Is this the future of America? City of Scranton lowers wage for all city workers to minimum wage
Options
Comments
-
you may note that i have shifted to criticize his resorting to the "my critics only attack me because of race" maneuver he used to dodge OTHER topics (say, F&F)It had nothing to do with his job performance. He was speaking on the matter of racial politics and the avoidance of those conversations.
-
okay, a couple of quick things:
this general statement, as written, includes ALL the Bush tax cuts. i think we both know this.kingblaze84 wrote: »Meager revenues and Bush-era tax cuts contribute greatly to the deficit.
honestly, this is why it wouldn't hurt those people, not why it is great economics to raise their taxes. certainly it's fair to point out why they can absorb taxes better than, say, lower-class people.kingblaze84 wrote: »Even if taxes on those with the highest incomes are substantially increased, income gains at the top over time would still dramatically outpace gains among the rest of the population.
The top one percent of households benefited disproportionately from the Bush-era tax cuts.
i really still don't like the idea of stating this as if it's some budget-balancing move. is billions of dollars "significant amounts" of money in the general sense? absolutely. but compared to the budget? not so much.kingblaze84 wrote: »Reasonable proposals for taxing the highest-income households can raise significant amounts of revenue.
sort of fair, but i have a theory that if you raise taxes on the rich AND actually balance the budget, you're still going to be able to say it "relies too heavily on spending cuts that harm low- and middle-income Americans."kingblaze84 wrote: »By not taxing the highest-income households, deficit reduction relies too heavily on spending cuts that harm low- and middle-income Americans.
again, is that the taxes on the rich, or ALL of the Bush tax cuts?kingblaze84 wrote: »For instance, if they are allowed to continue, by 2019 the Bush-era income-tax cuts would account for roughly 43 percent, or $5.4 trillion, of the total deficit.
I do support ending the Bush era tax cuts completely, for all Americans, since it does contribute to the huge deficit. But a tax increase on the rich only is perfectly fine by me. It won't make a big difference to the already huge deficit, but it will add new revenue that can help states. We agree that ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich can add tens of billions to govt budgets, so why not do it? Many cities are bankrupt, why not raise tens of billions of dollars to help bail out the places that need it??????? That's all I'm saying....... -
kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »That is some fascist ? . Lowering wages like that while still paying high ass food, electricity, and mortgage?
This is going on all over the country, in the private sector and the public sector. I worry deeply for America's future. Most older people I know tell me this country is ? , I used to argue with them 5 years ago that it wasn't. Now, all I can do is shake my head and hope their wrong.......the best days of America are for sure behind us, the cost of living is going up and wages are not even close to catching up for the avg person. If city workers are getting drastic pay cuts, I hate to see what the private sector is planning in the next few months. Unemployment claims are up sharply today too, so I don't know what America's future holds at this point. I'm not apathetic at this point, just very disappointed with the leadership in today's govt.
Yet so many refuse to believe this administration's policies has anything to do with that situation -- so many wanna believe that once his policies do kick-in things will improve - NO they won't. This President hasn't instilled hope or change,what he has done is instilled fear and skepticism,ALSO he has insulted those who may have thoughts of starting their own business. So now people have to rely on the government to take care of them & only the government can do that - so much for free enterprise in this once great country. THANKS mister egotistical maniac U have transformed America alright - btw for the worse.
Obama has been very business friendly for the most part, did you know corporations under Obama have made more money than even under the Bush years?? Come on man do some research, the rich are doing just fine in this economy. Their cutting back, just as they did back in the last Bush years, but that's not cuz of Obama, it's cuz of GREED. I work for a lawfirm that is all about greed, it rakes in hundreds of thousands a month a guess what? Me and every other employee there are doing the work of 5 people. It's sickening seeing how common this is nationwide, but again, greed is the American way these days.
If you're gonna blame Obama for the bad economy, I don't blame you, Obama hasn't had many good ideas so far. That's why Romney is gaining momentum lately, and even beating Obama in some polls now. But in all seriousness, what are YOUR ideas to better the economy? You love to criticize but what is your idea??!!!!!
You will likely say Obama should lower taxes on the rich but Bush did that and the economy still hit a bad recession.........
