• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: Like families, govt to make hard choices

Analyst

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
131
Reaction score
39
Location
Seattle, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Obama: Like families, govt to make hard choices

AP, WASHINGTON – Families are making tough decisions about their money and so too will their government, President Barack Obama said Saturday, promising that spending cuts are coming — and soon.

At a Cabinet meeting Monday, the president will ask department and agency heads for specific proposals for trimming their budgets.

I'm so confused. :confused: Is this the same President who just spent trillions on economic "stimulus"? I can't read any more. I just can't.

This is utter fail. It reminds me of that crazy henchwoman in Austin Powers 2:

"Lies. ALL LIIIIIEEESSS!!!" :rolleyes:
 
hmm, i think i'm going to call Merriam-Webster and tell them i found a perfect example for the word "contradiction" :doh
 
It makes sense. When you waste two trillion dollars, you end up having to tighten your belt.

Even if it means cutting useful programs.

Just wish they would have made some hard choices earlier in the year.
 
Obama: Like families, govt to make hard choices



I'm so confused. :confused: Is this the same President who just spent trillions on economic "stimulus"? I can't read any more. I just can't.

This is utter fail. It reminds me of that crazy henchwoman in Austin Powers 2:

"Lies. ALL LIIIIIEEESSS!!!" :rolleyes:


What do you think would have happened had not this money been allocated? I bet a lot of 401ks that retirees rely on for income would be hurting real bad.
 
What do you think would have happened had not this money been allocated? I bet a lot of 401ks that retirees rely on for income would be hurting real bad.

I seriously doubt that would have happened and even if it did the government does not exist to secure your retirement.

A cursory knowledge on retirement planning tells you to diversify your investments in case of situations like this. If they put all their eggs in one basket let them suffer the consequences.
 
Why should other people have to pay for your retierment. If you spent your entire life living above your means and not saving ar saving dumbly like all in one place than why should others pay for you mistakes.
 
Yeah, great argument.

Except that Social Security isn't "other people paying for your retirement", because you paid into it for forty years. Pension plans are not "other people paying for your retirement," because you've worked for decades for the same employer and that is part of your compensation package.

And in case you didn't notice, our little economic crash here wiped out nearly half of the planet's wealth. It doesn't matter how well you've diversified your holdings, if you had a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of last year, you took a hit.

You know, part of this "personal responsibility" ethic that people keep throwing around as if it's a silver bullet-- a miraculous counter-argument against any and all government action-- is that if a person behaves responsibly and does what they are supposed to do, they will be rewarded.

When the majority of wealth in this country is held by a class of parasites who are compensated completely out of proportion to their contributions to either their employer or society, calling for "personal responsibility" and blaming hard-working American families for the hardships they suffer isn't just disingenuous, it is despicable.
 
Except SS is toast, been toast, and no one does anything about it.
 
Certainly can't argue with that. I just hate the way "responsibility" has been turned into just another political buzzword that means, essentially, the opposite of what it means in English.

When someone works hard and invests money for retirement, they are being responsible and should be rewarded for it. When someone rips off a pension fund to line their own pockets or gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to run a company into the ground, they should be held responsible for it. That is what "responsibility" means, and that is the kind of responsibility that I want to see our governments and our corporations and every other social institution in this country uphold.
 
I'm just glad they're back in session this week so they can cut out some of the spending in their new spending proposals.
 
Certainly can't argue with that. I just hate the way "responsibility" has been turned into just another political buzzword that means, essentially, the opposite of what it means in English.

When someone works hard and invests money for retirement, they are being responsible and should be rewarded for it. When someone rips off a pension fund to line their own pockets or gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars to run a company into the ground, they should be held responsible for it. That is what "responsibility" means, and that is the kind of responsibility that I want to see our governments and our corporations and every other social institution in this country uphold.

The people who have contributed to Social Security have had plenty of opportunity to unseat all of the people who have spent the money.

That money has already been spent on those who contributed through tax credits and other government programs.

At this point Social Security is a welfare fund.
 
And in case you didn't notice, our little economic crash here wiped out nearly half of the planet's wealth.

