1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Can You Come for a Visit? My ME/CFS Says No
My daughter and son-in-law just had a baby last week. We are thrilled. But we won't be able to see the baby or hold her any time soon. We won't be able to take over little gifts or help out with housework or babysitting.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

pres threatening to withhold aug ssdi pymtns

Discussion in 'Finances, Work, and Disability' started by Tammie, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    167
    Wyoming
    President Obama is doing what needs to be done to save our SSI and disability benefit

    I think that stating that President Obama is threatening to withhold disability checks is not an accurate description of what is really going on. You have left out some important facts. President Obama is trying to stop the Republicans from abolishing Social Security completely. Further, he knows that we need to tax the rich or our economy will collapse once again and we may never recover. He is doing what has to be done.


    This is something I posted on the Huffington Post site:

    No President Obama, refusing to back down will not end your presidency. You have already shown that you are willing to compromise. If you back down on this and let the Republicans have their way once again, that will end your presidency. The rich have had their tax breaks for 10 years now. If these tax breaks created jobs we wouldn't currently be in the middle of a recession. The conservatives do not hesitate to tell the middle class to sacrifice, why won't they ask the rich to sacrifice too? If they won't spread the burden, then they will be burying themselves. Their poll numbers will continue to drop.

    It is the demand for products that has saved our economy in the past. The "trickle down theory" has never been successful. If you give tax breaks to the middle and lower class, they go out and buy products, the profits and demand are raised, and the companies hire more employees to keep up with the demand. For any conservative who doubts this, please take time to look at the past history of our nation and try to find evidence that giving tax breaks to the rich has saved an economy in the middle of a depression or even a bad recession. It never happened and it never will happen.

    The definition of insanity is trying the same thing more than once and expecting different results
    --Einstein

    PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: If he doesn't hold out, you and others won't have disability at all!!
  2. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    167
    Wyoming


    I lived through the Reagan years. Reagan's tax cuts absolutely did not lead to economic prosperity. For much of the Reagan years, we lived through a recession. In fact, he made it very easy for CEO's to raid pensions; and get tax cuts for closing factories and moving them over seas. I lived in Duluth Minnesota at the time. The Iron Ore industry was completely demolished by his economic policies and half the people who lived there had to leave. Factories all over the country closed down.

    I also remember visiting my sister in Washington D.C. during the Reagan years. There were families living in tents on every street corner because the shelters had no more room. I am talking families with small children and babies!

    Watch the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." It will provide you with an accurate portrayal of what really went on in the big cities during the Reagan administration.


    PS Reagan finally gave in and raised taxes on the rich. It was after he did this that the economy started to improve.
  3. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes:
    2,391
    WA, USA
    nobody is abolishing Social Security completely. that is a total misunderstanding of the opponent's position. you should try reading gop.com, heritage.org, and the like before you try to explain what the Republicans or conservatives/classical liberals are doing. Republicans are trying to save the safety net programs so the programs will still be there in the future.

    Democrats and Republicans have different ideas about *how* best to take care of the poor and disabled, but there is no disagreement on *whether* to do this--basically everyone agrees that Americans can and should take care of the hungry and the disabled.
  4. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    167
    Wyoming
    From the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare:

    "The Medicare provisions, in particular, will send this nation back to a time before Medicare was enacted, when over one-half of the senior population had no health care coverage at all. The Ryan plan would replace the current Medicare program with vouchers and leave seniors and the disabled - some of our most vulnerable Americans - hostage to the whims of the private marketplace. Over time, this will destroy the only health insurance program available to 47 million Americans. Vouchers are designed not to keep up with the increasing cost of health insurance... that is why they save money. Destroying Medicare and leaving millions of Americans without adequate health coverage is not a path to prosperity for anyone except for-profit insurers and the American people understand that." Max Richtman , Executive Vice President
  5. Tammie

    Tammie Senior Member

    Messages:
    760
    Likes:
    9
    Woodridge, IL
    No, actually I did NOT misunderstand what was being said at all.....he stated that the checks may not go out if there is not an agreement on the debt ceiling....

    ...I did not intend to start a political debate - I just wanted to say that I am freaking out about the possibility that the checks will not go out, and that is a very real possibility that he did make quite clear. Also, I did not jump to this conclusion after merely reading one news report. I checked several sources.

    I also wanted people who are dependent on those checks to be aware of the situation in case they didn't see or hear the news, since I have no idea if there will actually be any formal notice if the checks are in fact withheld. I know that many people get them deposited directly. If that is the case, and they are not aware that the checks were not deposited, and they then write out their own checks against that account, they may wind up overdrawing and thus incurring more financial issues from the fees.

