Can we have a political thread?

[TooManyFords]

I just noticed the "joke" posted:



Dear Employees:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change......I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.


First, taxes are on NET profits, not gross. If said company thinks it needs to raise the costs because taxes will go up, then he needs a new tax accountant. That is unless the CEO is pocketing all the profits, then yes he will walk away with less money at the end of the year. I am sick of the republican jokes aimed at Obama.

[Fosters]

I just noticed the "joke" posted:



First, taxes are on NET profits, not gross. If said company thinks it needs to raise the costs because taxes will go up, then he needs a new tax accountant. That is unless the CEO is pocketing all the profits, then yes he will walk away with less money at the end of the year. I am sick of the republican jokes aimed at Obama.

By costs they meant costs of the products they sell. If your production costs stay the same and you raise the sale price of your product, you WILL increase the net profit. If your company is barely making a decent profit margin as it is, then you might just have to raise those costs to maintain that profit margins.

Companies don't stay in business to break even. And CEOs don't work for 15 bucks an hour.

If you don't like the republican jokes, start making some smart liberal ones that make sense.


And since you wanted your political thread, how's that stimulus working out? How's your hope and change going?

[LANDY]

Here we go again.........

[Joe Walsh]

RUH ROH!

Political thread?......:run:

BTW: I would be glad to see Obama re-elected for a second term (and mandated last term)......IF.....we can get term limits on Congress and get those "Lifers" the hell out of there!!! :mad2:

[MrBluGruv]

lol.

net profits or gross profits, 25% of either figure is more than 20% of either figure.

I must misunderstand the point...

[SC Cheesehead]

I just noticed the "joke" posted:



First, taxes are on NET profits, not gross. If said company thinks it needs to raise the costs because taxes will go up, then he needs a new tax accountant. That is unless the CEO is pocketing all the profits, then yes he will walk away with less money at the end of the year. I am sick of the republican jokes aimed at Obama.

Yeah, and like the Dems never took a shot a W during his administration (not that he didn't deserve a few...;))

As for the CEO joke, it was meant as just that, the punchline was aimed at jabbing the folks that voted for change, rather than PrezBO specifically (not that he doesn't deserve a few jabs...;))

[Bigdogjim]

RUH ROH!

Political thread?......:run:

BTW: I would be glad to see Obama re-elected for a second term (and mandated last term)......IF.....we can get term limits on Congress and get those "Lifers" the hell out of there!!! :mad2:

Joe the American people can vote stop "lifers" by picking a new Congress every 4 years.

Actually pretty simple:)

[Joe Walsh]

Joe the American people can vote stop "lifers" by picking a new Congress every 4 years.

Actually pretty simple:)

In theory...Yes
In reality...No, not so simple.

1: Huge advantage for the incumbent in regards to $$$ that can be spent "Informing their constituents".....(i.e. Positioning for re-election)

2: You are assuming that a majority of voters actually know who they are voting for and what that candidate did while in office.
Reality is that many idiots walk in the voting booth and click the lever of "the name that looks familiar".....:shake:

3: Many voters now recognize that they can vote themselves money by re-electing the likes of Harry Byrd and Ted Kennedy. (Thank goodness they are gone)
Unfortunately, "voting yourself more money" through a government agency/program is the least efficient way to do it.
But Hey! Government money is free!!!....isn't it?

4: Then why should the Presidency have term limits??

[RacerX]

There's too much waste and each new generation feels more entitled to work less and receive more. I do believe that our potus is inexperienced and relies too much on his silver tongue, but, they all lie, deceive and conceal to their and their cronies own ends. Still the best country on the planet though! :beer:

[Spectragod]

Joe the American people can vote stop "lifers" by picking a new Congress every 4 years.

Actually pretty simple:)

Not simple at all, the last election proved that 51% of the people were incapable of using judgement when voting. ;)

[jerrym3]

Did the stimulus work?

I don't know, because there's no figures as to how many pink slips were not given out.

I guess you could look at how many jobs were lost per month before the stimulus, and how many after.

Then, factor the new additions to the workplace that can't find jobs into the unemployment figure.

Bottom line, there's probably no way to really tell.

Here's a little corporate greed story.

I worked for a company that hired four hotshots to come in and lead the company forward. (Even hired a new CEO.)

First thing they did was move corporate HQ from NJ to Seattle. Better tax structure.

Then, they sold off the company, piece by piece.

I got to be friends with the corporate Seattle limo driver, and he told me how the four of them were drinking in the back of the limo one night, toasting the big bucks they had made, all while the workers and lower/middle level managers were scrambling trying to find new work.

Job well done!!

And you really think that business is going to lead us out of this quagmire?

[MrBluGruv]

And you really think that business is going to lead us out of this quagmire?

So I guess we are just doomed to failure then, cause human greed in business is going to kill us slowly, but human greed in government will kill us faster.

I will fully submit that you must be insane if you think the government is benevolent and wants to help the constituencies rather than themselves.

[F8LBITEva]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/F8LBITEva/Bush_Miss_Me.jpg

[SC Cheesehead]

Did the stimulus work?

I don't know, because there's no figures as to how many pink slips were not given out.

I guess you could look at how many jobs were lost per month before the stimulus, and how many after.

Then, factor the new additions to the workplace that can't find jobs into the unemployment figure.

Bottom line, there's probably no way to really tell.

Here's a little corporate greed story.

I worked for a company that hired four hotshots to come in and lead the company forward. (Even hired a new CEO.)

First thing they did was move corporate HQ from NJ to Seattle. Better tax structure.

Then, they sold off the company, piece by piece.

I got to be friends with the corporate Seattle limo driver, and he told me how the four of them were drinking in the back of the limo one night, toasting the big bucks they had made, all while the workers and lower/middle level managers were scrambling trying to find new work.

Job well done!!

And you really think that business is going to lead us out of this quagmire?

This isn't uncommon, there's a whole consulting industry that's gown up around these types of guys. Lots of promises around unsustainable short-term gains. The group I work with often has to come in and clean up the mess after these jokers...:shake:

So, are you saying that your situation is indicative of business practices within ALL companies? If that's the case, and all companies function like that, then we, as a country, DESERVE to take a dive.

Methinks America, and American industry is better than that.

[jerrym3]

Unless we solve this job shortage, we may be doomed to economic failure.

I hope not.

As a nation, we've never faced anything like this.

[RacerX]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/F8LBITEva/Bush_Miss_Me.jpg
Yes! I do! :) I love that bumper sticker!

[RF Overlord]

To answer John's original question ("Can we have a political thread?"), while we don't actively encourage political discussion here (because it's a CAR forum :rolleyes: ), as long as it stays civil it's OK.

[Joe Walsh]

To answer John's original question ("Can we have a political thread?"), while we don't actively encourage political discussion here (because it's a CAR forum :rolleyes: ),
as long as it stays civil it's OK.

MM.Net history has shown that political threads usually do not.

[SC Cheesehead]

Unless we solve this job shortage, we may be doomed to economic failure.

I hope not.

As a nation, we've never faced anything like this.

True, that.

[SC Cheesehead]

MM.Net history has shown that political threads usually do not.

What, you got a PROBLEM with that! :mad2:


:D:D:D

[Joe Walsh]

What, you got a PROBLEM with that! :mad2:


:D:D:D

Nope!
No problem....unless you steal beer from my fridge!

Actually, I'm the guy who gets his own threads closed....:o

[Baaad GN]

Ok guy's I don't care who is in office, Do I like our guy now? Nope, I voted the other way but it still comes back to the same issue, for every dollor we spend we borrow .40 cents, how long can this go on! It can't, so watch who wants to spend (give away) more money and vote the opposite!
I know some people just do not understand! Geeez and they reproduce to!

[SC Cheesehead]

Nope!
No problem....unless you steal beer from my fridge!

Actually, I'm the guy who gets his own threads closed....:o

You got a fridge full of beer! :drool: Where did you say you live, again? ;)

Oh yeah, almost forgot about that. IBTL....

[Joe Walsh]

You got a fridge full of beer! :drool: Where did you say you live, again? ;)

Oh yeah, almost forgot about that. IBTL....

Yep!!
Out in my garage, right next to my Marauder is a fridge specifically dedicated to keeping beer, and only beer, cold!

:beer:

The fridge was full of beer when I came home from work Friday night....now......:hmmm:...... .it's missing a few.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yep!!
Out in my garage, right next to my Marauder is a fridge specifically dedicated to keeping beer, and only beer, cold!

:beer:

The fridge was full of beer when I came home from work Friday night....now......:hmmm:...... .it's missing a few.

It's a scientific fact that beer will evaporate faster on weekends...

[prchrman]

My company is in the gas powered recreation business. When the bottom dropped out of the economy it hit us in the face, but management reacted quickly.

They asked people for early retirement and several took it with some sort of incentives.
They layed off about 3-5% of employees.
They cut salaried employees pay by 5%, but gave us 3 extra weeks of paid time off.
They tightened their belts and cut out waste and bought only absolutely have to have items.
They promised they would give us our 5% back and another 5% when things got better, which they have and also I got a 5% bonus this spring.
My company is on sound financial grounds now.

Why can't the gov do the same kind of stuff.
Go in and tell everyone they have to cut 10% some how, some way and not reduce services. I would bet a dollar to a donut they could do if they only would. There is no way there was more waste in my company than in our gov.
The only thing gov knows to do is grow bigger. Bush grew it pretty rapidly but Obama has put a supercharger on it.
We are giving money to and fighting wars for people that hate us. Defense is too big, too many on gov programs that will never get off.

My great grandfather who was never rich but lived comfortable had a pretty good saying, "Give 10% to God, save 10% and if you can't live off the rest you need to change your life style". That is what the US gov needs to do, change it's life style.

[Fosters]

Did the stimulus work?

I don't know, because there's no figures as to how many pink slips were not given out.

We were told by democrats that if the stimulus doesn't pass, we will see 8.5% unemployment. Implying that if it does pass, we won't.

We're at 9.2%. I'd say it failed by their own benchmark.

[Fosters]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn166/F8LBITEva/Bush_Miss_Me.jpg

Nope, I think RINOs are worse than democrats. While Obama does make W seem like a conservative, Bush should've not spent as much as he did and he should have not expanded government as he did. Got EPA regulations? Ridiculous CAFE standards? Those especially affect us car guys every day.

My mustang came with 6 cats. Diesel emissions went to hell under Bush.

Don't miss him yet.

[Baaad GN]

The most interesting figures I've heard out of Washington are surprizing, they say that Obama's Gov and his people have spent more money since he's been in office then the "combined" cost of ALL goverments including Bush's since our country was founded. Ah thats a lot of money! And He does not want to slow down, But did ya ever hear of the TEA Party? Making his hair go white!

[Joe Walsh]

Nope, I think RINOs are worse than democrats. While Obama does make W seem like a conservative, Bush should've not spent as much as he did and he should have not expanded government as he did. Got EPA regulations? Ridiculous CAFE standards? Those especially affect us car guys every day.

My mustang came with 6 cats. Diesel emissions went to hell under Bush.

Don't miss him yet.

I gotta agree with that!

Now we have the MASSIVE Homeland Security Agency to absorb ungodly amounts of taxpayers money.
The new Mega-Government agency can overlap, fight, not communicate nor coordinate with the already redundent:
FBI
CIA
SS
TSA
ATB
DEA

:blah:

[RacerX]

Yeah, that had absolutely nothing to do with a couple towers falling and people dying. Stupid to spend money on defense after that on...

BTW, no matter what each one of us believes, it doesn't offend me or change how I think about others. :beer:

[Fosters]

Yeah, that had absolutely nothing to do with a couple towers falling and people dying. Stupid to spend money on defense after that on...

BTW, no matter what each one of us believes, it doesn't offend me or change how I think about others. :beer:
What did diesel emissions, cafe regulations, and epa regulations have to do with 9/11?

[Joe Walsh]

Yeah, that had absolutely nothing to do with a couple towers falling and people dying. Stupid to spend money on defense after that on...

BTW, no matter what each one of us believes, it doesn't offend me or change how I think about others. :beer:

Stupid to waste money on another agency when we have multiple agencies already covering the same security issues.

BTW: Incorporating, the previously private, airport security personnel into the TSA has made us all a bunch safer....:shake:

[RacerX]

I agree. Way too much bloat and there are better ways to get the results we all want. Investing in new technologies has to be done. I think too much money went into security too fast and we ALL agreed blindly because we were all in awe of what happened. Now it's time to take a good look at consolidation while lowering budgets and increasing security. I wouldn't want to be the president in these times. I have no real answers.


