Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
28 Pages«<1819202122>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline dfosterf  
#286 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 5:13:26 AM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,879
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 366

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zPiQgUQt3E


I get to bitch for another 4 years, so there is that.

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline Wade  
#287 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 11:27:38 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,767
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I like how people like you think Obama accomplished nothing in his first four years. It's actually laughable how right wingers dismiss things like affordable health care, kicking Arab terrorist ass, repealed don't ask don't tell, saved the auto industry, adjusted FEMA so that it works; and all while treasonous Republicans tried blocking everything.

The economy isn't fixed yet, but don't you think if the treasonous Republicans would have helped pass a jobs bill, we'd be a lot farther along.


1. Obamacare is NOT affordable. It isn't going to be close to affordable.
2. Obama didn't do anything with regard to the terrorists. Navy Seals did that. He just happened to be the C-in-C at the right time.
3. Okay, will give you the don't ask/don't tell repeal.
4. Don't make me laugh. He bailed out the worst performer in the auto industry. A company that spent decades ignoring its customers preferences (with the exception of Saturn, which of course didn't survive) and SHOULD have failed.
5. FEMA works? That's a new one. I wouldn't blame either party for its incompetence any more than I'd blame either for the incompetence of NASA. Some parts of the government are going to be incompetent regardless of who is in the Oval Office.




None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Wade  
#288 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 11:31:37 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,767
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zPiQgUQt3E


I get to bitch for another 4 years, so there is that.



Unless you get called back to active duty with the rest of you cranky retired Marines to bail out the National Guard when they put down the rebellion, Cincinnatus.

But the current administration will probably be able to buy off the mob with beer and circuses for four more years, so you should be safe in your bitching.

Big Grin





None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#289 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 11:37:33 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,656
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I like how people like you think Obama accomplished nothing in his first four years. It's actually laughable how right wingers dismiss things like affordable health care, kicking Arab terrorist ass, repealed don't ask don't tell, saved the auto industry, adjusted FEMA so that it works; and all while treasonous Republicans tried blocking everything.

The economy isn't fixed yet, but don't you think if the treasonous Republicans would have helped pass a jobs bill, we'd be a lot farther along.


Affordable heathcare act? That has no chance of making healthcare affordable. Why can't he pass a spending bill that doesn't spend? Healthcare is going to go up and up because of the affordable care act.

We were kicking terrorists asses before him and we will after. He didn't do anything except be in office when the chance appeared. It took years of work by intelligence and military not Obama.

Saved the auto industry? What did he do to help Ford? Nothing. the auto industry would have been fine without the bailout. the bailout saved the autoworkers union from having to give up more. had GM died, the other manufacturers would have stepped up their production, and filled the void. And also created jobs. They would have had to hire, they would have had to expand. Businesses failing is one of the biggest things that create oppourtunity and jobs. Cash for clunkers hurt the auto industry and the economy. It took people who would have purchased in year or two or three, and moved their purchase up. Which sounds like a good idea, until you realize that now the next year or two the purchases they would have made are gone and you have to make up for them. Most of the clunkers that were traded in, were cars that nothing was wrong with, and they all had to be destroyed. which removed hundreds of thousands of used cars from the secondary auto markets, which hurt used car businesses. And the majority of those sales, were foreign cars.

What did he adjust in FEMA. Was he the one who made it so they decline providing aid to disasters when to many people have insurance which happened in WI last year.

Best thing for our country is to block what Obama and democrats want to do. Raising taxes will not help the middle class make more money, it will not lower any of our taxes. All taxing more does is take money out of private hands and put it in government. I will do all I can to block that.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
zombieslayer on 11/9/2012(UTC), Wade on 11/12/2012(UTC)
Offline RajiRoar  
#290 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 12:20:13 PM(UTC)
Laser Gunns

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 1,102
Joined: 9/30/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 38
Applause Received: 218

this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..

I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:

Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot

ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."

I forgot to mention that there could be a happy middle between A and B, but you get the idea..

or am i over simplifing it? I have no loyalties to any party, and even debated in favor of getting rid of them altogether.


MintBaconDrivel

Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Offline Porforis  
#291 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 12:28:52 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,738
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar Go to Quoted Post
this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..

I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:

Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot

ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."

or am i over simplifing it? I have no loyalties to any party, and even debated in favor of getting rid of them altogether.


To some extent I think you're oversimplifying things but at the core you've got it right. The problem is that you're going to be eaten alive if you try to raise taxes on the middle or lower classes or cut spending to just about anything. As wasteful as government is, people DO benefit from the vast, vast majority of the money it spends.