I've heard that and similar statements made frequently lately. It's a very interesting argument when you think about it... and rather odd. Because the fact of the matter is that little of material value has disappeared during this economic 'crisis.' No property has gone missing. No homes, planes, trains, or automobiles have disappeared. No gold or treasure has vanished from our vaults. The grain is still in the silos and the oil is still in the tankers. Some of these things may have changed hands. But on balance, it's all still here. So by any real standard, the idea that 'nearly half the planet's wealth' has been suddenly wiped out is quite puzzling... because the obvious conclusion that all that so-called 'wealth' never truly existed in the first place.

:shock:
 
I've heard that and similar statements made frequently lately. It's a very interesting argument when you think about it... and rather odd. Because the fact of the matter is that little of material value has disappeared during this economic 'crisis.' No property has gone missing. No homes, planes, trains, or automobiles have disappeared. No gold or treasure has vanished from our vaults. The grain is still in the silos and the oil is still in the tankers. Some of these things may have changed hands. But on balance, it's all still here. So by any real standard, the idea that 'nearly half the planet's wealth' has been suddenly wiped out is quite puzzling... because the obvious conclusion that all that so-called 'wealth' never truly existed in the first place.

:shock:

Exactly, this was a bubble that is by definition is an unsupportable inflation in perceived value.

It was wiped out and the fools got caught in it.
 
Yeah, great argument.

Except that Social Security isn't "other people paying for your retirement", because you paid into it for forty years. Pension plans are not "other people paying for your retirement," because you've worked for decades for the same employer and that is part of your compensation package.

And in case you didn't notice, our little economic crash here wiped out nearly half of the planet's wealth. It doesn't matter how well you've diversified your holdings, if you had a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of last year, you took a hit.

You know, part of this "personal responsibility" ethic that people keep throwing around as if it's a silver bullet-- a miraculous counter-argument against any and all government action-- is that if a person behaves responsibly and does what they are supposed to do, they will be rewarded.

When the majority of wealth in this country is held by a class of parasites who are compensated completely out of proportion to their contributions to either their employer or society, calling for "personal responsibility" and blaming hard-working American families for the hardships they suffer isn't just disingenuous, it is despicable.

Everyone with a brain knows that SS is a joke and if you were counting on that to retire on you are a idiot. And while I agree that in lots of cases people will suffer over the crash of the economy it is not the job of the Govs to make sure that everyone can retire comfortable. Do I feel sorry for those people yes do I want lots of tax dollars going to them so people can retire no. The govs job is to make sure everyone can pursue happiness not guarantee that you get there.
 
Government isn't designed to make hard choices. They are designed to do what is deemed popular by ignorant masses or the arrogant few depending on the circumstances. Government does what is easy for the short-term, what garners votes.

There is no such thing as venturing into something labeled 'political suicide' even if it is the right thing. Screw all the morons that say 'country first'. There is no such thing as country first because if that was the case instead of this facade of country first, we wouldn't be in this mess.
 
What do you think would have happened had not this money been allocated? I bet a lot of 401ks that retirees rely on for income would be hurting real bad.

Unfortunately, the stimulus didn't go towards helping those people, at least not directly. I am a pension analyst and one of my duties is to keep very close tabs on any changes that are made to the IRS code. There has as yet been nothing implemented that will prop up the losses to 401k's. There were some changes made that will eventually benefit select groups of people (such as relaxing the standards for retirees for such things as Required Minimum Distributions), but as is typical with any government changes, no clear direction has been provided to administrators and so virtually none of these have been put into practice yet.

I agree that some retirees got royally screwed, that and the many folks who have lost their jobs are the ones I feel terribly sorry for..and if it were me, I'd be pissed (heck, I'm pissed anyway).

My wife's friend had a primary profession in real estate and a secondary profession in retail management. When the real estate bubble burst, changes at the office where she worked forced her to seek new employment (they removed all base pay, only paying out commissions). She applied to her backup profession without bites for weeks, only to finally talk to someone and find out that she was likely not even be considered because she did not have a master's degree in business management. Apparently they get so many applications, they only bother to review those with advanced degrees - even for a 35-60k/year position. *boggle* She's now running parts for an auto dealership, which is roughly akin to the job I had in high school.