If your thinking I'm gonna lay out some great game plan? NO I'm not. Its real simple and to the point - If Obama is re-elected? in my opinion the economy will continue to be VERY sluggish or worse. This man has created SO much skepticism and fear about the future people will not take those chances IE starting there own business.and others will not expand or hire new employees. Obama has got to go! he has proven that the black man can succeed in this country in spite of what others say. FYI I don't love rich people or envy anyone for their success - just how much should any rich person pay in taxes,? before they take there business/& jobs else where - aka outsourcing.
You're a hypocrite. You're criticizing Obama for his lack of a real plan for fixing the economy, and you are right on that. Obama has been a disappointment, though not a failure, for not fixing the economy. He has been a failure when it comes to inspiring Americans to become their best though, that is very obvious.
However, your lack of a plan to help fix the economy makes you no better or worse than Obama or Romney. Add some discussion to the mix, and at least give some IDEAS to help fix the economy. I, at least, have given my ideas.
So now you wanna label me a hypocrite - WOW! I do believe I've already mentioned what the problem is,and not until that problem is removed will real solutions begin to take place,I don't need to offer solutions or lay out some plan - this man HAS GOT TO GO!! btw he has done exactly what so/to many Black Americans refuse to understand - America is the 'land of opportunity' of course so many within this site will spin-it in all different directions...& claim otherwise. IMO we need a President who can spread some esprit de corps around to the disillusioned.
You keep saying Obama has to go in order for the economy to get better, and that's perfectly fine by me, but again, how would that improve the economy by itself?
Romney supports never ending wars just like Obama does, wars that mean a growing deficit and less money being spent on American soil (not including the war profiteering companies on American soil that love Obama and Romney). Romney also does not support legalizing medical marijuana, something that would create jobs. Romney is basically just a worse version of Obama, so why would I want Romney to be president? He also wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, something that will make the deficit even worse and make state budgets look like old cripples. The Bush tax cuts did not prevent the Great Recession of 2008, so how the ? do you figure Romney is any better? -
People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
Damn very true, the days of bold leadership in America died with Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr, and Malcom X. The leaders we have now are all about protecting the status quo and leaving the middle and working class behind. Sad times America is in when everyone is all about protecting their own neck and little else. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »Meh, in my opinion minimum wage should be done away with completely.
Do you say that because many businesses would probably hire more people if the federal minimum wage was eliminated? -
i will grant that this has typically been your position; i'm not saying otherwise.kingblaze84 wrote: »I do support ending the Bush era tax cuts completely, for all Americans, since it does contribute to the huge deficit.
stop right there, because you're being fooled. if it doesn't make a big difference to the deficit, it's not adding new revenues that will help states, it's simply making a slight dent in the deficit. to spend to help states, you STILL borrow the revenue. and you don't need to raise taxes to the rich to just borrow the money.kingblaze84 wrote: »But a tax increase on the rich only is perfectly fine by me. It won't make a big difference to the already huge deficit, but it will add new revenue that can help states.
i never said don't do it. i say be honest about what it does (not much) and why you're doing it (political maneuvering).kingblaze84 wrote: »We agree that ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich can add tens of billions to govt budgets, so why not do it?
because again, you're not raising tens of billions of dollars to bail out cities, you're simply cutting slightly the amount of deficit spending you're doing. cutting spending for THAT reason is fine. pretending it's a choice between not taxing the rich and bailing out cities as if it's not deficit spending either way is not.kingblaze84 wrote: »Many cities are bankrupt, why not raise tens of billions of dollars to help bail out the places that need it??????? -
People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
so true. So damn true.
If I'm mistaken? I'll admit-it and apoloize. The attorney general didn't say anything about were a nation of cowards regarding those points you put forth....period! He said were a nation of cowards when it comes to dicussing race/relations issues in this country. IMO he is RIGHT ON! & I see it every single day within this site,SO who's the cowards? Y is it so many like to dish it out but when the shoe is on the other foot - guess who avoids said issues, or can't stand the heat?
kingblazer disregard my reply
-
People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
so true. So damn true.
