Fiscal Cliff?

[Ibanez]

In my section of the county, you can live like a king on $250. My brother and his wife make over $250K, but they are smart. They live within thier means, have no kids, minimal debt (a house, some student loans and a car). I wouldn't say rich. They are "well to do." To me, rich is when you wake up and money is being made for you without you doing anything i.e. ROI.

[AZGrizFan]

And Clenzy, isn't your degree in Social Work, or some other low/non-paying field like that?

Can you live comfortably on what you make now?

Would you really argue that making 250k a year isn't "rich". Wealthy? No. Rich? I'd say so.

Also, my degree was not social work...I think the social work system is fucked beyond belief with politics and bureaucratic bull shit. and is wildly inefficiency. I could tell you the differences of what my degree is compared to social work, but you're one of those that would still go "So....you're a social worker".


Also also....I don't work in my degree field. I am a manager for the retail company I work for...entry level manager, but manager none the less. I'm not saying, nor do I think, I should be paid 250k right now...or likely ever.


Wouldn't someone with an income of 250K still take home about 165k of that?


This isn't about taxes, or anything like that. 250k is a lot of live off of...if one decides to spend more than they make per year, that doesn't mean it isn't a lot of money

My only point regarding your degree was you CHOSE a degree field that pays like shit. Much like teachers and social workers and journalism majors, they get a degree and then act shocked when they get offered $28,000 per year to start.

$250k isn't wealthy or rich. It's comfortable. But it's not like those people making $250k are putting away $10,000 every month in some offshore account. And $165k take home might break the bank in Iowawesome, but try living in decent housing in NJ, NY, San Francisco, etc. where the equivalent housing (as Iowa) costs 8x as much and taxes ALONE on a property are $1,500/month. You just can't make a blanket statement that $165 take home makes someone automatically rich.

Now, in AZ, one could do alright, I suppose...

[clenz]

Can you live comfortably on what you make now?

Would you really argue that making 250k a year isn't "rich". Wealthy? No. Rich? I'd say so.

Also, my degree was not social work...I think the social work system is fucked beyond belief with politics and bureaucratic bull shit. and is wildly inefficiency. I could tell you the differences of what my degree is compared to social work, but you're one of those that would still go "So....you're a social worker".


Also also....I don't work in my degree field. I am a manager for the retail company I work for...entry level manager, but manager none the less. I'm not saying, nor do I think, I should be paid 250k right now...or likely ever.


Wouldn't someone with an income of 250K still take home about 165k of that?


This isn't about taxes, or anything like that. 250k is a lot of live off of...if one decides to spend more than they make per year, that doesn't mean it isn't a lot of money

My only point regarding your degree was you CHOSE a degree field that pays like shit. Much like teachers and social workers and journalism majors, they get a degree and then act shocked when they get offered $28,000 per year to start.

$250k isn't wealthy or rich. It's comfortable. But it's not like those people making $250k are putting away $10,000 every month in some offshore account. And $165k take home might break the bank in Iowawesome, but try living in decent housing in NJ, NY, San Francisco, etc. where the equivalent housing (as Iowa) costs 8x as much and taxes ALONE on a property are $1,500/month. You just can't make a blanket statement that $165 take home makes someone automatically rich.

Now, in AZ, one could do alright, I suppose...

That's their fault for living in such a shitty fucked up area that a studio apartment costs more than my 3 bedroom house.

[AZGrizFan]

My only point regarding your degree was you CHOSE a degree field that pays like shit. Much like teachers and social workers and journalism majors, they get a degree and then act shocked when they get offered $28,000 per year to start.

$250k isn't wealthy or rich. It's comfortable. But it's not like those people making $250k are putting away $10,000 every month in some offshore account. And $165k take home might break the bank in Iowawesome, but try living in decent housing in NJ, NY, San Francisco, etc. where the equivalent housing (as Iowa) costs 8x as much and taxes ALONE on a property are $1,500/month. You just can't make a blanket statement that $165 take home makes someone automatically rich.

Now, in AZ, one could do alright, I suppose...

That's their fault for living in such a shitty fucked up area that a studio apartment costs more than my 3 bedroom house.

And the only reason you live there is because your parents lived there.

See how that works? Do you want all those jackwads moving to Iowa and fucking it up?

Didn't think so.

edit: and apology accepted.

[clenz]

That's their fault for living in such a shitty fucked up area that a studio apartment costs more than my 3 bedroom house.

And the only reason you live there is because your parents lived there.

See how that works? Do you want all those jackwads moving to Iowa and fucking it up?

Didn't think so.

edit: and apology accepted.

I'm leaving the state in the next two years....IDGAF.

[AZGrizFan]

And the only reason you live there is because your parents lived there.

See how that works? Do you want all those jackwads moving to Iowa and fucking it up?

Didn't think so.

edit: and apology accepted.

I'm leaving the state in the next two years....IDGAF.

What a check valve.

[clenz]

I'm leaving the state in the next two years....IDGAF.

What a check valve.

For an opportunity for more than double my income down the road....I thought you'd be proud of something like that.


I'll never be 250K rich, but I can dream, right?

