Is Anybody Else Concerned About This?

[SC Cheesehead]

For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2011/04/19/taxes_paid_vs_income.jpg

C.Y.C.B.I.

This oughta work out real well for us... :rolleyes:

[Dragcity]

The best of times are behind us.

[guspech750]

For the first time since the Great Depression, households are receiving more income from the government than they are paying the government in taxes.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2011/04/19/taxes_paid_vs_income.jpg

C.Y.C.B.I.

This oughta work out real well for us... :rolleyes:


I'm just running out the door now to wait inline for toilet paper. I'll be back later tonight to discuss this topic. Bye.

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[Pops]

Nice way to ruin the day Rex!

[Fosters]

It's those damned evil rich people using up all of the government services and not paying their fair share!!!! :o


/sarcasm

[Pops]

It's those damned evil rich people using up all of the government services and not paying their fair share!!!! :o


/sarcasm

No its not! Its the people who are getting checks from the goverment that need to get a job!!!!!

[Fosters]

No its not! Its the people who are getting checks from the goverment that need to get a job!!!!!

Psst, note the silver writing :D;)

[CBT]

Why work for it if they are giving it away?

[Dragcity]

Micky Ds is hiring.

[Fosters]

Why work for it if they are giving it away?

http://www.jerrystout.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/fematicket.jpg

Time to git mine! :D

[LIGHTNIN1]

Its going to be a great day in the neighborhood if I can get mine before the line gets any longer.:party:

[SC Cheesehead]

It's those damned evil rich people using up all of the government services and not paying their fair share!!!! :o


/sarcasm


No its not! Its the people who are getting checks from the goverment that need to get a job!!!!!


The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes.

Tthe top 10% [of taxpayers], or everyone with income over $114,000, ...pay 69% of all total income taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870462130457626 7113524583554.html?mod=WSJ_Opi nion_LEADTop


about 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no income tax whatsoever for 2010, a study of IRS data by the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C., found.
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/120394/half_of_u.s._households_pay_no _income_taxes.html


Yeah, if we could just get all those rich bastages to pay "their fair share" everything would be fine, huh? :rolleyes:

[Pops]

The ones on the bottom are the problem! Lets give them some more ways to get free money!!!! I need to stay out of this thread as I have nothing good to say!:argue:

[Fosters]

The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes.

Tthe top 10% [of taxpayers], or everyone with income over $114,000, ...pay 69% of all total income taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870462130457626 7113524583554.html?mod=WSJ_Opi nion_LEADTop


about 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no income tax whatsoever for 2010, a study of IRS data by the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C., found.
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/120394/half_of_u.s._households_pay_no _income_taxes.html


Yeah, if we could just get all those rich bastages to pay "their fair share" everything would be fine, huh? :rolleyes:

No kidding. I'll add one piece of data, because some libtard is surely gonna bring it up:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0693.pdf

There are all sorts of statistics of how much each percentile of income earners pays. I think an op-ed today on fox was stating the top 5% pay 53% of the taxes. The question/argument from the liberals usually comes in the form of "OH YEAH, WELL THEY MAKE ALL THE MONEY!!!". No, they really don't. In the second table in the pdf above; the top 5% barely make 21.5% of the income. The top fifth, top 20%, barely make 50% of the income.

And to take that one step further; we've been conditioned to believe we need to pay more if we make more... Why is that? I mean, don't get me wrong, even a flat percentage tax across the board - with no deductions or loopholes - for both personal and corporate income, would be a great place to start to make it all "fair"; but why is it that some have to pay more than others? Do the rich people use more government services? Does a mercedes put more wear and tear on the roads anymore than a 1983 chevy pos? Is the rich person more likely to use public education, medicare/medicaid/social security, and public transport than the poor?

I'm all for a flat percentage tax across the board, it'll be a huge step in the right direction, but it will never happen. It'll be portrayed as a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike on the poor... But to make it really fair it would have to be a consumption based tax. If you pay people to work less or not at all, or have kids for the welfare checks; they will do just that.

[CBT]

If I want to know where my tax money goes, I just flip over to Maury.

[Haggis]

Time to buy more ammo.

[SC Cheesehead]

No kidding. I'll add one piece of data, because some libtard is surely gonna bring it up:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0693.pdf

There are all sorts of statistics of how much each percentile of income earners pays. I think an op-ed today on fox was stating the top 5% pay 53% of the taxes. The question/argument from the liberals usually comes in the form of "OH YEAH, WELL THEY MAKE ALL THE MONEY!!!". No, they really don't. In the second table in the pdf above; the top 5% barely make 21.5% of the income. The top fifth, top 20%, barely make 50% of the income.

And to take that one step further; we've been conditioned to believe we need to pay more if we make more... Why is that? I mean, don't get me wrong, even a flat percentage tax across the board - with no deductions or loopholes - for both personal and corporate income, would be a great place to start to make it all "fair"; but why is it that some have to pay more than others? Do the rich people use more government services? Does a mercedes put more wear and tear on the roads anymore than a 1983 chevy pos? Is the rich person more likely to use public education, medicare/medicaid/social security, and public transport than the poor?

I'm all for a flat percentage tax across the board, it'll be a huge step in the right direction, but it will never happen. It'll be portrayed as a tax cut for the rich and a tax hike on the poor... But to make it really fair it would have to be a consumption based tax. If you pay people to work less or not at all, or have kids for the welfare checks; they will do just that.

Yup.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

As for your second point, +1. If you haven't seen "Atlas Shrugged" yet, or read the book, you need to.

Ayn Rand portrayed the rise of the moocher society spot on. Over 50 years ago...

[Pops]

Yup.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

As for your second point, +1. If you haven't seen "Atlas Shrugged" yet, or read the book, you need to.

Ayn Rand portrayed the rise of the moocher society spot on. Over 50 years ago...

The signs were here back then Rex! Its real now and it sucks. The book is a must read!:)

[SC Cheesehead]

The signs were here back then Rex! Its real now and it sucks. The book is a must read!:)

A BIG +1 on that, John.

She nails it when it comes to portraying the demonization of those who wish to work hard and succeed to assuage the losers in society.

[LIGHTNIN1]

If I want to know where my tax money goes, I just flip over to Maury.

:laugh: That and Springer show the dregs of society. Watching that show and going to Walmart is truly amazing sometimes. I watch and wonder,Where do these people come from. You see a woman weighing north of 350 with 3 kids hanging on and say what? You know that nobody will hire her for any job because she can not do any job so she is getting a check. Oh well good work if you can get it. But for me back to digging graves.:D

[CBT]

:laugh: That and Springer show the dregs of society. Watching that show and going to Walmart is truly amazing sometimes. I watch and wonder,Where do these people come from. You see a woman weighing north of 350 with 3 kids hanging on and say what? You know that nobody will hire her for any job because she can not do any job so she is getting a check. Oh well good work if you can get it. But for me back to digging graves.:D

That's the best place to hide bodies, in a graveyard, no one thinks twice when they see soemone digging a hole in a cemetary, because that's what happens there. Just sayin. :cool:

[mike P71]

Time to buy more ammo.

What he said. It's just a matter of time

[Fosters]

What he said. It's just a matter of time

I've been tempted to head to walmart and empty the shelves of 12 gauge... I wonder what reactions that would bring.

I can't afford to empty the shelves of 45 - the other kind I can use... I need to pick up a small 22 :D

[kernie]

What he said. It's just a matter of time

Till what?

Everyone hints around this subject, spell it out, {not just you mike} what is it you guys think is to happen?

:beer:

[Haggis]

Till what?

Everyone hints around this subject, spell it out, {not just you mike} what is it you guys think is to happen?

:beer:

Think of a Beatles song.

[Fosters]

Till what?

Everyone hints around this subject, spell it out, {not just you mike} what is it you guys think is to happen?

:beer:

Nice try with the liberal argument there, to put words in his mouth or try to get him to say violent things...

It's a matter of time until the gravy train stops, and mooching liberals will be out in the streets with the pitchforks. Look at Greece. Look at students in Commiefornia. Look at public unions in Wisconsin. It's only a matter of time 'till those protests get violent...

[DOOM]

Nice way to ruin the day Rex!

That's what she said! :flamer:

[SC Cheesehead]

Till what?

Everyone hints around this subject, spell it out, {not just you mike} what is it you guys think is to happen?

:beer:

See post #1. More is being paid out in government services than is being taken in.
Nearly half of US households aren't paying any income tax.
Our national debt is trillions of dollars.

We've reached the tipping point; time to start cutting back on spending and realize that government is NOT the answer to every problem that faces society.

If we don't, we're about to hit the wall real hard and real fast, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

[Dragcity]

When the Gov't dole stops. Crime will go up in a hurry. Whatcha gonna do when they kick at your front door?

I know..
Invite them in for dinner and a warm bed....

Might as well drink up all my beer too.

[Fosters]

When the Gov't dole stops. Crime will go up in a hurry. Whatcha gonna do when they kick at your front door?

I know..
Invite them in for dinner and a warm bed....

Might as well drink up all my beer too.

Where's the "Like" button? :lol:

[CBT]

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24 259&thumb=1&d=1303231665 (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24 259&d=1303231665)


I said Vrooooom!

[kernie]

Nice try with the liberal argument there, to put words in his mouth or try to get him to say violent things...

It's a matter of time until the gravy train stops, and mooching liberals will be out in the streets with the pitchforks. Look at Greece. Look at students in Commiefornia. Look at public unions in Wisconsin. It's only a matter of time 'till those protests get violent...

Wow, you are good!

I didn't even know i was a sneaky liberal!

:D

[Fosters]

Wow, you are good!

I didn't even know i was a sneaky liberal!

:D

Oh, my bad, you're a moderate, because, like most liberals, you're ashamed of being a liberal. :beatnik:

[CBT]

Oh, my bad, you're a moderate, because, like most liberals, you're ashamed of being a liberal. :beatnik:

SNAP! That would look great on a t-shirt.

[SC Cheesehead]

Wow, you are good!

I didn't even know i was a sneaky liberal!

:D

Nah, kernie, you're not a sneaky liberal.

You're 100% up front about it... :D

[CBT]

You're 100% up front about it... :D
That's what she said!!:banana2:

[kernie]

Oh, my bad, you're a moderate, because, like most liberals, you're ashamed of being a liberal. :beatnik:

Well you have no idea who i am or how i think, but the ugly in you is very clear.

[MrBluGruv]

SNAP! That would look great on a t-shirt.

LMAO, seconded.

The hipster thing to do is not be a hipster these days. Frankly, I don't know where the irony paradox ends with the need-to-fit-in crowd.

"Being liberal isn't hip cause everyone is a liberal these days, so I need to act NOT liberal....but then everyone wants to be hip by not being liberal, so I need to fight for the cause, but damnit then I'm a sell-out for doing what everyone does, but being a sell-out is cool again cause it's hip, ****!"

[CBT]

LMAO, seconded.

The hipster thing to do is not be a hipster these days. Frankly, I don't know where the irony paradox ends with the need-to-fit-in crowd.

"Being liberal isn't hip cause everyone is a liberal these days, so I need to act NOT liberal....but then everyone wants to be hip by not being liberal, so I need to fight for the cause, but damnit then I'm a sell-out for doing what everyone does, but being a sell-out is cool again cause it's hip, ****!"
Sounds like it could be an episode of South Park, lol.

[Fosters]

Well you have no idea who i am or how i think, but the ugly in you is very clear.

You know what they say, you can fix ugly, but you can't fix stupid... :fishing:

[Bluerauder]

Well you have no idea who i am or how i think .....

... but somehow the avatar seems appropriate. :P

[SC Cheesehead]

... but somehow the avatar seems appropriate. :P


Oh SNAP!
------------------

[tbone]

Don't even get me started..........:argue:

[Dragcity]

Ohhhh . Kernie stepped in it AGAIN....

[SC Cheesehead]

Don't even get me started..........:argue:


Uh-oh, I did it this time.... :o

[tbone]

I swear I'm not going to argue politics on this forum. You can't reason with some people.

[LIGHTNIN1]

I swear I'm not going to argue politics on this forum. You can't reason with some people.

Go ahead. I like it when you get started. How many times in history have we had moderates that were heroes or won wars. I don't remember one General that was a moderate. Oh my bad I forgot, Hitler was considered a moderate.:rolleyes:

[tbone]

All I will say is that OblameO will be in the unemployment line in 2012. :)

[Fosters]

I swear I'm not going to argue politics on this forum. You can't reason with some people.

The messiah told his sheep to get in people's faces.

Newton's law tells us for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

I'm that reaction. :cowboy:


All I will say is that OblameO will be in the unemployment line in 2012. :)

You confuse me. Shouldn't that be OblameB? :D

[tbone]

The messiah told his sheep to get in people's faces.

Newton's law tells us for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

I'm that reaction. :cowboy:



You confuse me. Shouldn't that be OblameB? :D


OblameO has a nice ring to it, but I catch your drift.

[kernie]

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24 259&thumb=1&d=1303231665 (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24 259&d=1303231665)


I said Vrooooom!

All i did was ask who was gonna shoot who...lol.

[DOOM]

In before the lock!

[SC Cheesehead]

In before the lock!

Well, the thread made it to +50 posts, that's a heck of a lot better than Joe Walsh's average... ;) ------> :D

[Shaijack]

DRUG TEST all free loaders. No more free children. Flat tax everyone. OK I am done.

[SC Cheesehead]

DRUG TEST all free loaders. No more free children. Flat tax everyone. OK I am done.

I KNEW there was something I liked about you... :D

[Fosters]

DRUG TEST all free loaders. No more free children. Flat tax everyone. OK I am done.

You forgot have a person in each emergency room checking citizenship status :)

[LIGHTNIN1]

While you are doing all the inspections paint all their tongues purple.;)

[jerrym3]

My youngest daughter was out of work for two years until she found a job paying $10 an hour, part time. (She just about ran a small office when she was employed.)

Try living on $10 an hour part time in the NY/NJ metro area.

Her boyfriend lost his cabling/wiring job and can't find work. With all my contacts in the telecommunications industry, I can't help him.

My oldest daughter is working as a consultant for a company that refuses to add full time employees. Fortunately, her husband's a Federal Air Marshall.

My nephew just lost his job in construction. Baby on the way and a mortgage to pay. His brother designs T-shirts. Can't find anything better.

Another nephew is getting nervous because his company relies on government contracts, which might be drastically reduced.

My sister-in-law is leaving NJ (and her kids/grandkids) because her husband's job moved to Florida, and he could never find something here in Jersey.

Yes, there are a lot of freeloaders, but there's also a lot of people that would love to take the advice posted above and "get a job", but they can't find anything.

Turn over everything you buy. Where was it built? There's a big part of the job problem.

But, it keeps the price down (good for the buyer), and ensures that the CEO/CFO/CAO and all the other C...'s (you fill in the blank) get the big bucks at year end.

I sent out hundreds of resumes when I lost my job in 2007. Response? Nothing, not one, and I had 30 years experience in Telecommunications.

So, I'm now on Social Security and Medicare. (But, my local properety taxes alone are over $8,000 per year for a 1,900 sq ft raised ranch on 100X100 property.)

My wife is also on SS, but her monthly check doesn't even cover her monthly medical plan expenses (she's not 65).

Fortunately, I planned for the future all my life, and my wife and I should be OK.

We have gov't officials here in NJ that are working at their jobs and collecting fat pensions BASED ON THEIR PRESENT JOB. Their rationale? It's all legal.

Sure it's legal. THEY WROTE THE RULES!

Go ahead. Beat me up, but I see a lot of wrong on both sides.

[Krytin]

I've been tempted to head to walmart and empty the shelves of 12 gauge... I wonder what reactions that would bring.

I can't afford to empty the shelves of 45 - the other kind I can use... I need to pick up a small 22 :D

Just get reloaders - Lee Load-All II for the 12 ga. & Pro 1000 for the .45 ACP. it works for me!!!

