Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

This past Monday I got my paycheck. I got a nice raise in November, and guess what .... I am making less than I was before I got my raise because of Obama's little tax raise on a lot of people. A lot of people where I work are just the middle class and lower that live pay check to pay check, and they are very unhappy right now. I guess Obama has forgot how the middle and lower class people have to live. Well how nice for him that he is above most of us in the money department, and alot.png of them up there with him are exempt from what we the people have to follow.

 

A few people that I talked to that voted for him are very sorry they did now, and, I guess I can not blame them.

 

Like I have said before, my friends that have children that do not work, and have never worked and payed tax's, can not even begin to understand what I and their parents feel after having been taxed as we have been.

I've not had a paycheck in seven months. The entire world is in financial crisis. You have a roof over your head and food on the table. The very fact that you are able to post on here shows that you're more than fine, so don't worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post

When the health service in the UK was reorganised a while back (A4C, Kestra, remember that ?) MANY people were expected to take a substantial pay CUT - not "in real terms" - in take home pay. (It was deferred; we had three years to sort ourselves, as I recall - it led to a mass exodus of qualified staff...) My pay cut would have in theory been 30%. I had 19 years service under my belt. I was damn good at my job. I would still have had to pay taxes and pension etc. Which pay for services and roads and stuff I very much value.

 

For the record, my EVIL UNION (LET US ALL SPIT ON THESE LEFT WING COMMUNIST ORGANISATIONS) fought for people in that position and won for many of them. Also for the record, I was pretty low paid. For what I did, when I left, they couldn't find anyone who could do the job who was prepared to accept that censorkip.gif pay scale. My post remains unfilled.

 

But a lot of people had to suck it up and accept that kind of cut. Paying more taxes - which is actually just down to the fact that a TEMPORARY time limited reduction has come to an end in the US - is peanuts. If you pay taxes - heck, you have a pay cheque to pay them ON.

 

I assume those who object are happy to forgo roads, police, and yes - the taxes pay for - the salaries of the armed forces. I don't happen to LIKE the existence of armed forces, but - taxes pay for them to be there.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
This past Monday I got my paycheck. I got a nice raise in November, and guess what .... I am making less than I was before I got my raise because of Obama's little tax raise on a lot of people. A lot of people where I work are just the middle class and lower that live pay check to pay check, and they are very unhappy right now. I guess Obama has forgot how the middle and lower class people have to live. Well how nice for him that he is above most of us in the money department, and alot.png of them up there with him are exempt from what we the people have to follow.

 

A few people that I talked to that voted for him are very sorry they did now, and, I guess I can not blame them.

 

Like I have said before, my friends that have children that do not work, and have never worked and payed tax's, can not even begin to understand what I and their parents feel after having been taxed as we have been.

Isn't this the payroll tax cut that was passed by 2 years ago and was supposed to be temporary? The original tax cut was pushed by Obama. In the new deal, the Congress declined to keep it. So how do you blame Obama for that? This is the deal they worked out. All of them. It's very petty to only hold one side accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Isn't this the payroll tax cut that was passed by 2 years ago and was supposed to be temporary? The original tax cut was pushed by Obama. In the new deal, the Congress declined to keep it. So how do you blame Obama for that? This is the deal they worked out. All of them. It's very petty to only hold one side accountable.

What I said, said better because of knowing the proper US background wording ! Thank you, Vhale.

Share this post


Link to post
Isn't this the payroll tax cut that was passed by 2 years ago and was supposed to be temporary? The original tax cut was pushed by Obama. In the new deal, the Congress declined to keep it. So how do you blame Obama for that? This is the deal they worked out. All of them. It's very petty to only hold one side accountable.

I blame everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I blame your cat avatar! =p

 

Am I the only one amused btw, at the reactions to Wal-Marts big announcement that they are hiring 100,000 veterans. In every article I saw, the first upvoted comment was along the lines of: Well that's what I want to do to reward someone for putting their life on the line for the past 12 years. Give them a minimum wage job with no benefits.