Here you go mister/ms Wild Self
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fy2DnMFwZw -
i will grant that this has typically been your position; i'm not saying otherwise.kingblaze84 wrote: »I do support ending the Bush era tax cuts completely, for all Americans, since it does contribute to the huge deficit.
stop right there, because you're being fooled. if it doesn't make a big difference to the deficit, it's not adding new revenues that will help states, it's simply making a slight dent in the deficit. to spend to help states, you STILL borrow the revenue. and you don't need to raise taxes to the rich to just borrow the money.kingblaze84 wrote: »But a tax increase on the rich only is perfectly fine by me. It won't make a big difference to the already huge deficit, but it will add new revenue that can help states.
i never said don't do it. i say be honest about what it does (not much) and why you're doing it (political maneuvering).kingblaze84 wrote: »We agree that ending the Bush tax cuts on the rich can add tens of billions to govt budgets, so why not do it?
because again, you're not raising tens of billions of dollars to bail out cities, you're simply cutting slightly the amount of deficit spending you're doing. cutting spending for THAT reason is fine. pretending it's a choice between not taxing the rich and bailing out cities as if it's not deficit spending either way is not.kingblaze84 wrote: »Many cities are bankrupt, why not raise tens of billions of dollars to help bail out the places that need it???????
I understand what you're saying but at this point, if the Bush tax cuts can lower the deficit, even by a little bit, it's still worth doing. After all, that's what we have to do right? And not all the money has to be used to pay down the debt. Some of it can be used to bail out states, and yes seeing how govt borrows all the time, it's still a net plus in that govt can borrow LESS compared to the reckless abandon we're doing now...... -
People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
so true. So damn true.
If I'm mistaken? I'll admit-it and apoloize. The attorney general didn't say anything about were a nation of cowards regarding those points you put forth....period! He said were a nation of cowards when it comes to dicussing race/relations issues in this country. IMO he is RIGHT ON! & I see it every single day within this site,SO who's the cowards? Y is it so many like to dish it out but when the shoe is on the other foot - guess who avoids said issues, or can't stand the heat?
kingblazer disregard my reply
What issues are Black people or anyone else avoiding on this site?? I see people here being blunt and honest for the most part on all issues so what are you talking about
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
so true. So damn true.
If I'm mistaken? I'll admit-it and apoloize. The attorney general didn't say anything about were a nation of cowards regarding those points you put forth....period! He said were a nation of cowards when it comes to dicussing race/relations issues in this country. IMO he is RIGHT ON! & I see it every single day within this site,SO who's the cowards? Y is it so many like to dish it out but when the shoe is on the other foot - guess who avoids said issues, or can't stand the heat?
kingblazer disregard my reply
What issues are Black people or anyone else avoiding on this site?? I see people here being blunt and honest for the most part on all issues so what are you talking about
SURE they are - whenever the conversation/subject is going in their favor. Don't hand me that malarkey about fairness when you know damn well that isn't true. I know for a fact you and others don't wanna EVER talk about direct issues that affect you and yours...period. CRIME and who the real perpetrators are and having all these babies & the destruction of many major cities within this country....because of POOR leadership & outright corruption.
BTW you're that greatest at avoiding certain topics and you love to divert off to what those supposedly wick white people have done world wide & of course that avoids the real issue again as usual - BLACKs are far from perfect and they play the game using there skin color or if the topic hits home - they cry out and claim said person is a racist, bigot or worse. So now you tell who the real cowards are - IE if you have the courage. BTW I'm still wondering Y whenever I have contact with that random black person they don't get all brave and spew the same ? to my face as so many have done within this site OH! me forgot your hiding behind that monitor.
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »People like to identify with "the winning team" notice how many Miami Heat or New York Giants fans there will be this year. These people could live in jackoff, Utah but will try to be a bandwagon fan while the team is winning.
Its the same with politics. They can't win themselves so they live vicariously through the millionaires. The idea is the same.
When the Heat come to Detroit they want to beat my Pistons (not to hard to do by the way) but if I'm a bandwagon riding fan, I'll cheer against my own team. In politics people cheer against their own team all the time. Supporting millionaires, making it easier for them to make money by using shady habits over demanding these ? make it easier for EVERYBODY.
Eric Holder was right when he called America a "nation of cowards" too.
Most are too scary to stand up to big money interests...and it shows in the politicians. Soon (very soon) there will be an entire generation of gutless snobs running this country and then it will really be shot to hell. The Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul types are getting old, they can't fight for you forever. But nobody is ballsy enough to be their heir apparent.
so true. So damn true.
If I'm mistaken? I'll admit-it and apoloize. The attorney general didn't say anything about were a nation of cowards regarding those points you put forth....period! He said were a nation of cowards when it comes to dicussing race/relations issues in this country. IMO he is RIGHT ON! & I see it every single day within this site,SO who's the cowards? Y is it so many like to dish it out but when the shoe is on the other foot - guess who avoids said issues, or can't stand the heat?
kingblazer disregard my reply
What issues are Black people or anyone else avoiding on this site?? I see people here being blunt and honest for the most part on all issues so what are you talking about
SURE they are - whenever the conversation/subject is going in their favor. Don't hand me that malarkey about fairness when you know damn well that isn't true. I know for a fact you and others don't wanna EVER talk about direct issues that affect you and yours...period. CRIME and who the real perpetrators are and having all these babies & the destruction of many major cities within this country....because of POOR leadership & outright corruption.