[Fosters]

Adapt. Don't like the property taxes in NJ, move. Sometimes you have to move out of your comfort zone, and that may mean retraining for another career, working something you may not like in the mean time, starting up a small business, etc.

I don't want to beat you up, but what did the typewriter businesses do once computers and word processing software came abouts?

I was working as a data entry person and hotel 1-800 sales person (2 jobs) when I got out of college because I couldn't find a job in my industry... Wasn't fun to have 50k in student loans and work for 8 bucks an hour, but it was necessary. I had to move 5 years ago to MN because I couldn't find a job in Phoenix. Life's not fair, get used to it and make the best of the hand that was dealt to you.

[SC Cheesehead]

Turn over everything you buy. Where was it built? There's a big part of the job problem.

But, it keeps the price down (good for the buyer), and ensures that the CEO/CFO/CAO and all the other C...'s (you fill in the blank) get the big bucks at year end.

Why have so many companies moved operations off-shore? Survival.

It's convenient to finger point at senior management as the villians, but in reality, they're doing what they can to fullfil their primary objective: make money for their shareholders. And what motivation do companies have to continue doing business here in America? The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Government regulations and intervention continue to strangle competitiveness of US manufacturers; frankly, I'm amazed that there are any manufacturing jobs left in America.

I spent the first 25 years of my career in the foundry industry. I was fortunate to get into something else before that whole industry cratered, due in large part to the points I made above. That really sucks, but like another poster said, that's life.

You want to see jobs return to the US? Lower the corporate tax rate, and take the binders off of American Industry and let 'em run. We can compete with the rest of the world if we can play by the same rules.

[kernie]

While you are doing all the inspections paint all their tongues purple.;)

I think Hitler tried that but then found tatto's worked better.

Just trying to be helpfull.

[Pat]

Can't help you bud, I'm retired, on a fixed income and Social Security.

I paid through the nose during Patricia's and my working years.

Now it's time to enjoy the fruits of our labor before it's taken away, reduced or vouchered.

[Krytin]

Same rules?
Try and sell an American car in South Korea the same way the sell their cars here.

Fair trade is also a part of the problem.

Also check the last quarter' profit on the oil companies - they seam to be doing alright.

I think corporate America can make money anyhere they WANT to - it's just a matter of how much they WANT.

It used to be a CEO made 30 to 40 times the earnings of their average production worker (the people that actually produce the product they sell to make money!).
Now they make 300 to 400 times the eanings of the average production worker for doing pretty much the same job they were doing when they were making 30 to 40 x's.
Oh they did do something different - they moved production outside the US for cheaper labor.

[ctrlraven]

My youngest daughter was out of work for two years until she found a job paying $10 an hour, part time. (She just about ran a small office when she was employed.)

Try living on $10 an hour part time in the NY/NJ metro area.

Her boyfriend lost his cabling/wiring job and can't find work. With all my contacts in the telecommunications industry, I can't help him.

My oldest daughter is working as a consultant for a company that refuses to add full time employees. Fortunately, her husband's a Federal Air Marshall.

My nephew just lost his job in construction. Baby on the way and a mortgage to pay. His brother designs T-shirts. Can't find anything better.

Another nephew is getting nervous because his company relies on government contracts, which might be drastically reduced.

My sister-in-law is leaving NJ (and her kids/grandkids) because her husband's job moved to Florida, and he could never find something here in Jersey.

Yes, there are a lot of freeloaders, but there's also a lot of people that would love to take the advice posted above and "get a job", but they can't find anything.

Turn over everything you buy. Where was it built? There's a big part of the job problem.

But, it keeps the price down (good for the buyer), and ensures that the CEO/CFO/CAO and all the other C...'s (you fill in the blank) get the big bucks at year end.

I sent out hundreds of resumes when I lost my job in 2007. Response? Nothing, not one, and I had 30 years experience in Telecommunications.

So, I'm now on Social Security and Medicare. (But, my local properety taxes alone are over $8,000 per year for a 1,900 sq ft raised ranch on 100X100 property.)

My wife is also on SS, but her monthly check doesn't even cover her monthly medical plan expenses (she's not 65).

Fortunately, I planned for the future all my life, and my wife and I should be OK.

We have gov't officials here in NJ that are working at their jobs and collecting fat pensions BASED ON THEIR PRESENT JOB. Their rationale? It's all legal.

Sure it's legal. THEY WROTE THE RULES!

Go ahead. Beat me up, but I see a lot of wrong on both sides.
I hope something good comes your way and to your family as well.

[FordNut]

You forgot have a person in each emergency room checking citizenship status :)
Just post an immigration officer at the door.


Time to buy more ammo.
Yep, I'm stocked up on ammo for most of my toys.


Why work for it if they are giving it away?
That's the thing most liberals don't understand.

[rayjay]

http://www.jerrystout.us/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/fematicket.jpg

I want it ALL and I want it NOW!

As for ammo? Hahahahaha, start and sustain a small war....

[jerrym3]

Fosters

You may have missed something in my lengthy post.

I'm doing just fine. Besides, at my age (nearing 70), there wouldn't be too many opportunities for me, anyway.

But, I have friends my age, once experienced IT professionals, that are now looking at part time school bus driving jobs to supplement their government "incomes".

[PonyUP]

Alright Kernie, I'm gonna answer your question as to what will happen. Keep in mind this is a Dem/Lib/Ind/ or libtard speaking as some have put it.

There are times when we are one country and times when we are 50 states. There are times we need the governement to step in and times we need them to butt the F out. So here goes

Based on the graph in the original post, as the income coming in lowers and spending rises there is a ceiling that will be hit, and we are dangerously close to it. We are forced to raise the debt ceiling, so we can maintain our credit rating. (Tell me that isn't F'd up, credit bad? ahh just vote a raise of the credit limit and we'll loan you more cash) But sooner or later countries are going to figure out, they are never getting paid back. If the US government was applying for a loan, they would get turned down with a laugh. Keep in mind, we have only presented a balanced budget once in the last 50 years with a Dem Pres and a Republican congress mostly due to the dot com boom.

So here is it what happens, countries no longer loan us money, the value of the dollar plummets, crime rates rise, looting begins, the cost of food skyrockets, the cost of gas skyrockets (sound familar?) The market plummets, we see a 20% unemployment rate, and we are back to Hoover Hotels.

Picture the budget like a plate of food. There is the Fried Chicken (Medicare) Mashed Potato's (Social Security) and Corn on the Cob (Defense) surrounded by parsley (Everything else) WE keep arguing about how much parsley to take off, but until we attack the meat and potatos, nothing will be solved. We need to limit spending, GREATLY, and yes we do need to raise taxes. But we can't limit those raises to the rich or the upper middle class. I fit into one of those categories (no I am not rich) and I can tell you I will happily pay more on one condition and one condition only....THE G**DAMN GOVERNMENT has to prove to me that they can balance their own check book, until then, F' em. Both parties, they all suck. That is my rant, good day :beer:

[kernie]

Alright Kernie, I'm gonna answer your question as to what will happen. Keep in mind this is a Dem/Lib/Ind/ or libtard speaking as some have put it.

There are times when we are one country and times when we are 50 states. There are times we need the governement to step in and times we need them to butt the F out. So here goes

Based on the graph in the original post, as the income coming in lowers and spending rises there is a ceiling that will be hit, and we are dangerously close to it. We are forced to raise the debt ceiling, so we can maintain our credit rating. (Tell me that isn't F'd up, credit bad? ahh just vote a raise of the credit limit and we'll loan you more cash) But sooner or later countries are going to figure out, they are never getting paid back. If the US government was applying for a loan, they would get turned down with a laugh. Keep in mind, we have only presented a balanced budget once in the last 50 years with a Dem Pres and a Republican congress mostly due to the dot com boom.

So here is it what happens, countries no longer loan us money, the value of the dollar plummets, crime rates rise, looting begins, the cost of food skyrockets, the cost of gas skyrockets (sound familar?) The market plummets, we see a 20% unemployment rate, and we are back to Hoover Hotels.

Picture the budget like a plate of food. There is the Fried Chicken (Medicare) Mashed Potato's (Social Security) and Corn on the Cob (Defense) surrounded by parsley (Everything else) WE keep arguing about how much parsley to take off, but until we attack the meat and potatos, nothing will be solved. We need to limit spending, GREATLY, and yes we do need to raise taxes. But we can't limit those raises to the rich or the upper middle class. I fit into one of those categories (no I am not rich) and I can tell you I will happily pay more on one condition and one condition only....THE G**DAMN GOVERNMENT has to prove to me that they can balance their own check book, until then, F' em. Both parties, they all suck. That is my rant, good day :beer:
Well my question really was...why are you all buying ammo, who is gonna be shooting who? Revolution and libtards with pichforks seem to be the current fears.:shake:

The bulk of your post i prettymuch agree with.

[jerrym3]

Pony Up

Been watching Bill Mahr, have you?

Me too. Love his "new rules".

One problem with SS is that raising the age may have a bad result.

Companies love to get rid of the older, higher priced workers whenever they can blame the cutbacks on something else.

In my "reduction in forces" layoff (don't you just love corporate BS?), over half let go were 55 and older. I had no legal leg to stand on because one retained individual in my department was older than I, although he didn't make my salary.

But, to get back on track, where's a 55 year old going to get a job these days or in the future as we produce less and less?

And, Medicare? I had one procedure done a few years ago in a clinic. I didn't even stay overnight.

The bill? $25,000. Of course, the MD settled for less, but still...$25,000?

Without Medicare, you can't afford to get old.

As I stated earlier, my wife's complete SS check goes towards her medical. Fortunately, she was able to get medical when I lost my job because we live in one of the very few states that cannot deny coverage, although you will pay for it.

Cheesehead

The goal of the corporate exec is the same goal you have and I had when I was employed-make the most money that I can for me.

If that means expand the company, or shrink the company, or anything in between as long as it results in money for the exec, they'll do it, and I don't blame them.

But, the astronomical pay, even when they screw up, shouldn't be supported, unless, of course, it's your Boardroom friends that are boosting your executive pay grade.

And, now on to the biggest crooks in the room, Wall Street.....ah, ****edaboudit.

Back to the Knick/Boston game.

[Shaijack]

Foster I did it. Went into Wally Mart and bought every 12 g. Buck and slug they had. The sales person only said one thing to me. "you need help carrying all that out."

I am in the same place many of you are. Fired from last job 8 months ago, because of health. I was Senior Vice President. The President had the same problem I had 6 years ago but he did not fire himself. I have 100% clean health from the doctor 3 months after the problem.

Unemployment is a joke (247.00 a week) and like some I planed for the future and have not lowered my life style. I am more careful now. No I will not sell my BLACK 2003A MM.

The wife offered to sell her Lincoln Towncar but I turned her down.
We need to stick together and see this through.

[CBT]

Newton's law tells us for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.

I'm that reaction. :cowboy:


That might be the baddest statement of the year. :beer: Sounds like some **** Chuck Norris would say right before roundhouse kicking someones butthole up around thier tonsils.

[CBT]

For the sake of clarity, when I complain about people on welfare, I mean people who have never worked and could care less about finding a job or educating themselves. Or getting thier tubes tied or having a vasectomy. How much do guests on Maury get when they have 6 kids by 6 dudes, just had another one, and 4 guys are on the stage awaiting the paternity results? Whatever they get paid for being on the show, I want my tax dollars taken out of it and given back to me.

[tbone]

Alright Kernie, I'm gonna answer your question as to what will happen. Keep in mind this is a Dem/Lib/Ind/ or libtard speaking as some have put it.

There are times when we are one country and times when we are 50 states. There are times we need the governement to step in and times we need them to butt the F out. So here goes

Based on the graph in the original post, as the income coming in lowers and spending rises there is a ceiling that will be hit, and we are dangerously close to it. We are forced to raise the debt ceiling, so we can maintain our credit rating. (Tell me that isn't F'd up, credit bad? ahh just vote a raise of the credit limit and we'll loan you more cash) But sooner or later countries are going to figure out, they are never getting paid back. If the US government was applying for a loan, they would get turned down with a laugh. Keep in mind, we have only presented a balanced budget once in the last 50 years with a Dem Pres and a Republican congress mostly due to the dot com boom.

So here is it what happens, countries no longer loan us money, the value of the dollar plummets, crime rates rise, looting begins, the cost of food skyrockets, the cost of gas skyrockets (sound familar?) The market plummets, we see a 20% unemployment rate, and we are back to Hoover Hotels.

Picture the budget like a plate of food. There is the Fried Chicken (Medicare) Mashed Potato's (Social Security) and Corn on the Cob (Defense) surrounded by parsley (Everything else) WE keep arguing about how much parsley to take off, but until we attack the meat and potatos, nothing will be solved. We need to limit spending, GREATLY, and yes we do need to raise taxes. But we can't limit those raises to the rich or the upper middle class. I fit into one of those categories (no I am not rich) and I can tell you I will happily pay more on one condition and one condition only....THE G**DAMN GOVERNMENT has to prove to me that they can balance their own check book, until then, F' em. Both parties, they all suck. That is my rant, good day :beer:

Wait a minute. I agree with almost everything you said. What the......:confused:

[PonyUP]

Wait a minute. I agree with almost everything you said. What the......:confused:

Damn dude, that just made me laugh :lol:, I don't know what it is, maybe you're converting me:D

[PonyUP]

[QUOTE=jerrym3;1035945]Pony Up

Been watching Bill Mahr, have you?

Me too. Love his "new rules".

QUOTE]

Yeah, Ive been watching him a little, he tends to be a little too liberal for my tastes, but what I do like, is much like O'Reilly, he is careful to represent both sides of the political aisle, and I am always up for a good discussion about the issues.

But New Rules are hysterical

[Mr. Man]

For the sake of clarity, when I complain about people on welfare, I mean people who have never worked and could care less about finding a job or educating themselves. Or getting thier tubes tied or having a vasectomy. How much do guests on Maury get when they have 6 kids by 6 dudes, just had another one, and 4 guys are on the stage awaiting the paternity results? Whatever they get paid for being on the show, I want my tax dollars taken out of it and given back to me.
Just because your paternity test came up "shootin blanks" don't be hatin Maury:D

[PonyUP]

Just because your paternity test came up "shootin blanks" don't be hatin Maury:D

:lol::lol:

Yeah, next on Maury

"Next you'll meet a gentlemen, and I use that term loosely (thats what she said) who is sick of hearing about baby daddy's, street walking ho's, and just wants me to do another special about can you spot who the man is? Casey, coming up next

[CBT]

Just because your paternity test came up "shootin blanks" don't be hatin Maury:D
Blanks or not, still makes a loud BOOM. :cool:

[justbob]

The unemployment that I was receiving last year equaled 1/4 of my normal 40 hour work week checks, NOT including my benefits that equaled an additional double. So I invite anyone to take your pay and cut it down to just over 1/5th your normal income overnight and "get a job ya deadbeat loser". Funny all the names I have heard "us" called, but never a mention of the 20+ years or more of adding to the pot?? The best is when I hear some people say "They'll never get off unemployment if the Gov keeps handing it out" LOL!!!!!!! Really?? Would you WANT to lose everything you have ever built up? Not me! I went and found the best I could find in a hurry! Got off the unemp. checks, and changed our living habits to coincide with our "new" income" of 1/3rd our norm. I adapted! Not a problem, sucks, but doable, kinda.. But to hear that we ALL just want our checks?? I invite you to jump in the boat, but can you swim? Test "them" for drugs! Okay, I lost my job, so now I'm an addict? NICE. Any more labels? Having this happen is a test I actually wouldn't mind seeing a few take.. Maybe some of the haters can show us how its done so easily.

I couldn't be any more thankful to be back to work! How's them apples? Think before you type with such easy answers to fixing the world, before it is YOU losing your job, your mind, and dreams your family once shared. You are NOT irreplaceable.

/Rant, /thread, I'm done here.