The big ticket items that make up the bulk of our budget are (in no particular order) military spending, social security, and medicare. All three need reform and attention, but all three will put your head on the block if you as a politician touch it.
UserPostedImage
Offline RajiRoar  
#292 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 12:38:08 PM(UTC)
Laser Gunns

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 1,102
Joined: 9/30/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 38
Applause Received: 218

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post

The big ticket items that make up the bulk of our budget are (in no particular order) military spending, social security, and medicare. All three need reform and attention, but all three will put your head on the block if you as a politician touch it.


I added in an edit that said i think there could be a middle-ground, sorry.

while it would be nice for our gov't to be able to cover all these things... they can't. we have years of deficit-spending to prove it. I just don't see how you fix it without A or B.

the political runaround on every issue can't help either.



MintBaconDrivel

Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!
Offline Porforis  
#293 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 12:44:10 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,738
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar Go to Quoted Post
I added in an edit that said i think there could be a middle-ground, sorry.

while it would be nice for our gov't to be able to cover all these things... they can't. we have years of deficit-spending to prove it. I just don't see how you fix it without A or B.

the political runaround on every issue can't help either.


I've used this metaphor before and I'll use it again. When you've dug yourself a really deep hole, you can't just step out of it. You need to get dirty and climb out. The right isn't going to want to touch defense spending, the left isn't going to want to touch entitlements. Both need to be touched. The left and right don't seem seriously interested in reforming our mess of a tax code - surprisingly, about the only positive thing I've heard Romney suggest is capping itemized deductions and bracketing capital gains taxes. I've heard nothing else from either party besides "Add this deduction" or "raise rates on the rich", neither of which addresses the reasons why we're in this mess to begin with. Many of the rich can afford paying so little income taxes because of all the loopholes out there - if you want to fix the problem, kill ALL (or almost all) deductions, adjust rates downwards. Some people will pay more, some people will pay less. But there will be a TON less waste and potential for abuse.

But at least that's my opinion, and it'll never happen.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#294 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 12:50:44 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,656
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar Go to Quoted Post
this was the 1st election i was able to vote in and i have a question..

I was explaining my thinking to a prof and it was a little like this:

Prof: on the eve of the election, give me a quick rundown of what you are thinking before you send in your ballot

ME:The problem is the gov is not taking in enough money to support these programs and whatever else it's spending on (infastrucure I assume). If we want to chip away our deficit, we need to either 'A' cut these programs down to an affordable level, or 'B' the gov needs to take in more money, which means higher taxes and additional revenue. when our defecit is down and we become profitable again, THEN taxes can go back down/ programs can recieve more funding."

or am i over simplifing it?


No that is about the basics of the deficit issue. Were the separation is, how do we go about doing it.

Obama and Democrats claim to want to raise taxes (only the rich they say), and cut spending to come to a point where revenue mets spending. Where conservative/republicans want more of just Spending cuts.

I am on the side of the Conservatives. For a couple reasons. I want us all to know that what government is spending is not being wasted. If we raise taxes and cut spending, eventually spending and revenue will meet, and government will look and say. Hey we are balanced, but I don't just want to be balanced. I want to be balanced without waste. I think we need to cut, until we find the bottom amount that government needs. Once that is determined, then we can look and see, are we taxing enough or do we need to tax more, or are we already taxing too much. But then we will know, and we can set a fair tax rate for all to obtain that amount. Until then any talk about raise or lower is just guessing.

And also, no matter where a tax is applied, it impacts all of us. Whether the rich, corporations, small business or the rest of us. It impacts salaries, number of employees, benefits and prices of goods. The goal should always be the least amount of tax and spending possible by government.

I look at East coast and the impact of Sandy, and I see all the people that are giving out of their pockets. Not because they are forced to, but because they choose to. The country has an extreme amount of giving it can provide by choice. And over the years, more and more of us, have come to think that we cannot do this or that without government. I think that is selling us very short.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#295 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 2:34:41 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: doddpower Go to Quoted Post
I wasn't trying to disprove your point. However, to say they both received equal amounts of cash from SuperPacs is far from the truth. Romney clearly received much more money from undisclosed sources and bigger donors. It was just an attempt to be accurate being saying otherwise is false.