What did diesel emissions, cafe regulations, and epa regulations have to do with 9/11?
I was responding to Joe! ;)

[Bigdogjim]

In theory...Yes
In reality...No, not so simple.

1: Huge advantage for the incumbent in regards to $$$ that can be spent "Informing their constituents".....(i.e. Positioning for re-election)

2: You are assuming that a majority of voters actually know who they are voting for and what that candidate did while in office.
Reality is that many idiots walk in the voting booth and click the lever of "the name that looks familiar".....:shake:

3: Many voters now recognize that they can vote themselves money by re-electing the likes of Harry Byrd and Ted Kennedy. (Thank goodness they are gone)
Unfortunately, "voting yourself more money" through a government agency/program is the least efficient way to do it.
But Hey! Government money is free!!!....isn't it?

4: Then why should the Presidency have term limits??

Well Joe the big problem with America is not debt! It is the American people attutide towards their Govermaent!! Empires fall because citizens get lazy, weak, and fail to care about the direction the their goverment is heading. SO it really is simple if the American people wake up and smell the coffee:) Kick the bums to the curb plain and simple. I bet in the ending days of the this Republic the people will start and say to one another I wish I had seen this coming. Well people it is coming. We are running like a run-a-way freight train with no end in sight. Till it's too late.

Wake up America.

[Bigdogjim]

Not simple at all, the last election proved that 51% of the people were incapable of using judgement when voting. ;)

See my response to Joe above...:flag:

[kernie]

Well Joe the big problem with America is not debt! It is the American people attutide towards their Govermaent!! Empires fall because citizens get lazy, weak, and fail to care about the direction the their goverment is heading. SO it really is simple if the American people wake up and smell the coffee:) Kick the bums to the curb plain and simple. I bet in the ending days of the this Republic the people will start and say to one another I wish I had seen this coming. Well people it is coming. We are running like a run-a-way freight train with no end in sight. Till it's too late.

Wake up America.

Thank-you!!!!!!!! Bang on!!!!!

:beer:

[Fosters]

Thank-you!!!!!!!! Bang on!!!!!

:beer:
Weird seeing you agree with that :D

It does seem most people are ok with cuts in spending... as long as you don't touch their particular program or benefit. :o

Gotta love people claiming to be fiscal conservatives, unless it's about the one thing they care for - be it nasa, defense, abortion, etc.

IMO, everything needs a cut. And along with those cuts, a flat percentage tax across the board with no credits/incentives/deductions. If you make 20k/yr, and you pay 25% in tax, you'll pay 5k to uncle sam. If you make 200k/yr, you'll pay 50k to uncle sam. There's no argument that someone's not paying their fair share anymore.

At that point, we will need a balanced budget amendment, so that government is forced to live within its means.

[Pat]

My answer to OP's question - No.

[jerrym3]

Fosters, maybe the "experts" in our government didn't realize how bad things were (or were getting) and made a bad projection (remember WMDs?).

Maybe it didn't work, maybe it did, but if the government had done nothing, the conservative side would have been the first to scream and yell.

Everybody's looking for the next "gotcha".

The bottom line, this country is so divided politically that neither side can agree on anything, and the media is feeding the frenzy on both sides.

Meanwhile, nothing gets settled and we trade one bunch of politicians for another set of politicians.

So, as a country, we may go down fighting, but we'll be fighting each other instead of a common enemy.

[Mr. Man]

Stimulus(not working and a waste of $) was 700 Billionish divided by say 180 million tax paying citizens equals 39Kish each. (I'm using a calculator that doesn't quite go as high as 700,000,000,000) so if I'm off I apologise).

If you don't pay taxes you don't get squat but you would most likely have kept your job because people will spend their tax stimulus on something you make, do, sell, etc. If you don't work to bad you get to live on what ever the Govt is already paying you.

My point is I got zippo of the stimulus an I don't see anything in my day to day life that I could say how the stimulus benifited me. The roads I drive on are still crap, bridges are still falling apart. I need a new TV. I could have bought a car, gone on a really nice vacation, etc. The point is I would have spent it, creating work for other people who would then in turn spend their money on something....so on. I know it sounds a bit like trickle down economics but the money doesn't have to trickle down anywhere. I bet the idiots in Washington don't know what they spent 700Billion on in the first place.:shake:

[Shaijack]

In your house do you spend more money than you make????

It is easy spending other people's money and not be accountable for it.

There are other countries that you can move to. Mexico is almost empty.

Just a few random thoughts from an X (retired) Corporate guy.

The last company I worked for and owned NEVER reduced saleries or took bennys away when things started going bad. They are alive and growing as I type. Loyal employees too.

[Joe Walsh]

Stimulus(not working and a waste of $) was 700 Billionish divided by say 180 million tax paying citizens equals 39Kish each. (I'm using a calculator that doesn't quite go as high as 700,000,000,000) so if I'm off I apologise).

If you don't pay taxes you don't get squat but you would most likely have kept your job because people will spend their tax stimulus on something you make, do, sell, etc. If you don't work to bad you get to live on what ever the Govt is already paying you.

My point is I got zippo of the stimulus an I don't see anything in my day to day life that I could say how the stimulus benifited me. The roads I drive on are still crap, bridges are still falling apart. I need a new TV. I could have bought a car, gone on a really nice vacation, etc. The point is I would have spent it, creating work for other people who would then in turn spend their money on something....so on. I know it sounds a bit like trickle down economics but the money doesn't have to trickle down anywhere. I bet the idiots in Washington don't know what they spent 700Billion on in the first place.:shake:

Your calculations are off a little.
You forgot that the govrnment spends way more than it actually collects in taxes....
So, of that 700 Billion that they spent/wasted, the government will only collect* maybe 500 Billion? in taxes.
So the taxpayers are 'on the hook' for only 500 Billion.....:o

*(Note: They haven't yet collected the taxes for what they have already spent.)

[sailsmen]

I just noticed the "joke" posted:



First, taxes are on NET profits, not gross. If said company thinks it needs to raise the costs because taxes will go up, then he needs a new tax accountant. That is unless the CEO is pocketing all the profits, then yes he will walk away with less money at the end of the year. I am sick of the republican jokes aimed at Obama.

60% of jobs are created by small business. Small businesses are usually taxed as an individual. This is why most corporations do not pay income tax. The net income flows through the corporation to the owners who are taxed as individuals.

Example - Mr and Mrs Smith own a small famliy business and the entiety is a corporation. The corporation is taxed as an individual.

The Smith's both work in the business and have net income a/k/a salary of $350,000 from the buiness. Their marginal income tax rate is 35% and it is being raised to 40%. 5% of $350,000 is $17,500.

Where is the $17,500 going to come from? Not hiring a part time person, no bonus for employees, no additional machinery to expand? Oh wait the 200 new laws totaling over 8,000 pages, 200 EO and 234 Rule Makings increased the costs of their overhead and their net income is now only $250,000 below Pres Obama's tax increase! But wait where is the $100,000 going to come from? They lay off that marginal employee, the house keeper and the lawn man, also cancel the annual vaction! Yea make the rich suffer.

Mean while the Federal couple who on average bring in $225,000 per year just got a raise!

We all know Gov't will spend this $17,500 so wisely that it will put people to work or perhaps in new projects being built in New Orleans at a costs of $220,000 to $330,000 per unit excluding land.

Why isn't anybody laughing? Thats right it is not a joke but Pres Obama's reality.

[Mr. Man]

Your calculations are off a little.
You forgot that the government spends way more than it actually collects in taxes....
So, of that 700 Billion that they spent/wasted, the government will only collect* maybe 500 Billion? in taxes.
So the taxpayers are 'on the hook' for only 500 Billion.....:o

*(Note: They haven't yet collected the taxes for what they have already spent.)
My basic point was the stimulus should have been given out to the people so they could spend it on things they need or want thus stimulating the economy and generating taxes to pay it back or at least some of it. Instead they gave it to banks and Wall street and it is gone with the wind, never to be seen again.:)

[SC Cheesehead]

My basic point was the stimulus should have been given out to the people so they could spend it on things they need or want thus stimulating the economy and generating taxes to pay it back or at least some of it. Instead they gave it to banks and Wall street and it is gone with the wind, never to be seen again.:)

I agree the money was just dumped down a rathole for all the "stimulus" it did, but even if it had been given out to people, it would have only resulted in a short-term spike, as the underlying issues negatively affecting the economy haven't been addressed.

[Fosters]

I agree the money was just dumped down a rathole for all the "stimulus" it did, but even if it had been given out to people, it would have only resulted in a short-term spike, as the underlying issues negatively affecting the economy haven't been addressed.

That, and it would have fed people's overspending habits... You take those drowning in credit card debt, give them a check for most/all of it and see if they're gonna learn. I bet those trying to keep up with the Joneses would be back in credit card debt real fast...

[kernie]

I agree the money was just dumped down a rathole for all the "stimulus" it did, but even if it had been given out to people, it would have only resulted in a short-term spike, as the underlying issues negatively affecting the economy haven't been addressed.

I liked that company {was it AIG?} who turned around and tried to give it's employees 6{8?} billion in bonuses from the bailout money, talk about arrogance!

I can still picture W with Paulson and team Goldman Sacs beaming over the taxpayers money tansferred to the bums who broke the system in the first place.
:beer:

[Fosters]

I liked that company {was it AIG?} who turned around and tried to give it's employees 6{8?} billion in bonuses from the bailout money, talk about arrogance!

:beer:

You can blame the company all you want, the root cause of the problem was the bailout in the first place. No company should have gotten bailed out, period. Let the good stable companies pick them up for pennies on the dollar. What Bush started, Obama continued. So much for 'change'.


Of course, this only applies if Ford wouldn't feel compelled to buy GM brands... That would suck.

[SC Cheesehead]

You can blame the company all you want, the root cause of the problem was the bailout in the first place. No company should have gotten bailed out, period. Let the good stable companies pick them up for pennies on the dollar. What Bush started, Obama continued. So much for 'change'.


Of course, this only applies if Ford wouldn't feel compelled to buy GM brands... That would suck.

Spot on!
--------------------

[kernie]

That, and it would have fed people's overspending habits... You take those drowning in credit card debt, give them a check for most/all of it and see if they're gonna learn. I bet those trying to keep up with the Joneses would be back in credit card debt real fast...


You can blame the company all you want, the root cause of the problem was the bailout in the first place. No company should have gotten bailed out, period. Let the good stable companies pick them up for pennies on the dollar. What Bush started, Obama continued. So much for 'change'.


Of course, this only applies if Ford wouldn't feel compelled to buy GM brands... That would suck.

You are just plain programmed to blame the people and the government and give big biz\big money a pass.

:beer:

[SC Cheesehead]

You are just plain programmed to blame the people and the government and give big biz\big money a pass.

:beer:

If I had a choice between big government and big business, I'd pick big business every time.

I know that's very anti-socialist of me, but I guess that's just the way I'm programmed... ;)

[Fosters]

You are just plain programmed to blame the people and the government and give big biz\big money a pass.

:beer:

Wait, so now it's the business' fault they got bailed out? Hell, Wells Fargo was forced to take bailout money even when they repeatedly said they didn't need it.

You put money in the hands of people that have proven to be incapable of handling it, they're gonna keep doing what they do...



If I had a choice between big government and big business, I'd pick big business every time.

I know that's very anti-socialist of me, but I guess that's just the way I'm programmed... ;)

Amen. At least with big business I have the choice to not buy their product. With government, I have to pay for welfare sucking octo-moms no matter what.

[Ozark Marauder]

The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.......

A good government implies two things: first, faithfulness to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I have an uneasy feeling arising from conscience, not to assert that in American government too little attention has been paid to the last.

Federalist Papers, Madison, Number 62

IMHO

[jerrym3]

In today's local business section:

"Cisco to lay off thousands of workers (6,500) in an effort to cut costs and improve profits"

15% of employees at or above the VP level will lose their jobs.

2,100 have taken an early buy out. (Which means they chose to leave with a better package rather than wait for the ax to fall.)

Cisco chose to lower costs by reducing headcount as opposed to lowering prices to increase demand.

[SC Cheesehead]

In today's local business section:

"Cisco to lay off thousands of workers (6,500) in an effort to cut costs and improve profits"

15% of employees at or above the VP level will lose their jobs.

2,100 have taken an early buy out. (Which means they chose to leave with a better package rather than wait for the ax to fall.)

Cisco chose to lower costs by reducing headcount as opposed to lowering prices to increase demand.

What is their current profit margin? Can they lower prices and still be profitable? Are they currently operating at a loss?