    And, as far as preventing the loss of disability altogether, that does not help me or others at all if we become homeless in the meantime. (& if I miss even one check that will happen). And I can tell you that as sick as I am, if I wind up homeless I will not be alive long enough to care if checks are here in the future. I will be dead and it will not really matter to me personally anymore to me. (Yes I do still care what happens to others, too, though.) I know that others are in the same boat (at least re becoming homeless).

    In effect congress has failed to do their job (by not protecting the SS account in the first place and borrowing money that is not theirs to borrow....and now by failing to fix their problems in time to avoid the current stressful situation.....if they can't do their job, then the money that gets used to rectify this should come out of their paychecks.....they should never have been allowed to borrow money that people paid in, and they definitely should not be allowed to effectively steal it from us now.
  6. Parismountain

    Parismountain Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes:
    75
    South Carolina
    Okay in my healthy days I have a degree in accounting and economics and political science all from a state school in Florida. I'm with Willow on this one. I've never seen a time where democrats have completely lost their ability to comprehend simple math like the present. Our budget deficit (not national debt) is so large that if you stole every dollar from every person making over $200,000 a year (that is tax those earners as now before they reach 200,000 and then STEAL every dollar in a tax from them for the amount they earn over 200,000) you would still not have enough money collected to pay this year's budget deficit.

    That is staggering. Stew on that for a while when people are claiming you can solve this by taxing the rich. There aren't enough rich people and this fact points out clearly the problem is spending.

    Obama only loves his core constituencies. He's riling up the masses with his claim the SS checks might not go out. Well if you look at how much the government will take in in August there is clearly enough money to pay SS and Veterans and the military and their vendors and pay most of unemployment compensation and more and more but he will get to decide who to pay if the ceiling isn't raised and he will decide purposely not to pay SS recipients. I'll bet he'll pay every federal retiree though.

    Democrats claim Bush passed an unfunded drug bill at a cost of 200 billion a year. What they don't next say is their bill they voted for which didn't pass was for an unfunded 800 billion dollars in a drug bill. So much for revisionist history.

    Obama voted as a senator not to increase the debt ceiling and now he's in charge he's flipped.

    That national debt is too large to ever be brought down without a complete reset of this country anyhow. This generation has robbed from not only the children but their children's generation. And I do appreciate the Greatest Generation's contributions to making this country great but I will say this about them, they sure are adamant about collecting their promises they set up for themselves, even at the cost of the youngest.

    Check out Obama's first year, he grew discretionary spending by 26%. Then he asked for a freeze for three years. That was cute, get more than three years of growth immediately and then act like you're a responsible spender.

    You folks all do know that Obama has taken out 500 billion in Medicare money to funds his healthcare plan right? I'm on Medicare and that affects me directly. As much as I'm dependent currently because of health I'll not change my thinking on fiscal sanity issues.

    I know I'm just ranting but here's another gem, GE and GM will pay no taxes. GM is touted as such a success by the dems in saving the company and our country from peril. If it's such a great save and GM will not pay taxes because they have loss carryforwards that till Obama had never been ruled to be used this way, they will cover the next 80 years of profits from any taxation. If GM is such a model of success then Republicans just want the same deal, we pay no taxes for 80 years and my family's worth would look a lot better too. Obama looks bad when he hangs out with GM and GE CEOs when democrats desire is to tax tax tax the rich and yet there those companies are right next to him paying nothing.

    If you wrote a book and made up stuff like this it nobody would believe the plot.

    So go ahead Mr. President, chose not to pay the social security people and the sick but go right on helping out the government workers and the government pensioners, I don't think my opinion of you could sink any lower anyhow.

    Oh and the Dems had super majorities first two years of Obama and did not pass a budget. Whoever claims they did is another revisionist historian. We are on autopilot with continuing resolution funding which is not a budget. The democrats were too chicken to pass a budget going into the last election knowing it would look bad for them and they still took a beating.
  7. Tristen

    Tristen Senior Member

    Messages:
    613
    Likes:
    421
    Northern Ca. USA
    Yep, it's for that reason (bold) alone that I'm glad you posted this info. I always send off checks for my bills a few days before my direct deposit payday. And why not since they have always been on time for 8 years now. But, I will hold back until the money is there next month. Thanks Tammie.
  8. Wayne

    Wayne Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes:
    1,265
    Ashland, Oregon
    A Little Political and Fiscal History

    Im finding this thread pretty interesting. Given the politics involved, Im actually a little surprised it has stayed as civil as it has. Im going to take a little different direction on this, and not blame (for the most part) either the Republicans or the Democrats. Im instead going to place the blame squarely where I think it belongs; the American electorate.

