# Study: Cain???s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households



## LAM (Oct 18, 2011)

*Study: Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households, wealthy get big breaks*

By Associated Press, Tuesday, October 18, 1:51 PM

WASHINGTON — Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, says low- and middle-income families would be hit hardest, with households making between $10,000 and $20,000 seeing their taxes increase by nearly 950 percent.

“You’re talking a $2,700 tax increase for people with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “That’s huge.”

Households with the highest incomes, however, would get big tax cuts. Those making more than $1 million a year would see their taxes cut nearly in half, on average, according to the analysis.

Among those in the middle, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 would see their taxes increase by an average of $4,400, the report said. Those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see their annual tax bill go up by an average of $4,326.

“It’s very, very regressive compared to the current system, and that’s largely because we’re exempting capital gains, and we’re taxing your spending with the sales tax,” Williams said. “People at the top end don’t spend all their money and they get a lot of capital gains, so they are doing pretty well here.”

Cain disputed the analysis Tuesday evening during GOP presidential debate in Las Vegas, where the other Republican candidates heaped on criticism. Cain has acknowledged that taxes would increase for some but says taxes would decrease for most.

“It does not raise taxes on those that are making the least,” Cain said. “All of those are simply not true.”

“The reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don’t want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that’s simple and fair,” Cain said. “They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10 million-word mess.”

Cain’s plan would scrap current taxes on income, payroll, capital gains and corporate profits. He would replace them with a 9 percent tax on income, a 9 percent business tax and a 9 percent national sales tax.

Cain’s campaign has gained momentum largely in response to his tax plan, which is popular in part because of its simplicity. Several polls have the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza at or near the top of the Republican field, vying with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

President Barack Obama told ABC News that Cain’s tax plan would impose a “huge burden” on middle-class and working families. The president said Cain’s plan would make sure the wealthiest pay less — and replace the revenue with a sales tax hitting the less well-off.

Romney criticized the plan in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

“I believe that you’re going to find with the 9-9-9 plan Herman Cain has put out that the burden shifts more to the middle class, and I think that’s the wrong direction to go,” Romney said. “A decision to completely jettison our current tax system for a new system always has some merit, but then you need to get into it, to figure out who’s this going to help and who’s this going to hurt.”

Cain’s rise in the polls has brought increased scrutiny, and his tax plan has taken hits from across the political spectrum. Some don’t like shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class; others don’t like the new national sales tax.

“Anytime you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn’t go away,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent?”

William McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation, said Cain’s plan to move away from taxing savings and investment “would be a very good thing for growth in the long run.”

But, McBride said, the national sales tax would be a nightmare to administer because so many state and local governments already have sales taxes, and the bases are different.

In most states, food and medicine are excluded from sales tax. Cain has said his sales tax would be applied to all new goods — only used goods would be exempt.

“It’s not as simple as having all these jurisdictions simply tack on 9 percent and send it to the federal government,” McBride said in an interview.

Cain has said his plan would initially raise as much money as the current tax system but do it more efficiently, leading to economic growth, which would produce higher tax revenues. The Tax Policy Center analysis agreed that the plan would initially raise about the same amount of money as current tax policy, about $2.55 trillion in 2013.

The Tax Policy Center compared taxes on U.S. households under current tax policy, with those imposed under the Cain plan. In using current tax policy, the analysis assumes that tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush — and extended through 2012 by Obama — would be extended.

The center did a separate analysis that assumed all the Bush-era tax cuts would expire at the end of 2012. Under that scenario, Cain’s plan would still impose higher taxes on 77 percent of U.S. households, the report said.

The Tax Policy Center is a research group formed by two Washington think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Researchers at the center regularly testify before Congress on tax policy. The center’s analyses during the 2008 presidential campaign were widely circulated.

The center said researchers tried to consult with Cain’s advisers to make sure they were interpreting the plan correctly, but they had not heard back.

___

Associated Press writer Steve Peoples contributed to this report.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

Study: Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households, wealthy get big breaks - The Washington Post


----------



## ExLe (Oct 18, 2011)

After seeing all the momentum Herman Cain has got from his 9-9-9 plan President Obama is now proposing his own plan to reform the tax code...

He calls it his 19-19-19 plan...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> Study: Cain???s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households, wealthy get big breaks
> 
> By Associated Press, Tuesday, October 18, 1:51 PM
> 
> WASHINGTON ??? Herman Cain???s 9-9-9 tax plan would raise taxes on 84 percent of U.S. households, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday, contradicting claims by the Republican presidential candidate that most Americans would see a tax cut.



Same old stupidigy by even discussing this.

The saw a portion of the debate.  Talking about "taxes" once again, when it's the _spending_ that is the problem.

It's a farce. 

999 or not.  Reform is too complex to do.

If Cain even won, there wouldn't be 999, IMO.


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

Of course it will considering how many currently don't pay taxes.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 19, 2011)

I'm all for raising taxes on most of the 50% who currently don't pay net income tax.  

There's no free lunch regardless of what the Democrats tell you.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> I'm all for raising taxes on most of the 50% who currently don't pay net income tax.



lol...did you just finish your breakfast of lead based paint chips?

did Fox not tell you that 50% of the US is making 1980's wages? or can you not figure out inflation rates on your own based on the median household income of around $48K with 2 wage earners?   it's like 7th grade mathematics...

they pay plenty of taxes at the state level just not federal...maybe you could explain in detail how forcing people with low incomes to pay federal taxes would benefit the economy once these people fall into poverty.


----------



## TonyMack (Oct 19, 2011)

I have no problem with lower income people paying more net tax, but tired of giving tax breaks to so called 'job creators' who create minimum wage jobs.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol...did you just finish your breakfast of lead based paint chips?
> 
> did Fox not tell you that 50% of the US is making 1980's wages? or can you not figure out inflation rates on your own based on the median household income of around $48K with 2 wage earners?   it's like 7th grade mathematics...
> 
> they pay plenty of taxes at the state level just not federal...maybe you could explain in detail how forcing people with low incomes to pay federal taxes would benefit the economy once these people fall into poverty.




I don't give two shits what the current wages are comparable too.  The fact is this country is on a collision course with bankruptcy and its time for most of the lower 50% to start paying more.  And so the lower 50% pay some state taxes?  Big deal considering how low state taxes are in most states.  

If a couple can't live on $48K/yr in _most_ areas of this country, they need to get their priorities straight.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> I don't give two shits what the current wages are comparable too.  The fact is this country is on a collision course with bankruptcy and its time for most of the lower 50% to start paying more.  And so the lower 50% pay some state taxes?  Big deal considering how low state taxes are in most states.
> 
> If a couple can't live on $48K/yr in _most_ areas of this country, they need to get their priorities straight.



I thought you don't taxes in the middle of a recession?  Or does that only go for raising taxes on the job creators.  I guess that makes sense, those poor people wouldn't use that money, poor people save all of their money so you might as well pump it in to the government, right?


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

i'm a firm believer in if you don't pay taxes,then you shouldn't receive the benefits of taxes.....(other than national security of course)....


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i'm a firm believer in if you don't pay taxes,then you shouldn't receive the benefits of taxes.....(other than national security of course)....