What is their org structure? Have they realigned the oganization which has resulted in redundancy in senior staff positions? Are they overstaffed with potential to reduce headcount without compromising operations?

Are they in a growth market segment with substantial opportunity to grow demand? What is their current market share?

Via your statement, you're making the broad assumption, jerry, that Cisco has multiple options to improve it's business postion without supporting facts to validate the assumption.

I don't have the facts either, but my guess is Cisco is under extreme pressure (probably by shareholers) to improve business performance and cut losses. Early retirement programs aren't cheap, and are usually employed as a measure to implement step change when drastic measures are called for in order to get a business turned around.

[Micahdogg]

If anyone saw footage of the Pakistani Policemen getting executed yesterday....it helps put our problems in perspective. It's a good day when you just have discussions about job loss and economic growth (or lack thereof).

[jerrym3]

Cheesehead, I noted this because someone on another thread suggested that a company could consider lowering their cost to increase demand.

(Same as when I noted that an article in my local paper said that a study showed that companies are not planning to hire even if demand rises unless they absolutely have to.)

I'm sure Cisco considered all options.

In my working days, Cisco pretty much owned their market (data communications products). I bought a lot of their products for my company.

Things may have changed.

I don't know the answers to your questions, but the reality is that they are knocking off a lot of workers, including higher ups.

By the way, "buy out" does not necessarily mean early retirement, especially if your not of a certain age, or do not have sufficient time with the company to reap the benefits.

I've been on both sides of corporate downsizing in large corporations.

There were times when my bosses didn't know who was getting cut, and there were times when I didn't know who was being cut in my staff.

There was one time when my boss (and his boss) were cut the same day, and my boss was informed in our staff meeting (by a surviving manager) that he (our boss) would be "retiring" effective immediately.

In another company, the head of personnel went through hell telling workers they had lost their jobs. On the last day of the cuts, he was let go.

One woman was fired and told she could not go back to her cubicle to get her personal items, including family pictures. (They would be "mailed to her ASAP".)

She became hysterical, and an exec VP had to finally give approval for security to bodyguard her back to her cubicle.)

But, it was just business. Nothing personal.

I've also seen a CEO, with his head down, tell a roomful of company officers, that a lot of people in that room were going to be hurt, but that the company would do it with dignity. He was right on both counts.

I've seen excellant workers canned and dummies retained. (No doubt, both age and salary played a role.)

Not trying to make points here, just conversation.

[PonyUP]

In today's local business section:

"Cisco to lay off thousands of workers (6,500) in an effort to cut costs and improve profits"

15% of employees at or above the VP level will lose their jobs.

2,100 have taken an early buy out. (Which means they chose to leave with a better package rather than wait for the ax to fall.)

Cisco chose to lower costs by reducing headcount as opposed to lowering prices to increase demand.

Business will maintain profits, it is their sole purpose for being in business. In an unstable economy like we are currently in, business are not going to lower prices to increase demand, as that will only mean adding people to meet that demand and lower profits. They will charge as much as the market can bare, and maximize their profits while doing so. This is the goal of EVERY business.

Now let's apply the same logic to our government. Profits drop (i.e. a surplus following the budget, look and see when the last time we had one of those was, it wasn't in this century). Now Obama's plan on raising taxes (increase revenues) would work, if expenses were cut to raise profitability (cutting governement jobs, cutting frivelous spending, eliminate expensive projects that do not raise profitability.)

Now let's say we follow the Republican approach (And I'm not a Republincan) Cut taxes, making it easier for corporations to do business here, close the loopholes in the tax code for coporations, but give them a manageable tax, cut the spending. Corporations do more business here, economy stabilizes, more people go to work, profits go up.

Comparing Governement to Business would work, except business has the aim of having money left over at the end of the year, the Governement doesn't

[prchrman]

The problem is most of us care more about the well being of our country than the politicians in Washington. Their concern is being reelected and right now they are up there trying not to show their hand on what they really should do because they know next year is an election year and the other side will blast their proposal and hence they will not be reelected. Cantor put out a proposal and he has taken some serious head shots from his forward approach. Smart politicians like Obama have not proposed a thing because they know what the results would be.

[SC Cheesehead]

...I've seen excellant workers canned and dummies retained. (No doubt, both age and salary played a role.)

Not trying to make points here, just conversation.

jerry, all good points, and I hope you see that I'm conversing as well.

I hear you loud and clear on the pain of downsizing; I've been through it several times myself, both on the giving and receiving ends.

One of the hardest things I did as a manager was to let someone go due to downsizing. Termination for performance issues is pretty straightforward, laying off a good employee because of poor business conditions is tough. :depress:

Like PonyUP posted, businesses exist to make money, and if they are publicly held, they are beholden to the stockholders to maximize that profit.

The government, on the other hand, has no incentive to be efficient or maximize the value generated from expenditure of capital, and THAT to me is one of the issues at hand.

One entity generates wealth, the other consumes it. Reduce the ability of businesses to generate wealth and increase the governments expenditure of those dwindling resources, and sooner or later you reach the tipping point.

And I think we're at that point right now. The question is, how do we get it turned around? IMO, it sure as heck AIN'T with more government...

[sailsmen]

It is very simple math. Using OMB & BLS data since 1948 whenever Fed spending exceeded 20% of GDP for 2 or more years unemployment went up ~50% regardless of wether the Economy grew or shrank.

20% is the tipping point at which the Fed crowds out the private sector resulting in a loss of jobs.

Pres Obama's 2009 10 year Budget per the CBO spending is 21.5%+ of GDP for every year through 2019.

Per Orszag, Pres Obama's Golden Boy who headed up the OMB resigning right before the July, 2010 CBO report that Fed spending is unsustainable, stated 7-12-11 "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."

"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 ..."


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?

The solution is very simple roll back Federal spending to 2008 levels, this 2008 level was established by a Dem Cong & Repub Pres. Essentially roll back the Pres Obama 29% increased spending. This solution was in the July 2010 CBO report.

The alternative is to continue to end up Argentina 2001 followed by WW. Ain't it great to spend what you don't have?

Note: I made and posted the 20% tipping point before the House proposed the 19.9% cap. This tells me DC knows 20% is the tipping point at which 8mm people will stay unemployed. Post #146, 7-14-11 http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1068020#post1 068020

[SC Cheesehead]

^^^^^ Excellent post. ^^^^^^^

Somebody oughta send a copy of it to the US Senate and the WH... :rolleyes:

[sailsmen]

^^^^^ Excellent post. ^^^^^^^

Somebody oughta send a copy of it to the US Senate and the WH... :rolleyes:

They know it already and that is what really bothers me. They are all so power hungry they don't give a blank about 8mm who cannot find work. But hey they will give you food stamps and unemployment benefits.

I want them all thrown out of office, every single one!

[hamcheese]

The political system is broken.

[Joe Walsh]

They know it already and that is what really bothers me. They are all so power hungry they don't give a blank about 8mm who cannot find work. But hey they will give you food stamps and unemployment benefits.

I want them all thrown out of office, every single one!

I really only want the 'lifers' and all their 'little fiefdoms' that they have created and now spend all their time & energy protecting...

THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!!!

TWO TERMS, THEN GO HOME AND GET A REAL JOB!!!

[Haggis]

I really only want the 'lifers' and all their 'little fiefdoms' that they have created and now spend all their time & energy protecting...

THROWN OUT OF OFFICE!!!

TWO TERMS, THEN GO HOME AND GET A REAL JOB!!!

The only way that will happen is with a revolution.

[Joe Walsh]

The only way that will happen is with a revolution.

Sad, scary and most likely true.

:hmmm:....stocking up on Barrett ammo tomorrow!

The American people, in general, have become too dumb and lazy to actually vote these useless tax gobbling politicans out of office. (as BigDog suggested earlier)

[Micahdogg]

I think without a doubt, the legislative branches on nearly every state level and the federal level are the single biggest problem with this country.

In every chamber you have a President or Speaker who surround themselves with a handful of leadership - and they run the show. In many cases they are chairmen of their state political organizations and dole campaign funds to their minions. So if you want to try and rock the system, you don't get committee chairmanships, you get ostricized by your fellow legislators, you are withheld funds for your district, then you lose reelection because campaign assistance (both physical and monetary) were sent to your competitor and not you.

So now you have an entrenched system where every legislator knows that they cannot make a difference. The only way that results can be measured then, are from what you can do for your district. When states are horribly in the red, they still earmark something to the tune of $200 million for district projects (at least here in Illinois, both House + Senate). So how is a legislator supposed to take the high road and say, "NO, my district doesn't need that $220,000 overpass project because our state can't afford it." Someone will take that money.

Now consider the fact that most households in this country DON'T have any financial smarts are are living beyond their means on credit. So when your constituents see an overpass project languishing, yet neighboring districts are putting people to work, how do you think that will go over? They will vote that Legislator out of office for someone who can get things done. And it's much worse at the Federal level.

I don't see any way to change so much that is broken.

[SC Cheesehead]

Sad, scary and most likely true.

:hmmm:....stocking up on Barrett ammo tomorrow!

The American people, in general, have become too dumb and lazy to actually vote these useless tax gobbling politicans out of office. (as BigDog suggested earlier)

Adding to the .357 mag ammo inventory at my place...

[jerrym3]

So, after the revolution, who runs the country?

A newly elected government.

Unless, of course, you can find an honest dictator.

And the wheel keeps spinning.........

[Fosters]

Sadly, while revolting in history has been viewed as a courageous act of standing up for your beliefs, getting out in the street with the pitchfork/mossberg/etc in today's word would be villified, and the first one to do it will be labeled as a loony. And each side would try their damnest to portray you as a loony from the "other" side.

The best thing big government can do is grow too fast. That will make the so called day of reckoning come sooner. The slower it grows, the slower we lose our liberties, the easier it is for people to be ok with it. So in a way, I wish dems would have won the 2010 election...

[SC Cheesehead]

So, after the revolution, who runs the country?

A newly elected government.

Unless, of course, you can find an honest dictator.

And the wheel keeps spinning.........

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

[Fosters]

So, after the revolution, who runs the country?

A newly elected smaller government.

Unless, of course, you can find an honest dictator.

And the wheel keeps spinning.........

Fix.T

hell, put it on a schedule to happen every 100 years, for government to go away and start off from 0 again... :D

[SC Cheesehead]

Fix.T

hell, put it on a schedule to happen every 100 years, for government to go away and start off from 0 again... :D


Not too bad an idea... ;)

[jerrym3]

Why not term limits on all government positions? This way, politicians can focus on doing what's right, not the next election.

And, they get back quicker into the real world instead of living off our taxes for years and years.

With the 100 year limit, you could potentially have two 50 year governments.

Too long.

[prchrman]

Not too bad an idea... ;)

In the Bible it was every 50 years and it was called the year of Jubilee.

[SC Cheesehead]

In the Bible it was every 50 years and it was called the year of Jubilee.

True, that; in Levitcus.

[LIGHTNIN1]

No need to worry. The government will take care of you. The 14.4 Trillion debt will be 17 Trillion after they raise the debt limit but who cares? They will have that payed off in no time. Have faith.

[Fosters]

Why not term limits on all government positions? This way, politicians can focus on doing what's right, not the next election.

And, they get back quicker into the real world instead of living off our taxes for years and years.

With the 100 year limit, you could potentially have two 50 year governments.

Too long.

All government positions? As in all government employees? Have you ever sat in line at the DMV, man? Those people are career paper pushers, and they still take forever and a day to do their job... New people would be even worse as they'd have to ask a question every 30 seconds... :shake:

[Micahdogg]

In the Bible it was every 50 years and it was called the year of Jubilee.

The israelites never even practiced it....unsurprisingly.

[Bigdogjim]

All government positions? As in all government employees? Have you ever sat in line at the DMV, man? Those people are career paper pushers, and they still take forever and a day to do their job... New people would be even worse as they'd have to ask a question every 30 seconds... :shake:

The DMV. Now there's a topic! Actually it's not the people who are working there fault. IT is the system they are working under, not the bosses mind you but the system. New Jersey has send me no fewer than 4 suspension notices in the last 2 years. Each time I appear it is dismissed:confused: Crazy old outdated info stuck in a very old mainframe computersystem.

OK! Back to the topic at hand:)

[MrBluGruv]

The DMV. Now there's a topic! Actually it's not the people who are working there fault. IT is the system they are working under, not the bosses mind you but the system. New Jersey has send me no fewer than 4 suspension notices in the last 2 years. Each time I appear it is dismissed:confused: Crazy old outdated info stuck in a very old mainframe computersystem.