I reviewed an account the other day where the participant had lost over half of his 1.2 million life savings. That's not typical, it's usually closer to 1/3 or less, but it's brutal no matter what.

What needed to happen was to get tough on the perpetrator's of this nightmare (read: axe, then replace them ALL), severely cut government spending (not increase it more than any administration ever has), and roll up our sleeves and all bust our butts until we're clear of this mess. Instead, we're saddled with crushing debt for years to come.
 
Yeah, great argument.

Except that Social Security isn't "other people paying for your retirement", because you paid into it for forty years.

Actually, that's exactly what it is.

It's the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, and the latecomers to the game are going to get screwed, as happens in all pyramid scams.

And in case you didn't notice, our little economic crash here wiped out nearly half of the planet's wealth. It doesn't matter how well you've diversified your holdings, if you had a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of last year, you took a hit.

What I noticed was that it wasn't the taxpayer's duty to protect those investors.

For some reason my children, less than ten years old, are now saddled with the bill the collectivists in Washington working for the bankers.

You know, part of this "personal responsibility" ethic that people keep throwing around as if it's a silver bullet-- a miraculous counter-argument against any and all government action-- is that if a person behaves responsibly and does what they are supposed to do, they will be rewarded.

Don't know nothing about that. Where'd the weird idea come from that a person can be as ignorant, as irresponsible, and as whiny as he likes, and the taxpayer will just have to bail his sorry butt out?

When the majority of wealth in this country is held by a class of parasites who are compensated completely out of proportion to their contributions to either their employer or society, calling for "personal responsibility" and blaming hard-working American families for the hardships they suffer isn't just disingenuous, it is despicable.

Well, if you're not willing to line the socialists and collectivists up in front a brick wall and hose them will bullets, what's your plan for restoring Constitutional governance to America?
 
Hey now...
Cutting maybe 100 million dollars out of the 3 trillion you spent before you spend another 3 trillion is the the greatest savings plan ever!

If you don't agree then you're a racist.
 
It's the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, and the latecomers to the game are going to get screwed, as happens in all pyramid scams.

It wasn't intended to be. It was established as a separate trust, which our Congress has subsequently-- and irresponsibly-- looted for decades. If the Social Security fund had been held, well, secure as was promised, it would still be solvent.

Of course, that does nothing to address that the ratio of people paying into Social Security to people drawing benefits is plummeting and that the program cannot survive this. Government did not anticipate either the increase in life expectancy or the fall of the birth rate.

What I noticed was that it wasn't the taxpayer's duty to protect those investors.

For some reason my children, less than ten years old, are now saddled with the bill the collectivists in Washington working for the bankers.

That's what happens when government spends more than it collects. Something that our citizens should think about when they spend so much time whining about our taxes-- especially when the majority of the people whining actually pay the smallest fraction of the tax burden.

Something I've noticed. Most of the people calling for "flat tax" and "fair tax" and clamoring for more tax breaks are people who aren't even close to the top tax bracket. Most days, it seems like I'm the only poor working stiff I know who realizes just how little I pay in tax.

Don't know nothing about that. Where'd the weird idea come from that a person can be as ignorant, as irresponsible, and as whiny as he likes, and the taxpayer will just have to bail his sorry butt out?

Personally, I'd like to know where the Hell you get off calling people who saved and invested responsibly for their retirement, or their childrens' college funds-- and whose wealth was destroyed by people who, even without government assistance, would still be wealthier than any of us have ever been-- "ignorant, irresponsible, and whiny."

As far as I am concerned, people like you who are supporting the right of the corporations and their top shareholders and executives-- the ultra-rich whose only contribution to society is being ultra-rich-- to do whatever they want and to gain profits at the expense of the rest of society are part of the problem. You are like dogs who lick the master's hand while he's beating you.

Well, if you're not willing to line the socialists and collectivists up in front a brick wall and hose them will bullets, what's your plan for restoring Constitutional governance to America?