Share this post


Link to post

I would agree, though it is also very nice as well. It can be difficult for a veteran (or anyone actually) to get a job right now. But in a way I agree. You get nothing for minimum wage and no benefits. People don't think of that.

Can't Wal-Mart pay people a little more since it's so huge and stuff?

Share this post


Link to post

They can only if the top1% take a pay cut. A place like Costco pays on average $20+ an hour and it's owner makes 500k a year if what I've heard is correct. Wal-mart is more like 8$ an hour and it's ownerS have more wealth than the bottom 45% of the country. As I understand it, they'd also get a tax break for hiring veterans so, I'm cynical that they are doing anything they wouldn't already be doing just to get a break. I'd suspect some vets would qualify for their own health care too.

Share this post


Link to post

For the low, low cost of $0.46 per shopping trip per consumer ($12.00 per year per shopper), Wal Mart could pay all of its American employees a minimum of $12.00 an hour. And that's if they passed on 100% of the cost of the raise to their customers. Source here.

Edited by WereJace

Share this post


Link to post

Woooooow. I am not excited by that now.

That's what I don't understand about people like that. The CEO's make so much money in a year that they most likely don't need while everyone is struggling to make ends meet in the same thing. Why don't they pay more and/or do something useful with that extra money?

Share this post


Link to post
Woooooow. I am not excited by that now.

That's what I don't understand about people like that. The CEO's make so much money in a year that they most likely don't need while everyone is struggling to make ends meet in the same thing. Why don't they pay more and/or do something useful with that extra money?

Forty-six cents is nothing. No one wants to pay it, so it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
For the low, low cost of $0.46 per shopping trip per consumer ($12.00 per year per shopper), Wal Mart could pay all of its American employees a minimum of $12.00 an hour. And that's if they passed on 100% of the cost of the raise to their customers. Source here.

Given how much America is complaining at paying a little extra cash to fund a health system that will save millions from death and suffering, why would anyone give a crap about Walmart workers?

Share this post


Link to post
Given how much America is complaining at paying a little extra cash to fund a health system that will save millions from death and suffering, why would anyone give a crap about Walmart workers?

Says it all, doesn't it!

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't this the payroll tax cut that was passed by 2 years ago and was supposed to be temporary? The original tax cut was pushed by Obama. In the new deal, the Congress declined to keep it. So how do you blame Obama for that? This is the deal they worked out. All of them. It's very petty to only hold one side accountable.

If we'd just left taxes alone when Bush came into office we wouldn't be having a whole bunch of these problems. We were finally running a budget surplus and we could have paid off the debt the Republicans now can't stop talking about. Instead, Bush settled on a stupid plan that has never been shown to work instead of just continuing with what was already working.

 

Frankly, I'm not one of the ZOMG pay off the debt right now! folks. The deficit's going down, and if we could concentrate on getting people back to work then we'd see that fall a lot faster. But for the people who are laser focused on the debt, I don't know how they think we're going to hurry up and pay it off without cuts, growth and revenues.

 

But I really do think that austerity is not the way we want to address this problem. I also believe that laying everything at the door of the guy who was handed a massive systemic financial crisis and two unpaid for wars is kind of ludicrous.

 

Don't get me wrong, Obama has his problems, but the deficit is coming down, as is per capita government spending, and the economy is recovering, although waaay too slowly, but if we weren't creating fiscal catastrophes for ourselves every few months then that might pick up.

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to agree with Skauble, she pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

 

About the only thing left (for me) would be that until the politicians are removed from politics, change is going to be slow because it is going to remain an uphill struggle. The politicians feel no real need for change because the way the system is currently set up everything is in their favor.

Politicians in my opinion shoul donly be paid minimum wage for BILLABLE hours spent on the job and should have the same health care benefits that we offer our veterans and senior citizens. Serving the country was not ever intended to be a job by our founding fathers. They all had jobs /careers /estates and serving their country was considered an honor and patriotic duty... NOT a paycheck and retirement plan.