I agree, but what do you think is going to happen to people who already have barely enough to scrape by when you take an extra $2k from them?  They are either going to become wards of the state or they steal.  Perhaps if they were making a few dollars more an hour they could afford to pay taxes, but you can't force companies to pay more, right?  That is why income distribution is the problem, if companies dropped CEO pay by 10% they could pay more to the bottom and pay more people.  This would broaden the tax base and remove more takers from entitlements, thus both balancing the budget and making sure everyone pays their fair share. When a CEO makes 400x the amount of money as your standard middle income wage earner you can't blame an increase in the cost of goods on something like the minimum wage or gov't regulation, the problem is the CEO is paid too much.  In fact, an intelligent person would think that any move that would push us in this direction would be retarded and counterproductive to getting people off the gov't tit and broadening the tax base.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree, but what do you think is going to happen to people who already have barely enough to scrape by when you take an extra $2k from them?  They are either going to become wards of the state or they steal.  Perhaps if they were making a few dollars more an hour they could afford to pay taxes, but you can't force companies to pay more, right?  That is why income distribution is the problem, if companies dropped CEO pay by 10% they could pay more to the bottom and pay more people.  This would broaden the tax base and remove more takers from entitlements, thus both balancing the budget and making sure everyone pays their fair share. When a CEO makes 400x the amount of money as your standard middle income wage earner you can't blame an increase in the cost of goods on something like the minimum wage or gov't regulation, the problem is the CEO is paid too much.  In fact, an intelligent person would think that any move that would push us in this direction would be retarded and counterproductive to getting people off the gov't tit and broadening the tax base.



i'll try to find the link, but there's a 9-9-9 calculator.....prices on products will actually start to come down....these statements that poor are paying more is misleading because overall they'll save even though the tax portion is slightly higher.....

can't remember if this is  the correct one:

http://www.nerds4cain.com/Blog/archives/723


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

In order for that to work, not only would the price of the goods have to come down 9% to accommodate the new sales tax, it would also have to drop an additional 9% because now the poor have a 9% tax burden that they never had. i don't see companies slashing prices by 18%. This would benefit you and I, but this would drive the poor into deeper poverty and become even bigger wards of the state.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> In order for that to work, not only would the price of the goods have to come down 9% to accommodate the new sales tax, it would also have to drop an additional 9% because now the poor have a 9% tax burden that they never had. i don't see companies slashing prices by 18%. This would benefit you and I, but this would drive the poor into deeper poverty and become even bigger wards of the state.



then they'd (the poor) be forced to "shit or get off the pot" for once....and i'm 100% in favor of that


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> maybe you could explain in detail how forcing people with low incomes to pay federal taxes would benefit the economy once these people fall into poverty.



It lessens the incentive to be a parasite.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I thought you don't taxes in the middle of a recession?  Or does that only go for raising taxes on the job creators.  I guess that makes sense, those poor people wouldn't use that money, poor people save all of their money so you might as well pump it in to the government, right?




In a perfect world, Congress quits spending like drunken sailors so you don't have to raise taxes during a recession and $48k/yr for a couple isn't 'poor' its still middle class.  

If Congress cuts the budget 10%-20%, we don't necessarily need the other 50% to pay part of their share but I don't see that happening do you?


----------



## chucko (Oct 19, 2011)

troubador said:


> It lessens the incentive to be a parasite.


 

I agree, sink or swim. 
The way this country should work according to dems -
work hard - get punished.
do nothing - get rewarded by stealing from those that earned shit.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

chucko said:


> I agree, sink or swim.
> The way this country should work according to dems -
> work hard - get punished.
> *do nothing - get rewarded by stealing from those that earned shit*.



what do you call a black man on a bike?


----------



## ExLe (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> what do you call a black man on a bike?


 

Do tell...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> then they'd (the poor) be forced to "shit or get off the pot" for once....and i'm 100% in favor of that



You mean they'll take one of the millions of jobs that are available right now? Smarten up.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You mean they'll take one of the millions of jobs that are available right now? Smarten up.



there's plenty of jobs....people (in general at the lower end of the spectrum) aren't putting in the effort and are waiting for "someone else will do it for me".....if only everyone had the mentality of "the harder i work, the luckier i get"........


----------



## ExLe (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree, but what do you think is going to happen to people who already have barely enough to scrape by when you take an extra $2k from them? They are either going to become wards of the state or they steal. Perhaps if they were making a few dollars more an hour they could afford to pay taxes, but you can't force companies to pay more, right? That is why income distribution is the problem, if companies dropped CEO pay by 10% they could pay more to the bottom and pay more people. This would broaden the tax base and remove more takers from entitlements, thus both balancing the budget and making sure everyone pays their fair share. When a CEO makes 400x the amount of money as your standard middle income wage earner you can't blame an increase in the cost of goods on something like the minimum wage or gov't regulation, the problem is the CEO is paid too much. In fact, an intelligent person would think that any move that would push us in this direction would be retarded and counterproductive to getting people off the gov't tit and broadening the tax base.


 

It's funny how they say they can't afford to pay any federal taxes, but they seem to find a way to pay for $200 hair weaves, nails, name brand clothes, $100 cell phone bills and big rims for their buckets...


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You mean they'll take one of the millions of jobs that are available right now? Smarten up.



You mean they doing everything possible to better their careers and become financially independent? Smarten up.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

troubador said:


> You mean they doing everything possible to better their careers and become financially independent? Smarten up.



Just to be certain, are we talking about welfare recipients or people on unemployment?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

ExLe said:


> It's funny how they say they can't afford to pay any federal taxes, but they seem to find a way to pay for $200 hair weaves, nails, name brand clothes, $100 cell phone bills and big rims for their buckets...



Come on, now.  You can't honesty think that welfare fraud adds up to any significant amount of money.  I'm not saying that it should be allowed to happen or that it's fair, but it's chump change.  It's certainly not going to turn around the economy. Even so, that money the few people who are scamming the system spend on hair weaves, iphones, and rims actually contributes to the tax base via sales and business taxes.


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> there's plenty of jobs....people (in general at the lower end of the spectrum) aren't putting in the effort and are waiting for "someone else will do it for me".....if only everyone had the mentality of "the harder i work, the luckier i get"........



The problem is really a question of values. The lefties/liberals/altruists/etc believe (by the very nature of their beliefs) that the weak are good and they're being disadvantaged is a result of some oppressor or perhaps just bad luck. It simply is not in the value system of liberals to see the lower class as parasitic. The altruist must see the weak as good or else the sacrifice is for nothing.

So trying to convince liberals that the poor are there of their own accord, lazy, good for nothing ,etc is probably a waste of time.


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Just to be certain, are we talking about welfare recipients or people on unemployment?



(the poor)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> In a perfect world, Congress quits spending like drunken sailors so you don't have to raise taxes during a recession and $48k/yr for a couple isn't 'poor' its still middle class.
> 
> If Congress cuts the budget 10%-20%, we don't necessarily need the other 50% to pay part of their share but I don't see that happening do you?



What kind of house do you think you can buy with $48k per year and 2 kids in school?  How much extra money do you have to spend in our consumer-based economy with $3000/month in take home pay for 4 people?