If our government were limited to functioning within your narrow and largely unfounded interpretation of the Constitution, our nation would be ruined-- enslaved to the globalists and the multinational corporations as surely as if we had allowed the liberals to sell us out to the WTO and the UN.

If we want to have any hope of saving our nation, we have to encourage our government to behave responsibly-- which means spending money wisely, supporting programs that enrich and protect the American people, and most importantly, collecting enough in taxes to pay for it.
 
Personally, I'd like to know where the Hell you get off calling people who saved and invested responsibly for their retirement, or their childrens' college funds-- and whose wealth was destroyed by people who, even without government assistance, would still be wealthier than any of us have ever been-- "ignorant, irresponsible, and whiny."

As far as I am concerned, people like you who are supporting the right of the corporations and their top shareholders and executives-- the ultra-rich whose only contribution to society is being ultra-rich-- to do whatever they want and to gain profits at the expense of the rest of society are part of the problem. You are like dogs who lick the master's hand while he's beating you.

:agree

This is perhaps the most spot-on observation I've yet read on these boards. Well said, sir.
 
It wasn't intended to be.

That's exactly what it was intended to be.

Not only that, there's absolutely no constitutional basis for it. It's unconstitutional and hence illegal.

Personally, I'd like to know where the Hell you get off calling people who saved and invested responsibly for their retirement, or their childrens' college funds-- and whose wealth was destroyed by people who, even without government assistance, would still be wealthier than any of us have ever been-- "ignorant, irresponsible, and whiny."

It's called the First Amendment. Also, they lost their money. Boo hoo hoo. That doesn't give them the right to take someone else's money to make up for it.

And of course they were ignorant. They didn't get out when the market started getting flaky, did they? And of course they're irresponsible, if they think someone else should be covering their asses now. And certainly they're whiny.


As far as I am concerned, people like you who are supporting the right of the corporations and their top shareholders and executives-- the ultra-rich whose only contribution to society is being ultra-rich-- to do whatever they want and to gain profits at the expense of the rest of society are part of the problem. You are like dogs who lick the master's hand while he's beating you.

It's suppoesd to be a free country. That means people who have money are free to use it as they please. If someone has more money than I do, and there's plenty of those, that's their business, not mine, and not yours.

The government shouldn't bail them out, shouldn't loan them money, and shouldn't treat those people any different than any other citizen in any way. Read the Fourteenth Amendment if this concept is new to you.

If our government were limited to functioning within your narrow and largely unfounded interpretation of the Constitution, our nation would be ruined-- enslaved to the globalists and the multinational corporations as surely as if we had allowed the liberals to sell us out to the WTO and the UN.

"unfounded"...ah, you must mean that you haven't read the Constitution, therefore you can't find what I'm talking about.

If we want to have any hope of saving our nation, we have to encourage our government to behave responsibly-- which means spending money wisely, supporting programs that enrich and protect the American people, and most importantly, collecting enough in taxes to pay for it.

We have no hope of saving this nation. Because it will continue to do what you say here instead of obeying the Constitution.
 
Now. What "hard choices" is Obama going to be making?

Oh, he's going to cut WOW one hundred million dollars maybe from the budget. That's just sooooo difficult, isn't it? The federal budget is three terabucks, (that's three million megabucks) and he's going to cut a hundred megabucks out of it.

Let's see...that's 3,000,000 - 100 = 2,999,900 megabucks left in the budget.

That's such a desperate deed, I can't believe he's taking such an enormous risk. I mean, it's impressive. What family with an income of $60,000 could afford something like that? I mean, cutting the family budget by two whole dollars? That's incredibly difficult, isn't it? what are they going to have to do without to cover for it? Skip Netflix for a week? Drink five beers one night, instead of the whole sixpack? Wow, Obama is soooo impressive, isn't he?
 
A hundred million dollars? Piffle.

Cut:

National Endowment for the Arts - it's up to what, $250 million or so?
National Endowment for the Humanities - it's in the hundreds of millions, right?
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - There's a free market in TV and radio, the federal government has no business taking market share. Terminate the project, auction the assets.


Jeez, there's tons and tons of other equally completely unconstitutional items in the federal budget. Cut them.
 
Back
Top Bottom