FW: Bite the Bullet. an interesting perspective

Subject: FW: Bite the Bullet. an interesting perspective



Subject: Bite the Bullet. an interesting perspective







Biting the bullet on expenses . . .
 
The President ordered the cabinet to cut a whopping $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget!
 
I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, medicine, bills, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting ax, go line by line through my expenses, and go to work.
 
I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio -1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2000 a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents!
 
Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries.
 
John P. Taxpayer

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pretty sure this is old, cause the whole "100 million" thing was from like 2 years ago.

As for "sacrifice", somehow I doubt whoever wrote this is really interested in sacrificing anything to cut the deficit. If you tried to raise their taxes they would cry bloody murder. If you tried to cut their SS, medicare, or any other program which they benefited from, they would raise holy hell.

Valeyard said...

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs says the Republican plan for deep spending cuts will hurt the economy (for what their opinion's worth).

And the CBO says that the Republican plan to make the Bush tax cuts permanent will bankrupt the country sometime in the next few decades as medical costs rise.

In fact, a new CBO report says the recovery act added 1.3 to 3.5 million jobs.

gruaud said...

Yet you think tax cuts for billionaires is awesome.

Hey, John Q. Public -- do you realize that restoring the marginal tax rate on the filthy rich would generate over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years?

Do you realize that taxing corporations and the churches would also generate trillions of dollars over the next 10 years?

Do you realize that there's an elephant crapping in your living room and he's telling you to ignore it?

Anonymous said...

Hey, John Q. Public -- do you realize that restoring the marginal tax rate on the filthy rich would generate over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years? - not if they leave

Do you realize that taxing corporations and the churches would also generate trillions of dollars over the next 10 years? - not if they leave

Do you realize that there's an elephant crapping in your living room and he's telling you to ignore it? elephants can talk?

ferschitz said...

Dear Anon: let's try taxing first and then *see* if all those zillionaires, Oligarchs, churches and companies *leave* the USA. I seriously doubt it.

Anyway, what difference does it make as most of them hide their earnings in off-shore accounts where they cannot be taxed anyway. Plus most businesses have gone global and they've already off-shored a lot of jobs to third world countries.

But hey: live in your little conserva-fantasy land where you believe that sucking up to the plutocrats will somehow enure to your personal benefit. Good luck with that.

ferschitz said...

It's proven over and over that the USA fed govt budget cannot be accurately compared to a family budget. The two are completely and totally different entities.

Family members eventually get older and will die, hence, they will stop generating income. The USA is not going to stop generating income. This is just one small highlight of why the two types of budgets cannot be compared.

So this FWF is essentially a worthless exercise in stupidity signifying nothing. Generated to gin up outrage at Obama. If you're so *mad* about how Obama's Admin is allegedly dealing with the economy, then where were you during the W Admin, when he cut taxes, lied to get us into 2 wars, hid the military expenditures in his budget, and spent like a drunken sailor???

Typical rightwing double standards and hypocrisy. IOKIYAR, but if you're a Democrat: look out.

Plays right into the hands of the Plutocrats: neato.

LiberalGunner said...

If you cut services it is the same as raising taxes. Getting less for the same money.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, what difference does it make as most of them hide their earnings in off-shore accounts where they cannot be taxed anyway. Plus most businesses have gone global and they've already off-shored a lot of jobs to third world countries. so what are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

so what are you talking about?

The imaginary "threat" of these businesses "leaving" if taxes are marginally increased to prior levels. Realistically they can't "leave" any more than they already have.

Anonymous said...

I think the "Golden Calf" of our budget IS "Social Security" and "Medicare." They need to be changed or modified bigtime. Why you ask? How About the patient I saw yesterday. He is an RECENT, non-working, 70yr old Pakistani,non-English speaking man in poor health. He is going to need expensive diabetic and prostate cancer treatment provided by a system he hasn't paid a dime in. He came to the US because his family stated it would be a "hardship" if he stayed in Pakistan.
Please have someone argue that is fair

Anonymous said...

I think the "Golden Calf" of our budget IS "Social Security" and "Medicare." They need to be changed or modified bigtime.

Medicare yes. Social Security, no.

SS is a deficit neutral program. It cannot pay out a penny which doesn't come into it from payroll taxes. Furthermore, the system has enough savings to keep paying out every bit of its obligations for another quarter century, at which point it will be able to meet roughly 75-80% of its obligations. This the the result of a demographic wave which will work its way through the system and eventually flatten out. SS may need some tweaks, but no "major" changes are needed.

As for medicare, more reforms are needed, mostly because the cost of health care keeps rising faster than inflation and medicare revenues are too low to cover all costs in the long run. This is one of the biggest issues in America, the cost of health care, and it affects both the public and private sectors. Its not a problem unique to medicare.