[AZGrizFan]

What a check valve.

For an opportunity for more than double my income down the road....I thought you'd be proud of something like that.


I'll never be 250K rich, but I can dream, right?

Leaving the state is one thing. Not giving a fuck how it's left is the check valve part, junior.

[Ibanez]

Anyway, lets get on track again.

The GOP Proposal:Source- http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation

Obama's deficit-reduction plan would increase tax revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years, a significant cut of a $4 trillion overall deficit reduction goal. In addition to adding a $50 billion stimulus package, his proposal closes loopholes, limits deductions, raises the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increases tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

[AZGrizFan]

And both partie's golden gooses go untouched. Entitlement programs for the donks, defense spending for the conks.

Fuckin' politicians.

[Ibanez]

And both partie's golden gooses go untouched. Entitlement programs for the donks, defense spending for the conks.

Fuckin' politicians, Tea Partiers and Grover Norquist.

FIFY

[Grizalltheway]

For an opportunity for more than double my income down the road....I thought you'd be proud of something like that.


I'll never be 250K rich, but I can dream, right?

Leaving the state is one thing. Not giving a fuck how it's left is the check valve part, junior.

Dude, it's IOWA. It'd be a different story if he were leaving a state worth a damn, like Montana.

[Pwns]

I think GF might be right. Best to let the tax cuts expire for the top 1% so the people can see it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

When the minimum income you have to have to be considered "rich" slowly starts creeping downward, people will start turning on the democrats.

[AZGrizFan]

I think GF might be right. Best to let the tax cuts expire for the top 1% so the people can see it's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

When the minimum income you have to have to be considered "rich" slowly starts creeping downward, people will start turning on the democrats.

Well, when that number is already down to $250k, people should ALREADY be turning on them.

[dbackjon]

Besides the spending in each department, they could eliminate some departments also. So, yes...reduce gov.

Like TSA....

Why TSA? What do you have against Safe Flying? Are you saying you don't want any security at the airport?

[dbackjon]

I didn't vote for him but I disagree. You are upset your Mormon lost. You will s we that he isn't going to destroy the country.

Congress has a greater chance of doing that.

Don't be fooled, Mark. He's TRYING. Of course, your last sentence is DEFINITELY true. Idiots like Frank, Reid, Feinstein, and Pelosi are doing MUCH more than Obama on THAT score....

You honestly fucking think that Obama, et al WANTS to destroy this country? Jesus fucking Christ that is idiotic.

[Ibanez]

I didn't vote for him but I disagree. You are upset your Mormon lost. You will s we that he isn't going to destroy the country.

Congress has a greater chance of doing that.

Don't be fooled, Mark. He's TRYING. Of course, your last sentence is DEFINITELY true. Idiots like Frank, Reid, Feinstein, and Pelosi are doing MUCH more than Obama on THAT score....

You're such an idiot. You're the fool. Obama did not become POTUS, rescue the auto and banking industries just to turn around and destroy it.

Christ, you can't be this stupid.

[Wedgebuster]

Entitlements is now a very dirty word.

Let us study the meaning of the word, as per websters-

a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


When referencing Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, the definition actually fits the definition described at the top, A and B. These programs have been subscribed to, taxes paid into, and thereby they are earned benefits, the recipients are in fact entitled to them. Conks, and Fox talking heads are constantly calling for cutting of entitlements, in other words, taking something away from people who have paid for and earned the benefit. Woe be the party that first comes out an puts their stamp on squelching on Social Security and Medicare, that is why ABSOLUTELY NO PARTY HAS PUT ANY REAL INFORMATION ON THE TABLE REGARDING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, and no party will since Republicans do not want that pinned on them and Democrats sure as hell are not going that direction.

Republicans are just as staunch about not continuing the Bush tax cuts for those making over a quarter million a year, I wonder which approach most appeals to the middle class.




We are going over the cliff, big deal, it is all political bullshit and the party that appears to be in a free falling tailspin right now can either bail out with their parachute now, or pour the coals to her and hit the ground harder and faster.

Carry on MB pundits, seems you all about got this rationalized and figured out.

[AZGrizFan]

Entitlements is now a very dirty word.

Let us study the meaning of the word, as per websters-

a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


When referencing Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, the definition actually fits the definition described at the top, A and B. These programs have been subscribed to, taxes paid into, and thereby they are earned benefits, the recipients are in fact entitled to them. Conks, and Fox talking heads are constantly calling for cutting of entitlements, in other words, taking something away from people who have paid for and earned the benefit. Woe be the party that first comes out an puts their stamp on squelching on Social Security and Medicare, that is why ABSOLUTELY NO PARTY HAS PUT ANY REAL INFORMATION ON THE TABLE REGARDING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, and no party will since Republicans do not want that pinned on them and Democrats sure as hell are not going that direction.

Well, wedgie....unless SOMETHING is done all us gullable saps under the age of 60 won't get any of the money WE are entitled to that WE paid into the system because it'll be fucking BROKE.