[tbone]

But when is enough, enough? That is the question. Many people live to get benefits. Not you of course, but you see the problem.

[kernie]

The unemployment that I was receiving last year equaled 1/4 of my normal 40 hour work week checks, NOT including my benefits that equaled an additional double. So I invite anyone to take your pay and cut it down to just over 1/5th your normal income overnight and "get a job ya deadbeat loser". Funny all the names I have heard "us" called, but never a mention of the 20+ years or more of adding to the pot?? The best is when I hear some people say "They'll never get off unemployment if the Gov keeps handing it out" LOL!!!!!!! Really?? Would you WANT to lose everything you have ever built up? Not me! I went and found the best I could find in a hurry! Got off the unemp. checks, and changed our living habits to coincide with our "new" income" of 1/3rd our norm. I adapted! Not a problem, sucks, but doable, kinda.. But to hear that we ALL just want our checks?? I invite you to jump in the boat, but can you swim? Test "them" for drugs! Okay, I lost my job, so now I'm an addict? NICE. Any more labels? Having this happen is a test I actually wouldn't mind seeing a few take.. Maybe some of the haters can show us how its done so easily.

I couldn't be any more thankful to be back to work! How's them apples? Think before you type with such easy answers to fixing the world, before it is YOU losing your job, your mind, and dreams your family once shared. You are NOT irreplaceable.

/Rant, /thread, I'm done here.

Bravo justbob!

:beer:

[kernie]

But when is enough, enough? That is the question. Many people live to get benefits. Not you of course, but you see the problem.

Nobody, certainly not me, is defending this tiny segment of society, but their impact is insignificant in the big picture, IMO.

[Dragcity]

It'll probably get worse.

[Shaijack]

Do not get me wrong I would love to find a job. 300 resume's and only 3 interviews in 8 months, makes me angry. I keep hearing over qualified and you were paid way over what we can pay. They do not understand I want a job name a price.

[Mr. Man]

Blanks or not, still makes a loud BOOM. :cool:

I'm sure the "BOOM" you are imagining are coming from the dog:D

[MrBluGruv]

:lol::lol:

Yeah, next on Maury

"Next you'll meet a gentlemen, and I use that term loosely (thats what she said) who is sick of hearing about baby daddy's, street walking ho's, and just wants me to do another special about can you spot who the man is? Casey, coming up next

lmao, that show genuinely confuses me. Someone shows up saying they are pregnant and don't remember all the people they slept with, then either a gangster or a redneck comes out and people cheer and boo at the same time, they get a DNA test, then everyone dances no matter what the result. It's unreal.

Try watching it on mute once, it's even worse...

[FordNut]

Unemployment is a joke (247.00 a week) and like some I planed for the future and have not lowered my life style. I am more careful now. No I will not sell my BLACK 2003A MM.

The wife offered to sell her Lincoln Towncar but I turned her down.
We need to stick together and see this through.

This was my situation. Without planning for "just in case" and having something set aside, along with ebay to clean out the garage and a few consulting gigs, I would have been in deep doo doo.


The unemployment that I was receiving last year equaled 1/4 of my normal 40 hour work week checks, NOT including my benefits that equaled an additional double. So I invite anyone to take your pay and cut it down to just over 1/5th your normal income overnight and "get a job ya deadbeat loser". Funny all the names I have heard "us" called, but never a mention of the 20+ years or more of adding to the pot?? The best is when I hear some people say "They'll never get off unemployment if the Gov keeps handing it out" LOL!!!!!!! Really?? Would you WANT to lose everything you have ever built up? Not me! I went and found the best I could find in a hurry! Got off the unemp. checks, and changed our living habits to coincide with our "new" income" of 1/3rd our norm. I adapted! Not a problem, sucks, but doable, kinda.. But to hear that we ALL just want our checks?? I invite you to jump in the boat, but can you swim? Test "them" for drugs! Okay, I lost my job, so now I'm an addict? NICE. Any more labels? Having this happen is a test I actually wouldn't mind seeing a few take.. Maybe some of the haters can show us how its done so easily.

I couldn't be any more thankful to be back to work! How's them apples? Think before you type with such easy answers to fixing the world, before it is YOU losing your job, your mind, and dreams your family once shared. You are NOT irreplaceable.

/Rant, /thread, I'm done here.
I was there... Unemployment was about 10% of my working salary. I finally found a job, but it pays about 30% less than my previous jobs. I have mixed feelings about the extended unemployment payments though. I could have taken jobs several times, but it would have required relocation. Since I had the unemployment to help get by, I waited until I found something local.


But when is enough, enough? That is the question. Many people live to get benefits. Not you of course, but you see the problem.
Those are the ones that make it difficult for those of us who have paid in for decades and need help for a short time.


Do not get me wrong I would love to find a job. 300 resume's and only 3 interviews in 8 months, makes me angry. I keep hearing over qualified and you were paid way over what we can pay. They do not understand I want a job name a price.
I never put my previous salaries on any of my applications. I discussed that in person and made it clear that I did not expect to make as much because of the special circumstances: I had worked in places with higher cost-of-living, I had been in a traveling role, had been on-call, and was pretty much topped out in salary.

[SC Cheesehead]

Nobody, certainly not me, is defending this tiny segment of society, but their impact is insignificant in the big picture, IMO.


kernie, this "tiny" segment is a lot larger than you may realize.

As for those folks struggling with unemployment, I feel for you, and can relate to that. Went through it in the early 80's, not fun. You are not the folks I refer to when addressing the ever-increasing entitlement mentality.

[jerrym3]

OK, Cheeshead.

We just all need sit back a little and realize that there are many individuals that have lost their jobs and have tried and tried and tried to find work and can't through no fault of their own.

[LIGHTNIN1]

kernie, this "tiny" segment is a lot larger than you may realize.

As for those folks struggling with unemployment, I feel for you, and can relate to that. Went through it in the early 80's, not fun. You are not the folks I refer to when addressing the ever-increasing entitlement mentality.


Agreed. The people we are talking about are not the ones who try to go to work and can not find work. But there are a lot of people in that category. I know a few myself. One neighbor who has never worked and on SSI claims he is alergic to sweat. Well so am I. No brag, just fact. I have been laid off 5 times and sold and gave stuff away to move 3 states away to go to work. I moved here with just clothes on my back, whatever it takes.

[Fosters]

For the sake of clarity, when I complain about people on welfare, I mean people who have never worked and could care less about finding a job or educating themselves. Or getting thier tubes tied or having a vasectomy. How much do guests on Maury get when they have 6 kids by 6 dudes, just had another one, and 4 guys are on the stage awaiting the paternity results? Whatever they get paid for being on the show, I want my tax dollars taken out of it and given back to me.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92634649

Older article, but the point stands :)

[SC Cheesehead]

Agreed. The people we are talking about are not the ones who try to go to work and can not find work. But there are a lot of people in that category. I know a few myself. One neighbor who has never worked and on SSI claims he is alergic to sweat. Well so am I. No brag, just fact. I have been laid off 5 times and sold and gave stuff away to move 3 states away to go to work. I moved here with just clothes on my back, whatever it takes.

We've got one pretty close to home. Got laid off, told me he had no intention of looking for work as long as he was "earning" unemployment; said he had it coming to him. Was real pleased when the extension came through. When benefits finally ran out it was "oh woe is me, I can't find a job, and my benefits have been 'cut off'." I asked him where he'd been looking, offered up a few suggestions, and was told that "he'd never go there, they don't pay enough." :rolleyes:

[Dragcity]

^^^^^^^ THAT is what I see a LOT of here in Buffalo. And that is the national problem. The 'system' has created a large group of perpetual takers....

[rayjay]

[QUOTE=CBT;1035981]For the sake of clarity, when I complain about people on welfare, I mean people who have never worked and could care less about finding a job or educating themselves. Or getting thier tubes tied or having a vasectomy QUOTE]

You know my dirt bag low life neighbors? I ask because you just described them to a T. The head tard can't work because he has children to swear at and can't take orders from anyone. Not that anyone would hire a terets ladened POS anyway. Anytime there is anything to be done at home the children, 3, skip school to do it. The wife was working part time until recently. Not sure what happened this time. Last two jobs tard boy showed up drunk at her work and broke into both nursing homes. Resulting in her firing. So in the 4+ years these pieces of garbage have lived in the HUD house next to me one of them has worked for a total of maybe 4 months, part time. -and- people around here have the gall to be angry that I can afford to live off a state pension that I earned for working 34 yrs of nights/weekends/holidays/no weekends off, dealing with people like the above said trash, ect...

[rayjay]

OK, Cheeshead.

We just all need sit back a little and realize that there are many individuals that have lost their jobs and have tried and tried and tried to find work and can't through no fault of their own.

My wife is in this catagory of the unreported unemployed. Lost her job I think it was almost 2 1/2 years ago. Looked for 8 months and gave up. Nothing available in our area and the cost & time of commuting to Syracuse or Utica for the salaries offered was not worth it. She is currently going to college for a career change. What she wants to get into should be steady employment at a place she chooses nationwide. My daughter did the same thing in a different field of the medical world and can write her own ticket. Also nationwide.

[SC Cheesehead]

^^^^^^^ THAT is what I see a LOT of here in Buffalo. And that is the national problem. The 'system' has created a large group of perpetual takers....


EXACTLY!

For the unfortunate folks that are laid off, but want to work, there should be a safety net.

However, the system is such that individuals that don't have a strong work ethic have every enducement to play the system, and what's worse, it perpetuates itself. Example: single moms that have welfare benefits increased based on the number of children they have. More kids = more benefits, so where's the incentive to NOT have more kids? And those kids are typcially raised with an entitlement perception, so there is a very high probability that they'll continue along that course, e.g., another generation of single moms generating more babies to "earn a living." For this segment of society, there's no stigma associated with being on the dole, and that's a big part of the problem. No responsibility, no accountability, just take the handout and then get in the next line to ask for more. Who's going to pay for it? "Who cares?" As long as it's available, they'll take it.

[CBT]

Are these the same fools who had the dog that attacked your daughter?


[QUOTE=CBT;1035981]For the sake of clarity, when I complain about people on welfare, I mean people who have never worked and could care less about finding a job or educating themselves. Or getting thier tubes tied or having a vasectomy QUOTE]

You know my dirt bag low life neighbors? I ask because you just described them to a T. The head tard can't work because he has children to swear at and can't take orders from anyone. Not that anyone would hire a terets ladened POS anyway. Anytime there is anything to be done at home the children, 3, skip school to do it. The wife was working part time until recently. Not sure what happened this time. Last two jobs tard boy showed up drunk at her work and broke into both nursing homes. Resulting in her firing. So in the 4+ years these pieces of garbage have lived in the HUD house next to me one of them has worked for a total of maybe 4 months, part time. -and- people around here have the gall to be angry that I can afford to live off a state pension that I earned for working 34 yrs of nights/weekends/holidays/no weekends off, dealing with people like the above said trash, ect...

[LIGHTNIN1]

To the unemployed I would say check out Federal jobs in DC. Supposedly THE MESSIAH ( Barack Obama) has added 200K Federal jobs since the incarnation. I guess those are the shovel ready jobs he was talking about.

[CBT]

To the unemployed I would say check out Federal jobs in DC. Supposedly THE MESSIAH ( Barack Obama) has added 200K Federal jobs since the incarnation. I guess those are the shovel ready jobs he was talking about.
I don't think there are enough shovels to pick up what he is putting down.

[illwood]

I don't think there are enough shovels to pick up what he is putting down.

Like being the clown that walks behind the elephants at a parade.

[Dragcity]

Don't you all know he will need another four years in office to actually make those jobs available?

[CBT]

Don't you all know he will need another four years in office to actually make those jobs available?

If the government confiscated all the money of everyone who made over 100,000 dollars this year, it would not be enough to pay off the deficit.

[guspech750]

I think so many hard working Americans that have not been working due to them being let go, are just so fed up with all the dirtbags taking advantage of the system. They feel entitled to get back some of what they have been paying into for so many years. I can tell you this. If I lost my job today. I would milk the F-ing system for as long as I mentally and monetarily could. Time to get back some of my money that I have paid into. But I would still be on the look out for a job.

I would take that time to be with my family that's for sure.

[rayjay]

[QUOTE=CBT;1036148]Are these the same fools who had the dog that attacked your daughter?

Yes they are. Depositions for the lawsuits are finally coming around. We do ours the Monday after Carlise. I never knew this was such a long process and we are on our third legal firm. We are now hooked up with a specialist in this area of law, quite by accident. It is one of the most influential in our area owned by a very much respected NYS Senator. The attorney is quite a looker too, :cool4: makes it more enjoyable.

As for the unemployment, my wife worked full time for this medical office as the manager. On paper they cut back the job to part time and made up some alleged company rules infraction they deemed her guilty of. Due to this she received exactly two weeks of unemployment insurance that I had to pay back because she had not worked enough hours in the previous year to collect. This was the most corrupt, blatent lie, crooked misuse of the system by an employer I have ever seen. They did not provide a normal paycheck stub, ever in the 5 years she was there. This was a clue, but I could never get her to do anything about it. Beep was so infuriated she refused to appeal, which we needed to hire an attorney to do and go 200 miles away to accomplish. Once she makes up her bullheaded polack mind thats it.
And NYS wants to know why the hell it is hemoraging residents to other states. Now we have a new governor who's father screwed the state so badly that it took years to get it right again. People have very short memories. Its just a matter of time before he gets caught with his tool where it don't belong just like the previous ego maniac...

[Dragcity]

Ray. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.....


Let's get out of here!

[tbone]

Nobody, certainly not me, is defending this tiny segment of society, but their impact is insignificant in the big picture, IMO.


Tiny? Insignifigant?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah aahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaahahahahahaahahaahahahaah ahahahaahahahaahahahahahah

[SC Cheesehead]

Ray. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.....


Let's get out of here!

Here you go, bubba... ;)

https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx

[rayjay]

Here you go, bubba... ;)

https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx

Do ya think BDJ can get us a discount? I'll come to Greensboro and live on your couch like a dead beat brother inlaw for a month. :hug: :neener:

[jerrym3]

My other nephew who was on the brink got pushed over.

I didn't realize when I wrote my post that he is also unemployed.

I'm not quoting exact figures here, but isn't the "accepted" unemployment level about 3-4%? Figured in that 3-4% are those who just don't want a job, and those who are unemployed for other reasons in a normal econony.

Now, if we're at 10-11% now (or worse-let's not forget those that have just given up, run out of benefits, or moved back home with mom/pop), doesn't that mean the the increase is mainly those who want to work but have lost their jobs in this financial mess?

So, overall percentage-wise, the freeloader number may be less than many think.

Like him, hate him, or "could care less" doesn't matter, but the Dems and Reps running the country while Obama was a community organizer made this mess we're in, or, at the very least, let it happen.

They all share in the blame, and now it seems that their main goal for the country is to remain employed themselves.

That also goes for our esteemed 24/7 pundits. Anything to boost ratings (paraphrasing), per the head of a large news organization.

[FastMerc]

No its not! Its the people who are getting checks from the goverment that need to get a job!!!!!
Yes its that and all the free money all them illeagle ailiens are getting from our stupid govt!

[rayjay]

Well, if we, "The People", re elect a certain person of dubious credentials to the White House again, we get exactly what we deserve.

I've got $10 that says Hillary Rotten Clinton dropped the hammer on Uncle Moe-meer and the boyz while someone else wringed their hands and waffled looking at a teleprompter for what to do... :shake:

[SC Cheesehead]

Do ya think BDJ can get us a discount? I'll come to Greensboro and live on your couch like a dead beat brother inlaw for a month. :hug: :neener:

If you get to Greensboro, drive another 3 1/2 hours if you want to stay at my place, and BTW, you can bunk down in my study/office; but be fore-warned, it's done up in a Green Bay Packer theme... :D

[rayjay]

If you get to Greensboro, drive another 3 1/2 hours if you want to stay at my place, and BTW, you can bunk down in my study/office; but be fore-warned, it's done up in a Green Bay Packer theme... :D

My stupid... I meant Greensville brother. Football? What is it?