OK! Back to the topic at hand:)

lol, I still have a hard time dismissing the people that work there.

Talk about a job with ZERO accountability, you have to take time off from work to go or it ain't happening here in Texas: a number of them close down completely during the noon lunch hour. It's like "hey look, a line, TIME TO GO TO LUNCH."

[Bigdogjim]

lol, I still have a hard time dismissing the people that work there.

Talk about a job with ZERO accountability, you have to take time off from work to go or it ain't happening here in Texas: a number of them close down completely during the noon lunch hour. It's like "hey look, a line, TIME TO GO TO LUNCH."

Yep! It all goes to athe system that are working under. No customer service whatsoever. Let's face it where you going to go? :lol:

[jerrym3]

Forsters, do all government workers run for election?

But, regarding DMV's and government workers, the DMV office in Wykoff, NJ, was manned by intelligent, pleasant, good working personnel. Never had a problem. In and out in reasonable time.

Unfortunately, they have closed the office and moved the staff elsewhere.

Last visit to the DMV Hackensack, NJ, a few year's ago for a picture wasn't too bad either.

Now, lines and waiting times are terrible due to cutbacks and reduction in hours.

My mailman was a nice, conscientious worker. He retired. His replacement, a Muslim woman, also seems very nice.

My son-in-law works for the government. Maybe he'll be the undercover air marshall on the next plane flight you take.

There are duds everywhere, government and non-government.

[SC Cheesehead]

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2011/07/21/change_bumper_sticker.jpg

[Fosters]

Forsters, do all government workers run for election?

But, regarding DMV's and government workers, the DMV office in Wykoff, NJ, was manned by intelligent, pleasant, good working personnel. Never had a problem. In and out in reasonable time.

Unfortunately, they have closed the office and moved the staff elsewhere.

Last visit to the DMV Hackensack, NJ, a few year's ago for a picture wasn't too bad either.

Now, lines and waiting times are terrible due to cutbacks and reduction in hours.

My mailman was a nice, conscientious worker. He retired. His replacement, a Muslim woman, also seems very nice.

My son-in-law works for the government. Maybe he'll be the undercover air marshall on the next plane flight you take.

There are duds everywhere, government and non-government.

I'm glad to hear the government works so well in the northeast. Tell me, how are them property taxes working out for ya? :D



For everyone else, thought I'd share, and this thread seems to be a good fit for this article/link:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578920&src=HPLNews


Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 07/20/2011 06:35 PM ET
Featured Stocks

* Top-Rated Company

Bernie Marcus co-founded Home Depot (HD) in 1978 and brought it public in 1981 as the U.S. was suffering from the worst recession and unemployment in 40 years. The company thrived, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and redefining home improvement retailing.

But Marcus says Home Depot "would never have succeeded" if it launched today due to onerous regulation. He recently helped launch the Job Creators Alliance, a Dallas-based nonprofit of CEOs and entrepreneurs dedicated to preserving the free enterprise system. IBD recently spoke to him about jobs and the economy.

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?
Bernie Marcus: Red over rules.

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: Washington has been consumed with debt talks. Is this the right focus now?

Marcus: They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say, because he's never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the busi nessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

IBD: Why don't more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

IBD: What's your message to the business community?

Marcus: It's time to stand up and fight. These people in Washington are out there making your life difficult, and many of you won't survive. Why aren't you doing something about it? The free enterprise system made this country what it is today, and we've got to keep it alive. We are on the edge of the abyss.

At the Job Creators Alliance, we're trying to recruit people who are willing to step up and say: " I've had it. There's no one representing me. I want to be out there and fight."

[jerrym3]

"them" property taxes are just fine, otherwise I'd relocate.

How's them winters out there?

Didn't you post that you'd be willing to pay more for a quality product?

Guess I pay more taxes for higher quality workmanship.

[kernie]

Saw this this am.


(Reuters) - After three decades spent battling their own debt crises and getting constantly lectured about them by Uncle Sam, many Latin Americans are watching the countdown to a possible default in Washington with a mix of schadenfraude and fear of what a collapse might mean for them.
For everybody from presidents on down to street vendors, seeing U.S. politicians argue over where to make painful budget cuts has also been a reminder that those days are over in Latin America. For now, at least, as most of the region enjoys an era of economic prosperity and comparatively tiny deficits.
In Washington, lawmakers were working feverishly to combine elements of a plan to raise the U.S. debt ceiling with market-pleasing proposals to cut spending. Congress must approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling by August 2 or the government will run out of money to pay its bills.
"When did the American dream become a nightmare?" gloated Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez, whose own country defaulted on about $100 billion in debt a decade ago.
In a speech at the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange on Monday, she contended that Argentina (http://www.reuters.com/places/argentina) had prospered since then by focusing on exports and controlling financial speculation -- a lesson that Washington has yet to learn, she said.
The Americans "thought that money just reproduces by itself, and only in the financial sector, without having to produce any goods or services," Fernandez said.
Washington's biggest critics in the region, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, have also portrayed the crisis as an inevitable outcome for a country that failed to follow its own financial advice and overextended itself militarily -- in Latin America, and elsewhere.
"If they didn't spend money on military bases and keeping troops in other parts of the world, I think the United States could easily resolve its financial crisis," Morales said last week, according to state news agency ABI.
Memories are still fresh of the self-righteous tone that U.S. officials sometimes seemed to take when the shoe was on the other foot. One infamous example: As Argentina spiraled into crisis in 2001, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill mocked the country for its debt struggles and said: "They like it that way. Nobody forced them to be what they are."
These days, Latin America's economy (http://www.reuters.com/finance/economy) as a whole is expected to expand about 4.7 percent in 2011 -- almost twice the expected rate in the United States -- thanks to strong demand for the region's commodities and a decade of mostly prudent fiscal management, itself the product of many hard-learned lessons of the past.
WORRIES CONTAGION COULD SPREAD
It is, in fact, the risk of a U.S. default sparking an old-fashioned financial contagion throughout the Americas -- like the so-called "Tequila Crisis" that spread from Mexico (http://www.reuters.com/places/mexico) in the 1990s -- that has tempered the triumphalism in some quarters and kept many policymakers up late at night.
Brazil (http://www.reuters.com/places/brazil), the region's economic powerhouse, which just a decade ago had to come to Washington to ask the International Monetary Fund for a bailout, is now the United States' fourth-biggest sovereign creditor -- holding about $211 billion in U.S. Treasury securities, according to U.S. data from May.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has met with her team of economic advisers at least four times in the past week, primarily to discuss what a default in the United States or Europe might mean for Brazil, an official told Reuters.
"(Rousseff) starts every day reading the news out of Washington," the official said. "She's fascinated by it."
Even if President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress manage a last-minute deal (http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals) to avert a default, as most expect, the role reversal has left many rubbing their eyes in disbelief.
"If you're a survivor of the crises of the 80s and 90s, (this crisis) is unthinkable," wrote Miriam Leitao, one of Brazil's leading columnists, noting that Obama must now confront the kind of issues "that would have seemed like lunacy to us back in the days when they had a monopoly on power."
(Additional reporting by Frank Jack Daniel (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=frank.daniel&) in Caracas and Hilary Burke (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=hilary.burke&) and Helen Popper (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=helen.popper&) in Buenos Aires; Editing by Todd Benson and Cynthia Osterman (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=cynthia.osterman&))

[LIGHTNIN1]

Pres Obama has the chance to create millions of jobs. He has to only do one simple thing for this to happen. RESIGN.

[Micahdogg]

Stay the course.

[Fosters]

"them" property taxes are just fine, otherwise I'd relocate.

How's them winters out there?


Not as bad as the taxes and government out here in the central coast. And before you ask, I am in the process of relocating back to the southwest. :D


Didn't you post that you'd be willing to pay more for a quality product?

Guess I pay more taxes for higher quality workmanship.

Actually, you don't pay more taxes for higher quality workmanship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels

I haven't been to NJ, so can't say what the workmanship is like, but if it's anything like MN, we're both getting screwed.

[SC Cheesehead]

kernie, interesting article, and a lot of the points are right on.

A couple of items to point out, though:


Congress must approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling by August 2 or the government will run out of money to pay its bills.

No, we won't "run out of money," what will happen is there will be a shortfall between income and payments due; in business terms, this is called a problem with cash flow. If we reach the point (be it Aug. 2nd or whenever) where debt exceeds income, some decisions will need to be made on what gets paid immediately and which payments are held up. This has creditors worried, because up until now, the US has always paid its bills on time. Folks are shuffling to get to the head of the line, and it could get interesting.

"If they didn't spend money on military bases and keeping troops in other parts of the world, I think the United States could easily resolve its financial crisis," Morales said last week, according to state news agency ABI.

Defense spending is by no means small change, but if it were totally eliminated, there would still be a shortfall:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures _Estimates.PNG/350px-2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures _Estimates.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_Receipts_%26_Expendi tures_Estimates.PNG)

What is termed "Mandatory Spending" (primarily entitlement programs) form the bulk of the US expenditures. Like it or not, there HAVE to be some reductions in these categories if we are to get our financial house in order.


The Americans "thought that money just reproduces by itself, and only in the financial sector, without having to produce any goods or services," Fernandez said.

Not Americans in general, but specific segments of our population. Anyone familiar with basic economics (as in the private sector) understands that there's no free lunch. You don't produce, you don't get paid. Wealth is generated only through production of goods and services. NO amount of government spending can do that, because government is a CONSUMPTION entity, not a poducer. Politicians, and especially those to the left of center, seen unable to acknowledge that.

A wise man once said, "you can't spend your way to prosperity." Unfortunately, folks in Washington, particularly our current administration, just don't get it.

Whatever happens, we'll bounce back, in the words of Nietzsche, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

[Fosters]

everything he posted


Isn't it odd, that the terms "mandatory spending" and "discretionary spending" are basically backwards? The point of a government in a free society is to protect our rights; be it from foreign invasion or domestic. Yet the military is considered discretionary. Hrm... The government's role is not income redistribution, which is what Social Security, medicare and medicaid are (the richer you are, the less likely you are to need and use those services, yet the more you pay for them), but yet that's MANDATORY!

I wonder, if republicans backed down - and I'm starting to think Mitch McConnel's plan is starting to make sense - and let democrats own it all; "you want a higher debt ceiling, all yours", I wonder what the excuses would be afterwards. Let's cut the military - as an isolationist, I do agree that we don't need bases all over the world - and lets cut military actions to just that, military actions. Remove the nation building component. The whole middle east action should have been at most 1 year long. Go bust some ass and come back. Pakistan and Afghanistan doesn't like being all busted up? Too bad, don't mess with us. Iraq and Iran wanna get into it? None of our damn business.

The question is, if we do cut back our military, as you pointed out, we will be still knee deep in deficit spending. What will be the democrats excuse then? Taxes not high enough? Fine, let's go to Clinton's tax rates - all of them, not just the ones for rich people, because, you know, we all need to have some skin in the game. That STILL won't cut it. What's gonna be the excuse then? How far do things need to go before these nitwits are going to concede that it does not work that way?

[Fosters]

Another CEO, another article; Steve Wynn, of Wynn Resorts:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda


Stephen Wynn

Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Convention Bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000. I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating. And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

[duhtroll]

Home Depot wouldn't be able to thrive now (at least around here) because anyone who needs decent supplies or someone to be able to answer a question goes to Menards. :D


I'm glad to hear the government works so well in the northeast. Tell me, how are them property taxes working out for ya? :D



For everyone else, thought I'd share, and this thread seems to be a good fit for this article/link:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578920&src=HPLNews

[SC Cheesehead]

"They are all tied together. If we don't lower spending and if we don't deal with paying down the debt, we are going to have to raise taxes. Even brain-dead economists understand that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs." - Bernie Marcus, founder of Home Depot


Q: What's the difference between a brain-dead economist and a politician?
A: Understanding that when you raise taxes, you cost jobs.
-------------------------------------
Q: What's the difference between a brain-dead economist and a politician?
A: I'd vote for the brain-dead economist in the next election.

[kernie]

I posted the following well over a year ago, still a dud?



OK, consiter the following pure satire otherwise you might no like much of the following.

Start up a fund that every american could access, gather up the richest 100 or so americans who are willing to participate, put them on a stage and primetime TV and ask them to donate as much as they can to give this fund a hefty start. Call it the patriot fund or america first fund, if you have 10 million in the bank it sounds like america has been good to you, can you part with one million? You are upper-middleclass, add up your assets and your allmost a millionare, can you part with 10 grand? You live paycheque to paycheque, can you give 10 bucks? I t might just catch on.