    Has anybody heard the old story/fable about an ancient king who commissioned his wise men to go out into the world, and collect the wisdom of the ages, and then archive it all? Well, they went out, and after several years they returned. It took several more years to compile it all; ending up with a seven book collection.

    The king was very happy with their achievements, but asked them if they could return to their compilation and perhaps condense these seven volumes down to one. It was quite a task, but eventually they finished this new directive. The king was again very happy, but felt perhaps it could be condensed even more, perhaps to a single chapter.

    Well, this was becoming increasingly challenging for his wise men, but they eventually finished this task as well. The king, who obviously believed in keeping things simple, kept asking them if they could condense it down even further; to a page; and then to a paragraph; and finally to a single sentence. The wise men obviously had to make some pretty major decisions during this whole process, especially getting down to that last sentence. But they finally reached consensus on how best to describe the wisdom of the ages in one sentence. That wisdom?

    There aint no free lunch

    Unfortunately, 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan convinced the American people that everybody could have their taxes reduced by 30%, the defense budget could be dramatically increased, and this would all lead to a balanced budget. George Bush Sr., who ran against Reagan in the primaries, described this all as voodoo economics. Well, this approach of promising the American people something for nothing, that there is such a thing as a free lunch, resulted in $200 billion/year annual deficits throughout his entire presidency, and set the stage for our current debt and deficit problems.

    The American GDP was about 1/5 of what it is today, so those $200 billion per year would be equivalent to about $1 trillion today. Even those deficits were less than reality, as the U.S. Government was raking in hundreds of billions in Social Security revenue, which was then used to make the deficit look smaller. Reagans treasury secretary, when asked about these huge deficits, replied by stating that deficits dont matter".

    George Bush Sr. inherited these annual deficits in 1989, and when a recession hit the country in 1991 or so, they ballooned to $300 billion. Bush, rightly concerned, signed off on some modest tax increases that might reign them in. Much of his Republican base was furious about this, apparently feeling the country should not have to be subjected to new taxes, even though they very much wanted the government benefits.

    Clinton inherited a $300 annual deficit from Bush, and in his first budget to address it, marginally increased some of the tax rates, especially on the wealthy. Republicans unanimously said this was a job killer, and not a single one voted for it. It passed by one vote in the Senate, with Al Gore (as VP) casting the deciding vote. The recession did pass, and the economy did begin to create new jobs. In fact, approximately 20,000,000 were created from then until the end of the decade. Government revenues increased, and Clinton, starting with a $300 billion deficit, passed off a $200+ billion dollar budget surplus to George Bush Jr., a reversal of over a 1/2 trillion dollars annually.

    Bush Jr. right away in 2001 passed what has now become known as the Bush tax cuts, which would amount to $4 trillion dollars less in government revenues over the next decade. Many argue 90%+ of those tax cuts went to the wealthy. What he didnt do, is propose spending cuts as well, so the budget could stay balanced. In fact, he presided over the largest increase in the size of government in our history, but didnt want to pay for it, fiscally or politically. Instead of telling Americans that wars have to be paid for, and asking them to make some sacrifices, he instead told them to just "go shopping", apparently to support the economy.

    The huge budget surplus he inherited quickly turned into an annual budget deficit. When some Republicans began to worry about these deficits, Dick Cheney would argue that Reagan showed us that deficits dont matter. Over the next seven years, almost entirely controlled by a Republican President and Republican Congress, the job creating tax cuts produced large annual deficits, and about 7,000,000 jobs, almost all of which were lost in the ensuing financial crisis.

    Regarding tax cuts and jobs: Marginal increases in tax rates in 1993 still allowed for the creation of 20M jobs in the rest of the decade. Tax cuts in 2001 were followed by virtually no job creation for the entire decade. Are these numbers just coincidental, or does it suggest that perhaps deficits, as a result of Americans expecting something for nothing, are primarily responsible for such a dearth in job creation?

    And what did Bush Jr. hand off to Obama in 2009? The worst financial crisis since the 1930's, 700,000/month job losses, a $1.4 trillion deficit, and a huge national debt, mostly built up during Republican administrations in the past 30 years. I have to say I find it more than a little disingenuous for Republicans to try to pin our country's fiscal problems entirely on the Democrats. I would call it revisionist history.