As for your second question...I don't see anything being done for a while.  Most of the things being batted around by dems won't do anything and most of the things the GOP would do will cause the ship to sink.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

troubador said:


> The problem is really a question of values. The lefties/liberals/altruists/etc believe (by the very nature of their beliefs) that the weak are good and they're being disadvantaged is a result of some oppressor or perhaps just bad luck. It simply is not in the value system of liberals to see the lower class as parasitic. The altruist must see the weak as good or else the sacrifice is for nothing.



That's utter bullshit.  They don't have to be oppressed, they can make shitty decisions and end up where they are.  The disconnect is that the right believes that because at most 1 out of 10 people cheat the system you need to tear it down.  Oh yeah, and they believe that if you have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit the primary way you fix it is by completely removing a program that costs 1.4% of that deficit.

As for democrats, they are pussies, incompetent, and as corrupt as the GOP.


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> That's utter bullshit.  They don't have to be oppressed, they can make shitty decisions and end up where they are.



I didn't say they had to be oppressed. Remember we are talking about policies that apply to a group as a whole and thus how they are valued as a whole.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

troubador said:


> I didn't say they had to be oppressed. Remember we are talking about policies that apply to a group as a whole and thus how they are valued as a whole.



So if 1 in 10 people cheat the system you should scrap the system?


----------



## oufinny (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol...did you just finish your breakfast of lead based paint chips?
> 
> did Fox not tell you that 50% of the US is making 1980's wages? or can you not figure out inflation rates on your own based on the median household income of around $48K with 2 wage earners?   it's like 7th grade mathematics...
> 
> they pay plenty of taxes at the state level just not federal...maybe you could explain in detail how forcing people with low incomes to pay federal taxes would benefit the economy once these people fall into poverty.



With wages that is the case but WE pay to subsidize their not paying taxes.  They get a rebate and we pay but get no rebate because we earn too much, shit I pay more most years and if I get a rebate I can't even buy a coffee with it.  

I don't know what the best solution is to this problem, whether its a flat tax or maybe two flat taxes based on income and a nominal sales tax everyone pays but leaving half the population exempt from federal taxes is bullshit.  Taxes are a percentage of your income and the lowest rate is fucking LOW.  And if you are at that level, you are getting WIC, welfare, food stamps whatever it is called in your state along with what the government pays.  There is a limit to the madness is all I am saying.  The poor don't need to be made poorer or left to the wayside BUT there has to be a limit.

Also, the tax loopholes can all go, re-write a few exemptions into the law and use that as a way to raise revenue and even out the system BUT there has to be a tax for everyone unless you are making something super low like under $10K dollars (heck I paid federal tax when I made that, I didn't get anything back of significance).  You get so much push back from the right and wealthy on paying more because it goes to programs and stimulus that has proven to do nothing but raise the debt.

As for wages, what are you going to do about that?  I asked that to Dale and there is little if anything you can do to force private companies to raise wages (he agreed too, shocking I know!).  Maybe I am wrong but if it is so simple that I am missing it, why hasn't it already happened?  Public companies will always pander to the investors which means lower wages for some workers; its complete shit but the only way they hold value and increase it is to have stock prices go up (less expenses, less fixed costs like salaries, again it is shitty but reality is a tough pill to swallow).  Organic growth in this economy is rare, risky and very hard to do since competition is fierce and the world is getting smaller.  Oh and the main competition [China] manipulates its currency so we always are non-competitive globally at first glance and it has us by the balls since we are so in debt to it.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So if 1 in 10 people cheat the system you should scrap the system?



No, it is as simple as this: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  The poor are the few and the rest are the many, income inequality is not a problem overcome solely by government intervention or policy or handouts; it is done by those that are tired of being poor and make the change on their own.  They may not be millionaires or make 100K a year but they can crawl out of the hole if they really want to.  I've been unemployed, broke as fuck and getting loans from people so I could keep gas in my car and the lights on and food in my mouth.  I still managed to get out from under that and am doing well, that was 2.5 years ago so this isn't ancient history.  Sure I had a college degree but that didn't mean squat in 2009 I was just another one of the millions collecting unemployment.  

The whole system is so messed up there needs to be a complete overhaul of it and we need to start from scratch.  I don't see much of any other way to go about it and the scary thing is you have a bunch of nut jobs in Washington deciding it and half of them don't even understand the problem to begin with!


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> *Study: Cain???s 9-9-9 tax plan raises taxes on 84 percent of households, wealthy get big breaks*
> 
> By Associated Press, Tuesday, October 18, 1:51 PM
> 
> ...


 
liberal put up all this smoke and mirrors.he has a real plan plus don't you liberal like more taxes


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 19, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> liberal put up all this smoke and mirrors.he has a real plan plus don't you liberal like more taxes




Have you seen the blacks on those cable news channels nobody watches call Cain a racist?    The far left wing is just grasping for straws since Obama has failed them miserably.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> Have you seen the blacks on those cable news channels nobody watches call Cain a racist?  The far left wing is just grasping for straws since Obama has failed them miserably.


 hell don't care if the repub black manhas a real plan not just smoke and mirrors


----------



## Big Pimpin (Oct 19, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> hell don't care if the repub black manhas a real plan not just smoke and mirrors




I like Cain....though Paul would be my first choice.  Unfortunately Paul seems to suddenly not fire on all 8 cylinders sometimes.    Either way, a 6 cylinder Paul is 10 times smarter than an 8 cylinder Obama.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

Big Pimpin said:


> I like Cain....though Paul would be my first choice. Unfortunately Paul seems to not fire on all 8 cylinders sometimes.


 true paul just go's off the rail plus he's to old


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 19, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The whole system is so messed up there needs to be a complete overhaul of it and we need to start from scratch.  I don't see much of any other way to go about it and the scary thing is you have a bunch of nut jobs in Washington deciding it and half of them don't even understand the problem to begin with!



I agree. Don't you think if the incentive is there(increased wages) most would pull out of poverty in a second? $10/hour would just cover my monthly rent, I might as well move to a red state like all of the other welfare bums and live off the system.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree. Don't you think if the incentive is there(increased wages) most would pull out of poverty in a second? $10/hour would just cover my monthly rent, I might as well move to a red state like all of the other welfare bums and live off the system.



Yes I do agree.  I think you are fighting a few issues such as low minimum wage and also one that is cultural. People who are raised poor often carry massive resentment because that is how their parents raised them and get the entitlement mentality that they are owed something. In an ideal world people would all get a fair chance, if you blow it that's on you to correct but that is far from the reality.


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

Dark Geared God said:


> liberal put up all this smoke and mirrors.he has a real plan plus don't you liberal like more taxes



not sure if you realized this but back in 2007 there was a global banking collapse, the first time in world history. and prior to that the weakest economic expansion in US history.  getting people back to work is 100x more important then revising the tax code right now.

taxes are not nor have they ever been the problem, they are at around a 50 year record low.

Obama's job plan is the best solution...apparently everybody has forgotten how the US rebounded after WWII...by rebuilding the US infrastructure!


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 19, 2011)

LAM said:


> not sure if you realized this but back in 2007 there was a global banking collapse, the first time in world history. and prior to that the weakest economic expansion in US history. getting people back to work is 100x more important then revising the tax code right now.
> 
> taxes are not nor have they ever been the problem, they are at around a 50 year record low.