OK, i know you are rolling your eyes or worse cause AMERICA IS NOT A CHARITY! But if the top 5% of wealthy people hold 95% of the wealth, all that money just sitting there. America is still very rich but its in private accounts not government coffers, i know the tea-partiers are well :mad2:angry allready but remember the above is all voluntary.

One way or another the debt has to be addressed, if i allready havn't ticked you off now i will, he he, remember this is all satire.

Sin Taxes, i know you allready pay these but hit em harder.

Smokes, throw 2 buck more on a pack countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Don't stick another fuse in your mouth, its unhealthy, i smoked for 25 years but quit 5 years ago and yes it was hard, too bad, if you quit you will have extra cash to pay for...

Gasoline, toss on another buck countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Walk, take public transit, buy a tin can on wheels that gets a zillion miles per gallon, if you can afford to fill your marauder good for you have fun and feel good that you just contributed 20 bucks to the cause.

Alcohol, toss on a good chunk, don't wanna pay this tax? Dont drink its unhealthy, if you want that 40 pounder or 2-4 and your gonna get drunk tonight, good for you perhaps i will join you and we can both feel good cause we contributed to the cause.

America is great and i believe it will be great in the future, she just needs to pull her socks up.

[Fosters]

I posted the following well over a year ago, still a dud?



OK, consiter the following pure satire otherwise you might no like much of the following.

Start up a fund that every american could access, gather up the richest 100 or so americans who are willing to participate, put them on a stage and primetime TV and ask them to donate as much as they can to give this fund a hefty start. Call it the patriot fund or america first fund, if you have 10 million in the bank it sounds like america has been good to you, can you part with one million? You are upper-middleclass, add up your assets and your allmost a millionare, can you part with 10 grand? You live paycheque to paycheque, can you give 10 bucks? I t might just catch on.

OK, i know you are rolling your eyes or worse cause AMERICA IS NOT A CHARITY! But if the top 5% of wealthy people hold 95% of the wealth, all that money just sitting there. America is still very rich but its in private accounts not government coffers, i know the tea-partiers are well :mad2:angry allready but remember the above is all voluntary.

One way or another the debt has to be addressed, if i allready havn't ticked you off now i will, he he, remember this is all satire.

Sin Taxes, i know you allready pay these but hit em harder.

Smokes, throw 2 buck more on a pack countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Don't stick another fuse in your mouth, its unhealthy, i smoked for 25 years but quit 5 years ago and yes it was hard, too bad, if you quit you will have extra cash to pay for...

Gasoline, toss on another buck countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Walk, take public transit, buy a tin can on wheels that gets a zillion miles per gallon, if you can afford to fill your marauder good for you have fun and feel good that you just contributed 20 bucks to the cause.

Alcohol, toss on a good chunk, don't wanna pay this tax? Dont drink its unhealthy, if you want that 40 pounder or 2-4 and your gonna get drunk tonight, good for you perhaps i will join you and we can both feel good cause we contributed to the cause.

America is great and i believe it will be great in the future, she just needs to pull her socks up.

Why is it ok to marginalize and attack 5% of the population simply because of their accumulated wealth? How is that any different than attacking any other group that resembles 5% of the population? Why do we have laws - tax laws - that apply to people differently? Aren't we all equal under the eyes of the law?

Marauder owners are a small group of people, what would happen if the Corolla crowd one day decided they wanted to tax marauder ownership. Does that make it ok because the number of marauders out there is maybe 1% as many corollas in one year?

And here's another novel idea, since you kleptocrats never seem to get it: IT'S NOT THE TAXES, IT'S THE SPENDING. CUT THE SPENDING.

You say America is not a charity, yet you're all for increases in taxes at the top. To do what, send that money to the bottom? Is that not a charity? Is that the government's role, to be a charity? From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? :shake:

[guspech750]

We need to attack the deadbeats. Literally!!

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

[MrBluGruv]

Sin Taxes, i know you allready pay these but hit em harder.

This I just don't get. I know that it CAN be done, but it doesn't feel right to me. Some may see it as easy tax revenue, but I see it as a form of discrimination and a form of legislated behavioral control.

[kernie]

Why is it ok to marginalize and attack 5% of the population simply because of their accumulated wealth? How is that any different than attacking any other group that resembles 5% of the population? Why do we have laws - tax laws - that apply to people differently? Aren't we all equal under the eyes of the law?

Marauder owners are a small group of people, what would happen if the Corolla crowd one day decided they wanted to tax marauder ownership. Does that make it ok because the number of marauders out there is maybe 1% as many corollas in one year?

And here's another novel idea, since you kleptocrats never seem to get it: IT'S NOT THE TAXES, IT'S THE SPENDING. CUT THE SPENDING.

You say America is not a charity, yet you're all for increases in taxes at the top. To do what, send that money to the bottom? Is that not a charity? Is that the government's role, to be a charity? From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs? :shake:

Everything i said above was voluntary, but it's good to see that you as a person of wealth is willing to contribute just as much as that homeless person, good for you!

As for cutting spending, duh, ya that's part of it.:shake:

[kernie]

This I just don't get. I know that it CAN be done, but it doesn't feel right to me. Some may see it as easy tax revenue, but I see it as a form of discrimination and a form of legislated behavioral control.

Sin taxes are prettymuch voluntary, why not?

[Fosters]

We need to attack the deadbeats. Literally!!

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox!!!

Try suggesting drug testing for welfare recipients... That's when all the democrats decide to be fiscally conservative and claim that costs too much. :o

[Fosters]

Everything i said above was voluntary, but it's good to see that you as a person of wealth is willing to contribute just as much as that homeless person, good for you!

As for cutting spending, duh, ya that's part of it.:shake:

I contributed about $45,000 last year, involuntarily. Until that homeless person catches up to at least that, I won't exactly feel compelled to contribute more.

But what do I know, I'm just one of those greedy rich evil people.

[MrBluGruv]

Sin taxes are prettymuch voluntary, why not?

So then everything that is not air, pure water, and government-mandated food selections should have taxes levied on them.


Yep, you're a socialist bud. ;)

[kernie]

I contributed about $45,000 last year, involuntarily. Until that homeless person catches up to at least that, I won't exactly feel compelled to contribute more.

But what do I know, I'm just one of those greedy rich evil people.

Oh for cripes sake go back and re-read my post, what did my post have to do with income taxes?

[kernie]

So then everything that is not air, pure water, and government-mandated food selections should have taxes levied on them.


Yep, you're a socialist bud. ;)

Smoking, drinking and driving gas-guzzlers are things that should be discouraged and sin taxes are a good way to do it.

BTW, don't label me as a "socialist", thats just dumb.

[Fosters]

Sin taxes are prettymuch voluntary, why not?

Because it's supposed to be a free country. What you're suggesting would turn us into Europe. Shoebox style cars for everyone, and basically no personal freedoms at all. Explain to me why someone with a bigger engine has to pay a bigger tax than someone with a smaller engine. Do they use the roads and more or less? Why does someone with multiple cars have to pay multiple registrations - are they going to drive more than one car at a time?

Again, how about we cut spending instead, and charge the people who use those services? You know, pay for what you use? You decide to have 8 kids, you have to pay for your and their education. If a millionaire decides to not have any kids, he shouldn't have to pay for education (except for his own, of course). If someone decides to live off mcdonalds big macs his entire life and turns out to weigh 450 lbs, why should the guy hitting the gym and staying in shape, have to pay for the fattie's healthcare?

If your hobby is babymaking, junk food binges, drinking, drugs, etc, don't make me pay for those, I have my own hobbies to pay for. Yet, having no kids, I have to pay for education. Despite being fit and leading a healthy lifestyle, I have to pay for healthcare for fatties, smokers and alcoholics. If I did the reasonable thing and bought a house I could afford, I have to pay for those keeping up with the joneses, buying a half million dollar mcmansion on a 70k salary.

WHY?

[MrBluGruv]

Smoking, drinking and driving gas-guzzlers are things that should be discouraged


According to you, though. Not everyone feels that way. Hell I don't feel that way. It doesn't mean I do any of them in excess either, I drink lightly maybe once a week, smoke shisha maybe once a month, and avoid gas-guzzling cause it's just too darned expensive to go anywhere but work. Maybe that's another part of your plan though. :O

I must be dumb, because socialist is the only descriptor I can come up with for you. Would you prefer large-scale busy-body? Since you are the ultimate authority on what people should and shouldn't engage in. What I see you saying is that anything that isn't vital to living is open to taxation.

[Fosters]

Oh for cripes sake go back and re-read my post, what did my post have to do with income taxes?

it does when you said I contribute as much as a homeless person; even if it was in your voluntary, pretend-world. In the real world, I, and the rest of the evil rich, contribute a helluva lot more than you're willing to admit.

[kernie]

it does when you said I contribute as much as a homeless person; even if it was in your voluntary, pretend-world. In the real world, I, and the rest of the evil rich, contribute a helluva lot more than you're willing to admit.

Like i said that!:shake:

Or that i said the USA was a charity:shake:

Well trained from fox news i see.

[kernie]

According to you, though. Not everyone feels that way. Hell I don't feel that way. It doesn't mean I do any of them in excess either, I drink lightly maybe once a week, smoke shisha maybe once a month, and avoid gas-guzzling cause it's just too darned expensive to go anywhere but work. Maybe that's another part of your plan though. :O

I must be dumb, because socialist is the only descriptor I can come up with for you. Would you prefer large-scale busy-body? Since you are the ultimate authority on what people should and shouldn't engage in. What I see you saying is that anything that isn't vital to living is open to taxation.

Man you guys are f'ed up!

[Fosters]

Like i said that!:shake:



Um, you did.


it's good to see that you as a person of wealth is willing to contribute just as much as that homeless person, good for you!

How's that foot taste?

[MrBluGruv]

Man you guys are f'ed up!

Again, your opinion.

I could say the same for you wanting to tax people for anything non-essential.

But then I just remember you're a crazy Canuck. ;)

[Fosters]

Man you guys are f'ed up!

Ever wonder why people from socialist countries that have those utopian societies you dream of, dream of coming here?

In the eastern bloc, there were no gas guzzlers, everyone had the same 1300cc 54 hp car. Holy crap that was awesome, I don't know why I ever left! Oh yeah, I do. So I CAN own a v10, 2 v8s and an inline 6 if I choose to.

[kernie]

Two fools.

[MrBluGruv]

Two fools.

And one Canuck.
:flamer:

[Fosters]

Two fools.

That makes you the minority. We should have a tax on canucks with monkey avatars. It's only gonna affect a small amount of people! :D

[MrBluGruv]

That makes you the minority. We should have a tax on canucks with monkey avatars. It's only gonna affect a small amount of people! :D


I like this idea.

Have you paid your "fair share" lately kernie? :eek:

[SC Cheesehead]

Smoking, drinking and driving gas-guzzlers are things that should be discouraged and sin taxes are a good way to do it.

BTW, don't label me as a "socialist", thats just dumb.

Why should they be discouraged? Who makes that decision, and on what basis? If I enjoy drinking and you don't, am I wrong, and you're right? What if you smoke and I don't, in fact, if the smell of smoke nauseates me, but not you; does that make me right and you wrong?

Let's carry it a bit further. What about a person's weight? Obesity is a health concern, perhaps it should be "discouraged" by levying a progressive tax on the obese; the more you weigh, the greater the tax you pay. So, where shall we start? What constitutes obese? Do we use a pinch test? How about a scale? But wait, I'd rather use my scale than yours, mine's more "fair."

And what's a sufficient level of taxation necessary to discourage that "wrong" behavior? At what point do you levy such a punitive amount that I, in fact, WILL change my behavior? When I quit smoking 30 years ago (for health, not tax reasons, BTW), cigarettes had just gone from $0.50 a pack to $0.75. My smoker friends screamed about that, they all swore to quit if a pack of cigs ever reached a buck. Any guesses how many of them are still smoking? :rolleyes:

So, by levying sin taxes on cigarettes, and not getting everyone (in this case smokers) to quit, has the government failed in their attempt to evolve a healthier society? IF that were the rationale behind the tax, then perhaps, but the tax has absolutely nothing to do with changing behavior, rather, it's just another way for the government to reach into the pockets of it's citizens.

Face it kernie, a sin tax is a tax, is a tax. No matter how you package it, try to rationalize it, any way you cut it, whatever, in the end "sin taxes" are just another socialist tactic (wealth redistribution) designed by the government to take money from one entity and give it to another.

As for labeling, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... :cool:

[Micahdogg]

My dad can work out in his yard at noon because of socialism. My local police force and fire department are on call 24 hours a day because of socialism. Oh, and this is in America.

