Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Tax returns: Romney required VPs to submit more than 2 yrs


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
82 replies to this topic

#76 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,135
  • Reputation: 2,320
HUDDLER

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:35 PM

Err then you may want to vote for Johnson or something because Ryan's budget doesn't "deal" with the debt right away either it takes a long term approach of cutting benefits and taxes that still leaves us with a deficit in 10 years.

#77 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,800
  • Reputation: 2,524
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 August 2012 - 08:43 PM

It also does not do a thing about our massive defense spending, which is kind of a tip off there's nothing actually serious about this plan or it's originators desire to do something relevant about spending. It's just a conservative line in the sand.

In order to get anything done in Washington, compromise is key. Ryan does not understand what that means, which explains why the only 2 bills he's sponsored that actually got passed in 13 years were one renaming a post office, and one having to do with how arrows are taxed (evidently he likes bows and arrows or something).

#78 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 198
  • Reputation: 45
HUDDLER

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:44 AM

Actually if we want to talk facts, defense spending is at 4% or so of GDP. Include the extra money used to fund the war and you're still at 5% . Anybody want to take a guess at social program spending?

#79 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,211
  • Reputation: 5,725
HUDDLER

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

Actually if we want to talk facts, defense spending is at 4% or so of GDP. Include the extra money used to fund the war and you're still at 5% . Anybody want to take a guess at social program spending?


It is about 16% of GDP....which is pretty much the same as Canada and Australia.

However, Canada and Australia's spend INCLUDES a single payer health care system which constitutes a large portion of their total spend. We spend it WITHOUT a single payer system.

For those intellectually challenged (like CWG) that means that we provide a ton more social programs than most countries. The entitlement spending in this country is ridiculous and it is directly resulting in a lazy society.

Too many in this country see it as a badge of honor to be milking the system and not working.

#80 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,232
  • Reputation: 476
HUDDLER

Posted 15 August 2012 - 08:56 AM

It is about 16% of GDP....which is pretty much the same as Canada and Australia.

However, Canada and Australia's spend INCLUDES a single payer health care system which constitutes a large portion of their total spend. We spend it WITHOUT a single payer system.

For those intellectually challenged (like CWG) that means that we provide a ton more social programs than most countries. The entitlement spending in this country is ridiculous and it is directly resulting in a lazy society.

Too many in this country see it as a badge of honor to be milking the system and not working.


bite your tongue...don't you know it's about shared sacrifice?

#81 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 07-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,926
  • Reputation: 342
HUDDLER

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:33 AM

Posted Image

#82 boostownsme

boostownsme

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 04-December 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 198
  • Reputation: 45
HUDDLER

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:49 PM

It is about 16% of GDP....which is pretty much the same as Canada and Australia.

However, Canada and Australia's spend INCLUDES a single payer health care system which constitutes a large portion of their total spend. We spend it WITHOUT a single payer system.

For those intellectually challenged (like CWG) that means that we provide a ton more social programs than most countries. The entitlement spending in this country is ridiculous and it is directly resulting in a lazy society.

Too many in this country see it as a badge of honor to be milking the system and not working.


I actually think it's 24% according to a bunch of places I've looked. But overall I do agree with your statement, we need to wrangle this thing back in before we're greece x2

#83 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,711
  • Reputation: 1,377
HUDDLER

Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:21 AM

For those intellectually challenged (like CWG) that means that we provide a ton more social programs than most countries. The entitlement spending in this country is ridiculous and it is directly resulting in a lazy society.


um i'm pretty sure that we have to spend so much through social programs in part due to income equality in america, as seen here (for the "intellectually challenged," a high gini coefficient is bad):

Posted Image

and also due to the private sector's failure to provide affordable, accessible healthcare. while those who have no interest in fixing america's problems (or those who have difficulty understanding america's problems) might suggest cutting social programs across the board, the problem and solution is a little more complex than "HURR DURR POOR PEOPLE ARE PARASITES SO YOU CAN SINK OR SWIM, DIPSHITS"