I did know i knew this was going to happen i shut down my 401k and balled up didn't ovewr spend or get suck into the buy buy mental
get rid of the IRS flat tax


----------



## LAM (Oct 19, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yes I do agree.  I think you are fighting a few issues such as low minimum wage and also one that is cultural. People who are raised poor often carry massive resentment because that is how their parents raised them and get the entitlement mentality that they are owed something. In an ideal world people would all get a fair chance, if you blow it that's on you to correct but that is far from the reality.



nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote a nice piece on efficiency wages.

"Efficiency Wages

Another important part of new Keynesian economics has been the development of new theories of unemployment. Persistent unemployment is a puzzle for economic theory. Normally, economists presume that an excess supply of labor would exert a downward pressure on wages. A reduction in wages would in turn reduce unemployment by raising the quantity of labor demanded. Hence, according to standard economic theory, unemployment is a self-correcting problem.

New Keynesian economists often turn to theories of what they call efficiency wages to explain why this market-clearing mechanism may fail. These theories hold that high wages make workers more productive. The influence of wages on worker efficiency may explain the failure of firms to cut wages despite an excess supply of labor. Even though a wage reduction would lower a firm???s wage bill, it would also???if the theories are correct???cause worker productivity and the firm???s profits to decline.

There are various theories about how wages affect worker productivity. One efficiency-wage theory holds that high wages reduce labor turnover. Workers quit jobs for many reasons???to accept better positions at other firms, to change careers, or to move to other parts of the country. The more a firm pays its workers, the greater their incentive to stay with the firm. By paying a high wage, a firm reduces the frequency of quits, thereby decreasing the time spent hiring and training new workers.

A second efficiency-wage theory holds that the average quality of a firm???s workforce depends on the wage it pays its employees. If a firm reduces wages, the best employees may take jobs elsewhere, leaving the firm with less-productive employees who have fewer alternative opportunities. By paying a wage above the equilibrium level, the firm may avoid this adverse selection, improve the average quality of its workforce, and thereby increase productivity.

A third efficiency-wage theory holds that a high wage improves worker effort. This theory posits that firms cannot perfectly monitor the work effort of their employees and that employees must themselves decide how hard to work. Workers can choose to work hard, or they can choose to shirk and risk getting caught and fired. The firm can raise worker effort by paying a high wage. The higher the wage, the greater is the cost to the worker of getting fired. By paying a higher wage, a firm induces more of its employees not to shirk, and thus increases their productivity.
A New Synthesis

During the 1990s, the debate between new classical and new Keynesian economists led to the emergence of a new synthesis among macroeconomists about the best way to explain short-run economic fluctuations and the role of monetary and fiscal policies. The new synthesis attempts to merge the strengths of the competing approaches that preceded it. From the new classical models it takes a variety of modeling tools that shed light on how households and firms make decisions over time. From the new Keynesian models it takes price rigidities and uses them to explain why monetary policy affects employment and production in the short run. The most common approach is to assume monopolistically competitive firms (firms that have market power but compete with other firms) that change prices only intermittently.

The heart of the new synthesis is the view that the economy is a dynamic general equilibrium system that deviates from an efficient allocation of resources in the short run because of sticky prices and perhaps a variety of other market imperfections. In many ways, this new synthesis forms the intellectual foundation for the analysis of monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world."


----------



## troubador (Oct 19, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So if 1 in 10 people cheat the system you should scrap the system?



I'm not talking about people cheating the system. It doesn't matter. I was pointing out that liberal ideology dictates they won't buy into the idea that the poor are unworthy. Arguing either way without some context of where each side's values lie is pointless. An altruist will think the poor as a whole are worthy no matter what.


----------



## LAM (Oct 20, 2011)

troubador said:


> Ithe poor are unworthy



you do realize that being poor is an economic status and not a type of person don't you?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 20, 2011)

LAM said:


> you do realize that being poor is an economic status and not a type of person don't you?



No, he believes everyone who is poor is poor because of decisions they made.  No one is poor through poor decisions of their parents, dumb luck, or being born in an ignorant area.  Plus, everyone who is rich is rich because of all of their hard work, no wealth is gained through inheritance.  This is why it is so important to get money in the job creators' hands and let the rest just sink.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 20, 2011)

oufinny said:


> No, it is as simple as this: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.



Can't believe I let you skate by on this one.  

Don't you believe that the needs of the many (Keeping the Social Security age of retirement at 62/65 and not cutting SS or MC) outweigh the needs of the few (Keeping a 3% tax cut for 5% of the population)?


----------



## troubador (Oct 20, 2011)

LAM said:


> you do realize that being poor is an economic status and not a type of person don't you?



First we should define Type - "a number of things or persons sharing a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, that causes them to be regarded as a group... a thing or person regarded as a member of a class or category"

It's common to think of people belonging to different classes of economic status. So by definition of 'type' we can certainly describe poor people as a type of person. To answer your question, being poor is an economic status and poor people are a type of people.

I don't need to define the poor as having a certain set of characteristics (other than happening to be poor). My point was that this arguing about cheating the system, blowing money on rims or cellphones, the poor are lazy, etc is a waste of time. Liberal ideology entails they will deem the poor (sacrificing to the poor) as a worthy cause.


----------



## troubador (Oct 20, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> No, he believes everyone who is poor is...



It doesn't matter what my opinion about the poor is. See above.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 20, 2011)

troubador said:


> First we should define Type - "a number of things or persons sharing a particular characteristic, or set of characteristics, that causes them to be regarded as a group... a thing or person regarded as a member of a class or category"
> 
> It's common to think of people belonging to different classes of economic status. So by definition of 'type' we can certainly describe poor people as a type of person. To answer your question, being poor is an economic status and poor people are a type of people.
> 
> I don't need to define the poor as having a certain set of characteristics (other than happening to be poor). My point was that this arguing about cheating the system, blowing money on rims or cellphones, the poor are lazy, etc is a waste of time. Liberal ideology entails they will deem the poor (sacrificing to the poor) as a worthy cause.



You think that people who believe we should help other people pay for necessities are perfectly fine with them wasting it on shit?  That's completely irrational.


----------



## troubador (Oct 20, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You think that people who believe we should help other people pay for necessities are perfectly fine with them wasting it on shit?



Nope.


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Tax Plan 

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center 
October 18, 2011

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/412426-Cain-9-9-9.pdf

* shifting the federal tax burden from those that make the most onto those with the lowest incomes while reducing social protections, makes perfect sense...


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

troubador said:


> I don't need to define the poor as having a certain set of characteristics (other than happening to be poor). My point was that this arguing about cheating the system, blowing money on rims or cellphones, the poor are lazy, etc is a waste of time. Liberal ideology entails they will deem the poor (sacrificing to the poor) as a worthy cause.



you need to update your rhetoric as you are so misinformed it's painful to read.   the welfare reform act of 1996 closed all the loopholes for direct money transfers (TANF) and placed a lifetime maximum of 60 months on those benefits.  it also placed a lifetime ban on convicted felons and those convicted of major drug crimes from ever receiving TANF.  it also changed the guidelines on who was able to receive food stamps (SNAP) but the 2002 Farm bill undid many of these changes to allow many illegal aliens to benefit.  states can override the lifetime ban on SNAP for convicted felons of drug crimes.  not sure what changes have been made on the later farm bill from 2005 and up.