 

*nod*

 

 

 

 

(edited for typos... its early *yawn*)

Edited by Tinks.Mess

Share this post


Link to post
I would have to agree with Skauble, she pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

 

About the only thing left (for me) would be that until the politicians are removed from politics, change is going to be slow because it is going to remain an uphill struggle. The politicians feel no real need for change because the way the system is currently set up everything is in their favor.

Politicians in my opinion shoul donly be paid minimum wage for BILLABLE hours spent on the job and should have the same health care benefits that we offer our veterans and senior citizens. Serving the country was not ever intended to be a job by our founding fathers. They all had jobs /careers /estates and serving their country was considered an honor and patriotic duty... NOT a paycheck and retirement plan.

 

*nod*

 

 

 

 

(edited for typos... its early *yawn*)

So much this. The only people in the gorvernment who should be payed more I think would be the 1. President due to the fact that he is not only head of state but has to deal with leaders of other countries. 2. The supreme court justices who aren't voted in but need to be able to focus on understanding the cases brought before them and the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post

Virginia is only supposed to redistrict every 10 years. Its in the state constitution and the last effort was 2011. However they decided to test that during Obama's inauguration: Article One Article Two

 

The state Senate is split 20-20 between Republicans and Democrats. On Monday, while state Sen. Henry Marsh (D) — a 79-year-old civil rights veteran — was reportedly in Washington to attend President Obama’s second inaugural, GOP senators forced through a mid-term redistricting plan that Democrats say will make it easier for Republicans to gain a majority.

 

With Marsh’s absence, Senate Republicans in Richmond had one more vote than Senate Democrats and could push the measure through. The new redistricting map revises the districts created under the 2011 map and would take effect before the next state Senate elections in Virginia and would redraw district lines to maximize the number of safe GOP seats.

 

The move was a surprise to just about everyone, including Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell who has not yet pledged to endorse the new district lines, which must now go through the GOP-controlled House of Delegates and finally across McDonnell’s desk before final approval.

 

So. What is more worrisome? A speech? Or an unconstitutional sneak that removes a vote in order to force a majority?

 

@skauble

One thing that worries me about the anti-social safety net, is I don't think people are being realistic about the effect of technology on jobs. Jobs are... gone. Poof! Entire industries are being gutted. I keep seeing comments that people need to go get engineering training or go into medical, but realistically, those fields WILL get glutted. Anyone that reads Sci-Fi recognizes some basic themes that crop up. What do you do with a population when automation is so good that you simply don't need workers anymore? Can capitalism really co-exist with that when it becomes a reality?

Anywho, article I wanted to share on that topic. Technology's effect on Jobs

Share this post


Link to post

"A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.

...introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown ®, (House Bill 206) would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."

 

“Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.

 

Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison. "

 

OK as a woman I am APPALLED! This is not an argument about abortions in my opinion but rather the government’s rights to CONTROL an individual and what they do or cannot do to their own body. Not to mention the mental issues that these women will have to endure because they are being FORCED by their GOVERNMENT to be an incubator for the purpose of EVIDENCE. NOT just with rape victims but also INCEST!!! My own daughter was molested and just going through the legal system on that experience alone was HELL, she was an innocent child who was ABUSED by a monster of a person. Thankfully years later she is doing very good, she is balanced and well, thankfully there was no fear of conception as she was too young at the time to conceive but OMG had we lived in this state and she had been a few years older ... The thought that they could have the 'RIGHT' to FORCE a person to undergo 9 additional months of minute by minute reminders, the nightmares of feeling the physical proof of the violation moving beneath their skin just INFURIATES ME!!!

Now should the victim of the crime chose to have the child either to keep or put up for adoption that is her right to choose and I would never dream of taking that from her. Yet, this law would FORCE someone who chooses otherwise to have to endure it some more or be considered a FELON and serve time in prison. How many incidents will no longer be reported if something like this happened? How many MONSTERS will roam our streets because of the fear of the victim, imposed upon them by their government, will become a deciding factor on if they should report it?

