48% Think Spending Cuts Could Trigger Violence

[spidey07]

Interesting. some 48% don't pay federal income tax either. Coincidence? I think not. Think for a moment what would happen if we cut food stamps and welfare just 5% across the board. Imagine if they really went after fraud in those programs as means to "cut".

Would the benefactors of those programs think "well, better eat my peas, this is my fair share" or not? Two sides to this coin, those receiving benefits know they'll riot/loot (hey! they did it everywhere else and imma gonna get mine!) and tax payers who are paying attention and also know they will and are preparing for it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...48_think_spending_cuts_could_trigger_violence

Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) think that cuts in government spending are at least somewhat likely to lead to violence in the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But that includes just 13% who feel it’s Very Likely.

 

[Howard]

Come on, man, thinking that spending cuts might cause violence doesn't mean wanting to get involved in or incite violence should it happen.

 

[kranky]

You have to wonder if the survey results were 48% of the people saying what they thought would happen, or 48% of the people going on record with what they are going to do.

 

[boochi]

Riot in my town and I will put some buckshot in that ass!!!

 

[SparkyJJO]

I honestly wonder how much the budget deficit could be reduced by simply cracking down on fraud and abuse of all government programs. I suspect that a lot more money is lost through such things than we realize.

And of course if anyone riots because of an anti-fraud crackdown, they would be basically incriminating themselves.

:hmm:

 

[Howard]

You have to wonder if the survey results were 48% of the people saying what they thought would happen, or 48% of the people going on record with what they are going to do.

repost

 

[SMOGZINN]

Interesting. some 48% don't pay federal income tax either. Coincidence? I think not. Think for a moment what would happen if we cut food stamps and welfare just 5% across the board. Imagine if they really went after fraud in those programs as means to "cut".

Would the benefactors of those programs think "well, better eat my peas, this is my fair share" or not? Two sides to this coin, those receiving benefits know they'll riot/loot (hey! they did it everywhere else and imma gonna get mine!) and tax payers who are paying attention and also know they will and are preparing for it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...48_think_spending_cuts_could_trigger_violence

I think that people would be less pissed about a crackdown on fraud then a simple reduction in benefits. For one a crackdown on fraud would only really piss off the people that are defrauding the government, the rest would not care. It would get a lot of public support, and in America public support can stop a riot because our police have the ability to use force, and won’t be constrained to do so when the public is behind them.

repost

You posting that this is a repost is a repost.

 

[spidey07]

Come on, man, thinking that spending cuts might cause violence doesn't mean wanting to get involved in or incite violence should it happen.

I want nothing to do with it nor incite it nor participate. But it is coming.

 

[Howard]

I want nothing to do with it nor incite it nor participate. But it is coming.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the ones who voted that way.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol. If 48% of the population actually rioted there would be a HUGE problem. I think that 48% are saying they THINK there will be riots. his number includes you btw.

 

[spidey07]

You have to wonder if the survey results were 48% of the people saying what they thought would happen, or 48% of the people going on record with what they are going to do.

That's what one should take away from it.

 

[jackstar7]

Interesting. some 48% don't pay federal income tax either. Coincidence? I think not.

You're at least right about one thing... even if your words are out of order, and poor grammar.

I believe the percentage that have no federal liability is closer to 25%. And I imagine much closer to none of them rather than all of them are having an awesome time trying to maintain living conditions.

But haters gonna hate.

 

[spidey07]

lol. If 48% of the population actually rioted there would be a HUGE problem. I think that 48% are saying they THINK there will be riots. his number includes you btw.

Yes, I am paying attention to world and current events and preparing properly.

The war between the haves and have-nots is coming. This is what obama wants.

 

[kranky]

I believe the percentage that have no federal liability is closer to 25%

It's 45%. http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

 

[Engineer]

It's 45%. http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Federal liability and paying federal income taxes are two different things. There are other federal payroll taxes that fall into the liability category.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes, I am paying attention to world and current events and preparing properly.

The war between the haves and have-nots is coming. This is what obama wants.

So you always do what obama wants?

 

[ProfJohn]

Federal liability and paying federal income taxes are two different things. There are other federal payroll taxes that fall into the liability category.

Yes, but those are for specific purposes.