I know people that receive TANF and every single one of them waited until they absolutely had no choice but to apply for them.  they constantly audit your bank accounts, make you re-apply annually and hammer you if any fraud is discovered with felony charges.


----------



## troubador (Oct 23, 2011)

LAM said:


> you need to update your rhetoric as you are so misinformed it's painful to read.   the welfare reform act of 1996...



I said it's a waste of time to argue the point and I'm not.


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

troubador said:


> I said it's a waste of time to argue the point and I'm not.



I simply state my opinion which is nothing more than a summary of empirical data and facts, the argument is in your head as it refuses to except reality.  but this is partially because of how the human brain functions as peoples religious and economic ideologies become ingrained into their belief system and non-facts become factual.

the UK is going through the exact same thing as the US but their "poor" values different things (not rims and cell phones, etc.) as do people from all countries yet their situation is identical.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 23, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Can't believe I let you skate by on this one.
> 
> Don't you believe that the needs of the many (Keeping the Social Security age of retirement at 62/65 and not cutting SS or MC) outweigh the needs of the few (Keeping a 3% tax cut for 5% of the population)?



I was stating a fact, not my opinion.  Of course I believe that SS or MC should not go, they need to be made solvent but that is a separate issue.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 23, 2011)

none of this matters, nor does all the spending....we won't pay it back because the aliens are coming back 12/21/12


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 23, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> none of this matters, nor does all the spending....we won't pay it back because the aliens are coming back 12/21/12


----------



## troubador (Oct 23, 2011)

LAM said:


> I simply state my opinion which is nothing more than a summary of empirical data and facts, the argument is in your head as it refuses to except reality.



I don't disagree with your facts. I stated "Liberal ideology entails they will deem the poor (sacrificing to the poor) as a worthy cause." That you would think posting about how loopholes are closed and your friends really needed TANF shows you don't understand the point I'm making. It's completely irrelevant if these people are saints.


----------



## LAM (Oct 23, 2011)

troubador said:


> I don't disagree with your facts. I stated "Liberal ideology entails they will deem the poor (sacrificing to the poor) as a worthy cause." That you would think posting about how loopholes are closed and your friends really needed TANF shows you don't understand the point I'm making. It's completely irrelevant if these people are saints.



it has nothing to do with it being a worthy cause it is what modern day society's have done for hundreds and hundreds of years since their inception. 

and in a country that spends the least amount on social protection as a percentage of GDP of all country's in the OECD and has the greatest income inequality it is only logical that there be a sizable portion of the population that is poor.  lets not forget that the highly conservative states in the US benefit the most from the US flavor of "liberal ideology".

what is ironic is that the GOP came to be via the rise of the populist party in the late 1800's-1900's and the people they claim to represent have benefited the very least.  Americans need to re-watch the wizard of oz as it seems they have forgotten it's allegorical interpretation of reality.


----------



## troubador (Oct 24, 2011)

LAM said:


> it has nothing to do with it being a worthy cause it is what modern day society's have done for hundreds and hundreds of years since their inception.



You're joking right? That's even worse than the real reason.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

hell the gov't should start sports camps for kids when they're 3-5 yrs and groom them for our national teams...they should also assign jobs to people....then we should all be taxed until we all bring home the same amount of money....all those taxes then should be evenly distributed to our wealthiest gov't officials.....gov't programs should expand til we all have exactly the same housing, clothing, food, and luxuries and no rich, middle, or poor...just the gov't vs the people.....we need more gov't control....we should never have the opportunity to start a business or make money....we should only do what our gov't says and when they say it and we should out of fear and total gov't control......LAM is 100% correct on all his liberal views....i'm a changed man.....


----------



## exphys88 (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> hell the gov't should start sports camps for kids when they're 3-5 yrs and groom them for our national teams...they should also assign jobs to people....then we should all be taxed until we all bring home the same amount of money....all those taxes then should be evenly distributed to our wealthiest gov't officials.....gov't programs should expand til we all have exactly the same housing, clothing, food, and luxuries and no rich, middle, or poor...just the gov't vs the people.....we need more gov't control....we should never have the opportunity to start a business or make money....we should only do what our gov't says and when they say it and we should out of fear and total gov't control......LAM is 100% correct on all his liberal views....i'm a changed man.....



No, what we should do is encourage corporations to make billions in profits and pay the people responsible for the success $9 an hour and no medical benefits.  Where would we all we be without billionaires to exploit workers?   

We also need to make sure that CEO's in america continue to make 500 times the amount that the bottom employee makes, while in Japan their CEO's make 5 times the bottom employee.  This is the only way we can continue to grow the divide between the rich and the poor.

Then, we need to make sure that a woman doesn't have the right to choose on whether she carries a baby or not, even if she has been raped.  

Then, we need to get rid of all those pesky scientists, because they're trying to teach our kids about biology and evolution instead of the ten commandments and noah's ark.

Just kidding!  I just wanted to know what it feels like to be a ignorant christian conservative.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

if you don't like ceo's being rich and you're not, then become a ceo....if you don't the way banks are run, then become a banker, if you don't like teachers pay, then don't become a teacher, if you don't like how washington is run, then become a politician.....people need to stop waiting for someone else to take care of them.....

i live by this...."the harder i work, the luckier i get"


----------



## exphys88 (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> if you don't like ceo's being rich and you're not, then become a ceo....if you don't the way banks are run, then become a banker, if you don't like teachers pay, then don't become a teacher, if you don't like how washington is run, then become a politician.....people need to stop waiting for someone else to take care of them.....
> 
> i live by this...."the harder i work, the luckier i get"



or you can form a union and refuse to work for shitty pay and make the ceo's bow to you and your unionized workers!  It's happened plenty of times, and it will continue to happen.  

your statement is similar to saying: if you don't like the way walmart treats their employees, then just build your own store and pay your employees better.  
But, there comes a point when corporations are way too rich and powerful and create a monopoly making it virtually impossible to compete with them.  This is not capitalism, it's greed.


----------



## LAM (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> hell the gov't should start sports camps for kids when they're 3-5 yrs and groom them for our national teams...they should also assign jobs to people....then we should all be taxed until we all bring home the same amount of money....all those taxes then should be evenly distributed to our wealthiest gov't officials.....gov't programs should expand til we all have exactly the same housing, clothing, food, and luxuries and no rich, middle, or poor...just the gov't vs the people.....we need more gov't control....we should never have the opportunity to start a business or make money....we should only do what our gov't says and when they say it and we should out of fear and total gov't control......LAM is 100% correct on all his liberal views....i'm a changed man.....



my views are based on reality and on the effects of economic policy in the US over the past 3-4 decades.  ignorant people like yourself that get all their information from the tv dismiss facts and act as if they have had no effect on the US economy yet there is decades and decades of empirical data showing the exact opposite.  

your so stupid you still think that Scott Walker is looking out for you!


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

LAM said:


> my views are based on reality and on the effects of economic policy in the US over *the past 3-4 decades.*  ignorant people like yourself that get all their information from the tv dismiss facts and act as if they have had no effect on the US economy yet there is decades and decades of empirical data showing the exact opposite.
> 
> your so stupid you still think that Scott Walker is looking out for you!



wait a minute....i'm confused....so you're saying that people were better off 30-40 years ago and had more than they do now?......so you're saying the jimmy carter era?