[Fosters]

My dad can work out in his yard at noon because of socialism. My local police force and fire department are on call 24 hours a day because of socialism. Oh, and this is in America.

Anymore socialism, and your dad won't have a yard. Ever hear about the talk of urban sprawl and how bad it is?

You're talking about it as if we're all anarchists wanting no government; let me be clear: we are not. Nobody argues against the essential functions of government - protecting our rights - whether those rights are attacked from an outside force - in that case protected by our defense, an inside force - in that case protected by the police, or an accident/natural disaster/etc - fire department.

Where socialism is running amok, is the redistribution of wealth. THAT, is not a government essential function. If I work all my life and save money for retirement and you don't, I haven't intruded on your rights in any way shape or form, yet I have to pay for you, because of, wait for it, socialism.

Wanting a small government that does only the essential functions, even if these are in nature socialist, does not make one a socialist. Wanting a government that supplies and controls every facet of your life IS socialist.

Essentially, socialists want equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of ability and willingness to work.

[kernie]

Why should they be discouraged? Who makes that decision, and on what basis? If I enjoy drinking and you don't, am I wrong, and you're right? What if you smoke and I don't, in fact, if the smell of smoke nauseates me, but not you; does that make me right and you wrong?

Let's carry it a bit further. What about a person's weight? Obesity is a health concern, perhaps it should be "discouraged" by levying a progressive tax on the obese; the more you weigh, the greater the tax you pay. So, where shall we start? What constitutes obese? Do we use a pinch test? How about a scale? But wait, I'd rather use my scale than yours, mine's more "fair."

And what's a sufficient level of taxation necessary to discourage that "wrong" behavior? At what point do you levy such a punitive amount that I, in fact, WILL change my behavior? When I quit smoking 30 years ago (for health, not tax reasons, BTW), cigarettes had just gone from $0.50 a pack to $0.75. My smoker friends screamed about that, they all swore to quit if a pack of cigs ever reached a buck. Any guesses how many of them are still smoking? :rolleyes:

So, by levying sin taxes on cigarettes, and not getting everyone (in this case smokers) to quit, has the government failed in their attempt to evolve a healthier society? IF that were the rationale behind the tax, then perhaps, but the tax has absolutely nothing to do with changing behavior, rather, it's just another way for the government to reach into the pockets of it's citizens.

Face it kernie, a sin tax is a tax, is a tax. No matter how you package it, try to rationalize it, any way you cut it, whatever, in the end "sin taxes" are just another socialist tactic (wealth redistribution) designed by the government to take money from one entity and give it to another.

As for labeling, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... :cool:
\
No you don't tax the fat guy you tax the fastfood :shake: Not a bad idea as big taxes on cigs, booze, gas, fastfood do affectconsumption,obviously. Society wins. Stupid loses.

[MrBluGruv]

\
No you don't tax the fat guy you tax the fastfood :shake: Not a bad idea as big taxes on cigs, booze, gas, fastfood do affectconsumption,obviously. Society wins. Stupid loses.

So then you basically levy a fine (excuse me, tax) on producers of cigarettes and other tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, gasoline, and food deemed non-nutritional by the government?

How is this helpful or different in any way?

[kernie]

So then you basically levy a fine (excuse me, tax) on producers of cigarettes and other tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, gasoline, and food deemed non-nutritional by the government?

How is this helpful or different in any way?

You really can't see how this is helpful? really?

[MrBluGruv]

You really can't see how this is helpful? really?

I see how it would be a way for the government to force their opinions about lifestyle choices onto everyone else.

That doesn't strike me as helpful.

[Fosters]

So then you basically levy a fine (excuse me, tax) on producers of cigarettes and other tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, gasoline, and food deemed non-nutritional by the government?

How is this helpful or different in any way?

Remember, it's all voluntary. So you can either live the Kernie way, or you can be fined/taxed.

While we're at it, we should pass a law that requires everyone to own a gun. It's smart, saves you in case the police can't get there fast enough. And stupid would lose - in this case, the criminal facing the business end of your .45.

[MrBluGruv]

And stupid would lose - in this case, the criminal facing the business end of your .45.

But that's totally not fair, obviously that person is in the lower 95% income bracket, that is why they are robbing your home. How totally wrong of you to deny them their civil liberty, NAY, civil RIGHT to take from your top 5%-earning homestead! :eek:

[kernie]

I see how it would be a way for the government to force their opinions about lifestyle choices onto everyone else.

That doesn't strike me as helpful.

Oh, so it's just opinions, cigs, booze, gas fumes, big macs. They might be good for you, the jury is still out right?

[MM2004]

Folks,

I see this heading down the perverbial 'crapper' at an accelerated rate.

Play nice.

Mike.

[Fosters]

Oh, so it's just opinions, cigs, booze, gas fumes, big macs. They might be good for you, the jury is still out right?

Actually, you're right. We should just make it a blanket tax for the stupid then, so that we don't miss any stupid activities. Tax inversely proportional to IQ. The dumber you are, the more you pay. I bet you the rich would still not pay their "fair share" then... :D

It would tax the **** out of hollywood though, so it might work... :D

[Micahdogg]

If I work all my life and save money for retirement and you don't, I haven't intruded on your rights in any way shape or form, yet I have to pay for you, because of, wait for it, socialism.


Using my dad as an example, since he is collecting social security, regardless of what he has saved or not saved, he paid into social security as well. So he has to pay for him just as you are paying for him (and I am paying for him, and, etc....)

There are also benefits to you and to me and to everyone else paying for him to retire. He walked away from the highest salary he ever earned. That freed up a job for, potentially, the next generation of workers will will not start out getting paid what he did.

I'm just pointing out one of the many 1000 shades of grey. I wouldn't feel bad if someone called me a socialist. You just have to acknowledge how America operates.

[MrBluGruv]

Oh, so it's just opinions, cigs, booze, gas fumes, big macs. They might be good for you, the jury is still out right?

The question is *NOT* whether or not they are unhealthy choices. I'd agree that in dubious amounts especially it is very unhealthy.

The point is it's none of your business if I partake in those activities, especially in private. :)

[MrBluGruv]

Using my dad as an example, since he is collecting social security, regardless of what he has saved or not saved, he paid into social security as well. So he has to pay for him just as you are paying for him (and I am paying for him, and, etc....)

There are also benefits to you and to me and to everyone else paying for him to retire. He walked away from the highest salary he ever earned. That freed up a job for, potentially, the next generation of workers will will not start out getting paid what he did.

I'm just pointing out one of the many 1000 shades of grey. I wouldn't feel bad if someone called me a socialist. You just have to acknowledge how America operates.

Even that system is broken. Despite your father as an example of the system working the way it was intended, there are plenty of people who draw that NEVER contribute.

Plus, on the other end, the government is pulling what they aren't supposed to from it themselves.

That system is quite broken...

[SC Cheesehead]

\
No you don't tax the fat guy you tax the fastfood :shake: Not a bad idea as big taxes on cigs, booze, gas, fastfood do affectconsumption,obviously. Society wins. Stupid loses.


And why is this? If you like fruit, but I prefer an Egg McMuffin for breakfast, who decides to levy that tax, and on what basis? Is it "Society wins. Stupid loses"?

What consitutes stupid? What's the win? Is it you (society) taking something from me because you think your perception of a given situation is "less stupid" than mine? What if you're the stupid one, where does that leave me?

You're headed down a slippery slope my friend.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was popularized by an individual with whom I'm sure your familar.

Unfortunately, we know how that works out: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Think that doesn't apply? Look at that decision making process again relative to rationalizing efforts to control behavior.

"Society wins. Stupid loses" I guess the stupid ones are less equal, huh? :rolleyes:

[kernie]

Folks,

I see this heading down the perverbial 'crapper' at an accelerated rate.

Play nice.

Mike.

Allow me to re-post what brought about all this mess before the thread is shutdown. The conclusions that were raised from this post, wow.

Anyone want to comment on what is below?




OK, consiter the following pure satire otherwise you might no like much of the following.

Start up a fund that every american could access, gather up the richest 100 or so americans who are willing to participate, put them on a stage and primetime TV and ask them to donate as much as they can to give this fund a hefty start. Call it the patriot fund or america first fund, if you have 10 million in the bank it sounds like america has been good to you, can you part with one million? You are upper-middleclass, add up your assets and your allmost a millionare, can you part with 10 grand? You live paycheque to paycheque, can you give 10 bucks? I t might just catch on.

OK, i know you are rolling your eyes or worse cause AMERICA IS NOT A CHARITY! But if the top 5% of wealthy people hold 95% of the wealth, all that money just sitting there. America is still very rich but its in private accounts not government coffers, i know the tea-partiers are well :mad2:angry allready but remember the above is all voluntary.

One way or another the debt has to be addressed, if i allready havn't ticked you off now i will, he he, remember this is all satire.

Sin Taxes, i know you allready pay these but hit em harder.

Smokes, throw 2 buck more on a pack countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Don't stick another fuse in your mouth, its unhealthy, i smoked for 25 years but quit 5 years ago and yes it was hard, too bad, if you quit you will have extra cash to pay for...

Gasoline, toss on another buck countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Walk, take public transit, buy a tin can on wheels that gets a zillion miles per gallon, if you can afford to fill your marauder good for you have fun and feel good that you just contributed 20 bucks to the cause.

Alcohol, toss on a good chunk, don't wanna pay this tax? Dont drink its unhealthy, if you want that 40 pounder or 2-4 and your gonna get drunk tonight, good for you perhaps i will join you and we can both feel good cause we contributed to the cause.

America is great and i believe it will be great in the future, she just needs to pull her socks up.

[Fosters]

Using my dad as an example, since he is collecting social security, regardless of what he has saved or not saved, he paid into social security as well. So he has to pay for him just as you are paying for him (and I am paying for him, and, etc....)

There are also benefits to you and to me and to everyone else paying for him to retire. He walked away from the highest salary he ever earned. That freed up a job for, potentially, the next generation of workers will will not start out getting paid what he did.

I'm just pointing out one of the many 1000 shades of grey. I wouldn't feel bad if someone called me a socialist. You just have to acknowledge how America operates.

I acknowledge how America operates just fine. However, you're not acknowledging that had your dad NOT worked his entire life and claimed, say, depression based on some event, he would be collecting social security, medicare and medicaid regardless. Or better yet, had he worked all his life for minimum wage, paying essentially nothing into social security, and still collected the same social security... Any explanation on why I would have to pay for him in that scenario? Nobody has anything against people that do have skin in the game - and the more successful you are, the more you have - it's the 40-50% (depends on who you ask or what years you look at) that have no federal tax liabilities that are a problem. It's not sustainable, and it's not fair that the other half has to support them.

Also, how did people survive before social security?

[Micahdogg]

That system is quite broken...

Oh yes, it is broken...er, will be broke soon. But it's still socialism which was the point, not the management or lack thereof.

For the people who really believe that they are just a man of the land in this vast Republic of America.United_States or however you are supposed to spell stuff out when you declare complete autonomy....there are still HUGE chunks of land in this country where you can raise entire generations and no one will ever find you. You don't realy need to change the govt to just do your own thing on your own time.

Despite these issues, America still completely rocks. Even though we are the bottom end of the economic cycle, we'll bounce back hard, like we do every time and when we do - we will all party like it's on sale for $19.99.

[Micahdogg]

Also, how did people survive before social security?

I would like to see the numbers on people working minimum wage and retiring. Typically these people keep working until they die, becuase they can't afford to retire, just like they did before social security. How social security is raided for other expenses is a completely different subject.

[MrBluGruv]

Even though we are the bottom end of the economic cycle, we'll bounce back hard, like we do every time and when we do - we will all party like it's on sale for $19.99.

I whole-heartedly agree with this, except I think the only thing that would kill that possibility is extreme government intervention and heavy economic legislation, which is the direction they aim to go. The only way we WON'T bounce back is if the government refuses to just let it happen.

[Bigdogjim]

Kernie: I think what your missing is our freedom. Freedom to smoke, drink, and eat fast food. That is what American is all about. Be what you want. No one telling/ taxing you and making you do something you don'want to do.

Canada has taxed the gas. beer. & smokes. In return you all get health care. Works for you but that does not mean it will work for us(America)


I work and pay my share and then people come to America and want the same thing I have but have not paid there way. Sour Govement say it's OK they can have it and not were are stuck paying for all the free loaders.

To fix out debit problem it's simple. Stop spending more than you take in. What make it hard is politcian are answering to special intreat groups and that is root of pur problem.