Is that really that difficult to understand? Are the current beneficiaries MORE entitled to the money they paid in than WE are? And REFORMING entitlement isn't "squelching" (whatever the fuck THAT means) on social security...it's making minor course changes to maintain a financially viable system for those who've paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars but have little to no shot of ever actually SEEING any of that money come back in our golden years.

[UNI88]

Entitlements is now a very dirty word.

Let us study the meaning of the word, as per websters-

a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


When referencing Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, the definition actually fits the definition described at the top, A and B. These programs have been subscribed to, taxes paid into, and thereby they are earned benefits, the recipients are in fact entitled to them. Conks, and Fox talking heads are constantly calling for cutting of entitlements, in other words, taking something away from people who have paid for and earned the benefit. Woe be the party that first comes out an puts their stamp on squelching on Social Security and Medicare, that is why ABSOLUTELY NO PARTY HAS PUT ANY REAL INFORMATION ON THE TABLE REGARDING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, and no party will since Republicans do not want that pinned on them and Democrats sure as hell are not going that direction.

Well, wedgie....unless SOMETHING is done all us gullable saps under the age of 60 won't get any of the money WE are entitled to that WE paid into the system because it'll be **** BROKE.

Is that really that difficult to understand? Are the current beneficiaries MORE entitled to the money they paid in than WE are? And REFORMING entitlement isn't "squelching" (whatever the **** THAT means) on social security...it's making minor course changes to maintain a financially viable system for those who've paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars but have little to no shot of ever actually SEEING any of that money come back in our golden years.

And on top of that ...

Just because someone paid into SS and medicare doesn't mean they paid for all of their benefits. I don't have the exact figures but the amount that the average person paid into SS and the return on investment that it earned does not add up to the benefits they are receiving. The difference is an entitlement and as Gannonfan has pointed out in another thread that entitlement is currently be borrowed and will be paid with taxes on income earned by those people's kids and grandkids.

It's a giant ponzi scheme run by the government. And unless something is done to fix the problem those grandkids are not going to see any benefits regardless of how much they put in.

Maybe grandma & grandpa should be honest that they haven't paid for all of the benefits they're receiving and a little embarrassed about taking money their grandkids haven't even earned yet.

[AZGrizFan]

I just want OUT. I'm 50. Let me out of the SS and Medicare ponzi schemes NOW. Keep all the money I've paid in. Give me back those thousands of dollars a year going forward and I will do what I want to ensure I am taken care of.

[houndawg]

Entitlements is now a very dirty word.

Let us study the meaning of the word, as per websters-

a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement


When referencing Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, the definition actually fits the definition described at the top, A and B. These programs have been subscribed to, taxes paid into, and thereby they are earned benefits, the recipients are in fact entitled to them. Conks, and Fox talking heads are constantly calling for cutting of entitlements, in other words, taking something away from people who have paid for and earned the benefit. Woe be the party that first comes out an puts their stamp on squelching on Social Security and Medicare, that is why ABSOLUTELY NO PARTY HAS PUT ANY REAL INFORMATION ON THE TABLE REGARDING CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, and no party will since Republicans do not want that pinned on them and Democrats sure as hell are not going that direction.

Well, wedgie....unless SOMETHING is done all us gullable saps under the age of 60 won't get any of the money WE are entitled to that WE paid into the system because it'll be **** BROKE.

Is that really that difficult to understand? Are the current beneficiaries MORE entitled to the money they paid in than WE are? And REFORMING entitlement isn't "squelching" (whatever the **** THAT means) on social security...it's making minor course changes to maintain a financially viable system for those who've paid in hundreds of thousands of dollars but have little to no shot of ever actually SEEING any of that money come back in our golden years.

Remove the income cap on SS taxes and we're good for another 60 years.

[Grizalltheway]

Alright Z, show us ONE inkling of evidence that SS will "go broke" in your lifetime, or hell, even MINE. I'll wait.

[AZGrizFan]

Remove the income cap on SS taxes and we're good for another 60 years.

Yeah. So NOW I can pay even MORE of my $$ into a ponzi scheme.

Double down, eh? You related to Barry?

[AZGrizFan]

Alright Z, show us ONE inkling of evidence that SS will "go broke" in your lifetime, or hell, even MINE. I'll wait.

According to a new analysis from USA Today, American households are now on the hook for $534,000 to pay for the county’s debt and the unfunded obligations, or excess costs, for programs like Social Security and Medicare.

USA Today reveals the eye-popping numbers for the federal government’s mounting fiscal problems. A staggering $5.3 trillion was added to the government’s tab last year, putting the overall figure at an astonishing $61.6 trillion.

The report offers fresh evidence that the time to act is now. Entitlement programs, in particular, are driving the debt crisis, despite what some in Congress and the White House would have you believe.

USA Today puts the increase for Medicare at $1.8 trillion. Social Security wasn’t far behind with $1.4 trillion increase.

Do you know what an unfunded obligation is? Do you know how REAL companies, who are required to follow REAL accounting rules, have to account for unfunded obligations?

This fairy-tale accounting method used by our federal govenment is a fucking joke. They're the ONLY organization allowed to operate this way. Hell, even state governments have to balance a budget.