----------



## LAM (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> wait a minute....i'm confused....so you're saying that people were better off 30-40 years ago and had more than they do now?......so you're saying the jimmy carter era?



the middle class in the US was healthy up until the 80's which is when it started to track down after decades of progress lead by the new deal reforms.

the US economy had already slowed after decades of growth lead by US manufacturing in the decades post WWII.  it's one of the main reasons why Nixon took the USD completely fiat no longer tied to gold at all.  this allowed the FRB to increase the monetary supply easily increasing inflation and reducing those debts owed.  OPEC responded to this by increasing the cost of crude by almost 75% then then there was corresponding stock market crash.

did you factor all these things into the health of the US economy before Carter took office?


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

so you did the typical leftist thing and didn't answer my question and danced around it....

so are you saying that people were better off and had more 30-40 years ago than the do today?


----------



## oufinny (Oct 24, 2011)

LAM said:


> you need to update your rhetoric as you are so misinformed it's painful to read.   the welfare reform act of 1996 closed all the loopholes for direct money transfers (TANF) and placed a lifetime maximum of 60 months on those benefits.  it also placed a lifetime ban on convicted felons and those convicted of major drug crimes from ever receiving TANF.  it also changed the guidelines on who was able to receive food stamps (SNAP) but the 2002 Farm bill undid many of these changes to allow many illegal aliens to benefit.  states can override the lifetime ban on SNAP for convicted felons of drug crimes.  not sure what changes have been made on the later farm bill from 2005 and up.
> 
> I know people that receive TANF and every single one of them waited until they absolutely had no choice but to apply for them.  they constantly audit your bank accounts, make you re-apply annually and hammer you if any fraud is discovered with felony charges.



So putting limits on these and making sure you aren't abusing the system is a bad thing?    Welfare reform in the 1990s was a good and much needed thing.  Obviously it passed the liberal litmus test as Clinton signed it into law.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 24, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> No, what we should do is encourage corporations to make billions in profits and pay the people responsible for the success $9 an hour and no medical benefits.  Where would we all we be without billionaires to exploit workers?
> 
> We also need to make sure that CEO's in america continue to make 500 times the amount that the bottom employee makes, while in Japan their CEO's make 5 times the bottom employee.  This is the only way we can continue to grow the divide between the rich and the poor.
> 
> ...



I see you are from CA, you have some learning to do about what the majority of conservative's think.  The liberal media grasps to the fringes of the conservative movement and those that are the most fanatical, if you don't know that by now I can't help you. Yes, there are people in the conservative movement who focus on things like stem cell research, abortion, gay rights and they have nothing to do with what is going on now.  Outside of gay rights simply because there is a marriage penalty on federal taxes, the rest are all states rights issues and should be that. Many conservatives support the voting on issues as such at the state level, if you don't like where you live and the laws, move to a new state that you do.  Look at those people in Kansas teaching creationism, I think they are completely retarded and wasting the minds of America's youth but I don't live there and my kids won't learn that.  

I am very conservative but I am pragmatic too.  There are some very real points made by those that are liberals like abortion and supporting medical research I agree with, I don't agree with a federal budget so red it is unsustainable or a healthcare plan that is so contorted people are just now unfolding all the intricacies that don't work.  Does that make me an ignorant conservative, no.

CEO pay is a whole other can of worms that bothers almost everybody not getting it, conservatives tend not send hippies to protest on Wall St. to do so.  And where are the AA's on Wall St?  They are the hardest hit by unemployment but I don't see any there, makes no sense to me.  They must dislike the scent patchouli.


----------



## exphys88 (Oct 24, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I see you are from CA, you have some learning to do about what the majority of conservative's think.  The liberal media grasps to the fringes of the conservative movement and those that are the most fanatical, if you don't know that by now I can't help you. Yes, there are people in the conservative movement who focus on things like stem cell research, abortion, gay rights and they have nothing to do with what is going on now.  Outside of gay rights simply because there is a marriage penalty on federal taxes, the rest are all states rights issues and should be that. Many conservatives support the voting on issues as such at the state level, if you don't like where you live and the laws, move to a new state that you do.  Look at those people in Kansas teaching creationism, I think they are completely retarded and wasting the minds of America's youth but I don't live there and my kids won't learn that.
> 
> I am very conservative but I am pragmatic too.  There are some very real points made by those that are liberals like abortion and supporting medical research I agree with, I don't agree with a federal budget so red it is unsustainable or a healthcare plan that is so contorted people are just now unfolding all the intricacies that don't work.  Does that make me an ignorant conservative, no.
> 
> CEO pay is a whole other can of worms that bothers almost everybody not getting it, conservatives tend not send hippies to protest on Wall St. to do so.  And where are the AA's on Wall St?  They are the hardest hit by unemployment but I don't see any there, makes no sense to me.  They must dislike the scent patchouli.



I actually like this post, you are the type of conservative that we need to see more of.  

I have so much disgust with conservatives' viewpoint on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, evolution, and stem cell research that I can't vote for them even if their economics are superior.

I try to stay out of economical debates because of my ignorance on the topic, and because I haven't really formed any strong opinions yet, but I do see a problem w corporate greed that seems to be growing exponentially.  There used to be a time when companies paid enough for someone to support a family on.  Now, we have Companies that pay management millions while the workers make crap.  I can't say which party is able to fix it, but it is definitely a problem.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> if you don't like ceo's being rich and you're not, then become a ceo....if you don't the way banks are run, then become a banker, if you don't like teachers pay, then don't become a teacher, if you don't like how washington is run, then become a politician.....people need to stop waiting for someone else to take care of them.....
> 
> i live by this...."the harder i work, the luckier i get"



Right because there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of political positions available in the U.S. and MILLIONS of CEO positions available to right?

Everyone can be a CEO if they want or a senator/congressman right?

Right Irish?


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Right because there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of political positions available in the U.S. and MILLIONS of CEO positions available to right?
> 
> Everyone can be a CEO if they want or a senator/congressman right?
> 
> Right Irish?


 
nobody is stopping anyone from succeeding except themselves......this mentality^^^ is limiting yourself.....it's typical leftist brainwashing to make people think they don't have the ability to be more than what they are and thus will need the gov't help to survive....more votes for dumbocrats guaranteed.......


----------



## troubador (Oct 24, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I see you are from CA, you have some learning to do about what the majority of conservative's think.  The liberal media grasps to the fringes of the conservative movement and those that are the most fanatical



Yes and there is definitely a war of words in politics. The fiscal right gets lumped in with the social conservatives, then Christians, then child molesting priests, etc. Apparently anything bad economically that has happened in the last 30 years is neo-liberal and whenever you find a problem with socialism... well that isn't really socialism. Of course the conservatives do it also, just watch someone like Michele Bachmann, she just spews rhetoric with no substance. That goes for most of the current GOP candidates though.


----------



## troubador (Oct 24, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Everyone can be a CEO if they want or a senator/congressman right?



No, very few can. Which is why they are payed more. I sometimes wonder if people really think about what money is. It's basically a numerical representation of the value things have and currency is the medium for that. The guy who designed the engine is clearly more valuable than the assembly line guy who puts a bolt in them. How much is the worker, engineer, and ceo worth? I don't know but I think a true free market is able to answer those questions.