When you pay no federal income taxes then you pay no part of defense, EPA, FDA, DOT, federal police and security etc etc.

45% of the country pays into social security and medicare, which they are expected to get back, and pays for nothing else.

That is a huge problem.

 

[Engineer]

Yes, but those are for specific purposes.

When you pay no federal income taxes then you pay no part of defense, EPA, FDA, DOT, federal police and security etc etc.

45% of the country pays into social security and medicare, which they are expected to get back, and pays for nothing else.

That is a huge problem.

Simple...raise their taxes. How hard was that?

I'm sure it will make a huge dent in the current deficit and I'm sure that they all have the money to spare! :biggrin:

As for paying for nothing else...it might be earmarked for that but over the years, it's paid for EVERYTHING else (in the form of loans).

 

[ProfJohn]

Simple...raise their taxes. How hard was that?

I'm sure it will make a huge dent in the current deficit and I'm sure that they all have the money to spare! :biggrin:

As for paying for nothing else...it might be earmarked for that but over the years, it's paid for EVERYTHING else (in the form of loans).

That is irrelevant and quit making excuses.

Half of the country pays for 2.7% of the bills.
Meanwhile the top 1% pay 38% of the bills.

And yet it is the rich who are constantly accused of not paying their fair share...

 

[JSt0rm]

they pay sales tax at walmart

 

[Howard]

That's what one should take away from it.

Fantasy land, eh?

 

[Engineer]

That is irrelevant and quit making excuses.

Half of the country pays for 2.7% of the bills.
Meanwhile the top 1% pay 38% of the bills.

And yet it is the rich who are constantly accused of not paying their fair share...

Not making excuses for anything. I already stated raise their fucking taxes. I'm sure you and your teaparty would like nothing more, especially if you could give a break to the "job creators" at the top. Instead of sitting around and whining about it, do something about it. Write your reps and ask them to raise taxes at the bottom/lower mid. I'm sure they will be more than willing to listen.

 

[sandmanwake]

That is irrelevant and quit making excuses.

Half of the country pays for 2.7% of the bills.
Meanwhile the top 1% pay 38% of the bills.

And yet it is the rich who are constantly accused of not paying their fair share...

"And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury; and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The "rich" may pay more in total dollar amounts, but what about percentage-wise? 15% is going to hurt the household budget of someone making $50k/year a lot more than someone making $15million/year, but according to the right-wing in this country, this is not fair since $7,500 is less than $2,250,000.

Obviously, no matter how much you make, everyone need to pay the same dollar amount or else it wouldn't be fair. The guy who makes $50k/year obviously need to increase what he pays so that it's more than just $7,500 and the guy making $15million obviously needs to have his taxes lowered so that it's the same as what the other guy is paying.

Obviously, we should be paying taxes the same way we pay for dinner when we go out to eat at a restaurant--either split the bill so everyone pay the same dollar amount or everyone just pays for what they consume or else it just wouldn't be fair.

 

[SparkyJJO]

"And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury; and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The "rich" may pay more in total dollar amounts, but what about percentage-wise? 15% is going to hurt the household budget of someone making $50k/year a lot more than someone making $15million/year, but according to the right-wing in this country, this is not fair since $7,500 is less than $2,250,000.

Obviously, no matter how much you make, everyone need to pay the same dollar amount or else it wouldn't be fair. The guy who makes $50k/year obviously need to increase what he pays so that it's more than just $7,500 and the guy making $15million obviously needs to have his taxes lowered so that it's the same as what the other guy is paying.

Obviously, we should be paying taxes the same way we pay for dinner when we go out to eat at a restaurant--either split the bill so everyone pay the same dollar amount or everyone just pays for what they consume or else it just wouldn't be fair.

Your concept of "fair" is way off.
I know you're just being ridiculous with your use of it, to try to "prove" your point, but sorry, it isn't working.

Obviously, everyone paying the same dollar amount regardless of income level isn't fair. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[Jiggz]

You're at least right about one thing... even if your words are out of order, and poor grammar.

I believe the percentage that have no federal liability is closer to 25%. And I imagine much closer to none of them rather than all of them are having an awesome time trying to maintain living conditions.

But haters gonna hate.

Ding! Ding! Ding! The new composition and English teacher has been identified!