17) | WORLD NEWS | DIGG
COMMENTS
ADD COMMENTS | SEND TO A FRIEND | BOOKMARK | SORT LAST TO FIRST
killer6600
Marine

April 7th, 2016 @ 11:52AM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1695
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/sanders_ardently_opposed_the_trade_deal_that_helped_make_the_panama_papers_scandal_clinton_supported_it/

every time i see someone complain that the stuff sanders talks about (healthcare, education) that 'can't be paid for!' i think of this type of stuff and laugh.

plenty of money given to countess corporations, countless laws passed so the rich can hide their money and not pay taxes on it.
hardcore puppy
Marine

April 7th, 2016 @ 2:50PM

Registered:
2003-11-02
Location:
California
Posts: 335
you need money in order to avoid paying taxes, and only the rich can afford it.
BiVRiP
General

April 7th, 2016 @ 4:08PM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
But...but...trickle-down economics! Just give it a chance!
forest_queen
Dame

April 10th, 2016 @ 9:07AM

Registered:
2003-03-26
Location:
WA
Posts: 1332
Even if you tax the wealthiest 1% at 100%, there still wouldn't be enough money for the entitlement programs and Sanders wants to add more..... simple economics. The money hidden by the rich is just a drop in the bucket when you look at our national debt.
killer6600
Marine

April 10th, 2016 @ 10:42AM

Registered:
2007-06-16
Location:
canada
Posts: 1695
compared to debt yes, i'm talking about year to year, which is deficit

im also not talking about the 1% exclusively, i'm talking about things like the 27 profitable corporations on the S&P 500 that not only paid 0 in income taxes but GOT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT

you want to call being able to go to the doctor or university an 'entitlement program' but the real entitlement program is when companies like united continental make 4.5 billion in pretax income and then still get 3.5 billion in money from the government.

thats the simple economics, the sieve that the government is using to trickle down money to the masses keeps getting it's holes taped up so the money stays a the top.

not dying because you can't afford to ask a doctor if you're having a heart attack is a fucking right. cheap plane tickets(that aren't even cheap) is the real fucking entitlement.

BiVRiP
General

April 10th, 2016 @ 11:52AM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
You know forest, you may be right but every time I hear arguments like that I'm reminded of the pie chart and video about wealth inequality found here: LINK

The purchasing power of the average American has not only remained stagnant but has decreased over the last few decades while the rich have seen their coffers increase upwards of 20%, often off the backs of the very people who work for them and provide the mechanism for their wealth.

Unless you're one of the lucky few making $200k+ a year (which for context is almost 4x the amount of the average American household - LINK) then *everybody* should be rooting for Bernie because he's the only candidate with the balls and track record willing and able to take on the establishment and fight for the average joe.

Maybe we can't get everything Bernie is promising, but I'd rather see the paradigm shift towards money and legislation being invested in the average citizen by way of:

* Reduced medical costs so you don't have to risk your house and life savings on procedures that should cost a fraction of what they do - like every other western democratic nation is able to provide
* Affordable education - you know, so people can get better jobs and thus be able to contribute more to the economy and not be the "takers" conservatives always complain about)

then,

* Unnecessary/wasteful military spending (Example)
* An end to high frequency trading and other shenanigans by Wall Street (who produce and give back nothing yet continue to reap the benefits while offloading the risks to the American public)
* The "1%" which include such despicable people like the Waltons who bemoan tight profit margins as an excuse for not paying their employees a reasonable wage (and then said employees having to rely on government subsidies). Meanwhile the Waltons, the "job creators" rank among the 20th richest people in the world and on top of that have over $75 billion stashed away in tax havens (LINK)

But lets ignore all that because Bernie is a dirty pinko commie socialist. You're right. We plebs (which is at least half the country) should be content to fight over our respective cut of the less than 5% of the economic pie that has so graciously been allotted by the ever so generous and considerate 1%.

EDITED: 2016-04-10 12:56:58
nate_orenstam
Special Ops

April 11th, 2016 @ 4:22PM

Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1564
Even if you tax the wealthiest 1% at 100%, there still wouldn't be enough money for the entitlement programs and Sanders wants to add more..... simple economics.

[citation needed]

The money hidden by the rich is just a drop in the bucket when you look at our national debt.

If USA runs a budget surplus, the national debt can be paid down. What you are saying is equivalent to "I can't pay off my credit card balance in full this month, so I'm not going to bother making any payment at all."
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

April 12th, 2016 @ 7:22AM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
You've ventured into the dark underbelly of expectnothing Forest Queen. Tread lightly, logic doesn't hold much sway here.