    Today, thirty years after Reagan foisted voodoo economics on the economy, Americans, on both sides of the aisle, seem to have bought into the notion we can all have something for nothing. I dont think theres a clear understanding by many Americans that all government benefits must be paid for in the true coin. To give just one example, a government cant continue to collect approximately $100,000 in Medicare premiums from Americans, and then pay out on average about $400,000 in benefits.

    Life doesnt work that way. We cant continue to receive benefits from the government that were not willing to pay for. The consequences are profound, and not only for our current economy. If we don't pay for these benefits, future generations will, with interest, and this will be a continuing drag on future economic prospects. I really liked this quote by Parismountain:

    This something for nothing, or entitlement mentality, is something that seems to affect both Republican and Democrats alike. They both have their sacred cows, and dont want to give them up. Their political constituency often doesnt allow them to do so, even if they want to, and its in the best interests of the country for them to buck their party.

    Regarding whether social security checks will go out on time this month. I really dont know who decides what bills get paid and what doesnt if the government is no longer allowed to borrow money. Monthly government income is about $200 billion; legislated outlays are more than $300 billion. I have no idea who decides what bills get paid and what dont. I doubt the President has sole discretion over this, so I can understand his statement that he cant assure that social security checks will go out on shedule. I actually think hes being honest about this. I suspect nobody really knows; were in uncharted territory. I dont think the U.S. government has ever come this close to defaulting on its debts in its entire history.

    Any default on U.S. government obligations would have a devastating impact on many of us on this board, and would send gigantic reverberations throughout the entire U.S. and world economies. I know some tea party people who do not want to raise the debt ceiling no matter what, say these are just scare tactics, but it seems to be the consensus view of most respected economists. Speaking of tea party Republicans, you would probably be shocked to know how many of them have received hundreds of thousands of dollars and far more from the government over the years from Federal farm subsidies, hardly anything more than another government welfare program. I agree with tea party perspectives on the need for fiscal discipline, but they often strike me as more than a bit hypocritical at times.

    To somewhat get back to Tammies points and concerns; ;) I think in the end, major ramifications will likely be averted, but probably not until we go through a few more days of government officials playing chicken or "Russian roulette", or whatever you want to call the childish, irresponsible behavior by politicians on both sides of the aisle. I myself am an independent, but have to agree with some of the things former Republican senator Alan Simpson has said about his Republican colleagues. I will readily blame Democrats when they are being irresponsible, but in this particular case, I have to say the Republicans and their tea party constituency are primarily responsible for this latest crisis.

    Just my own thoughts. Be assured, Im not trying to convince anybody of anything. :Retro smile::angel:

    Best Regards, Wayne
    CJB likes this.
  9. hope love light

    hope love light

    Messages:
    40
    Likes:
    4
    East Coast, US
    Agreed... they don't want to roll back the Bush tax cuts so they are spinning to make it look like Obama is attacking Seniors and the Disabled.
    CJB likes this.
  10. Parismountain

    Parismountain Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes:
    75
    South Carolina
    "Clinton inherited a $300 annual deficit from Bush, and in his first budget to address it, marginally increased some of the tax rates, especially on the wealthy. Republicans unanimously said this was a job killer, and not a single one voted for it. It passed by one vote in the Senate, with Al Gore (as VP) casting the deciding vote. The recession did pass, and the economy did begin to create new jobs. In fact, approximately 20,000,000 were created from then until the end of the decade. Government revenues increased, and Clinton, starting with a $300 billion deficit, passed off a $200+ billion dollar budget surplus to George Bush Jr., a reversal of over a 1/2 trillion dollars annually."

    I don't agree with this assessment. What year of his presidency did Clinton lose the House? The House Republicans dragged Clinton into fiscal sanity (remember welfare reform?). Clinton's surplus was built on the coincidence with the Nasdaq bubble that formed and the projected capital gains taxes that were to come which never materialized when the bubble burst. Republicans should get the credit for changing Clinton's penchant for wanting to spend money to the reality that the house was only going to pass so much in spending. This again is revisionist history.

    Clinton is the start of the Fannie and Freddie fiasco with the abolishment of certain banking practices (like downpayments and proving income) banks were requiring all lenders to have. Fannie and Freddie became dumping grounds for many Dem staffers. Check out what Franklin Raines took home and Jamie Gorelick while thieving the taxpayers. To blame Bush for any economic downturn is a joke when an enormous tidal wave of bad debt was forming under democratic led policies in home lending.