[kernie]

And why is this? If you like fruit, but I prefer an Egg McMuffin for breakfast, who decides to levy that tax, and on what basis? Is it "Society wins. Stupid loses"?

What consitutes stupid? What's the win? Is it you (society) taking something from me because you think your perception of a given situation is "less stupid" than mine? What if you're the stupid one, where does that leave me?

You're headed down a slippery slope my friend.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was popularized by an individual with whom I'm sure your familar.

Unfortunately, we know how that works out: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Think that doesn't apply? Look at that decision making process again relative to rationalizing efforts to control behavior.

"Society wins. Stupid loses" I guess the stupid ones are less equal, huh? :rolleyes:

My sin taxes are much higher than yours. My gas is 25% higher than yours because of sin taxes,l drive a MM cause i choose to. I also chose to quit smoking 8 or so years ago, cigs were 10 bucks a pack while yours were 4 bucks. The 10 bucks a pack had a big part in me finally having the gumption to quit, now i can breath better, thank-you to the powers that helped me quit. I drink more than i should, 1.75 litres of whiskey cost me 55 bucks, twice what you pay, i still drink more than i should, by choise.

I dunno, if you can see the obvious benefits to these sin taxes, well, i dunno. LOL.

[SC Cheesehead]

kernie, you ought to realize by now that we all enjoy these lively debates.

You live in a socialistic society and are very comfortable with it. Here in the US, we've been acustomed to a much more individualistic society, and as such, chafe at the concept of losing that individualism.

Again, are you right, am I wrong, or vice versa? (You're left, I'm right might be closer... :D)

I like this qoute:

Gus Portokalos (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0176073/): You know, the root of the word Miller is a Greek word. Miller come from the Greek word "milo," which is mean "apple," so there you go. As many of you know, our name, Portokalos, is come from the Greek word "portokali," which mean "orange." So, okay? Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit.

We're all fruit kernie, just different flavors... ;)

[kernie]

Kernie: I think what your missing is our freedom. Freedom to smoke, drink, and eat fast food. That is what American is all about. Be what you want. No one telling/ taxing you and making you do something you don'want to do.

Canada has taxed the gas. beer. & smokes. In return you all get health care. Works for you but that does not mean it will work for us(America)


I work and pay my share and then people come to America and want the same thing I have but have not paid there way. Sour Govement say it's OK they can have it and not were are stuck paying for all the free loaders.

To fix out debit problem it's simple. Stop spending more than you take in. What make it hard is politcian are answering to special intreat groups and that is root of pur problem.

I have every bit of freedom as you do, choise, i choose. You can't in a million years tell me you are more free than I have.

[PonyUP]

Sin Taxes, i know you allready pay these but hit em harder.

Smokes, throw 2 buck more on a pack countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Don't stick another fuse in your mouth, its unhealthy, i smoked for 25 years but quit 5 years ago and yes it was hard, too bad, if you quit you will have extra cash to pay for...

Gasoline, toss on another buck countrywide, don't want to pay this tax? Walk, take public transit, buy a tin can on wheels that gets a zillion miles per gallon, if you can afford to fill your marauder good for you have fun and feel good that you just contributed 20 bucks to the cause.

Alcohol, toss on a good chunk, don't wanna pay this tax? Dont drink its unhealthy, if you want that 40 pounder or 2-4 and your gonna get drunk tonight, good for you perhaps i will join you and we can both feel good cause we contributed to the cause.

.

I see where you are coming from Kernie, and with the exception of building the voluntary fund, it has already happened

Smokes are up over $3 /pack in the last five years, hasn't helped

Gas, up $2 bucks a gallon over the last 3 years, hasn't helped

Alochol is also up, not to mention milk, eggs, groceries in general, tires. Hasn't helped

My true feeling is jsut raising taxes doesn't work, but guess what, just cut spending also doesn't work.

No one has the right answer, and it may be best to pull a little from a variety of theories.

for example, I will agree with you on the fast food tax. It is a large part of why this country is so obese, and while they ahve to have nutritional information available, they don't have to post it. This greatly increases healthcare costs. I've busted my ass to drop 160lbs, and eliminate 99% fast food from my life (Subway FTW) This was a personal choice, and it took a long time for me to reach that reality.

Now while I would love to agree with rex, that it should be up to everyones own disrection, the simple fact is most fast food goers either lack the will power, or the time to have a healthy dinner which impacts us all. I have no problem paying additional taxes on smokes, also a personal choice (Though $4 in taxes a pack does seem excessive)

And also I agree it's not a bad idea to return to the Clinton tax rates and eliminate the bush tax cuts.

But none of that will scratch the surface without severe spending cuts to go with it.

It comes back to the checkbook, I'd propose a bill making it illegal for the government operational budget to not be balanced every year. Spend what you have in the bank. The only exception to this is the military, if a war breaks out (or 3) you may need to drop a boatload of expensive bombs, in which case a defecit in the miltary budget is acceptable to me.

But taxing people based on exercising their freedom that this country allots them, may be pushing it a bit far.

I say we put incredible amounts of tax on Hollywood and pro athletes, if your going to make $27 Mil a year for playing a game plus endorsements for wearing a sneaker, I got no problem taxing your ass 50%.

And if you are getting paid $30 Mil to make a crappy movie, same applies.

[MrBluGruv]

Pricing something out of your income level is not leaving it as a choice.

That's like saying it's easy for Joe Blow to just pick up and move somewhere when things get rough.

In theory - maybe. In practice - hell no.

[SC Cheesehead]

I have every bit of freedom as you do, choise, i choose. You can't in a million years tell me you are more free than I have.

Do you have to option to purchase your own health care? ;)

[PonyUP]

I have every bit of freedom as you do, choise, i choose. You can't in a million years tell me you are more free than I have.

Do you have the freedom to root for a hometown NFL team? :lol:

[Fosters]

I have every bit of freedom as you do, choise, i choose. You can't in a million years tell me you are more free than I have.

Are you free to choose your own doctor?

[kernie]

Do you have to option to purchase your own health care? ;)

Yes, just cross the border. Thankfully, i don't have to worry about that and am very happy with our everyone is covered {at half the price per capita i might add} system.

[kernie]

Do you have the freedom to root for a hometown NFL team? :lol:
YES! It's the bills, go figure, lol.

[kernie]

Are you free to choose your own doctor?

Yes, allways!

[Dr Caleb]

Kernie: I think what your missing is our freedom. Freedom to smoke, drink, and eat fast food. That is what American is all about. Be what you want. No one telling/ taxing you and making you do something you don'want to do.

Canada has taxed the gas. beer. & smokes. In return you all get health care. Works for you but that does not mean it will work for us(America)

Two sides of the same coin Jim. We pay up front in tax, but we get healthcare (or government services in general) somewhere between cheap and free depending on your province of residence. You guys have lower prices on retail things, but you pay out the yang for healthcare. It's just one of the things that makes our two cultures different.

But, we are no less free than our southern cousins. ;) As Kernie points out, I am free to drink, smoke and gamble all I want. I just pay more to do it.

A little tidbit you may be interested in Kernie - Alberta is known as a oil and gas rich province, but did you know that Oil and Gas revenues are not the #1 income source for the Province? The #1 source is Alcohol and Tobacco tax, along with lottery and gambling income. So, vice is the #1 income stream. :beer: *hic*

[Dr Caleb]

Do you have to option to purchase your own health care? ;)

Yes.

Many companies offer services that compliment regular health care.

[SC Cheesehead]

Yes, just cross the border. Thankfully, i don't have to worry about that and am very happy with our everyone is covered {at half the price per capita i might add} system.


Ahh, but then you would be enjoying an American freedom unavailable in Canada. ;)

Oh, and I don't imagine that "My gas is 25% higher than yours" or cigarettes at "10 bucks a pack" or "1.75 litres of whiskey cost me 55 bucks" would have any part in subsidizing that "low cost" universal health care you guys have, would it? :D

Repeat after me, slowly, "There is no such thing as a free lunch..."

[SC Cheesehead]

Yes.

Many companies offer services that compliment regular health care.

But why would you need those? You've already got "free" health care for anything that ails you? Why spend money for something you've already got for free? :confused:

[Fosters]

I see where you are coming from Kernie, and with the exception of building the voluntary fund, it has already happened

Smokes are up over $3 /pack in the last five years, hasn't helped

Gas, up $2 bucks a gallon over the last 3 years, hasn't helped

Alochol is also up, not to mention milk, eggs, groceries in general, tires. Hasn't helped

My true feeling is jsut raising taxes doesn't work, but guess what, just cut spending also doesn't work.

No one has the right answer, and it may be best to pull a little from a variety of theories.

for example, I will agree with you on the fast food tax. It is a large part of why this country is so obese, and while they ahve to have nutritional information available, they don't have to post it. This greatly increases healthcare costs. I've busted my ass to drop 160lbs, and eliminate 99% fast food from my life (Subway FTW) This was a personal choice, and it took a long time for me to reach that reality.

Now while I would love to agree with rex, that it should be up to everyones own disrection, the simple fact is most fast food goers either lack the will power, or the time to have a healthy dinner which impacts us all. I have no problem paying additional taxes on smokes, also a personal choice (Though $4 in taxes a pack does seem excessive)

And also I agree it's not a bad idea to return to the Clinton tax rates and eliminate the bush tax cuts.

But none of that will scratch the surface without severe spending cuts to go with it.

It comes back to the checkbook, I'd propose a bill making it illegal for the government operational budget to not be balanced every year. Spend what you have in the bank. The only exception to this is the military, if a war breaks out (or 3) you may need to drop a boatload of expensive bombs, in which case a defecit in the miltary budget is acceptable to me.

But taxing people based on exercising their freedom that this country allots them, may be pushing it a bit far.

You had me until this bit:


I say we put incredible amounts of tax on Hollywood and pro athletes, if your going to make $27 Mil a year for playing a game plus endorsements for wearing a sneaker, I got no problem taxing your ass 50%.

And if you are getting paid $30 Mil to make a crappy movie, same applies.

I see this the same way as taxing the very rich or any other minority group. As much as I don't like Hollywood, it's their right to get paid as much as they can. It's their talent, they're the ones working for it. To us it may not seem like much, but look at how many try to get in, and how few succeed. That should tell you it's not that easy. And if people are willing to pay them via movie tickets and dvd/bluray sales, why can't they keep what they earn at the same rate as the rest of us?

Pro athletes are even more so....with one asterix. If they can get away with getting paid all those millions, let them. You and I can't do it. A lot of young kids try out for those teams and don't get in. It's not easy.

What is easy, is being on the sidelines, and pointing to those pro athletes, actors, ceo's, etc. and saying they should pay more. No, they worked for what they have, same way you worked for what you have. If you think you can do what they do for cheaper, go ahead.

And let's not kid ourselves, these people already pay a lot more in taxes than the rest of us. Not only as a percentage but as a bottom dollar sum, they pay a lot more than us. Do they consume more government services than us? Who's gonna use more public services, octo-mom, sitting on welfare and sending her 14-16 (? forgot total number) kids to public schools? Or Michael Jordan, who's probably paying more in property taxes in one year than the aforementioned waste of oxygen will in her entire lifetime? Why?

[MrBluGruv]

I just find it hilarious that actual private-sector industry isn't their leading source of income, but rather what they take from people that is....

[SC Cheesehead]

I just find it hilarious that actual private-sector industry isn't their leading source of income, but rather what they take from people that is....

To each according to his ability... ;)

[MrBluGruv]

Michael Jordan, who's probably paying more in property taxes in one year than the aforementioned waste of oxygen will in her entire lifetime?

Because of this, I feel confident that even if it didn't make all our problems go away, a huge cut in government expenditures would definitely take care of a hell of a lot of them.

[Fosters]

Yes, allways!

Are you able to own a handgun with a magazine larger than 10 rounds? :D

[kernie]

Do you have to option to purchase your own health care? ;)


Yes.

Many companies offer services that compliment regular health care.

Yes that is true come to think of it, not sure why anyone would opt for it, but again i can choose that route.

There is no freedom that the USA has that i don't, we won't bring up the 7 times as many prisoners per capita that the USA has.

[kernie]

Are you able to own a handgun with a magazine larger than 10 rounds? :D
Ha, your right! Probably relates to the 7 times prisoners per capita that i just posted about, but your right, you all can kill each other like crazy, lol, lol.

[Fosters]

Yes that is true come to think of it, not sure why anyone would opt for it, but again i can choose that route.

There is no freedom that the USA has that i don't, we won't bring up the 7 times as many prisoners per capita that the USA has.