[SC Cheesehead]

My stupid... I meant Greensville brother. Football? What is it?


Folks in Buffalo typically ask the same question.

(KA-POW!)

[rayjay]

Folks in Buffalo typically ask the same question.

(KA-POW!)

Where? :censor:

[SC Cheesehead]

Where? :censor:

"We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow..."

[rayjay]

"We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow..."

Not in Orchard Park.... My son hates me because I told him I was Dolphins fan now. :rofl:

[Fosters]

I'm also concerned about this...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/22/boeing_nrlb_unions_labor_gover nment_white_house_obama_admini stration_south_carolina_109635 .html

I'm sure there are people who think that unions using government to dictate when, where, and how a private corporation does business, and where they can't do business is a good idea... But I'm not one of them. And people wonder why (manufacturing among others) jobs are leaving the US...

[sailsmen]

I have been reading the CBO, OMB and IMF reports since October 2008. They all say the same thing. The Spending is unsustainable.

$12,000 per man, woman and child per year of which $4,800 is borrowed. Only 45% of the population works. That means everyone who works must generate $25,200 in revenue to the Gov't and the principal amount the Gov't borrowing. Paying back a loan is DEAD money, as it generates no benefit to the economy or anyone except the lender you are paying it back to.

We have months to stop borrowing at the current level or we will collapse followed by World War and then Civil War.

You either need to have 100% Debt or No Debt. Those that have partial equity will lose what they have. Home Land Security recommends a 3 day supply of food. I recommend a 30 day supply of food and a source of water with a way to purify it.

You can always eat the food or give it away if we are wrong. Water purification, (bleach, iodine and ceramic filters), is inexpensive.

I have seen a city turn into complete anarchy in a matter of hours. If the city you live in has more than 15% of the population on food stamps you are in an anarchy spot.

I hope I end up giving the food away, the odds are I will not.

[sailsmen]

USA is 35% plus applicable State Corp Tax and Singapore is 17%.
Country - USA Widget Singapore Widget
Profit - $100 $100
Tax - $ 35 $ 17
Net Profit - $65 $ 83
Difference - $18 or 28%. higher

What do businesses do with Profits? They;
Reinvest in the company rsulting in more jobs
Pay Bonuses which result in higher income taxes
Pay Dividend which result in higher income taxes
Pay down Debt.

Why invest or make money in the USA when you can get a 28% higher return resulting in a more competitve viable company just on the tax?
Is it any wonder the USA has the highest Corporate tax in the World?

When you hear the effective tax rate, meaning the rate that is actually paid ask if that data also includes the Corps taxed as individuals. You may recall in recent news that most Corps do not pay tax. That is becasue most Corps have elected to be taxed as an individual. This means the income flows from the Corp to the individual and is taxed as income to the individual. Also if a Corp has no income or profits it pays no income or prpofit tax.

[rauder775]

This is one helluva a dark cloud above us and when there is no sun....

[MrBluGruv]

I don't know how less government spending could NOT be the answer.

The biggest argument I've seen for taxing so high is to not go belly-up as a nation, so basically "sustainability" is the reason we can't have sustainability. How did it become OK to justify an irresponsible behavior by basically saying that if you DON'T keep it up, things will fall apart?

Just like the stock market though, if enough people with money just pretend everything is OK and continue to put their money into the system, it will survive. I also believe to a degree that the sheer stick-to-it nature of the American culture (as a whole, not by the individual) will keep it from falling off the top of the international ladder.

[SC Cheesehead]

Former Federal Reserve (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/business/finance/federal-reserve.htm) chairman Alan Greenspan (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/business/finance/economists/alan-greenspan.htm) said in a recent interview that the U.S. is suffering from an unproductive youth movement in the labor force, and that companies don’t want to hire these young folk. Greenspan also said that U.S. companies would be better off hiring immigrants...

We are, he says, too young, dumb and unproductive as a workforce. The Baby Boomers were better, finding ways to do more with less, but they are retiring in droves. As they hit the links, their ranks of replacements don’t measure up.
Here are his [Greenspan’s] words, in an interview with The Globalist:
"Baby boomers are being replaced by groups of young workers who have regrettably scored rather poorly in international educational match-ups over the last two decades. The average income of U.S. households headed by 25-year-olds and younger has been declining relative to the average income of the baby boomer population. This is a reasonably good indication that the productivity of the younger part of our workforce is declining relative to the level of productivity achieved by the retiring baby boomers. This raises some major concerns about the productive skills of our future U.S. labor force."

There is, sadly, much truth in what he says. The degradation of our educational system, thanks to a lack of accountability and a general resistance to innovation, is well-documented...

But the lack of productivity Greenspan frets over can arguably also be set at the feet of our growing entitlement culture, which we explored in some detail several weeks ago for Entitlement Nation Week. Being a productive worker means having a commitment to honest labor.
That has eroded as more people have relied upon the federal government for the growth of their household wealth. That, in turn, has led to a troubling change in attitude in this country.
As [Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist] George Will (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/politics/reporters/george-will.htm) put it, “Americans, endowed by their solicitous government with an ever-expanding array of entitlements, now have the whiny mentality that an entitlement culture breeds.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/13/alan-greenspan-its-gen-xers-fault-theyre-out-work/#ixzz1S1ApM08i

[PonyUP]

Former Federal Reserve (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/business/finance/federal-reserve.htm) chairman Alan Greenspan (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/business/finance/economists/alan-greenspan.htm) said in a recent interview that the U.S. is suffering from an unproductive youth movement in the labor force, and that companies don’t want to hire these young folk. Greenspan also said that U.S. companies would be better off hiring immigrants...

We are, he says, too young, dumb and unproductive as a workforce. The








Baby Boomers were better, finding ways to do more with less, but they are retiring in droves. As they hit the links, their ranks of replacements don’t measure up.
Here are his [Greenspan’s] words, in an interview with The Globalist:
"Baby boomers are being replaced by groups of young workers who have regrettably scored rather poorly in international educational match-ups over the last two decades. The average income of U.S. households headed by 25-year-olds and younger has been declining relative to the average income of the baby boomer population. This is a reasonably good indication that the productivity of the younger part of our workforce is declining relative to the level of productivity achieved by the retiring baby boomers. This raises some major concerns about the productive skills of our future U.S. labor force."

There is, sadly, much truth in what he says. The degradation of our educatio system, thanks to a lack of accountability and a general resistance to innovation, is well-documented...

But the lack of productivity Greenspan frets over can arguably also be set at the feet of our growing entitlement culture, which we explored in some detail several weeks ago for Entitlement Nation Week. Being a productive worker means having a commitment to honest labor.
That has eroded as more people have relied upon the federal government for the growth of their household wealth. That, in turn, has led to a troubling change in attitude in this country.
As [Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist] George Will (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/politics/reporters/george-will.htm) put it, “Americans, endowed by their solicitous
government with an ever-expanding array of entitlements, now have the whiny mentality that an entitlement culture breeds.”

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/13/alan-greenspan-its-gen-xers-fault-theyre-out-work/#ixzz1S1ApM08i

Definitely some truth to what he said, I will not group all young ins in that category, but there most certainly is a sense of entitlement and a large drop in work ethic from the workforce today.

Many of them seem to think 40hr work week is a full week? WTF

[Vortex]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/taxupdown.jpg?uuid=bzE5xHyyEeC rwU3SJUu-gA

Rex, I think this is the one folks should pay attention to.

[F8LBITEva]

This is freakin depressing. Im 31 years old and all I want is to own my own house but I cant afford anything within 50 miles from work. I make great money doing what I do but take home just about 55% of my income after taxes. I hope to see our economy turn around to the good old days of the 80's and 90's once again in my lifetime but who knows.

[Bigdogjim]

What worries most is the debt. We just can not keep printing money. If we loose our status as the worlds reserve currency then we will turn into a second rate power with a lot of debt and no way to repay it. Plus our money will be worthless and devalued.

Not good...........THE USA NEEDS REAL LEADERSHIP.... NOW!

[Shaijack]

Finally got a JOB. It pays $25.00 more a month than un der employment. I am back supporting the masses. Ya-man. Only took one year.

[Bigdogjim]

Finally got a JOB. It pays $25.00 more a month than un der employment. I am back supporting the masses. Ya-man. Only took one year.

Nice! I have been off about 6 weeks...suck!

[Fosters]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/taxupdown.jpg?uuid=bzE5xHyyEeC rwU3SJUu-gA

Rex, I think this is the one folks should pay attention to.

Funny. Chart starts at Carter, and makes it look like it's gotten so much "worse" afterwards. OMG, the rich aren't paying their fair share!!!

Yet it doesn't show how much revenue was actually collected during those years... And doesn't say anything about how well the country did during those years...

Funny how it doesn't show how much taxes the bottom 50% are paying... That's not important, who cares about that; it's all about the 0.1%... They're also the ones eating up all of the government services... :shake:

If Carter is your idea of fair, and you think that's the path to prosperity, vote Obama in 2012.


Finally got a JOB. It pays $25.00 more a month than un der employment. I am back supporting the masses. Ya-man. Only took one year.

Congrats! And thank god there are still people like you making the decision to work, even for something that's obviously not worth it compared to unemployment (i'm sure you spend more than 25 bucks per month in gas to get to work and back). Unfortunately, not everyone has your mentality, and more unemployment benefits and more welfare will breed more unemployed people on welfare... For every person like you, I bet there are a dozen that make the "other" decision...

If you pay people to not work, they will in fact, not work.

[SC Cheesehead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/taxupdown.jpg?uuid=bzE5xHyyEeC rwU3SJUu-gA

Rex, I think this is the one folks should pay attention to.


Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the population, that pays NO taxes but consumes the majority of the entitlements whines about the 0.1% on top not paying enough to support them.

Yeah, Mabye we ought to take 100% of those 0.1% er's earnings, that would make it "fair." :rolleyes:

"Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more" - Ten Years After - I'd Love to Change the World


If we really were serious about "fairness" in taxation, we'd have a flat tax with no loopholes, everybody that earns anything pays a flat amount of taxes on the income. That's FAIR.

A progressive tax isn't fair, it's putting a higher burden on one segment of the population, but it plays well politically.

[Ozark Marauder]

Flat Tax or Fair Tax, anything is better than progressive.........

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax

[SC Cheesehead]

Flat Tax or Fair Tax, anything is better than progressive.........

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/07/a-brief-guide-to-the-flat-tax

Yup, but just think of the unemployment reprecussions.

All those poor IRS people who would be out of work... :rolleyes:

[Haggis]

Yup, but just think of the unemployment reprecussions.

All those poor IRS people who would be out of work... :rolleyes:

BooHoo.....

[Kodimar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/taxupdown.jpg?uuid=bzE5xHyyEeC rwU3SJUu-gA

Rex, I think this is the one folks should pay attention to.

You're right, we should pay attention to this. When you tax the rich less they have more money and with that money they can start a new business or expand their current one and hire more people or buy that new house/boat/plane that took skill laborers to build. Looks like a win win situation to me.

When you remove incentive to succeed, guess what people will stop working harder. This is why almost all countries where there are no property rights have extremely low GDPs. If you can't keep what you work for, what's the point of working more than you absolutely have too?

[Fosters]

BooHoo.....

Can you imagine an IRS auditor trying to look for a job? That's probably worse than going to jail for theft at the work place and looking for a job in a jewelry store... :D

[Krytin]

You're right, we should pay attention to this. When you tax the rich less they have more money and with that money they can start a new business or expand their current one and hire more people or buy that new house/boat/plane that took skill laborers to build. Looks like a win win situation to me.

When you remove incentive to succeed, guess what people will stop working harder. This is why almost all countries where there are no property rights have extremely low GDPs. If you can't keep what you work for, what's the point of working more than you absolutely have too?


So how come they have not been doing it? Their tax breaks got extended - no new jobs?

[Fosters]

So how come they have not been doing it? Their tax breaks got extended - no new jobs?

Why create new jobs now when Obama promised solemnly this is the last extension of the cuts? And furthermore, to create new jobs, you need to lower the tax rate. Keeping it the same and expecting new jobs isn't gonna happen. Throw in Obamacare costs, and it's the uncertainty that's keeping everyone from taking a risk and expanding their company. Invest more into it now, and not have money to pay down your taxes when they go up or wait and see what happens?

Tell you what, Let's make it 25% for everyone and everything in the country, individual, corporate, etc. No deductions, no mortgage interest deductions, no green energy deductions, no child deductions, nothing. I bet you the revenue will be way up (historically regardless of the top tax rates, they've only been able to collect about 18-19% of gdp anyway), and employment will soar. Except, as it was pointed earlier, for IRS workers.

And by the way, are you admitting no new jobs have been created? I thought the stimulus did that, no? We were all supposed to be saved from 8.5% unemployment, what happened?

[Vortex]

You're right, we should pay attention to this. When you tax the rich less they have more money and with that money they can start a new business or expand their current one and hire more people or buy that new house/boat/plane that took skill laborers to build. Looks like a win win situation to me.

When you remove incentive to succeed, guess what people will stop working harder. This is why almost all countries where there are no property rights have extremely low GDPs. If you can't keep what you work for, what's the point of working more than you absolutely have too?

Yes, maybe all Americans will be millionaires someday.

I would agree with you about new businesses or expanding current ones so I will support no repealing of tax breaks for millionaires who start new businesses or expand exisiting ones. For the other 99.9% who rathole their money away or spend it buying foreign cars or islands in the Caribbean it would be nice to see them pay their fair share.

[MrBluGruv]

I have a peculiar feeling that the lack of economic investment has less to do with purely the tax rate and more to do with the general instability of the political climate.

You can work with a government saying they are going to take 25% of everything you earn in income. At that point it's either work to live or flounder/die.

It's a lot harder though to work with a government who threatens ever-changing new costs and fluctuations in the current system that's actually remarkably stable as it is.

I've said it before and I'll said it again: I don't credit any type of "stability" we have right now to any type of government intervention whatsoever, but rather to the sheer will and drive to not fail by America as a whole. Yes, America has a lot of lazy people in it, but America is full of clutch players too. THAT is what makes the country unique, in my opinion.

[Kodimar]

I'd say they pay their fair share...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

[BODYMAN]

I have a peculiar feeling that the lack of economic investment has less to do with purely the tax rate and more to do with the general instability of the political climate.

You can work with a government saying they are going to take 25% of everything you earn in income. At that point it's either work to live or flounder/die.

It's a lot harder though to work with a government who threatens ever-changing new costs and fluctuations in the current system that's actually remarkably stable as it is.

I've said it before and I'll said it again: I don't credit any type of "stability" we have right now to any type of government intervention whatsoever, but rather to the sheer will and drive to not fail by America as a whole. Yes, America has a lot of lazy people in it, but America is full of clutch players too. THAT is what makes the country unique, in my opinion.


After reading thru all this I have to say this is a very good statement, When you have political floundering it can cause the destruction we have seen. Heck for last 3 yrs all I have ever heard is ,ITS THERE FAULT NOT OURS. I for one am tired of the finger pointing. There is a problem just find the way to fix it rather find a scape goat. If they could spend the time and energy on that rather then finding persons to blame we may be headed in a good direction?:bandit:

[Fosters]

Yes, maybe all Americans will be millionaires someday.

I would agree with you about new businesses or expanding current ones so I will support no repealing of tax breaks for millionaires who start new businesses or expand exisiting ones. For the other 99.9% who rathole their money away or spend it buying foreign cars or islands in the Caribbean it would be nice to see them pay their fair share.

As long as they got their money via legal means, let them do whatever the hell they want with them. I thought this was America, the land of the free? If I want to keep my stash under the bed next to the mossberg, and not share it with every welfare mooch, it's my right to do so. I already paid more than my fair share on that money. And so have the rich.