    I'll have to recover the name but there is a new book out you should read by New York Times Pulitzer prize winner on who's to blame in the housing crisis. Found it, Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson.
  11. Wayne

    Wayne Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes:
    1,265
    Ashland, Oregon
    You're saying Clinton's surpluses were "projected capital gains taxes ... that never materialized"? I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it seems to infer there were no budget surpluses in Clinton's last years. I don't think that's accurate.

    You refer to "Clinton's penchant for wanting to spend money". Why no references to Reagan and the Bushes penchant for spending money we didn't have? We've all heard of "tax and spend" Democrats; I've always wondered why we haven't heard more of "tax cut and spend" Republicans, which is what really has created the fiscal mess we're currently facing.

    It seems Republicans have been preaching the gospel of a balanced budget amendment for 30 some years now. But when they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress, you never heard a peep out of them for this amendment. They preferred to tax cut and spend, until we were deep in the hole again. And now we're hearing they want a balanced budget amendment as a condition to sign off on a debt increase ceiling, a ceiling they were more than happy to sign off on when it came to funding Bush's wars, tax cuts, etc.

    You disagree with my assessment of what happened fiscally during the Clinton years. That's fine, but I think my description paints a pretty accurate picture, and I stand behind it. To blame Democrats alone and absolve Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility is just not credible. There's plenty of blame to go around.

    I really don't want to pursue a dialogue or debate of niche topics with anybody on this thread. I painted a broad fiscal portrait of what's happened in this country over the last 30 years, and it shows that Republican's have been responsible for much, if not most, of the debt and deficits that has now reached crisis proportions. They like to claim they're fiscal conservatives, but I believe the record shows them to be fiscally reckless when they are the ones in power.

    As I stated, I was not trying to convince anybody to believe everything I've written. I think what I wrote contains some selected facts, figures and memories. That's all. We all choose different facts and figures to rely on to make overall assessments. My primary message in my prior post was that both Democrats and Republicans have been fiscally irresponsible so they could appeal to their own constituencies. And they've almost bankrupted the nation in the process.

    In the end, it's the American people who demand something for nothing that has gotten us into this fix. Quite honestly, I think it reflects a glaring immaturity for which our country is paying an enormous price. This kind of mentality is not at all in line with the spiritual principle of paying for everything we receive in the true coin. This is what I was trying to illustrate with the story of the king, his wise men, and the wisdom of the ages.

    Regards, Wayne
  12. Parismountain

    Parismountain Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes:
    75
    South Carolina
    Wayne,

    I mentioned "projected capital gains taxes ... that never materialized" I was talking about the 10 year projections the CBO does. I hear it all the time from Democrats how Clinton handed over to Bush a surplus and then they'll add as far as the eye can see and Bush squandered it, what they're doing there is looking at the CBO projections for 1999 looking out ten years. Here's an example http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf if you look on page xii you'll see the revenue column. The revenue projected to come in for the ten year period after Clinton was based on taxes the government was planning to collect in capital gains from a NASDAQ that went from about 800 to 5000. When it went bust the projections proved wrong.

    I find a lot in your post to agree with, "In the end, it's the American people who demand something for nothing that has gotten us into this fix." agree, "There's plenty of blame to go around." agree "if not most" disagree.

    I respect your idea that it's best to end the back and forth on this since we won't change each other's minds. I really fear for the very young because the number of promises about to be broken are beyond the pale. I didn't know if you caught it or not but if you did look at the total amount of earnings families earning over $200,000 a year make for the increment over $200,000 and add that to this years federal tax revenue receipts we still don't have enough to cover this years budget deficit. The idea you can tax the rich to make up for the spending bonanza is just not correct. There are not enough rich people.

    We've been around since 1776 and have accumulated an enormous national debt. The Obama Stimulus plan to keep unemployment under 8% added by itself 9% to the national debt in one bill. So we made it from 1776 to 2008 and then one bill added 9% to the national debt. That fact alone is mind boggling. Well now with the deficits having grown under Obama's 26% discretionary spending hike his first year in if we did another stimulus bill the same dollar amount it would be only 6% of the national debt because the debt has grown so fast.

    Anyhow Peace to you, hope your health improves and we get some medical breakthroughs soon here, times a wasting
  13. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes:
    2,391
    WA, USA
    This should help.

    Huffington Post: Even If He Hadn't Said So, We'd Know the President Is Bluffing

    also appears on CATO

    btw, Tammie asked for politics not to be discussed here. Maybe that can be moved to another thread.
    Tammie, I'm sorry--I usually try not to talk politics here, but when people say harsh things, I try to provide an opposing view so people are getting both sides of the story instead of only the one they hear on the news anyway.