----------



## LAM (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> so you did the typical leftist thing and didn't answer my question and danced around it....
> 
> so are you saying that people were better off and had more 30-40 years ago than the do today?



define better? it's rather subjective...if just talking about the middle class things were not that bad.  gas had just gone up drastically but that was because of OPEC and the USD going completely fiat.  wages were still increasing with productivity so there was not much consumer debt it was relatively new and typically only used by businesses.

* grey areas on the graph indicate recessions

Nixon(R) 1969-1974
Ford(R)  1974-1977
Carter(D) 1977-1981
Reagan(R) 1981-1989
GHB(R) 1989-1993
Clinton(D) 1993-2001
GWB(R) 2001-2009
Obama(D) 2009-

Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share
Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share (PRS85006173) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

Federal Reserve: Credit Cards: Use and Consumer Attitudes,
1970???2000
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2000/0900lead.pdf

* For the most part in terms of the US and the shrinking middle class everything went to hell when the US dollar went fiat along combined with the decline in the labor unions in the 80's is when the US started the debt orgy.  public debt is needed to fund financial markets it's how they grow not just in the US, but in the world this is an economic fact.  Every single country in the world that has a strong and powerful banking sector is seeing a shrinking middle class and of course the US always being on the extreme end of things is seeing this happen the fastest.  

This is why I brought up the reference to the wizard of oz most do not know the story it was telling and who the characters represented.  Following the yellow brick road was saying to stay the course of the gold standard to the land of Oz (troy ounce of gold).

22 Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 24, 2011)

you're suggesting it's worse now, so you're still the one not answering the question.....


----------



## LAM (Oct 24, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> you're suggesting it's worse now, so you're still the one not answering the question.....



of course it's worst now, I've been saying this for the past couple of years.  it's been one big illusion since the USD went completely fiat and the lobbyist took over DC in the 70's.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 24, 2011)

LAM said:


> of course it's worst now, I've been saying this for the past couple of years.  it's been one big illusion since the USD went completely fiat and the lobbyist took over DC in the 70's.



Not to mention you used to be able to afford a nice house on 1 middle class income and now you can't on 2.


----------



## LAM (Oct 24, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> Not to mention you used to be able to afford a nice house on 1 middle class income and now you can't on 2.



that's just the "natural" progression of capitalism....


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> nobody is stopping anyone from succeeding except themselves......this mentality^^^ is limiting yourself.....it's typical leftist brainwashing to make people think they don't have the ability to be more than what they are and thus will need the gov't help to survive....more votes for dumbocrats guaranteed.......



You never answered my question. Typical rightist bullshit.

P.S. People wouldn't have such a bleak outlook, and thus turn to gov. handouts, if the Republicans had not bankrupted the majority of Americans via Tax cuts for the Rich, and Warmongering.

Let's see you argue your way out of the facts Irish.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 25, 2011)

i guess if you took advantage of the markets, trade, etc then you're enemy?.....no, everyone else is just stupid....republicans didn't bankrupt americans....american bankrupted americans.......you snooze, you lose....or more appropriate for libtards is you snooze, you whine like bitches that you're getting screwed....once again proving they are nothing more than "sheeple"....it's no coincidence that there's such a "zombie" culture in the liberal left....i see many parallels between them......


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i guess if you took advantage of the markets, trade, etc then you're enemy?.....no, everyone else is just stupid....republicans didn't bankrupt americans....american bankrupted americans.......you snooze, you lose....or more appropriate for libtards is you snooze, you whine like bitches that you're getting screwed....once again proving they are nothing more than "sheeple"....it's no coincidence that there's such a "zombie" culture in the liberal left....i see many parallels between them......



How did "Americans bankrupt Americans"??

It was the Bush admin. that went to war. Was there a vote for it?
Did the general public get to vote to get into 3 wars?

No.

Did I get to vote on the bush tax cuts?

No.

You have no point Irish.
In fact, you're the one whining and bitching the most.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> How did "Americans bankrupt Americans"??
> 
> It was the Bush admin. that went to war. Was there a vote for it?
> Did the general public get to vote to get into 3 wars?
> ...



if by that^^^ you mean grinning and smiling because my portfolio keeps improving then YES!!!......occupy all you want hahahahahahhahahaha


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> if by that^^^ you mean grinning and smiling because my portfolio keeps improving then YES!!!......occupy all you want hahahahahahhahahaha



BWAhahahahahhaha

"My portfolio keeps improving", he says.

You must be so happy. I mean every kid dreams of one
day improving their portfolio, right??

Keep grinning and smiling monkey boy.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> BWAhahahahahhaha
> 
> "My portfolio keeps improving", he says.
> 
> ...



smiling all the way to the broker's office!!!


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> smiling all the way to the broker's office!!!



Simpleton.


----------



## troubador (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> How did "Americans bankrupt Americans"??
> 
> It was the Bush admin. that went to war. Was there a vote for it?
> Did the general public get to vote to get into 3 wars?
> ...



Then aren't the occupy hippies in the wrong location?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

troubador said:


> Then aren't the occupy hippies in the wrong location?



You mean these guys?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aaTGsGdp4c

Don't look like hippies to me.

But because you're trying to turn this conversation of facts, into a rhetorical debate concerning politics, I will comment on your question.


I don't know anyone personally doing the whole "Occupy wallstreet" thing.

So I can't answer that for you.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 25, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I actually like this post, you are the type of conservative that we need to see more of.
> 
> I have so much disgust with conservatives' viewpoint on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, evolution, and stem cell research that I can't vote for them even if their economics are superior.
> 
> I try to stay out of economical debates because of my ignorance on the topic, and because I haven't really formed any strong opinions yet, but I do see a problem w corporate greed that seems to be growing exponentially.  There used to be a time when companies paid enough for someone to support a family on.  Now, we have Companies that pay management millions while the workers make crap.  I can't say which party is able to fix it, but it is definitely a problem.



And I like to hear that you aren't throwing your hat in as an economic expert (I am no expert on social issues either, I don't pay enough attention to the details as many don't directly effect me), heck I have an economics degree and I don't feel that much smarter than the next guy since most of the problems are very complex once you get past the surface that can appear simple but never is.  

The conservatives that get enthralled with right wing, ultra-conservative christian values are not very far from the muslim extremists less the desire to kill all non-believers of course (hardcore religion driving politics is not an effective way to govern).  I am disenchanted with most of the conservative politicians out there but I am not convinced by those like Nancy Pelosi that salvation lies on the left either.  There is a happy medium that can be reached using the best of both parties, that much I know, whether it becomes a reality for a prosperous America again remains to be seen.


----------



## sofargone561 (Oct 25, 2011)

havnt done much research on it but from what i was told about it the other day i actually kind of like the idea


----------



## oufinny (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> How did "Americans bankrupt Americans"??
> 
> It was the Bush admin. that went to war. Was there a vote for it?
> Did the general public get to vote to get into 3 wars?
> ...



Point 1 - there was a vote to go to war, it is well documented and was a high percentage to go to war in 2003; same for Afghanistan.  Contrary to what you think, the USA and England did everything they could in the UN for 18 months before there was even discussion about going to war with Iraq; again it is well documented.  

Point 2 - Did you vote for your congressman?  You got a vote, if not, STFU and vote next time.  I have no respect for those that bitch but don't vote, you should feel the exact same way I hope.