Personally I've given up hope of any semblance of a balanced budget. Everyone else would rather pick "a side" and argue that their side is the correct way while both are equally cancerous. I say we should just keep printing money until it becomes worthless and then let matters sort themselves out on their own. It's what is going to happen eventually regardless...better to hasten it and pay the price sooner rather than later.





BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom

April 12th, 2016 @ 9:49AM

Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1557
Charkoth is correct. The sooner we hit bottom, the better. I'm not getting younger and I'd like youth on my side when dealing with the transitional period.
nate_orenstam
Special Ops

April 12th, 2016 @ 11:08AM

Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1564
Clinton had a budget surplus! It is possible to do a bunch of progressive shit and still pay the bills.
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom

April 12th, 2016 @ 1:11PM

Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1557
There hasn't been a surplus in decades. Funds meant for Social Security have been included in the general federal budget since 1969. The government then writes an internal IOU to Social Security when it spends the money. That is a big reason why a large amount of the money owed on the federal debt is to ourselves--specifically to Social Security.


http://www.businessinsider.com/who-we-owe-federal-debt-to-2013-10 ($2.6 Trillion in 2013)

This wasn't really a big problem as long as the number of retirees vs workers was static. During Clinton's presidency, there was a massive Social Security surplus that helped mask the structural deficit. There never was a real budget surplus.

The problem is much worse now. Social Security no longer contributes much of a surplus to wipe away the federal deficit. In fact, there was a year or two in the past decade where Social Security actually took in less than it paid out. This problem is only going to continue growing since the Social Security Ponzi scheme is no long sustainable.

If you Googled "Clinton Budget Surplus Myth" you will get a ton of results. Some are very politically slanted, but the more balanced articles will say that while public debt went down, intra-governmental debt went up.


EDIT: Most folks in these comments make valid points, and not all of them are in opposition to one another. Basically, the government needs to cut discretionary spending and transfer payment programs (like Social Security, etc). At the same time, the government needs to do a better job of closing tax loopholes and shelters. It's not do one thing or do the other. In some cases, it might be necessary to raise taxes--but only after addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and tax cheats.

EDITED: 2016-04-12 13:15:05
BiVRiP
General

April 12th, 2016 @ 8:09PM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
It's not do one thing or do the other. In some cases, it might be necessary to raise taxes--but only after addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and tax cheats.

If only the politicians (on both sides of the aisle) could get behind something that is so painfully obvious to us average folk.
nate_orenstam
Special Ops

April 12th, 2016 @ 8:50PM

Registered:
2003-04-05
Location:
Posts: 1564
thanks bluefalcon, my bad. agree we can do a lot better than we are doing controlling the federal budget. it all seems very expensive until you add in the massive budgetary line items that nobody seems to really want to touch.
Charkoth
Right Wing Extremist

April 12th, 2016 @ 9:20PM

Registered:
2003-05-08
Location:
OHIO
Posts: 2764
Just get rid of the lobbying and corporatism embedded in Washington. So many great ideas to fix problems but the system isn't going to slit it's own throat.
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom

April 13th, 2016 @ 4:16AM

Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1557
Just get rid of the lobbying and corporatism embedded in Washington.

You and I both know that's not happening. McCain-Feingold might have been the last, best effort. The Citizens United (ironic name for the lobbying group) did away with that piece of legislation. Now, corporations enjoy all the rights of an individual without many of the drawbacks.
BlueFalcon
Word To Your Mom

April 13th, 2016 @ 6:58AM

Registered:
2003-04-27
Location:
Filth-a-delphia
Posts: 1557
If only the politicians (on both sides of the aisle) could get behind something that is so painfully obvious to us average folk.

There is an old expression that says something to the effect that, "compromise is when two parties arrive at an effective solution that leaves both sides a little dissatisfied."

I keep that in mind every time I hear that the Republicans and Democrats "compromised". The compromise couldn't be farther from the truth. Republicans want to fund certain constituencies and the Democrats have their favored groups as well. Deciding who gets the money is fought within the context of who has to pay for it all. The "compromise" solution is usually along the lines of no new taxes (Republicans win), spending is increased (both parties win), and we just fund it all through debt (stealing our future to pay for re-election now).
BiVRiP
General

April 13th, 2016 @ 10:19AM

Registered:
2003-05-11
Location:
Canada
Posts: 2345
What....what's going on here. We all fundamentally agree on the same thing and we're not at each others throats!

EN has come a long way :)


You are unable to add Comments because you are not
logged in. If you have an account please login in now.

You can Create an Account, it takes less then a minute.



Return to top