I know you weren't trying to disprove anything. Just said that you helped make my point. If one's going to bitch about a side of the isle getting money from the rich, at least be fair about it instead of using agenda laden rhetoric.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline DakotaT  
#296 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 7:49:47 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,256
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,299

New IRS code - first $50,000 tax free for married filing jointly. Singles get first $25,000. After that no deductions, but there is a tax credit of $300 per kid. No more caps on the SS tax, which means wealthier Americans continue to pay SS taxes on income above and over $125,000. No more differentiation of income - all income subject to the same graduated tax rates. It has always pissed me off that the pussy prospectors get to pay less income tax for moving paper around but the working man gets no such breaks.

Major cuts made to the War Machine - they have to come in with a 60% budget - the other 40% goes to domestic infrastructure and jobs creation.

Yeah, my plan bends the wealthy over the table - but I figure since they have been doing that to the middle class forever - it's about time to turn the tables.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#297 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 8:00:42 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,656
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
New IRS code - first $50,000 tax free for married filing jointly. Singles get first $25,000. After that no deductions, but there is a tax credit of $300 per kid. No more caps on the SS tax, which means wealthier Americans continue to pay SS taxes on income above and over $125,000. No more differentiation of income - all income subject to the same graduated tax rates. It has always pissed me off that the pussy prospectors get to pay less income tax for moving paper around but the working man gets no such breaks.

Major cuts made to the War Machine - they have to come in with a 60% budget - the other 40% goes to domestic infrastructure and jobs creation.

Yeah, my plan bends the wealthy over the table - but I figure since they have been doing that to the middle class forever - it's about time to turn the tables.


But why bend them over, when you don't know how much money is needed for government?

Do you realize that the war machine has been the the part of government that has been growing about the least? Defense is about 25% of the budget. It use to be 35% and 50% at times. If you would keep the dollar amount of defense and lower all other government spending so the current amount was again 35% of the budget. We would have no deficit today.

Why not go through and cut what can be cut out of government. Move what can be moved to the private sector. And find out exactly what government needs to spend. And then determine the proper tax rates across the board for everybody. Raising this tax, lower this tax when you don't know how much is actually needed is working backwards.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#298 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 8:17:48 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 7,256
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 622
Applause Received: 1,299

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
But why bend them over, when you don't know how much money is needed for government?

Do you realize that the war machine has been the the part of government that has been growing about the least? Defense is about 25% of the budget. It use to be 35% and 50% at times. If you would keep the dollar amount of defense and lower all other government spending so the current amount was again 35% of the budget. We would have no deficit today.

Why not go through and cut what can be cut out of government. Move what can be moved to the private sector. And find out exactly what government needs to spend. And then determine the proper tax rates across the board for everybody. Raising this tax, lower this tax when you don't know how much is actually needed is working backwards.


I don't agree with you because I'm not a right wing asstard. Millions of people have needs that they can't provide for themselves. It's real easy to be an able bodied intelligent man like you and take a position that "I have to work why do I have to take care of others?" But it takes a real fuckin man to say, I'm going to work my ass off, pay my taxes and take care of others.

Yes there is no doubt government excesses and reform is necessary, but this subject has turned into how we get out of this shithole - and paying more taxes is the only way.
UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#299 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 8:38:34 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,656
Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
I don't agree with you because I'm not a right wing asstard. Millions of people have needs that they can't provide for themselves. It's real easy to be an able bodied intelligent man like you and take a position that "I have to work why do I have to take care of others?" But it takes a real fuckin man to say, I'm going to work my ass off, pay my taxes and take care of others.

Yes there is no doubt government excesses and reform is necessary, but this subject has turned into how we get out of this shithole - and paying more taxes is the only way.


Once again, why? How much money does government need? How much of our money does it need?

Where in my post did I say anything about not providing for those who actually need assistance? The problem with people like you is, you don't have the ability to comprehend the difference between reduce and eliminate. reducing and getting those off the government dollar, that don't NEED to be on it, only makes it easier for those who actually do need it.

Why would you be against actually finding out what government needs so the proper amount of tax can be set instead of closing your eyes and throwing a dart.

Take a look around at what has happened with the hurricane. Look at how many people who work their ass off, have been giving by choice. Not because they were forced to. Those of us who work our asses off, have tons of ability to give, and take care of others without needing government to do it for us. If you don't and need government to do it for you, that is your shortcoming, not the rest of ours.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline zombieslayer  
#300 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2012 10:14:38 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

20 pages? Wow.

Edited by user Friday, November 9, 2012 10:30:56 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
28 Pages«<1819202122>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / OlHoss1884

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mi_keys

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

4h / Fantasy Sports Talk / TengoJuego

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

6h / Announcements / dfosterf

7h / Random Babble / MontanaBob

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

29-Jul / Random Babble / porky88

29-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

29-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

29-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

29-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.