BTW you're that greatest at avoiding certain topics and you love to divert off to what those supposedly wick white people have done world wide & of course that avoids the real issue again as usual - BLACKs are far from perfect and they play the game using there skin color or if the topic hits home - they cry out and claim said person is a racist, bigot or worse. So now you tell who the real cowards are - IE if you have the courage. BTW I'm still wondering Y whenever I have contact with that random black person they don't get all brave and spew the same ? to my face as so many have done within this site OH! me forgot your hiding behind that monitor.
Okay, if you wana go there, that's fine.....
On some points I do agree with you. Some Black people that are poor are having too many kids, which is a problem worldwide. Overpopulation isn't the main issue of American poverty though, although poor people having too many kids is one of many issues causing poverty in Black areas. But when bailouts are given to the rich and wealthy (mostly White people with connections to middle class), OF COURSE poverty numbers will look worse for Black people compared to White people. White people have been given more forms of welfare and govt assistance in history compared to Black folk, ya'll got a head start in so many ways so I'm shocked you would even bring up Black poverty in this thread. If you really wana go there, you've just opened up yourself a can of worms.
There IS though, a culture among some Blacks that education is a waste of time, and YES that must change. African immigrants and Caribbean immigrants and their descendants who came to America tend to do better in school test scores compared to African American kids. I saw this first hand growing up in private and public schools. Why that culture exists among some Blacks here? Good question, I suspect many poor parents being too busy working and worrying about paying bills than education. And also an apathetic culture that comes from years of slavery and being put down has done some serious mental damage to many African Americans, and this exists in foreign Black nations too. Black people also get too comfortable too easily, a worldwide problem as well.
I never once have said Blacks are perfect, we do have flaws but every other people do as well. But there are reasons for that and outside factors that have compounded the problem. If it bothers you that European and White people in positions of power made the problem worse, sorry, but it is what it is. I don't hate or dislike White people, but I gotta keep it real with myself and the world. You know what I am saying is true, if you don't read a history book or go to college. -
to repeat myself, "i will settle for "we can raise these taxes if we don't pretend it's a real accomplishment."" my major objection to it is the pretending that this is DOING SOMETHING SERIOUS about the deficit.kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand what you're saying but at this point, if the Bush tax cuts can lower the deficit, even by a little bit, it's still worth doing.
this is where i point out your contradiction: you tell me the tax cuts you want to remove will reduce the deficit by SOMETHING (true) and then that since we borrow all the time, we can use the money to bail out states instead of paying down the deficit. however, if you're arguing to me that ending the tax cuts is for the purposes of addressing the deficit, you're essentially lying to me about what you want to end the cuts for so that you can actually spend in the manner that you want.kingblaze84 wrote: »After all, that's what we have to do right? And not all the money has to be used to pay down the debt. Some of it can be used to bail out states, and yes seeing how govt borrows all the time, it's still a net plus in that govt can borrow LESS compared to the reckless abandon we're doing now...... -
to repeat myself, "i will settle for "we can raise these taxes if we don't pretend it's a real accomplishment."" my major objection to it is the pretending that this is DOING SOMETHING SERIOUS about the deficit.kingblaze84 wrote: »I understand what you're saying but at this point, if the Bush tax cuts can lower the deficit, even by a little bit, it's still worth doing.
this is where i point out your contradiction: you tell me the tax cuts you want to remove will reduce the deficit by SOMETHING (true) and then that since we borrow all the time, we can use the money to bail out states instead of paying down the deficit. however, if you're arguing to me that ending the tax cuts is for the purposes of addressing the deficit, you're essentially lying to me about what you want to end the cuts for so that you can actually spend in the manner that you want.kingblaze84 wrote: »After all, that's what we have to do right? And not all the money has to be used to pay down the debt. Some of it can be used to bail out states, and yes seeing how govt borrows all the time, it's still a net plus in that govt can borrow LESS compared to the reckless abandon we're doing now......