Or is now being rich automatically mean you have to open a business or expand one?

Also, ratholing money away, like having it in a trust or invested into a low interest account - most will not bury it underneath the shed - will still create jobs; the banks that lend out those funds will lend it out to small business and so on. If those funds don't exist, banks can't lend it out; the fewer those funds exist, the higher the competition for them from the people who do want to start something or expand a business, and the higher the interests will be.


I have a peculiar feeling that the lack of economic investment has less to do with purely the tax rate and more to do with the general instability of the political climate.

You can work with a government saying they are going to take 25% of everything you earn in income. At that point it's either work to live or flounder/die.

It's a lot harder though to work with a government who threatens ever-changing new costs and fluctuations in the current system that's actually remarkably stable as it is.

I've said it before and I'll said it again: I don't credit any type of "stability" we have right now to any type of government intervention whatsoever, but rather to the sheer will and drive to not fail by America as a whole. Yes, America has a lot of lazy people in it, but America is full of clutch players too. THAT is what makes the country unique, in my opinion.


well put!

[sailsmen]

Answer only 4 out of 10 people work for the private sector. That means each private sector worker must carry 1.5 people. Total Gov't spending, Fed/State/Local, is $40,250 per private sector worker. Per the White House OMB;








Year Fed Tax Revenue as a % of Economy Fed Spending as a % of Economy Borrowed as a % of Economy

Average
1950-2007 17.8% 20% 2.2%




2008 17.5% 20.7% 3.2%




2011 14.4% 25.3% 10.9%.




How long could you borrow 10.9% of your economy before you would not be able to pay it back

From 1948 to current every time Fed spending as a % of our economy was 20% or more for 2 or more years unemployment increased 50%. Regardless of wether or not the economy grew or shrank. When Fed spending exceeds 20% of our economy the privste sector is pushed out resulting in a loss of jobs.

In 2009 the 10 year Budget forecasted 21.5%+ for every year through 2019.

[sailsmen]

"rathole their money away"? Yes, alll those rich people who wipe their rear end with their money and rub it all over their naked bodies.

For all the rich people who do not "rathole" it they invest it back in their business resulting in more jobs, they place it in the bank who loans it to others to creat more jobs, they invest it in the stock market to allow other businesses to have more jobs, they buy bonds providing capital to allow other buisnesses to have more jobs and they pay more in taxes to allow Gov't to reward irresponsible behavior.

This is "ratholing" money - The Federal Gov't has just announced it is rebuilding the most violent projects in New Orleans for $590,000,000 resulting in a cost per unit, excluding land, of $208,000- $322,000*. Yep our Gov't is taking money from people who work and live in a $300,000 house and giving it to people on welfare to live in a better house than those whose money they took.

*NOLA - "Total development costs for each apartment on the Iberville site will run an estimated $208,000, while off-site apartments in historic buildings will run $321,837 each, significantly more than the $229,000 per-apartment estimate for new off-site structures."

[MrBluGruv]

Two things about stockpiling money:

1: anyone who does that enough to cause a serious economic problem would have to be bat-**** crazy. This means that they have a SERIOUSLY high income, yet live a lifestyle of almost complete and utter poverty.

2: if a significant amount of the population practices these habits, it would be indicative that they are afraid of some impending crisis they feel is coming (read above for reasons why it'd be crazy to do otherwise).


Bottom-line: if this is happening A LOT, the actual stockpiling and its consequent effects probably aren't your biggest concern...

[sailsmen]

Yep, all those Germans who "stock piled" money post WWI came out real good!

Argentina 2001 here we come!

Hey all you private sector workers a/k/a endentured servant fools how does it feel to carry a Gov't Overhead of $40,250 while also carrying 1.5 people? SUCKERS!!!!!! Hehehehehehe.

Keep working harder, harder and harder still, we the 6 out of 10, are counting on you.;)

[Fosters]

Yep, all those Germans who "stock piled" money post WWI came out real good!

Argentina 2001 here we come!

Hey all you private sector workers a/k/a endentured servant fools how does it feel to carry a Gov't Overhead of $40,250 while also carrying 1.5 people? SUCKERS!!!!!! Hehehehehehe.

Keep working harder, harder and harder still, we the 6 out of 10, are counting on you.;)

Each person has a point, at which they beleive it's no longer worth putting in the effort to better themselves and earn a higher wage. The more government takes from us, the lower that point goes down for everyone.

The problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Love to see big government types, and all government employees complain when there is no more private sector...

[sailsmen]

The problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Love to see big government types, and all government employees complain when there is no more private sector...

What will they do then? Redistribute the income/assets of the Gov't workers?

No, they will go to war to redistribute the assets of others.

Our Alinsky/Clowert/Piven President is left on cue.

[1 Bad Merc]

What do you think will happen with the "underground economy"? You know the one where people pay cash and workers pay no taxes. I heard it was estimated at around 1 billion per year but no one really knows for sure. I know alot of people that are starting to do work this way (not just illegals) as they are sick and tired of paying money into the rathole. I wonder how much money (tax revenue) we are really losing.

[Fosters]

What will they do then? Redistribute the income/assets of the Gov't workers?

No, they will go to war to redistribute the assets of others.

Our Alinsky/Clowert/Piven President is left on cue.

Maybe. Or they'll slow down redistributing. I've lived in communism; there is a lot that people endure, when it is taken bit by bit, before they stand up against it. The standard of living will sink a lot. The saving grace of the US, is the population having guns - so if an uprising was to happen, it won't be as bloody (on the side of the population) and drawn out as libya, egypt, or the eastern block in the late 80s.

[Kodimar]

So how come they have not been doing it? Their tax breaks got extended - no new jobs?

It's probably the only reason things haven't become worse.

Just out of curiosity do you think it would have helped the economy to let the Bush tax cuts expire?

[Fosters]

Oh noes, we're gonna shut down the federal government and default on our debt interest payments of 20 billion per month because we don't have the money if the republicans don't agree to soak those evil rich....

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/president-donates-100-billion-to-the-united-nations/

Damn those republicans.

[sailsmen]

Income Tax paying private sector workers are the Indentured Servants of Gov't.

Orszag (Obama's Golden Boy OMB Director who resigned concurrent with the CBO report showing Fed spending unsustainable) on 7-14-11;
"If an extended period of slow growth is more likely than the official projections suggest,we’re in for a much nastier mix of high unemployment in the near term and large budgetgaps over the medium term. This is only more evidence that the right policy response is a combination of more aggressive action to bolster the job market now and much more deficit reduction enacted now to take effect in a few years. On both strategies, we should be as bold as we can."

This goes back to my Fed spending 20%+ of GDP for 2 or more years results in a 50% increase in unemployment.

IF you are paying income tax you are an indentured servant saddled with a Public Debt you can never pay back. If you don't pay income tax you are an economic slave dependent on Gov't hand outs. This is their "Utopia" a/k/a Animal Farm.

[sailsmen]

So how come they have not been doing it? Their tax breaks got extended - no new jobs?

Fed spending increased 29% in three years to 25% of GDP which crowds out the private sector as a result of Gov't borrowing at all time highs which pushes out private capital, the life blood of our economy.

Pres Obama passed over 200 laws in the first 2 years totaling over 8,000 pages while issuing over 200 EOs and over 235 rule makings.

Not only have the rules been changed the board on which they are played has been changed. Until we figure out how to play no one is going to.

Today it is far more lucrative to become a Fed employee than to start your own business. A Fed employee has zero risk and is not subject to IRS, EEOC, EPA, INS, OSHA, etc.

[kernie]

Maybe. Or they'll slow down redistributing. I've lived in communism; there is a lot that people endure, when it is taken bit by bit, before they stand up against it. The standard of living will sink a lot. The saving grace of the US, is the population having guns - so if an uprising was to happen, it won't be as bloody (on the side of the population) and drawn out as libya, egypt, or the eastern block in the late 80s.

Of course everyone having guns, what can go wrong?

;)

[sailsmen]

Of course everyone having guns, what can go wrong?

;)

No Guns no revolution against the World's most powerful military and no USA.

[RacerX]

Oops! Kids can't do lemonade stands now either...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43769978/ns/us_news-weird_news/

[Kodimar]

Of course everyone having guns, what can go wrong?

;)

Of course only the government having guns, what can go wrong.

[Fosters]

Of course everyone having guns, what can go wrong?

;)

As opposed to fighting bare handed vs armed guards? I'll take the everyone with guns option.

In the event of an uprisal, the bloodshed would continue until the establishment is overthrown. if the population is unarmed, that can be for a very long time, and it will produce a lot of casualties. If the population is armed, a much quicker turnaround would ensue.

[RacerX]

Farmers would win!!! They have the most ammonium nitrate and diesel!!! (And guns) ;)

[Bigdogjim]

No Guns no revolution against the World's most powerful military and no USA.

Right now I say the military edge goes to China.

[kernie]

As opposed to fighting bare handed vs armed guards? I'll take the everyone with guns option.

In the event of an uprisal, the bloodshed would continue until the establishment is overthrown. if the population is unarmed, that can be for a very long time, and it will produce a lot of casualties. If the population is armed, a much quicker turnaround would ensue.

Then what?

:argue:

[Fosters]

Of course everyone having guns, what can go wrong?

;)

It would be a lot less casualties. Look at all of the uprisings in countries where the government is the only side with guns. They're a lot bloodier, and take a lot longer to take down the establishment, if it's at all successful. Take a look at libya. Take a look at the eastern block of the late 80s. I can guarantee you in a country armed to the teeth, if there even was an uprising of the people, any loyals to the establishment would be quickly eliminated and the bloodshed would end much faster.

I know in your liberal mind guns kill people, but that doesn't mean after taking down an establishment, everyone would start killing everyone else and we'd end up like napoleon at waterloo.


Then what?

:argue:

Then we start all over with a limited government. Read some history.

I'm not advocating grabbing the pitchforks and rifles and heading out in the street. I'm simply saying if it ever came to that point - and socialism/communism doesn't settle in overnight, it takes decades for it to do so - the people being armed would have a much easier time taking down socialism. Believe it or not, your utopian society of everything provided by the government doesn't last. Again, read some history.

[kernie]

No Guns no revolution against the World's most powerful military and no USA.

Revolutions are for 3rd world countries.

[Fosters]

Revolutions are for 3rd world countries.

I don't believe the eastern bloc was ever considered to be made up of 3rd world countries, but damn near borderline... Good thing with government taking over banking, health, and auto industries, we're headed straight into that direction, no? :rolleyes:

[kernie]

It would be a lot less casualties. Look at all of the uprisings in countries where the government is the only side with guns. They're a lot bloodier, and take a lot longer to take down the establishment, if it's at all successful. Take a look at libya. Take a look at the eastern block of the late 80s. I can guarantee you in a country armed to the teeth, if there even was an uprising of the people, any loyals to the establishment would be quickly eliminated and the bloodshed would end much faster.

I know in your liberal mind guns kill people, but that doesn't mean after taking down an establishment, everyone would start killing everyone else and we'd end up like napoleon at waterloo.



Then we start all over with a limited government. Read some history.

I'm not advocating grabbing the pitchforks and rifles and heading out in the street. I'm simply saying if it ever came to that point - and socialism/communism doesn't settle in overnight, it takes decades for it to do so - the people being armed would have a much easier time taking down socialism. Believe it or not, your utopian society of everything provided by the government doesn't last. Again, read some history.

No country in the world is more capitalist than the USA, so if, if there is a problem that requires revolution, socialism is suddenly the problem?

Hello??

Hello?

[MrBluGruv]

No country in the world is more capitalist than the USA, so if, if there is a problem that requires revolution, socialism is suddenly the problem?

Hello??

Hello?

Except the socialist change to the current system IS the problem.

Free-market is pretty much the most effective economic system on the planet, an unfortunate side-effect is that human greed tends to breed capitalistic tendencies in that situation. This is not to say the the free-market doesn't work though, far from it. Free market is how we've gotten through so many economic problems in the past, despite situations of capitalism that may have helped get us in that situation in the first place. The key (as much as no one wants to hear it) is moderation instead of excess. A healthy dose of foresight doesn't hurt either.

I guarantee you the shift from people privately controlling the means of production to "the people" publically controlling the means of production will not come easy given how accustomed we've become to such things as "free will" and "earning potential" though.

[kernie]

Except the socialist change to the current system IS the problem.

Free-market is pretty much the most effective economic system on the planet, an unfortunate side-effect is that human greed tends to breed capitalistic tendencies in that situation. This is not to say the the free-market doesn't work though, far from it. Free market is how we've gotten through so many economic problems in the past, despite situations of capitalism that may have helped get us in that situation in the first place. The key (as much as no one wants to hear it) is moderation instead of excess. A healthy dose of foresight doesn't hurt either.

I guarantee you the shift from people privately controlling the means of production to "the people" publically controlling the means of production will not come easy given how accustomed we've become to such things as "free will" and "earning potential" though.

That is not true and you know it. Yall didn't even hear of the word until Sarah Palin burst on your visual screen.

Can't even say nice try.

[sailsmen]

The previous USA model produced the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people while simultaneously freeing the larges number of people in the World.

The USA is not the most capitalist country in the World. In my lifetime over 50,000 new laws have been passed of which 4,000 are in the Federal criminal code. Keep in mind criminal laws are for the most part left to the States.

Only 4 out of 10 people work for the private sector.

Average Fed Pay/Benefits is DOULBE the average private sector. For every 6 private sector workers there is a Gov't worker.

Gov't is spending over 35% of GDP and rising. 40% and you are officially Socialist.

[sailsmen]

Income Tax paying private sector workers are the Indentured Servants of Gov't.

Orszag (Obama's Golden Boy OMB Director who resigned concurrent with the CBO report showing Fed spending unsustainable) on 7-14-11;
"If an extended period of slow growth is more likely than the official projections suggest,we’re in for a much nastier mix of high unemployment in the near term and large budgetgaps over the medium term. This is only more evidence that the right policy response is a combination of more aggressive action to bolster the job market now and much more deficit reduction enacted now to take effect in a few years. On both strategies, we should be as bold as we can."

This goes back to my Fed spending 20%+ of GDP for 2 or more years results in a 50% increase in unemployment.

IF you are paying income tax you are an indentured servant saddled with a Public Debt you can never pay back. If you don't pay income tax you are an economic slave dependent on Gov't hand outs. This is their "Utopia" a/k/a Animal Farm.

More and more Liberal Economist such as Obama's Golden Boy Orszag are saying the Federal spending must be cut . Elmendorf the head of the CBO who was appointed by Reid/Pelosi said when the Public Debt exceeds 60% of GDP it hurts our economy, we are over 70%.

The following was from an article written by former Treas Sec Rubin apt by Pres Clinton published in News Week 12-09 as a result of a commission World wide study of the 2008 financial event.

"First, there must be sound fiscal and monetary policies. The United States faces projected 10-year federal budget deficits that seriously threaten its bond market, exchange rate, economy, and the economic future of every American worker and family.
worsened fiscal prospects in the decades after the current 10-year budget period
In the United States, this will require far greater willingness to work across party and ideological lines, to base decisions on facts and analysis"


"no economy anywhere in the world had been successful with largely state-directed activities

Putting another major stimulus on top of already huge deficits and rising debt-to-GDP ratios would have risks

our fiscal and monetary conditions are a serious constraint, and waiting too long to address them could cause a new crisis."

Instead of throwing out ignorant opinions I suggest going to the OMB, CBO and IMF websites. Read the reports and down load the data. They all say the same thing Federal spending is unsustainable.

[MrBluGruv]

That is not true and you know it. Yall didn't even hear of the word until Sarah Palin burst on your visual screen.

Can't even say nice try.

I don't even know where to begin with this....

1. I suppose every conservative is a blind Palin follower just like every Canadian is a raging communist huh?

2. I suppose since one person happened to say it publicly, it is their own idea exclusively, and completely impossible for anyone else to have simultaneously had that thought, especially when the circumstances point to that word being the most apt descriptor of the situation huh?