 

This doesn't even go into what is to become of the ‘EVIDENCE’ when the court is through with it. Does it get put in an evidence locker and shut away with all the other evidence? Does it become a ward of the state? What about medical costs and the expense of raising this child? How about when this child becomes older and learns that not only was it not wanted but that it was FORCED upon its biological mother to USED as evidence against its biological father in a criminal case? Does no one see the mental abuse that this could cause not just the original victim but how this can create an entire plethora of mental issues for the so called 'evidence'?

 

Deep down I cannot believe that this bill will pass but the thought that it was even penned and presented for consideration is inexcusable to me. The thought that they truly believe that they have the right to demand this much control over another person is terrifying because should something even similar to this pass then what is next? What if they pass something which states that they can force the victim to undergo an amniocentesis before they have the right to choose weither or not to terminate the pregnancy? What is next? Will we need to submit our ideas for tattoos to a committee to decide if it is offensive to someone else? Does the government own you? They say the ‘own’ you if you are in the military so does this mean that they can force this upon our soldiers because they volunteered to defend and serve?

 

If something like this should ever pass than I fear for everyone, for where would it end?

 

*edited for spelling*

Edited by Tinks.Mess

Share this post


Link to post

Huh. This was an interesting note from the article: "Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

 

I feel like the rules are broken, you know? Should Congress really have the power to just deny the President the ability to make appointments? I can understand why the government might need a check/balance to avoid the President from engaging in blatent cronyism or making horrifically stupid decisions, but Congress shouldn't be able to just sit on appointments to the point that the President can't even fill the positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Huh. This was an interesting note from the article: "Under the court's decision, 285 recess appointments made by presidents between 1867 and 2004 would be invalid."

 

I feel like the rules are broken, you know? Should Congress really have the power to just deny the President the ability to make appointments? I can understand why the government might need a check/balance to avoid the President from engaging in blatent cronyism or making horrifically stupid decisions, but Congress shouldn't be able to just sit on appointments to the point that the President can't even fill the positions.

Too right. How depressing.

Share this post


Link to post

Remember that Coal Company that forced it's employees to take an unpaid day off to pose at a Romney photo op, then said they'd have to fire them because of Obama? About that...

 

Coal Company Rehires Workers After Pinning Blame For Layoffs On Obama

 

Also, the RNC is working on a plan to change the vote process in blue states so that electoral votes are split. This means that even though a democrat might get the popular vote, they'd lose the election.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...rginia-edition/

 

if Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennsylvania had all adopted this vote-splitting plan, and nothing else had changed, Romney would have garnered 270 electoral votes and won the presidency.

 

2) The principled objection. What the Virginia legislature is contemplating isn’t illegal. States can divvy up their electoral votes however they want. Nebraska and Maine both do it (although in practice these states rarely end up splitting their votes). What’s different here is that Virginia is a big state with heavily gerrymandered districts.

 

virginia2012aGerrymandering, after all, helps explain why Obama won a majority of votes in Virginia but only carried four of its eleven congressional districts. Most of the state’s Democratic voters are packed into a small handful of districts (right). This isn’t unusual. Politicians in many states and in both parties engage in this sort of line-drawing. But under a plan like Carrico’s, presidential elections would now be heavily affected by whichever state parties happen to be in power when district maps are redrawn. Gerrymandering would influence presidential races, too.

 

Now, it’s not clear yet that Carrico’s bill will actually pass the full Virginia state Senate or the House of Delegates — at least Republican thinks it’s a dubious plan, and her opposition could be enough to kill the bill. But if it does pass, some observers are wondering if a scheme like this could ultimately undermine the whole electoral college system. “Gerrymandering the [electoral college],” notes Josh Barro, “will turn it into an unstable institution that will eventually have to be abolished.”

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   1 member