How can you "choose" that route? You still have to pay for the national healthcare. I see a choice as do I go left, or do I go right? If you "choose" the private care and you still have to pay for the national healthcare, that is not freedom of choice. You can't go right while still going left, and viceversa.


Ha, your right! Probably relates to the 7 times prisoners per capita that i just posted about, but your right, you all can kill each other like crazy, lol, lol.
It's been proven time and time again, that more gun ownership = less crime.

Chicago has pretty much banned handguns. You can have them but not in public. And not in your garage or your own yard. And if do a little bit of research, it turns out Chicago is deadlier than Baghdad. Washington DC has some of the highest crime rates in the country and bans guns, yet Virginia, with its lax gun control and high gun ownership doesn't have anywhere the problems DC has.

Gun laws only restrict the people who obey them. Criminals are, well, criminals...

[MrBluGruv]

7 times prisoners per capita

Alright guys, new game plan:

Let's sell our prisoners to Canada!

Less money spent on them here, less criminals here, money back on our end, they get have a larger workforce, PLUS they get to prove to us how easy it is to support a huge population of bottom-feeders.

Win-Win!

[Dr Caleb]

But why would you need those? You've already got "free" health care for anything that ails you? Why spend money for something you've already got for free? :confused:

You guys really don't get much info on us do you? Because not everything is covered. It's called 'cost cutting'. Not every procedure can be covered by insurance, but pretty much anything that involves immediate health concerns is covered. Perscription drugs for example. Most plans cover those, government health care does not. The drugs I buy every month for Diabetes cost about $26 without a drug plan over the counter, but $6 or so with a plan. If you need an immediate MRI, you will probabally get it, but if your GP wants one for diagnostic purposes, you may have to wait. If you have an extra health plan, they may cover such scans, or the doctor's clinic may even have an MRI for use whenever they want it.

You want foot surgery, for certain conditions? Not covered. You pay out of pocket for that. Just as one example.

And like you said - there ain't no 'free' lunch here. Our taxes are high to cover the cost of it, but it works out cheaper in the long run than everyone paying out of pocket for services as in your system. ;)

[kernie]

How can you "choose" that route? You still have to pay for the national healthcare. I see a choice as do I go left, or do I go right? If you "choose" the private care and you still have to pay for the national healthcare, that is not freedom of choice. You can't go right while still going left, and viceversa.

I can choose additional coverage if i want to, what part of that isn't freedom?

[MrBluGruv]

additional coverage

This part.

As in: no opt-out for the basics.

[Dr Caleb]

I just find it hilarious that actual private-sector industry isn't their leading source of income, but rather what they take from people that is....

Why would private industry be a source of income for the government? You know, those things people pay called 'taxes'? Since the taxed items are voluntary, why is it 'taking'?

Aren't you guys always the ones that chant 'lower taxes for private corporations to stimulate jobs'? I guess you'll find this funny too then; Alberta (population ~4 million) created 22,000 new full time jobs last month, as compared to the entire United States (pop ~360 million): 18,000 new jobs.

Sucks to be us I guess.

[Dr Caleb]

This part.

As in: no opt-out for the basics.

Sure there is.


Don't get sick.

[MrBluGruv]

Why would private industry be a source of income for the government? You know, those things people pay called 'taxes'? Since the taxed items are voluntary, why is it 'taking'?

Aren't you guys always the ones that chant 'lower taxes for private corporations to stimulate jobs'? I guess you'll find this funny too then; Alberta (population ~4 million) created 22,000 new full time jobs last month, as compared to the entire United States (pop ~360 million): 18,000 new jobs.

Sucks to be us I guess.

I see, you were referring to revenues for the province as taxes from oil being put in the backseat from tobacco and alcohol. I thought you mean the main source of income. Now we are clear, and I retract my previous statement about my amusement (now it's just sad, you guys must smoke and drink a lot.)

And I don't see how not getting sick allows me to opt-out of paying taxes? If so, **** I'm all for the Obama plan!

*edit* PLUS, it is most definitely taking, otherwise you are saying that the government has a right to do whatever it pleases with whatever kind of commerce in whatever fashion it pleases. I don't buy into that.

[kernie]

Why would private industry be a source of income for the government? You know, those things people pay called 'taxes'? Since the taxed items are voluntary, why is it 'taking'?

Aren't you guys always the ones that chant 'lower taxes for private corporations to stimulate jobs'? I guess you'll find this funny too then; Alberta (population ~4 million) created 22,000 new full time jobs last month, as compared to the entire United States (pop ~360 million): 18,000 new jobs.

Sucks to be us I guess.

Yes we are as a country going very strong even here in Ontario. Our biggest worry in that the USA continues to spiral downwards and drag us down with them.

[Fosters]

I can choose additional coverage if i want to, what part of that isn't freedom?

You can't choose to not pay for the government one if you don't want it.

[Fosters]

Yes we are as a country going very strong even here in Ontario. Our biggest worry in that the USA continues to spiral downwards and drag us down with them.

Oh noes, if that happens, then you might have to get expensive operations done in your own country if you survive the wait times... :o

[Dr Caleb]

I see, you were referring to revenues for the province as taxes from oil being put in the backseat from tobacco and alcohol. I thought you mean the main source of income. Now we are clear, and I retract my previous statement about my amusement (now it's just sad, you guys must smoke and drink a lot.).


Perhaps I wasn't clear. For any government, any source of 'income', comes from 'taxes'. Tax income for Alcohol, Tobacco and Gambling exceeds tax income from Oil, Gas and mineral royalties, for the province of Alberta.

Yea, I guess many of us like our freedom to recreate. ;) Since Indy starts tomorrow, I'm going to start on the hangover early!



And I don't see how not getting sick allows me to opt-out of paying taxes? If so, **** I'm all for the Obama plan!

*edit* PLUS, it is most definitely taking, otherwise you are saying that the government has a right to do whatever it pleases with whatever kind of commerce in whatever fashion it pleases. I don't buy into that.

That's just the difference in our cultures I guess. You have to pay taxes, that's your part of the equation. If you don't want extra costs, like drugs, bandages and crutches; don't get sick. Since the cost of healtchare is less for each of us as a group, we don't mind the slight extra burden, so long as it makes others lives easier.

We also believe the government has certain responsibilities, like Police, Fire, roads and military. So we don't mind paying a little bit each so we all have those things.

And no, we don't believe the government can do whatever it pleases. We demand it be responsible, frugal and effiecent. If they aren't they get sacked next election.

But, don't feel bad for us. As the start of this thread was about government debt and deficit; I can say that we don't have one in Alberta. Yea, we ran a deficit budget the last couple years, but we had plenty of savings in the bank to cover it, from all those years of running surplus budgets.

Even after they eliminated the healthcare premiums in 2006. If they ever tried to implement a provincial sales tax, we'd revolt in a second. I'd open the torch and pitchfork stand myself.

[Dr Caleb]

Oh noes, if that happens, then you might have to get expensive operations done in your own country if you survive the wait times... :o

What are these 'wait times' things of which you speak?

[MrBluGruv]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. For any government, any source of 'income', comes from 'taxes'. Tax income for Alcohol, Tobacco and Gambling exceeds tax income from Oil, Gas and mineral royalties, for the province of Alberta.

If you don't want extra costs, like drugs, bandages and crutches; don't get sick.

My misunderstanding came from the fact that you were specifically referring to income for the government. I thought you were referring to an overall revenue generation (so I read it like the tax revenue generated in that province for the government was greater than the revenue generated for the private sector from oil, which you said was one of its largest industries.) I'm pretty sure I'm still not getting my point across very clearly, but I don't know of a better way to word it.


And from the second part of your post that I quoted, am I to understand then that the amount of taxes paid in per tax period for public health care purposes is adjusted every year so that the less EVERYONE gets sick, the less EVERYONE pays, in a quite literal fashion?

[Fosters]

What are these 'wait times' things of which you speak?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_ systems_in_Canada_and_the_Unit ed_States


Studies by the Commonwealth Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund) found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S., but Canadians had more chances of getting medical attention at nights, or on weekends and holidays than their American neighbors without the need to visit an ER (54% compared to 61%).[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_ systems_in_Canada_and_the_Unit ed_States#cite_note-57) Statistics from the Canadian free market think tank Fraser Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute) in 2008 indicate that the average wait time between the time when a general practitioner refers a patient for care and the receipt of treatment was almost four and a half months in 2008, roughly double what it had been 15 years before.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_ systems_in_Canada_and_the_Unit ed_States#cite_note-58)
A 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in Canada, the U.S., and three other countries found dissatisfaction with both the U.S. and Canadian systems. For example, 21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery.

[Dr Caleb]

My misunderstanding came from the fact that you were specifically referring to income for the government. I thought you were referring to an overall revenue generation (so I read it like the tax revenue generated in that province for the government was greater than the revenue generated for the private sector from oil, which you said was one of its largest industries.) I'm pretty sure I'm still not getting my point across very clearly, but I don't know of a better way to word it.?

Ahhhh! Ok, I think I underconstumble now. No, we are like most other localties, in that we charge {Big Oil Company} a certain amount for a barrell of oil to take it from our ground. That is the Oil/gas/mineral revenue I was referring to, the royalties on the resource or 'tax' on it - not {big oil companies} revenues from the resource. It also covers the tax applied at the pump as you fill up your car.

All of those taxes are dwarfed by the 'sin' taxes. 45% of the provinces income comes from Oil, 48% from 'Sin' and the rest from various fees, like drivers licenses.



And from the second part of your post that I quoted, am I to understand then that the amount of taxes paid in per tax period for public health care purposes is adjusted every year so that the less EVERYONE gets sick, the less EVERYONE pays, in a quite literal fashion?

Go to the head of the class! That is the main reason Alcohol and Tobacco are taxed so high - to cover health care costs. That also makes the voluntary things that increase healthcare costs the ones the contribute greatest to paying for it. It is also the reason governments run programs for all of us to lead healthy lifestyles, and pay for parks and bicycle paths around the city. Prevention goes a long way to reducing health care costs. Far greater than taxing the bad things.

[Dr Caleb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_ systems_in_Canada_and_the_Unit ed_States

2003? 2008? That's the beauty of government insured care. It turns on a pesita, and gives change.

http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/750.asp

Since 2009, we've pumped nearly a billion dollars into the system to reduce wait times on all critical and most non-critical procedures. That website was set up to monitor the progress.

Edit:

This one is pretty good too: http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/org/ahs-org-pr-compare.pdf

[Blackened300a]

Folks,

I see this heading down the perverbial 'crapper' at an accelerated rate.

Play nice.

Mike.


Mike, did you really think all the worlds problems will be resolved on a car forum? :D

That's why there are no political threads, its people having completely opposite views that will not listen to reason from the other side and it ends up being a big pissing match that solves or proves nothing.

IBTL,
Carry on gents

[MrBluGruv]

that solves or proves nothing.

I dunno, I did learn something about the Canadian system for taxation on health care here from Dr. Caleb. :eek:

[PonyUP]

You're right, I'm just frustrated with the NFL lockout, I want football damnit!!!!!!

But you're it would be the equivelent of over taxation on the rich. They set a market that people are willing to pay for, and there is a pay scale within that, so it wouldn't be right. But if they don't get this lockout thing settled pronto, I'm going back to tax their asses :lol:


You had me until this bit:



I see this the same way as taxing the very rich or any other minority group. As much as I don't like Hollywood, it's their right to get paid as much as they can. It's their talent, they're the ones working for it. To us it may not seem like much, but look at how many try to get in, and how few succeed. That should tell you it's not that easy. And if people are willing to pay them via movie tickets and dvd/bluray sales, why can't they keep what they earn at the same rate as the rest of us?

Pro athletes are even more so....with one asterix. If they can get away with getting paid all those millions, let them. You and I can't do it. A lot of young kids try out for those teams and don't get in. It's not easy.

What is easy, is being on the sidelines, and pointing to those pro athletes, actors, ceo's, etc. and saying they should pay more. No, they worked for what they have, same way you worked for what you have. If you think you can do what they do for cheaper, go ahead.

And let's not kid ourselves, these people already pay a lot more in taxes than the rest of us. Not only as a percentage but as a bottom dollar sum, they pay a lot more than us. Do they consume more government services than us? Who's gonna use more public services, octo-mom, sitting on welfare and sending her 14-16 (? forgot total number) kids to public schools? Or Michael Jordan, who's probably paying more in property taxes in one year than the aforementioned waste of oxygen will in her entire lifetime? Why?

[MM2004]

Geez,...

Can't leave the house for a few hours.

Closed.

Mike.