Tell me, how else would you describe his plan and the incoming system?

[sailsmen]

Revolutions are for 3rd world countries.

So second and first World country citizens stand down and become oppressed by an Omni potent Gov't? Kinda like the Germans turning their heads to the slaughter of their fellow citizens by the National Socialist German Workers Party, a/k/a NAZI?

[Fosters]

No country in the world is more capitalist than the USA

Wrong. Lookup freedom indexes.


so if, if there is a problem that requires revolution, socialism is suddenly the problem?

Hello??

Hello?

You cannot deny that we're headed towards socialism.

Socialism IS a problem. If you don't believe me, move to a socialist country for a year or two.

Putin, for crying out loud, has warned the US not to try the socialism path, as it does not work. Are you gonna claim it's still something Sarah Palin came up with and that she has no clue what she's talking about, and we're still 100% capitalist? Come on, be honest with yourself.

Government runs most utilities, auto, health, bank industries, and is not going to shrink anytime soon. At what point are you going to admit we're headed towards more and more government and more and more socialism?



That is not true and you know it. Yall didn't even hear of the word until Sarah Palin burst on your visual screen.

Can't even say nice try.

Oh lordy... Is that a setup for the "Nobody knew Obama was like this so you can't blame it on his voters" excuse? Gimme a break.

and FYI, I heard the 'socialism' word since I was like 3. I grew up under the damn thing. Free healthcare, free dental, free education, almost free housing, food rationing, everyone's cars were the same, everyone's tv's were the same, everyone's houses were almost the same, and yet everyone couldn't wait to get out of that country. Quite the utopia. :rolleyes:

[jerrym3]

Two hypotheticals:

Let's say I'm a small bussinessman and I make widgets. My widget demand is 100 per month, and my workforce in staffed to meet that target.

Now I get a tax cut.

Please tell me why I should hire any additional workforce? So they can sit around waiting for more widgets to be ordered?

(Same could be said of a diner, car repair shop, lawn maintenance, etc.)

#2

Let's say I'm a CEO of a large multinational company, and, again, I am staffed to meet my demand.

Now I get a tax break.

1) Do I hire additional staff in a country where wages are dirt cheap, or
2) Do I give didvidend money to shareholders. or
3) Do I hire expensive additional US workers that I don't need
4) Do I increase my annual bonus because company net profits just increased

I don't think #3 has a chance at being chosen.
#4's a given.

[Fosters]

Two hypotheticals:

Let's say I'm a small bussinessman and I make widgets. My widget demand is 100 per month, and my workforce in staffed to meet that target.

Now I get a tax cut.

Please tell me why I should hire any additional workforce? So they can sit around waiting for more widgets to be ordered?

(Same could be said of a diner, car repair shop, lawn maintenance, etc.)

#2

Let's say I'm a CEO of a large multinational company, and, again, I am staffed to meet my demand.

Now I get a tax break.

1) Do I hire additional staff in a country where wages are dirt cheap, or
2) Do I give didvidend money to shareholders. or
3) Do I hire expensive additional US workers that I don't need
4) Do I increase my annual bonus because company net profits just increased

I don't think #3 has a chance at being chosen.
#4's a given.

1. You can lower the price of the widget so your demand increases to 110 per month, and hire the extra employee to produce those 10 widgets.

2. that depends on how successful you want your company to be. Do #1 if you want your product quality to go down, profits up, and marketshare down.

#2 - If you have shareholders, you're a publicly traded company, and usually not a small businessman. FAIL on that one.

#3 - If you are a small businessman, and you get a tax break, you can lower your prices to increase demand and be more competitive; at which point you might need that extra US employee. If you don't lower your prices, your competition - that also got a tax break - might do just that and cut you out of your marketshare. Then you'll need a bailout.

#4 - Your company, your money, your decisions. If you'd rather increase your compensation vs invest it into the company and thus return a higher profit, that's your damn choice. If you do the first and you just sit on the money, your money isn't gonna grow in any way shape or form. If you do invest it, even putting it in a savings account that accrues interest, your money will grow (and the bank will loan it out to people who are investing, hiring more workers, etc).

Or you can sit on your ass, throw out hypotheticals with obviously no business leadership experience, and complain about tax cuts to the rich. :rolleyes:

[MMBLUE]

Very interesting thread. Again, example of how liberalisum is a disease. Generally I try to stay away from threads like this. But, today I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. (left side) :lol:

[jerrym3]

1. You can lower the price of the widget so your demand increases to 110 per month, and hire the extra employee to produce those 10 widgets.

2. that depends on how successful you want your company to be. Do #1 if you want your product quality to go down, profits up, and marketshare down.

#2 - If you have shareholders, you're a publicly traded company, and usually not a small businessman. FAIL on that one.

#3 - If you are a small businessman, and you get a tax break, you can lower your prices to increase demand and be more competitive; at which point you might need that extra US employee. If you don't lower your prices, your competition - that also got a tax break - might do just that and cut you out of your marketshare. Then you'll need a bailout.

#4 - Your company, your money, your decisions. If you'd rather increase your compensation vs invest it into the company and thus return a higher profit, that's your damn choice. If you do the first and you just sit on the money, your money isn't gonna grow in any way shape or form. If you do invest it, even putting it in a savings account that accrues interest, your money will grow (and the bank will loan it out to people who are investing, hiring more workers, etc).

Or you can sit on your ass, throw out hypotheticals with obviously no business leadership experience, and complain about tax cuts to the rich. :rolleyes:


First, Fosters, the questions were geared toward hypothetical #2, not #1.

But, as for your response, why would I do #1? My goal is profit, not hiring the unemployed.

As for product quality, seems like the bulk of big corporations are expanding jobs overseas, quality be damned.

As for #2, you misunderstood the relationship of the question.

#3 and your 1 are pretty much the same


You sound a wee bit prickly today, don't you? (my damn choice, no business leadership experience, etc) ??

Glen Beck withdrawal getting to you? Not enough good press regarding Rupert and Fox?

As for my lack of experience, I spent my entire working career in management, becoming the Officer In Charge of Telecommunications for a major insurance company. I had huge a huge budget, a fairly large staff of professionals, and responsibility for a nationwide voice/data network.

I saw my company shift the Network Control Center to India. I saw the head of the NCC given a year's contract to go to India and train the department replacements. I saw and heard our branch personnel complain about the lack of response from the new NCC.

Result?? The NCC stayed in India because the employee cost was lower.

Have you seen the increase in CEO pay lately? Why?

They cut their labor costs, profits went up, and they made out.

By your obvious anger and leadership experience, I assume you are a CEO.

And, FYI, I'm retired, so I can afford to sit on my ass, work on my Galaxie, and throw out hypotheticals all day long.

Have a nice day.

[MrBluGruv]

They cut their labor costs, profits went up, and they made out.


That will pretty much always be a short-term direction, resulting in gain for a very limited number of people. Just plain greedy.

It's not like the third world countries they hire in improve dramatically, the employees there are just a little bit less poor than they used to be.

The domestic economy suffers greatly too, because even though you are able to offer the product for say 90% of the price that it was, little good it does in the long term when a household only has 50% of its original buying power.

Ugly, short-sighted greed.

It doesn't matter what happens tomorrow though you know, as long as I'm rich until I die, forget about everyone else later right?

I'm gathering from the entirety of your post that you aren't a subscriber to the "lets send the work overseas" mentality. I hope that's the case at least, and thumbs-up for sure if it is.

[kernie]

Very interesting thread. Again, example of how liberalisum is a disease. Generally I try to stay away from threads like this. But, today I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. (left side) :lol:

Here is the disease.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUkYueexEc

"A country of the rich, by the rich, for the rich"

[MrBluGruv]

Here is the disease.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvUkYueexEc

"A country of the rich, by the rich, for the rich"

So,

1. it's more important to point fingers at who's not paying their "fair share" to an over-sized mess than it is to try to stop the over-sized mess in the first place. Got it.

2. Clearly, since those with money are not "responsible" enough to take money that they earned anyways, money that the government was...kind... enough to take less of than usual in the form of a tax break, and immediately spend it in one predetermined fashion without considering the situation at hand, it needs to be given back to the government. And this is different from the government receiving more money than it usually does to feed projects in a predetermined fashion without proper consideration of the actual situation at hand how? Of right, because it's the public sector and not the private sector, nothing can go wrong if it's the public sector. Hell, at least if it's bad, it's bad for everyone right?


3. What is exactly is the "left" (since Mr. Maher is so insistent on labels) doing for the middle class? What exactly will socialism do for me if I'm not wealthy or living in abject poverty? All I've seen the "left" do is promise the world to those living in squalor, then make everyone else poor except for themselves so that the huge base of poverty is hooked just enough to vote for them again.

[jerrym3]

I am not of the mentality of "send work overseas", but we all have to do a little soul searching here.

While we all want jobs to stay in the USA, how much more are we willing to pay for everything we buy that's now made in good old China if it were made in the USA?

3%? 5%? 10%?

I'm on fixed income. If prices go through the roof, I don't have a boss to go to ask for an increase in pay. What do I do?

Simple answer. I eat the increased cost, and lower my standard of living.

The point is coming soon where dividends and capital gains will be a factor as I supplement my SS and meager pensions.

If Bush's tax cuts get knocked down, I will be hurt as much or more than the next guy, so don't think my rant about taxes and job creation was an endorsement of the left or right.

It was a hypothetical question based on real life scenarios.

But, what does p**s me off is the amount of bonus money my last company's execs made as they pushed workers/managers like me into the unemployment lines.

And, my state just gave them another pile of cash because they threatened to move a number of jobs out of state.

Now, tell me that companies are looking out for our best interests, and they will take those tax cuts and create more jobs here in the USA?

How come they didn't do it in the past?

[Fosters]

First, Fosters, the questions were geared toward hypothetical #2, not #1.

But, as for your response, why would I do #1? My goal is profit, not hiring the unemployed.

As for product quality, seems like the bulk of big corporations are expanding jobs overseas, quality be damned.

As for #2, you misunderstood the relationship of the question.

#3 and your 1 are pretty much the same


You sound a wee bit prickly today, don't you? (my damn choice, no business leadership experience, etc) ??

I live in MN, the only state to vote against Reagan... I have liberal overload.

Glen Beck withdrawal getting to you? Not enough good press regarding Rupert and Fox?

We can throw around the talking points and accusations all day long. Daily Kos give you those hypotheticals? :rolleyes:


As for my lack of experience, I spent my entire working career in management, becoming the Officer In Charge of Telecommunications for a major insurance company. I had huge a huge budget, a fairly large staff of professionals, and responsibility for a nationwide voice/data network.

I saw my company shift the Network Control Center to India. I saw the head of the NCC given a year's contract to go to India and train the department replacements. I saw and heard our branch personnel complain about the lack of response from the new NCC.

Result?? The NCC stayed in India because the employee cost was lower.


Dell did the same thing, with the same results. They started losing marketshare, and started losing corporate clients. Call centers moved back almost immediately. Why is it cheaper there to conduct business, ever stop to ask yourself that? Why do they move call centers and all of the seemingly cheap labor from here to over there, but yet, the big evil, high cost jobs stay here?



Have you seen the increase in CEO pay lately? Why?

Why not? This is America. You're free to succeed as much as you can. You spent a whole career as a middle manager, why didn't you become CEO? The wages are so big because very few people have it in them. It's all about supply and demand. If executive positions were so easy and undeserving, everyone and their daddy would be a ceo... but they're not. There's huge competition between the upper management types as you probably know, and even then, good ones are hard to find. Also one company goes down under your watch, you career is over, and your doings at that company are public. Every other job out there, your old employer can't say anything bad about you by law, you just waltz on to the next opportunity.


They cut their labor costs, profits went up, and they made out.

By your obvious anger and leadership experience, I assume you are a CEO.


Good job for the CEOs. If they managed to do that without losing significant marketshare, good. Why the hell are profits so evil? Sour them grapes, aren't they? And no, I am not a CEO, but I have worked very close with them, from the startup of a company until it was sold. I saw what it took, and I, unlike you, realized that it takes a certain discipline, dedication, and sacrifices that a lot of people just aren't willing to put forth. I've watched these people go from driving a hyundai elantra to a brand new 7 series bimmer. At the same time I went from driving a mustang GT to a Mach1. By your theory, I should have been rolling a Ford GT, because my salary should have kept up with theirs.

Politics of envy at their best. If you think executives make way too much money and you can do it for cheaper and better, GO AHEAD! Quit crying foul if you're not willing to put forth the effort or don't have the skills/qualities needed to get there.

I can't join the NBA. Have you seen Michael Jordan's payroll?


And, FYI, I'm retired, so I can afford to sit on my ass, work on my Galaxie, and throw out hypotheticals all day long.

Have a nice day.

That's awesome. More pics of the Galaxie, less huffington post. :D

[sailsmen]

A free market capitalist society can only prosper if failure is allowed. Our Gov't has now made "Too Big to Fail" the law of the land wether it be GM, Merril Lynch, AIG or homeowners under water. Lots of companies and people I know of went bankrupt in the early 1980's and the system worked. No one starved to death in the street as a result.



We were bambozzled by a Treasury and Fed Reserve whose sole focus is limited to WS. If one of their WS friends is in trouble from their view the whole World is in trouble. BS, we should have allowed Bankruptcy and only after bankruptcy guarranted loans where we had in effect already guarranteed them. We were told TARP would duplicate the Savings & Loans solution, we were lied to. All this has resulted in is a tighter strangle by WS around our Gov't. "Too Big to Fail" is now the law of the land.

Our Gov't continues to punish productive/responsible behavior and reward unproductive irresponsible behavior. The irresponsible financial institutions get bailed out with money stolen from me in the form of income tax. The responsible banks get more Gov't scrutiny as a reward and no bail out money. The top 10 are given a life time franchise due to increased regulation that ELIMINNATES COMPETITION!

Our Gov't Nationalizes GM, violating our Bankruptcy Laws and nullifies the preferred creditors who are in part retirement funds and gives money to the UAW while exempting GM from $48 Billion in corporate tax by Fiat. The Gov't stole it from the creditors and exempts GM from Corporate Income Tax while giving part of it to the UAW, an unpreferred creditor.

What did the Gov't due for Ford?

I worked very hard to come up with the 20% down pay to buy my first house in 1985. In 2007 my neighbor was paid to buy his house, yep he walked away with cash in his pocket at the closing. In 2009 the "Gov't" reduced his principal 20% and converted his ARM to a fixed 30 years for ~4%.

So the Gov't stole my money in the form of an income tax to reduce his principal on a house that the Gov't stole my money to pay him to buy. I got absolutely nothing but theft of my money.

A friend of our daughter is divorced with 2 teenagers. She has an all cash cleaning business. Both her daughters go to private school with ours for free, they each drive a car, albeit beaters, they go on lavish vacations, always have cash, wore a custom dress to graduation, ect. YEP, THEY ARE ON WELFARE! Living the same life we are by stealing our money!

My relative is going to College for FREE! Why, her parents are divorced and the Fed allows you to pick which parents income to use. Her father, whom she does not live with and pays very little toward support, get listed as the sole source of income. Guess what, you don't even need to be divorced just separated! So if the wife and I say we are living apart our daughters will go to College for free paid for out of our pay checks. The kick in the A**, her father works for a "non-profit" a/k/a NONTAXPAYER that pays no property tax, State income Tax, Federal income Tax or inventory tax with the majority of their income stolen from me.

There is a rot from our Gov't that both parties have spread, when it gets to my relatives, neighbors and childrens friends it is systemic through out our society.

No Society can prospher when only 4 out of 10 work for the private sector and total Gov't spending is $40,250 per private sector worker and only 53% of those who file an income tax return pay income tax.