    Edit: oh, I see the politics discussion was already wrapping up. sorry; I hadn't read the posts from today
  14. Tammie

    Tammie Senior Member

    Messages:
    760
    Likes:
    9
    Woodridge, IL
    You are welcome.
  15. Wayne

    Wayne Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes:
    1,265
    Ashland, Oregon
    Well, let's see if I can wrap this up on a lighter note and agree with you on couple of your points. I could not agree more that there are not enough rich people to tax to get us out of our current dilemma. Spending cuts should be the primary emphasis. However..... :angel: I think billionaire Warren Buffett makes a salient point when he says he shouldn't have a lower tax rate than his secretary.

    I was no fan of the stimulus plan, although I could see a certain amount of logic in it, especially given a large portion of it kept many teachers, police and fire fighters from being furloughed. I know Obama has been hammered on this by Republicans, but if I remember correctly, half of this "stimulus" was actually Republican tax breaks they insisted on. Wouldn't that make them at least half responsible for this large amount of added debt?

    Thanks for your well wishes. Peace and better health to you as well, and to everybody on this forum. I was actually trying to help my health today by taking a break from thinking about it while writing my posts, something I feel I need to do at times.

    I've been sort of a political observer for many years, and look at it as sort of a hobby. Instead of getting caught up in it, I try to look at it in terms of a great opportunity to observe national karma (cause and effect) work out on a grand scale. With so many human frailties and shortcomings involved (from both parties), it can be quite a show. ;) But, there are also plenty of members from both parties who display a much greater maturity. Unfortunately, they often get sidelined by the more extreme elements in their party.

    I hope this post doesn't come across, as in Dainty's thread, needing to have the last word. :angel::Retro smile: Today was a more functional day for me that normal, I'm sure primarily because I'm doing sort of a "watermelon fast". When I become more functional, I try to do something a little more fun. Writing today was it. I was trying to write in a way that wouldn't step on any toes, but if it did, my apologies to anybody who felt that way.

    Best Regards, Wayne
  16. Tammie

    Tammie Senior Member

    Messages:
    760
    Likes:
    9
    Woodridge, IL

    Willow, no need to apologize.......While my intent in starting this thread was not to get into a policitcal discussion, I don't really mind that much either (though I sort of hoped it wouldn't, I kind of expected that it would)......my comment re the reason why I started the thread was merely in respone to another poster's statement in which she pretty much said I don't know what i am talking about or the politics behind it......I was just trying to explain that my real intent was partially to vent re my fears and partiallyy to warn others in case it does happen and does impact them

    that said, i appreciate that you stood up for what you thought I wanted : )
  17. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes:
    2,391
    WA, USA
    thank you, and you're welcome :hug:
  18. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    167
    Wyoming
    I agree that there should be spending cuts and taxing that includes the rich. Without both, we won't make it out of this. I guess we need both Republicans and Democrats. Wow, that was hard to admit. And, I think if they let this go too long and people don't get their checks, this would be a rotten thing to do to the people who depend on those checks. If I depended on one of those checks, I would be really upset with both sides right now also. I should have been more understanding about that. Sorry. Let's hope it doesn't come down to that. From what I have read lately, it sounds like they are getting close to coming to some agreement very soon. It probably will be something that both sides don't necessarily want. However, at least it is something.
  19. rwac

    rwac Senior Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes:
    34
    The problem is that Warren Buffet has many many ways to hide money so it won't be taxed, and his secretary doesn't. Many more ways than the rest of us. So any attempt to tax Buffet will hit comparatively lower income people harder. The only way to tax the wealthy is by removing most tax deductions, and decimating the tax code.
  20. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    839
    Likes:
    167
    Wyoming
    If the reference was made to me, no where did I say that someone else did not know what they were talking about or that someone misunderstood. I would never do that. What I did was try to defend the other side because there was only one side referenced in the original post. Much like what other people did here. Also, I would like to point out that I was not the first or the only person to get into the politics of it. That's all I am going to say on this subject. I will keep my mouth shut on this from now on (or fingers, whatever).

    oops, I should quote what I am writing about so there is no misunderstanding: "......was merely in respone to another poster's statement in which she pretty much said I don't know what i am talking about or the politics behind it......I was just trying to explain that my real intent was partially to vent re my fears and partiallyy to warn others in case it does happen and does impact them"

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page