As for your patient, I wouldn't argue that its "fair". However I would say that its a fairly rare situation, and that its not the main cause of medicare's problems. I would also point out that this happens in countries with single payer systems, and they manage to deal with it much better than we do.

Anonymous said...

shut up bitches, you are all f-n stupid

Valeyard said...

He came to the US because his family stated it would be a "hardship" if he stayed in Pakistan.

Given how difficult it is to obtain citizenship in the United States, I have a very hard time believing such a man exists. At the very least he probably would have been working here and paying into Medicare/SS for about a decade.

As for medical costs, if you are a doctor, you already know that it's not only Medicare recipients who are paying through the nose -- they just happen to be the ones we can easily see the cost of.

Anonymous said...

shut up bitches, you are all f-n stupid

Bad troll! Bad!

katz said...

Has anyone else noticed that 99% of political trolls claim to be doctors?

snarla said...

OH NOOOO!! What if all the churches left the country?! What would we do?!
Pardon me while I'm daydream about this scenario.

gruaud said...

I double-dog dare them to leave. And not only that, I'd impose tariffs on the sons of bitches, too.

You like being held hostage by mega-corps?

I sure as hell don't.

And that's precisely why I'll never be elected president.

Hooray4US said...

I don't believe the "scenario" about the alleged Doctor & the elderly Pakhistani gentleman with loads of health care issues. It's possible, but sounds like the usual rightwing "excuse" for why Medicare must be cut now.

Frankly if we had a single payer system or at least a public option, we'd all be a lot better off. But as a prior post commented, such possible scenarios of an elderly "non-citizen" coming to the USA and suddenly benefiting from Medicare are very rare, especially these days.

Come back with a better scenario and let's keep talking.

Tootseye said...

I'd love to see most churches taxed, especially the Roman Catholic church. Frankly far too many churches engage in political activities, like telling their congregants how to vote, and/or sticking their nose into issues like abortion.

Tax 'em all! I'm for that. I'd just love to watch the mass exodus of churches from the USA. Won't happen. Spare me the fake scare-mongering... or as Snarla says: dream on!

Anoner said...

Hey bitch troll: if you hate us all here so much and think we're all so f*cking stupid, then WHY are you coming here??? WHY are you reading this blog.

Guess what? There's loads of other blogs out there. Spare yourself the headache and go elsewhere. No one's forcing you to read this.

Anonymous said...

Anoner the Boner

Anonymous said...

Anoner the Boner

Hmmmm. Not terribly interesting or relevant, but I'll give them a point for trying. A slight improvement.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm. Not terribly interesting or relevant, but I'll give them a point for trying. A slight improvement.

anything that is said is delt with, with an inadequate response such as this, might as well try and play on your level

"why are you here we wanna say what we want in peace - either agree or we'll whine and call you a troll"

Anonymous said...

"why are you here we wanna say what we want in peace - either agree or we'll whine and call you a troll"

Nope, sorry. Its not whining to call a troll a troll. You are a troll. If you don't like being called that, then stop acting like a troll.

Anonymous said...

I know you are but what am I

Anonymous said...

I know you are but what am I

A troll. Next question?

Anonymous said...

And that's precisely why I'll never be elected president.

hahaha yeah that's why!!!1

Anonymous said...

no you're a troll... a political one sided troll without an opinion of your own

Anonymous said...

no you're a troll... a political one sided troll without an opinion of your own

Nope, sorry, wrong again. I have plenty of opinions over all sorts of issues.

You, however, are a troll. This isn't up for debate. You are an internet troll, a person who posts nonsense with the sole purpose of annoying others or stirring up shit, while contributing nothing of value to discourse. This is a common definition, and your behavior fits it perfectly. You're a pathetic loser who is craving attention, and so you troll in the hopes of gaining some acknowledgment from other human beings. Sucks to be you.

Valeyard said...

Get a room, you two.

Anonymous said...

Nope, wrong again... oh sorry Sucks to be you

Shut up, Bitch

Anonymous said...

let me stop this here...

you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll
no you're a troll

katz said...

"Shut up, bitch" is going to be our blog motto now, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

"Shut up, bitch" is going to be our blog motto now, isn't it?

I suppose we could try it out. At least until these trolls finally leave.

Anonymous said...

no you're a troll

ferschitz said...

I'm quite happy to read opposing viewpoints that are presented in at least a respectful manner.

If someone's just going to say "shut up bitch," what's the point?

Anoner the boner is also just?? I don't know, not very enlightening, but agree that at least an attempt was made to be humorous.

whatever. the discussion really dwindled into boredom and dullness on this post.

katz said...

Shut up, bitch.

(OK, I'll stop.)

 
Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.