We are looking at Argentina 2001. The only chance that my children who are indentured servants as future income tax payers to a debt they can never pay back is for a complete collapse of the Nation which will lead to WW followed by a rebuild with limited Federal Gov't per our Constitution.

[SC Cheesehead]

"When it comes to his justification for tax increases, the president’s ignorance of basic economics shows through even more.
He has suggested that tax increases would stop him personally from keeping hundreds of thousands of dollars that he doesn’t need. So now we know what the president does with his book money – he throws it on a pile, like Tolkien’s dragon Smaug.
However, that’s not what wealth creators do. They either spend that “excess” money, providing jobs for people who make or import the things they spend it on, or invest it, thereby creating more jobs and more wealth which they can reinvest.
The obstacle in this virtuous circle is government’s intervention, which either makes the investment unviable owing to too much regulation, or takes away the profit through taxation, which is what Obama seems to want more of.
The president’s 'do something' government is grossly exacerbating the great jobless recovery he laments. Sixty-four percent of small businesses will not hire any new employees over the next year, while 79 percent state that taxation, regulation, and legislation make it harder for them to hire more employees, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/16/president-obama-doesnt-know-first-thing-about-economics/#ixzz1SO8fEM4z

[sailsmen]

This President by increasing spending by 29% in 3 years has placed this Nation on the edge of complete financial collpase.
Summers, Romeig and Orszag, his hand picked Golden Team, abandoned him.
Orszag his hand picked Golden Boy who headed his own OMB quit right before the CBO July, 2010 report that Fed spending is unsustainable.

Apparently Orszag can no longer stand by and watch the destruction of his Country - per Bloomberg "This is only more evidence that the right policy response is a combination of more aggressive action to bolster the job market now and much more deficit reduction enacted now to take effect in a few years. On both strategies, we should be as bold as we can."

It is quite obvious this President is implementing Alinsky/Cloward/Piven, if you cannot get a Constiutional Amendment collapse the Nation and rebuild it in your image.

TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.


OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.


MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.


KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?


OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

[sailsmen]

Only "stupid" people think "smart" people know every thing. If you cannot do math you will never understand money.

I will make as simple as possible for everyone;
GOV’t does not GENERATE WEALTH. Only Entrepreneurs’ GENERATE WEALTH.USA is 35% plus applicable State Corp Tax and Singapore is 17%.

Country - USA Widget Singapore Widget

Profit - $100 $100

Tax - $ 35 $ 17

Net Profit - $65 $ 83

Difference - $18 or 28%. higher



What do businesses do with Profits? They;

Reinvest in the company resulting in more jobs

Pay Bonuses which result in higher income taxes

Pay Dividend which result in higher income taxes

Pay down Debt.

Why invest or make money in the USA when you can get a 28% higher return resulting in a more competitive viable company just on the tax? Is it any wonder the USA has the highest Corporate tax in the World?

With all else being equal, labor costs, material, insurance, Gov't compliance and so forth it does not pay to do business in the USA.

With advances in transportation, technology and stability of Gov'ts we are increasing mobile.

[SC Cheesehead]

Only "stupid" people think "smart" people know every thing. If you cannot do math you will never understand money.

I will make as simple as possible for everyone;
GOV’t does not GENERATE WEALTH. Only Entrepreneurs’ GENERATE WEALTH.USA is 35% plus applicable State Corp Tax and Singapore is 17%.

Country - USA Widget Singapore Widget

Profit - $100 $100

Tax - $ 35 $ 17

Net Profit - $65 $ 83

Difference - $18 or 28%. higher



What do businesses do with Profits? They;

Reinvest in the company resulting in more jobs

Pay Bonuses which result in higher income taxes

Pay Dividend which result in higher income taxes

Pay down Debt.

Why invest or make money in the USA when you can get a 28% higher return resulting in a more competitive viable company just on the tax? Is it any wonder the USA has the highest Corporate tax in the World?

With all else being equal, labor costs, material, insurance, Gov't compliance and so forth it does not pay to do business in the USA.

With advances in transportation, technology and stability of Gov'ts we are increasing mobile.

^^^^^ Spot on! ^^^^^^

Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp (especially by the folks in DC) is totally beyond me.... :shake:

[MrBluGruv]

I guess people think new jobs should/do come from good will and not market forces?

[LIGHTNIN1]

I am getting very tired of the Tooth Fairy being late all the time and Obama not sending the gas money he told me about during his campaign.

[MrBluGruv]

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

So basically he feels that the separation of powers in government is a bad thing? Unless I'm just reading too much into this...

It must be quite difficult to pass things that only you but not the people want when you can't write things directly into law I guess. :eek:

[PonyUP]

^^^^^ Spot on! ^^^^^^

Why this is such a difficult concept to grasp (especially by the folks in DC) is totally beyond me.... :shake:

I will add one thing to this, while sailsmens numbers are spot on, there is one thing to consider. The US has the highest taxt rates of any country for corporations, and yet does not collect that amount in actual taxes from those corporations due to the loop holes. I submit, close the loopholes, and construct a fair and healthy tax for corporations that promotes profit growth. Corporations will not, and I repeat will not, reinvest in their companies at the expense of shrinking profits as it does not make business sense. Corporations only reinvest when profits go up. that is why there is no job growth. Companies are cutting everywhere they can to maintain the same profits. They do not have the confidence in the economy when their profits go up, so they are taking a "wait and see approach" before reinvesting and bringing jobs back. The biggest fear companies have right now is that if they add jobs to drive revenues, and because of Obama care and uncertainty in the economy, thier profits drop, it makes for a terrible business model. If they can maintain profits and protect themselves against a double dip, that's what they will do.

Now I will say, that the correction to the current economy depends on two things, cutting spending and innovation. We need the next bubble. Now while bubbles burst, they also can have a very positive impact on the economy. the internet bubble save the 90's, the housing bubble saved the first decade in this century. the problem is, our governement is depending on "green" being the next bubble. It won't be, half this nation doesn't even believe in global warming. People hear that term and thinks it means it will just be hotter out. We have made a definite impact on the environment, and it is definitely effecting our climate. But half the nation doesn't believe that, and additional 40% don't care. Therefor it won't be the next bubble. The problem is, it doesn't appear anything else will be either.

We continue to lose creativity as a nation, we continue to lose productivity as a nation, we continue to lose period. Charlie Sheen would be very disappointed. I'll ask this, with the exception of getting Bin Laden and Hussein, when was the last time we were winning?

[MrBluGruv]

We continue to lose creativity as a nation, we continue to lose productivity as a nation, we continue to lose period. Charlie Sheen would be very disappointed. I'll ask this, with the exception of getting Bin Laden and Hussein, when was the last time we were winning?

I agree that this is incredibly disheartening.

However, I am a strong believer in the philosophy that you can be successful in one of two ways: 1 - break the mold, or 2 - do something that's already been done very very well.

We can exist without continuous innovation (although I do think there are a number of small victories in technology that we are having and continue to have), but where we fail now is we can't even do the things that've already been done very well.

Economies have shifted in the past though, and quite possibly we're due for another major shift, a shift we won't even see until after it's happened most likely.

[jerrym3]

Fosters, I don't read Huffington Post or Daily whatever, so don't go making assumptions just because someone does not agree 100% with you.

I asked two hypothetical questions as to why companies should hire even if they get a tax break.

My local paper today in Bergen County, NJ, stated that companies do not intend to hire even if demand rises. They will just squeeze more from their workers who will do anything to keep their jobs.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not qualified to be a CEO; I don't have the political savvy, otherwise I never would have asked two very simple questions without my leadership capabilities being questioned.

Should have known better. You could have responded with friendly back and forth discussion, but you chose a more insulting path.

FYI, I dislike Hannity as much as I disliked Obermann and his "worst persons of the world" BS. Can you say the same?

Companies are sitting on piles of cash. Why? Why aren't they hiring? Even if they are afraid of potential government intervention, profits are profits.

Simple. No demand.

Been a long time since my Economics classes in Rutgers, but I believe that companies are supposed to produce as long as MC (marginal cost) = MR (marginal revenue), but, like I said, it's been a long while.

Do you really believe that CEO salaries are justified? Yes, they should be paid well, but why is our CEO base doing so much better than CEO's from other countries? Why is the difference between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid worker expanding?

You don't think it's an "old boy's network"? (My ex company immediately hired a high level government politician for a senior position as soon as he was out of office. Must have been his qualifications.)

How smart does a CEO have to be to save money and increase profits by shipping our jobs to other countries?

Do I agree with everything our present (or past) government is doing? Absolutely not, but until we put in a governmant controlled by an honest king (no such thing), we're going to have to live with a**holes on both sides.

Let's see how business gets us out of this mess we're in, because if demand doesn't increase, what's their motive to expand and hire?

Michael Jordon didn't have a room full of cronies setting his salary, and if he didn't produce, he would be out or traded come his next contract without a golden parachute.

(PS: Keep checking my posts. I'll put up some new pictures soon of my Galaxie and my retro. Might even add my Lincoln LS. Enjoy.)

[MrBluGruv]

Simple. No demand.

This is still a problem that I can't see going after business for to fix though.

And I do not believe tax hikes are the way to fix it either. Quite the opposite.

I don't think America has completely figured out the root of the problem yet, and that through that root comes many of our other problems. I believe more and more, as if I wasn't already convinced, that big government is that root problem...

(please keep in mind, I'm speaking generally here, and not particularly aiming any of this at you. I think we are largely on the same page, just talking in different directions in some cases.)

[sailsmen]

PonyUp is correct in that Crony Capitalism in which Gov't picks the Winner and the Losers, several recent Winners GE, GM and Goldman Sachs.

The bigger share of the Economy Gov't spends the more influence = Corruption = Crony Capitalism.

Just Look at what happened to MS, only a handful of Lobbyist and no DC presence until their competitor bought a JD investigation. Now MS has lobbyist and a DC presence. When the 6 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Nation are around DC we are doomed. Gov't should not be the center of wealth in a free society.

Think of all the companies that do not have the money or desire to play the DC game, easier and more of a sure thing to go to Singapore.

Please keep in mind when you see the distored figure that some through out that almost no companies pay income tax most corporations/LLC elect to be taxed as an indvidual.

I say we throw them all out, where are the President Kennedy's and President Regan's?

All we have is a bunch of narcissistic power mongers who only care about keeping their cushy position.

[kernie]

PonyUp is correct in that Crony Capitalism in which Gov't picks the Winner and the Losers, several recent Winners GE, GM and Goldman Sachs.

The bigger share of the Economy Gov't spends the more influence = Corruption = Crony Capitalism.

Just Look at what happened to MS, only a handful of Lobbyist and no DC presence until their competitor bought a JD investigation. Now MS has lobbyist and a DC presence. When the 6 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Nation are around DC we are doomed. Gov't should not be the center of wealth in a free society.

Think of all the companies that do not have the money or desire to play the DC game, easier and more of a sure thing to go to Singapore.

Please keep in mind when you see the distored figure that some through out that almost no companies pay income tax most corporations/LLC elect to be taxed as an indvidual.

I say we throw them all out, where are the President Kennedy's and President Regan's?

All we have is a bunch of narcissistic power mongers who only care about keeping their cushy position.

Too smart to subject themselves to the Rupert Murdoch types, can't say that i blame them.

[SC Cheesehead]

Fosters, I don't read Huffington Post or Daily whatever, so don't go making assumptions just because someone does not agree 100% with you.

I asked two hypothetical questions as to why companies should hire even if they get a tax break.

My local paper today in Bergen County, NJ, stated that companies do not intend to hire even if demand rises. They will just squeeze more from their workers who will do anything to keep their jobs.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not qualified to be a CEO; I don't have the political savvy, otherwise I never would have asked two very simple questions without my leadership capabilities being questioned.

Should have known better. You could have responded with friendly back and forth discussion, but you chose a more insulting path.

FYI, I dislike Hannity as much as I disliked Obermann and his "worst persons of the world" BS. Can you say the same?

Companies are sitting on piles of cash. Why? Why aren't they hiring? Even if they are afraid of potential government intervention, profits are profits.

Simple. No demand.

Been a long time since my Economics classes in Rutgers, but I believe that companies are supposed to produce as long as MC (marginal cost) = MR (marginal revenue), but, like I said, it's been a long while.

Do you really believe that CEO salaries are justified? Yes, they should be paid well, but why is our CEO base doing so much better than CEO's from other countries? Why is the difference between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid worker expanding?

You don't think it's an "old boy's network"? (My ex company immediately hired a high level government politician for a senior position as soon as he was out of office. Must have been his qualifications.)

How smart does a CEO have to be to save money and increase profits by shipping our jobs to other countries?

Do I agree with everything our present (or past) government is doing? Absolutely not, but until we put in a governmant controlled by an honest king (no such thing), we're going to have to live with a**holes on both sides.

Let's see how business gets us out of this mess we're in, because if demand doesn't increase, what's their motive to expand and hire?

Michael Jordon didn't have a room full of cronies setting his salary, and if he didn't produce, he would be out or traded come his next contract without a golden parachute.

(PS: Keep checking my posts. I'll put up some new pictures soon of my Galaxie and my retro. Might even add my Lincoln LS. Enjoy.)

The big issue isn't low demand, it's high uncertainty. The majority of businesses are risk adverse, and the current economy and administration in DC isn't giving business folks any warm fuzzys over business conditions in the foreseeable future.

Why would a business want to invest in capital improvements or hiring if there was strong chance they could get burned via higher taxes or punitive regulatory changes?

Ain't rocket surgery... ;)

[jerrym3]

Cheesehead, there's always going to be uncertainty. Certainty lasts until the next election.

Any government, especially today, that does something to restrict hiring and job growth in the USA is commiting political suicide.

Look what the tanking economy did to McCain and the interim governor of Alaska. Cost them the election.

If I'm a business owner or CEO of a large company, if I can make a profit, even though that profit might be affected by government policy, I'd invest in my business if there were a demand for my product (MC=MR).

What's my alternative? Invest in low interest rate securities or an uncertain stock market?

IMHO, the problem today is not government uncertainty, it's the shipping of decent paying jobs overseas.

And, since I don't see you or me boycotting lower cost products made in China, the only entity that can make that outsourcing process unfavorable and expanding here in the USA favorable is, you guessed it, the government.

Now, there's a lot of talk about technology leading us out of this mess. But, unfortunately there's a downside to that also.

Not everyone is geared to be a technologist. As companies become more efficient, there's less need for the lower skilled worker.

And, neither of us wants to subsidize a population that cannot find work.

[SC Cheesehead]

Cheesehead, there's always going to be uncertainty. Certainty lasts until the next election.

Any government, especially today, that does something to restrict hiring and job growth in the USA is commiting political suicide.

Look what the tanking economy did to McCain and the interim governor of Alaska. Cost them the election.

If I'm a business owner or CEO of a large company, if I can make a profit, even though that profit might be affected by government policy, I'd invest in my business if there were a demand for my product (MC=MR).

What's my alternative? Invest in low interest rate securities or an uncertain stock market?

IMHO, the problem today is not government uncertainty, it's the shipping of decent paying jobs overseas.

And, since I don't see you or me boycotting lower cost products made in China, the only entity that can make that outsourcing process unfavorable and expanding here in the USA favorable is, you guessed it, the government.

Now, there's a lot of talk about technology leading us out of this mess. But, unfortunately there's a downside to that also.

Not everyone is geared to be a technologist. As companies become more efficient, there's less need for the lower skilled worker.

And, neither of us wants to subsidize a population that cannot find work.

^^^^^ Agree with you, jerry. ^^^^

You hit on a good point relative to shipping jobs overseas, and I agree that the government can play a very positive role in addressing this, by reducing non-value-added regulations, lowering corporate taxes, and in general, making it easier and less costly to do business here in the US. If we want a "level playing field", we've got to reduce the cost of doing business here, not expect the rest of the world to raise their costs to match ours.