To say ending the Bush tax cuts is not a real accomplishment is very harsh, adding tens of billions of dollars into the economy wouldn't put a huge dent in the deficit true, but it would still be very helpful. If I haven't been clear, let me be clear now, I would prefer to use most of the money to pay down the deficit, but SOME of it can be used to bail out states and local governments. Is that clear enough? -
i'm being harsh because it's being kicked around like it's something that's SERIOUSLY ADDRESSING THE DEFICIT, which is absolutely ? . every little bit helps, but every little bit isn't some grand achievement. and when you pair it with the fact that it's absolutely being thrown out there pre-election for obvious reasons... pardon me if i am not excited.kingblaze84 wrote: »To say ending the Bush tax cuts is not a real accomplishment is very harsh, adding tens of billions of dollars into the economy-
also, i don't know how taxing the rich more "adds tens of billions of dollars in the economy" like you're implying, but maybe i am missing something here
-
then let's just say that?kingblaze84 wrote: »-wouldn't put a huge dent in the deficit true, but it would still be very helpful.
if i have not been clear, let me be clear now: you CANNOT tell me the tax cuts are meant to address deficit reduction if you turn around and spend borrowed money on something else. if you want to tell me you'd RATHER spend borrowed money that way, cool, tell me that. now, i grant that you're not the one out selling this as the Democratic Party platform, so i don't mean to be that harsh regarding YOUR personal position (which i think i understand).kingblaze84 wrote: »If I haven't been clear, let me be clear now, I would prefer to use most of the money to pay down the deficit, but SOME of it can be used to bail out states and local governments. Is that clear enough? -
So bottom line, we're ? . Prove me wrong.
-
That's fuckef up
-
on a long enough scale this is certainly trueSo bottom line, we're ? . Prove me wrong.
-
So bottom line, we're ? . Prove me wrong.
Sad but yeah you're right, that's why I don't want any kids. It's crazy seeing so many people I know being desperate enough to run drugs or their bodies but with the economy the way it is I don't blame them. The worst part of this is that low wage jobs are the future of America for the most part, most new jobs being created are low wage. The middle class is being dismantled in front of our very eyes, and our debt is eating this nation alive. America's best days are behind us forever.
-
then let's just say that?kingblaze84 wrote: »-wouldn't put a huge dent in the deficit true, but it would still be very helpful.
if i have not been clear, let me be clear now: you CANNOT tell me the tax cuts are meant to address deficit reduction if you turn around and spend borrowed money on something else. if you want to tell me you'd RATHER spend borrowed money that way, cool, tell me that. now, i grant that you're not the one out selling this as the Democratic Party platform, so i don't mean to be that harsh regarding YOUR personal position (which i think i understand).kingblaze84 wrote: »If I haven't been clear, let me be clear now, I would prefer to use most of the money to pay down the deficit, but SOME of it can be used to bail out states and local governments. Is that clear enough?
Ok we can come to an agreement here. How do you think America can increase it's revenues and pay down the debt in a serious way at the same time? -
-address the long-term issues of things like Social Security;kingblaze84 wrote: »Ok we can come to an agreement here. How do you think America can increase it's revenues and pay down the debt in a serious way at the same time?
-remove an appropriate amount of tax cuts/credits/whatever to raise revenue;
-spend less ? money (i guess we should only fight wars we NEED to for right now);
-do not immediately give away money we've saved with tax cuts or other crazy spending;
-maybe sell New Jersey? no one would miss it -
Change our currency to love, what really matters in life.
-
If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.
-
-address the long-term issues of things like Social Security;kingblaze84 wrote: »Ok we can come to an agreement here. How do you think America can increase it's revenues and pay down the debt in a serious way at the same time?
-remove an appropriate amount of tax cuts/credits/whatever to raise revenue;
-spend less ? money (i guess we should only fight wars we NEED to for right now);
-do not immediately give away money we've saved with tax cuts or other crazy spending;
-maybe sell New Jersey? no one would miss it
I sympathize with everything you've said, but what's your beef with Jersey? It produced The Sopranos and Shaq, it's not that bad a state. Makes a ton of money too for a state its size.
And if social security is touched by any politician, that politician's career is over. ESPECIALLY while Wall Street gets bailed out with trillions, social security cuts will be looked upon as evil by most of the population. This is why I get the logic behind cutting social security, but not while big banks get wild bailouts and everyone else gets crumbs. When the 99% get trillions of dollars in bailouts, THAN I will support cutting social security.
