Rookie120 0 #1 January 7, 2010 So with the health care bill moving along I am sitting here today putting things together getting ready to go see my tax man and after adding things up I paid a shitload of money in taxes. Enough money I could almost puke! I cannot believe how much the Govt seems to take but turn around and keep taking more to pay for there bullshit programs. So with health care, welfare, corporate bailouts, stimulus programs, and everything else they piss money away on, if health care passes what do you think the next big spending bill will be that the govt will demand that us tax payers must support for the so called good of the people?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 January 7, 2010 My guess is they will try to salvage the public education system, but it could be universal day care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #3 January 7, 2010 I'd guess the next really big "spending bill" will be another war in about ten years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 January 7, 2010 I sure wouldn't mind a little WPA action.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #5 January 7, 2010 QuoteI sure wouldn't mind a little WPA action. It should have been done instead of this disaster called health reform. So how much of a tax increase are you willing to pay for WPA. I myself say cut spending other places before raising anything. Thats one thing the Govt never seems to be able to do. Cut spending!!!!!!!If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 January 7, 2010 Quote I sure wouldn't mind a little WPA action. Um, wasn't that what was promised with the Stimulus bill? "Shovel Ready Projects!!" was the mantra of the day. Remember? Transparency to see all those jobs "created or saved"!! Recovery.gov citing the preservation of jobs 10 times over for the purchase of a lawn mower! Money to Congressional districts that don't exist!! Yes, more!! Give us more!!!! Here, I'll even quote wiki, which I hate (but so many here give blind credibility to): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration Quote Employment The goal of the WPA was to employ most of the unemployed people on relief until the economy recovered. Harry Hopkins testified to Congress during January 1935 why he set the number at 3.5 million, using Federal Emergency Relief Administration data. Estimating costs at $1200 per worker per year, he asked for and received $4 billion. Many women were employed, but they were few compared to men. Many women were unemployed at this time. "On January 1 there were 20 million persons on relief in the United States. Of these, 8.3 million were children under sixteen years of age; 3.8 million were persons who, though between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five were not working nor seeking work. These included housewives, students in school, and incapacitated persons. Another 750,000 were persons sixty-five years of age or over. Thus, of the total of 20 million persons then receiving relief, 12.85 million were not considered eligible for employment. This left a total of 7.15 million presumably employable persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five inclusive. Of these, however, 1.65 million were said to be farm operators or persons who had some non-relief employment, while another 350,000 were, despite the fact that they were already employed or seeking work, considered incapacitated. Deducting this two million from the total of 7.15 million, there remained 5.15 million persons sixteen to sixty-five years of age, unemployed, looking for work, and able to work. Because of the assumption that only one worker per family would be permitted to work under the proposed program, this total of 5.15 million was further reduced by 1.6 million-- the estimated number of workers who were members of families which included two or more employable persons. Thus, there remained a net total of 3.55 million workers in as many households for whom jobs were to be provided."[11] The WPA employed a maximum of 3.3 million in November 1938.[12] Worker pay was based on three factors: the region of the country, the degree of urbanization, and the individual's skill. It varied from $19/month to $94/month. The goal was to pay the local prevailing wage, but to limit a person to 30 hours or less a week of work. Sounds like a loser to me! Meanwhile, the government is hiring with reckless abandon...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 January 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteI sure wouldn't mind a little WPA action. It should have been done instead of this disaster called health reform. So how much of a tax increase are you willing to pay for WPA. I myself say cut spending other places before raising anything. Thats one thing the Govt never seems to be able to do. Cut spending!!!!!!! How about we cut all the waste in defense contracting.. based on weapons systems that are completely useless to our troops in this war.. but make the defense contractors VERY rich year after year. I think we have enough weapons to take care of ANY forseeable conflicts for years to come... what we need are smarter people to fight our conflicts. It is a wise man who knows when to commit our young people and when not to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #9 January 7, 2010 QuoteHow about we cut all the waste in defense contracting.. If it's waste I'm all for it! Give me some examples. And I don't mean Blackwater or something like that. I already think that bullshit. Quotebased on weapons systems that are completely useless to our troops in this war. Like what?If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,410 #10 January 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHow about we cut all the waste in defense contracting.. If it's waste I'm all for it! Give me some examples. And I don't mean Blackwater or something like that. I already think that bullshit. Quotebased on weapons systems that are completely useless to our troops in this war. Like what? http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/gates-making-se/"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 January 7, 2010 QuoteI sure wouldn't mind a little WPA action. Having recipients of government aid actually work? That's been floated out there for decades, but is not considered appropriate or fair. Add to that the wage that WPA paid - there would be some trouble. Imagine trying to build the Hoover Dam nowadays. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #12 January 7, 2010 QuoteCarbon tax. I don't think they have the balls to bite onto that one. At least I hope they don't.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #13 January 7, 2010 QuoteHaving recipients of government aid actually work? What would you rather have; a guy collecting unemployment for sitting around doing nothing or a guy collecting slightly more while filling pot holes and fixing bridges? To me it all sounds rather obvious.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rookie120 0 #14 January 7, 2010 QuoteWhat would you rather have; a guy collecting unemployment for sitting around doing nothing or a guy collecting slightly more while filling pot holes and fixing bridges? I say there has to be something a guy collecting unemployment can do. Clean up a cemetary, mow grass.If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 January 7, 2010 QuoteQuoteHaving recipients of government aid actually work? What would you rather have; a guy collecting unemployment for sitting around doing nothing or a guy collecting slightly more while filling pot holes and fixing bridges? To me it all sounds rather obvious. Am I that guy, or the taxpayer? If the latter, I'd prefer he is working half time for that money. (full time would make it more difficult to get employed again) If I'm that guy, of course I'd prefer not to do anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #16 January 8, 2010 QuoteMy guess is they will try to salvage the public education system, but it could be universal day care. Personally that is one thing I would not complain about paying some extra taxes on. Our education system is failing and we need to find ways to get more people to pursue a higher education. The benefit from an improved education system, one that actually taught kids instead of patting them on the head and pushing them through regardless of their test scores so we don't hurt their feelings would pay dividends to this country.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 January 9, 2010 QuoteThe benefit from an improved education system, one that actually taught kids instead of patting them on the head and pushing them through regardless of their test scores so we don't hurt their feelings would pay dividends to this country. We used to have that. Read "The Rape of Alma Mater" - quite interesting view from the inside of how the changes took place.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