[Fosters]

^^^^^ Agree with you, jerry. ^^^^

You hit on a good point relative to shipping jobs overseas, and I agree that the government can play a very positive role in addressing this, by reducing non-value-added regulations, lowering corporate taxes, and in general, making it easier and less costly to do business here in the US. If we want a "level playing field", we've got to reduce the cost of doing business here, not expect the rest of the world to raise their costs to match ours.

No, you got it all wrong, if the corporate tax rates and regulations are low, executives will just give themselves bigger bonuses and will still send jobs overseas because they are all after profits and profits are evil. Don't bother arguing with him...

[sailsmen]

Companies are not sitting on piles of cash, look at the Debt to Equity ratio of the S&P 500. Companies are sitting on piles of DEBT. The ten year return on investing in the S&P 500 is less than 3%. This indicates they have not been as profitable over the past 10 years as they were expected to be. A 3% return is hardly viable.

~60% of new jobs are created by small business.

I have been the owner of 7 businesses and I have seen the books/inner workings of over 200 in the past 30 years. Profit margins have gone from 20-30% of Sales to 3-15%. During this time over 30,000 new Gov’t laws have been passed.

My customers regularly answer to the EPA, DOT, DOL, DEQ, IRS, INS, OSHA, EEOC. They must hire as many as 4 different lawyers in 4 different law areas, 2 different CPAs, 2 different insurance brokers, an HR person and a Safety Person. The small businesses who employ over 60% are unable to hire an HR and Safety person. This is why they are continuing to go out of business and are selling to the large employers.

The reward for the risk continues to diminish while the risk increases. Working for the Gov’t at no risk is more attractive than taking a risk to GENERATE WEALTH.

A friend is the CFO and an owner of a company that employs over 200. His son fresh out of college with no expertise got a job working for the Fed and in 7 years will make $100K per year, work 1,800 hours a year and retire at 57 getting 4 times what he would under SS. Has 100% job security and no personal liablity.

His father as CFO is personally liable under numerous statues, makes $100k-$150K per year, works over 2,400 hours a year and must fund his own retirement.

From 2001 through 2010 Federal Spending Doubled. Where people struggling or dying in 2001 from a lack of Federal Spending? What exactly are we getting for our money?


Why don't we just pass a law preventing jobs from being shipped overseas. We can have customs inspect every container to make sure there are no jobs in them.

IT is our Gov't policies and laws that are making it more attractive to do business overseas. It is our Gov't that is shipping the jobs overseas.

If "OBAMACARE" is so great than why have over 1,300 companies including unions been granted waivers? How do I get a waiver for my company? Ohh, that's right we are in a Crony Capitalist Country where a Corrupt Gov't only grants to Corrupt people.

[SC Cheesehead]

Companies are not sitting on piles of cash, look at the Debt to Equity ratio of the S&P 500. Companies are sitting on piles of DEBT. The ten year return on investing in the S&P 500 is less than 3%. This indicates they have not been as profitable over the past 10 years as they were expected to be. A 3% return is hardly viable.

~60% of new jobs are created by small business.

I have been the owner of 7 businesses and I have seen the books/inner workings of over 200 in the past 30 years. Profit margins have gone from 20-30% of Sales to 3-15%. During this time over 30,000 new Gov’t laws have been passed.

My customers regularly answer to the EPA, DOT, DOL, DEQ, IRS, INS, OSHA, EEOC. They must hire as many as 4 different lawyers in 4 different law areas, 2 different CPAs, 2 different insurance brokers, an HR person and a Safety Person. The small businesses who employ over 60% are unable to hire an HR and Safety person. This is why they are continuing to go out of business and are selling to the large employers.

The reward for the risk continues to diminish while the risk increases. Working for the Gov’t at no risk is more attractive than taking a risk to GENERATE WEALTH.

A friend is the CFO and an owner of a company that employs over 200. His son fresh out of college with no expertise got a job working for the Fed and in 7 years will make $100K per year, work 1,800 hours a year and retire at 57 getting 4 times what he would under SS. Has 100% job security and no personal liablity.

His father as CFO is personally liable under numerous statues, makes $100k-$150K per year, works over 2,400 hours a year and must fund his own retirement.

From 2001 through 2010 Federal Spending Doubled. Where people struggling or dying in 2001 from a lack of Federal Spending? What exactly are we getting for our money?


Why don't we just pass a law preventing jobs from being shipped overseas. We can have customs inspect every container to make sure there are no jobs in them.

IT is our Gov't policies and laws that are making it more attractive to do business overseas. It is our Gov't that is shipping the jobs overseas.

If "OBAMACARE" is so great than why have over 1,300 companies including unions been granted waivers? How do I get a waiver for my company? Ohh, that's right we are in a Crony Capitalist Country where a Corrupt Gov't only grants to Corrupt people.


Gotta love that one! :D

[Fosters]

Companies are not sitting on piles of cash, look at the Debt to Equity ratio of the S&P 500. Companies are sitting on piles of DEBT. The ten year return on investing in the S&P 500 is less than 3%. This indicates they have not been as profitable over the past 10 years as they were expected to be. A 3% return is hardly viable.

~60% of new jobs are created by small business.

I have been the owner of 7 businesses and I have seen the books/inner workings of over 200 in the past 30 years. Profit margins have gone from 20-30% of Sales to 3-15%. During this time over 30,000 new Gov’t laws have been passed.

My customers regularly answer to the EPA, DOT, DOL, DEQ, IRS, INS, OSHA, EEOC. They must hire as many as 4 different lawyers in 4 different law areas, 2 different CPAs, 2 different insurance brokers, an HR person and a Safety Person. The small businesses who employ over 60% are unable to hire an HR and Safety person. This is why they are continuing to go out of business and are selling to the large employers.

The reward for the risk continues to diminish while the risk increases. Working for the Gov’t at no risk is more attractive than taking a risk to GENERATE WEALTH.

A friend is the CFO and an owner of a company that employs over 200. His son fresh out of college with no expertise got a job working for the Fed and in 7 years will make $100K per year, work 1,800 hours a year and retire at 57 getting 4 times what he would under SS. Has 100% job security and no personal liablity.

His father as CFO is personally liable under numerous statues, makes $100k-$150K per year, works over 2,400 hours a year and must fund his own retirement.

From 2001 through 2010 Federal Spending Doubled. Where people struggling or dying in 2001 from a lack of Federal Spending? What exactly are we getting for our money?


Why don't we just pass a law preventing jobs from being shipped overseas. We can have customs inspect every container to make sure there are no jobs in them.

IT is our Gov't policies and laws that are making it more attractive to do business overseas. It is our Gov't that is shipping the jobs overseas.

If "OBAMACARE" is so great than why have over 1,300 companies including unions been granted waivers? How do I get a waiver for my company? Ohh, that's right we are in a Crony Capitalist Country where a Corrupt Gov't only grants to Corrupt people.

If I ever meet you, remind me that I owe you a beer for this post. :beer:

[jerrym3]

Fosters, Fosters, Fosters. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Now I've been relegated to "him". How will I ever survive.

You call this arguing? I call it having a discussion, but you make it too personal when someone disagrees with you.

Do me a favor. Point out where I said profits are bad, OK? And, I never said that government should regulate everything to the nth degree.

No profits means no business. No business means no workers, no economy, nada.

But, if you believe in maximizing profits to the greatest extent regardless of the impact to the country and the USA worker, well, you must be happy as a pig in mud looking at all the things you buy marked "not made in the USA".

Go back to square 1.

I asked why would a company hire if they get tax breaks but demand is stagnant.

How many of those CEOs you know have reduced their product price so that they can hire more workers here?

Incidentally, I happen to own shares of many mutual funds. In that respect, maximum profits to me are great.

But, I'd be a liar if I said that I don't see a downside..

[SC Cheesehead]

Fosters, Fosters, Fosters. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Now I've been relegated to "him". How will I ever survive.

You call this arguing? I call it having a discussion, but you make it too personal when someone disagrees with you.

Do me a favor. Point out where I said profits are bad, OK? And, I never said that government should regulate everything to the nth degree.

No profits means no business. No business means no workers, no economy, nada.

But, if you believe in maximizing profits to the greatest extent regardless of the impact to the country and the USA worker, well, you must be happy as a pig in mud looking at all the things you buy marked "not made in the USA".

Go back to square 1.

I asked why would a company hire if they get tax breaks but demand is stagnant.

How many of those CEOs you know have reduced their product price so that they can hire more workers here?

Incidentally, I happen to own shares of many mutual funds. In that respect, maximum profits to me are great.

But, I'd be a liar if I said that I don't see a downside..

Excellent point! We get some "lively" discussions going in some of these threads, but for the most part, everyone stays pretty civil. Nothing wrong with being passionate about one's position, as long as it doesn't drift into "attack mode."

[Haggis]

Excellent point! We get some "lively" discussions going in some of these threads, but for the most part, everyone stays pretty civil. Nothing wrong with being passionate about one's position, as long as it doesn't drift into "attack mode."

Rex, your ideas are stupid, your an idiot and Blue Moon sucks!!!

[SC Cheesehead]

Rex, your ideas are stupid, your an idiot and Blue Moon sucks!!!


Can't argue with two of those.

Stop with the wise azz comments about my beer...http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/images/smilies/slap.gif

[Fosters]

Fosters, Fosters, Fosters. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Now I've been relegated to "him". How will I ever survive.

You call this arguing? I call it having a discussion, but you make it too personal when someone disagrees with you.

Do me a favor. Point out where I said profits are bad, OK? And, I never said that government should regulate everything to the nth degree.

you haven't said it in those words, but it's obvious your envy of the successful makes you blind to everything else around.


4) Do I increase my annual bonus because company net profits just increased

I don't think #3 has a chance at being chosen.
#4's a given.



Have you seen the increase in CEO pay lately? Why?

They cut their labor costs, profits went up, and they made out.




But, what does p**s me off is the amount of bonus money my last company's execs made as they pushed workers/managers like me into the unemployment lines.

And, my state just gave them another pile of cash because they threatened to move a number of jobs out of state.

It's also obvious to you profits means executive bonus pay, and nothing else. And that's bad because they moved your job away.

Guess what: The world changes. Adapt. You can't tell me you were in management for 50 years and you never saw it coming - one morning your job was on a container to india. You can't sit in today's world, doing the same thing for 50 years and complain that your job no longer exists one day.

Why on earth does it matter to you how much money anyone else is making, as long as they're making it legally? Mind your own business, and do what you can so that YOU get a piece of that pie. If you think their bonuses are what stands between jobs staying here and going overseas, start your own company doing the same thing, undercut the old company by doing the same thing cheaper - by taking a lower bonus - and see how well that works out for you.



No profits means no business. No business means no workers, no economy, nada.

But, if you believe in maximizing profits to the greatest extent regardless of the impact to the country and the USA worker, well, you must be happy as a pig in mud looking at all the things you buy marked "not made in the USA".


I don't believe in overpaying for a product; especially a simple one. Unions, regulations, and minimum wages have made simple low paying jobs impossible in this country. Why on earth would I want to pay more for a service or an item that's cheap to produce, only to finance someone who has no aspirations of moving up in life, and instead relies on the government to raise the minimum wage, government to give him healthcare, or in some cases, a union to raise that minimum wage?

I will gladly pay the extra for the things where quality matters, things produced by a person that had to work to get where they are, and not rely on a picket line for it. I will gladly pay for a dentist/doctor/farmaceutical researcher while I will prefer to pay as little as possible for the guy rubber stamping pill bottle labels. I will gladly pay for a mechanic/engineer, but I prefer to pay as little as possible for the guy bolting lug nuts or the guy driving my car out of the factory. There's no reason those jobs' compensation (or really any job compensation) to have to be artificially inflated. None. Compete like the rest of the world.

If the government would get out of the way (regulations, minimum wage, etc), I bet a lot of those jobs would come back to the US in no time.



Go back to square 1.

I asked why would a company hire if they get tax breaks but demand is stagnant.

I've explained it before, but you simply don't get it. It's supply side economics; you create your demand via controlling the supply. By your theory, of stagnant/no demand, nothing should be invented or improved, because demand is the same no matter what we do.

Make your product cheaper, thus increase your demand, and then you can make more products. You cannot deny supply and demand.


How many of those CEOs you know have reduced their product price so that they can hire more workers here?

You can ask these sort of general questions that there are no statistics over just to seem cool, or you can throw out hypotheticals of what happens if one CEO gives himself a bonus, while a competing CEO lowers the price of his product... and work that one out for yourself ;)



Incidentally, I happen to own shares of many mutual funds. In that respect, maximum profits to me are great.

But, I'd be a liar if I said that I don't see a downside..

I see no downside in wanting to better yourself as long as you do it legally. Some call it greed - I call it envy on their part.

[Fosters]

Excellent point! We get some "lively" discussions going in some of these threads, but for the most part, everyone stays pretty civil. Nothing wrong with being passionate about one's position, as long as it doesn't drift into "attack mode."

In 2008, Obama asked his koolaid drinkers to "get in your neighbor's faces". Well, for every action, there's an equal in opposite reaction. :cool:

And hell, during the Bush years, all I heard was how bad everything was, and how unfair the world was. Granted I'm no fan of Bush for his spending and government expansion, but it comes naturally now to go on the offensive. It's not like the koolaid drinkers will ever point out what's wrong with the messiah. :D

[sailsmen]

Answer only 4 out of 10 people work for the private sector. That means each private sector worker must carry 1.5 people. Total Gov't spending, Fed/State/Local, is $40,250 per private sector worker. Per the White House OMB;








Year Fed Tax Revenue as a % of Economy Fed Spending as a % of Economy Borrowed as a % of Economy

Average
1950-2007 17.8% 20% 2.2%




2008 17.5% 20.7% 3.2%




2011 14.4% 25.3% 10.9%.




How long could you borrow 10.9% of your economy before you would not be able to pay it back

From 1948 to current every time Fed spending as a % of our economy was 20% or more for 2 or more years unemployment increased 50%. Regardless of wether or not the economy grew or shrank. When Fed spending exceeds 20% of our economy the privste sector is pushed out resulting in a loss of jobs.

In 2009 the 10 year Budget forecasted 21.5%+ for every year through 2019.

The above showed that when Fed spending exceeds 20% for 2 or more years high unemployment, ~50% increase, follows regardless of wether the economy grew or shrank. Apparently I am not the only one who can do simple math.



"The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product ..."

The 19.9% matches the 1950-2007 average.

Pres Obama has vowed to veto it.

The interest on the debt is 15% of the estimated monthly revenue and yet we are told if we cannot borrow more money we will not be able to pay back the money we borrowed???? :confused:

Why would Pres Obama threaten to take money from the SS Trust Fund and use it to pay back the Debt? Since when did the Pres have the authority to "appropriate" from the SS Trust Fund? Is he Nationalizing the SS Trust Fund to pay off the Debt he increased 55% in three years? Where is the trust in the Trust Fund, where is the trust in Pes Obama?

[Fosters]

The above showed that when Fed spending exceeds 20% for 2 or more years high unemployment, ~50% increase, follows regardless of wether the economy grew or shrank. Apparently I am not the only one who can do simple math.



"The House Rules Committee is expected to take up the measure Monday, and it is likely to receive a floor vote on Tuesday. The measure would cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion, cap future spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product ..."

The 19.9% matches the 1950-2007 average.

Pres Obama has vowed to veto it.

The interest on the debt is 15% of the estimated monthly revenue and yet we are told if we cannot borrow more money we will not be able to pay back the money we borrowed???? :confused:

Why would Pres Obama threaten to take money from the SS Trust Fund and use it to pay back the Debt? Since when did the Pres have the authority to "appropriate" from the SS Trust Fund? Is he Nationalizing the SS Trust Fund to pay off the Debt he increased 55% in three years? Where is the trust in the Trust Fund, where is the trust in Pes Obama?

Here, I'm gonna summarize this thread for you:

http://www.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/751animated-obama-money.gif

[MM2004]

Nuff said.

Mike.