The public doesn't vote to go to war, you seem to miss the concept on how war works.  Rarely is it "announced", it is never publicly voted on nor should it be, that is why we have elected officials.  There is this thing called security, classified information, intelligence that really doesn't go well with the public knowing all the information.  How many troops do you want to die when we announce we are coming to get you, Jesus do you hear yourself sometimes?  It is irrelevant if you supported the war or not, it was predicated on bad intelligence and was not a smart move by the US to get involved.  At the time there were A LOT of congressman that voted for it and it was on both sides of the isle, again, take it up with them.  Same goes for the Patriot Act, it has far reaching powers but got like an 89% vote in favor of it on the first go round so pointing the finger gets you nowhere.  

Don't even start with me on Dodd Frank, it is such an awesome bill the left pushed through giving houses to people who had no contemplation on how to afford them or manage payments.  Sure the banks wrote the loans but are you surprised?


----------



## oufinny (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> BWAhahahahahhaha
> 
> "My portfolio keeps improving", he says.
> 
> ...



Do you hear yourself, god forbid someone be successful.  At least when LAM has a point to make he does it with some tact, you sir do far from that.  So what if my 401K gets better or I make some money on investments, is that a bad thing that I don't spend all my money and maybe save for retirement so I don't have to live off the government when I retire.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Point 1 - there was a vote to go to war, it is well documented and was a high percentage to go to war in 2003; same for Afghanistan.  Contrary to what you think, the USA and England did everything they could in the UN for 18 months before there was even discussion about going to war with Iraq; again it is well documented.
> 
> Point 2 - Did you vote for your congressman?  You got a vote, if not, STFU and vote next time.  I have no respect for those that bitch but don't vote, you should feel the exact same way I hope.
> 
> ...



Point 1 : where's your proof? I don't recall voting for it.
Point 2 : who I wanted for congress did not end up on the ballot. My choice was null. The ones on the ballot I didn't want.

Point 3 : People's poor decisions regarding their credit is not on my radar of caring. I am a minimalist, and I only buy what I need. Others who are brainwashed into thinking they always need more and more materials will make them happy is their problem. However it has been pushed on them by marketing/advertising for the last 40 years via media such as TV/internet etc.

Some people are just not smart enough to recognize it when it happens.

I think ads/commericals etc should be illegal.
It's just mental clout.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 25, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Do you hear yourself, god forbid someone be successful.  At least when LAM has a point to make he does it with some tact, you sir do far from that.  So what if my 401K gets better or I make some money on investments, is that a bad thing that I don't spend all my money and maybe save for retirement so I don't have to live off the government when I retire.



Your definition of successful is the definition fed to you by people in power from the previous generation.
Keep that bullshit brainwash nonsense out of my court.


----------



## Jeeper (Oct 25, 2011)

I have no idea on who would pay more or less and could care less about the studies cited.

My only opinion is from what I see every day at work as a divorce lawyer.  I review more financial statements for individuals than a lot of accountants do, and I am shocked at how many people lie, cheat and steal on their taxes.  I am also astonished as to how many people pay nothing, despite making very high incomes.  A sales tax is the only way that you will ever actually catch all the tax cheats, and people that deal all in cash.  There is so much money out there that is unaccounted for that simply capturing it all would increase revenue.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 25, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Point 1 : where's your proof? I don't recall voting for it.
> Point 2 : who I wanted for congress did not end up on the ballot. My choice was null. The ones on the ballot I didn't want.
> 
> Point 3 : People's poor decisions regarding their credit is not on my radar of caring. I am a minimalist, and I only buy what I need. Others who are brainwashed into thinking they always need more and more materials will make them happy is their problem. However it has been pushed on them by marketing/advertising for the last 40 years via media such as TV/internet etc.
> ...



You're like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  Go to your rep and tell him you should get a vote in going to war, his just doesn't cut it.  This is all I will ever have left to say to you, its just not worth my time.  Congrats you are in a class of your own.


----------



## LAM (Oct 25, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Don't even start with me on Dodd Frank, it is such an awesome bill the left pushed through giving houses to people who had no contemplation on how to afford them or manage payments.  Sure the banks wrote the loans but are you surprised?



you are not even close.  Dodd Frank is financial reform legislation, what you are referring to was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.  and it makes perfect sense if you understand economics in the US.  we provide the lowest amount of social protection to our citizens in the OECD and social security is only supposed to provide a portion of the retirement income but for many in the bottom income quintile it is the sole source of retirement income as on average they save less than 0% of their annual income, it is all spent on living, rent, food & energy, etc.  for most it costs about the same to rent an apartment as it is to pay a mortgage on a small home both are about 30% of the income.  with home ownership the ability to build equity in the home increases wealth for retirement to supplement social security.  this puts them in a better financial situation at the end of the work life and they are now less of a liability to the gov.

if you had ever bothered to read any of the documents that I posted you would have found out that neither Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the CRA had anything to do with the banking collapse. there are numerious reports on this from regulatory commissions, the CBO, FRB, IMF and World Bank along with economists and independent various law firms outside of the US.  

CRA banks follow strict underwriting guidelines and they are also required to hold onto a certain amount of loans on their balance sheets, their loan default rate because of this is very low.  non-CRA banks, subprime lenders and the wallstreet banks are not held to the same standards thanks to decades of various financial deregulation.  it was the subprime lenders and wallstreet banks that were approving the no-doc loans using stated income, etc. bundling them up and unloading them into investors.  when the credit market was tightening up and the CRA banks wouldn't budget on underwriting standards is when the shadow banking system on wallstreet came into the picture.  these were investment houses and hedgefunds that were acting as banks with out regulations or federal over-site. the vast majority of the people that took out loans that they could not afford were babyboomers.  As they are on the high end of the income range in the middle class and had the credit to purchase multiple homes, etc.  when the bottom fell out there were the first ones to walk away from those homes which added fuel to the fire.

the Dodd Frank legislation has been called the greatest piece of financial regulation in history buy many outside of the US.  bank deregulation over the past 3-4 decades is one of the main reasons why the US economy is so fucked up right now.  deregulated banks in all other country's have caused the same problems there with the US of course being on the extreme end of this.  the global banking collapse in 2007 was 100% the fault of the US financial system, those toxic assets were sold to investors inside the US such as state pension funds, etc. and outside of the country to investors and emerging governments.

this is why the Federal Gov filled lawsuits against certain lenders as Fannie Mae purchased loans with AAA credit ratings from those same banks.  the bank that originates the loan keeps all the paper work so all the purchaser of that note has to go on is that rating.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 26, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> there's plenty of jobs....people (in general at the lower end of the spectrum) aren't putting in the effort and are waiting for "someone else will do it for me".....if only everyone had the mentality of "the harder i work, the luckier i get"........



If there are so many jobs why is unemployment so high?


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You're like a child throwing a temper tantrum.  Go to your rep and tell him you should get a vote in going to war, his just doesn't cut it.  This is all I will ever have left to say to you, its just not worth my time.  Congrats you are in a class of your own.



Exactly my point.

Some sleezy politician is making all the decisions for me.

I don't like that.

You seem to be fine with it.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 26, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> nobody is stopping anyone from succeeding except themselves......this mentality^^^ is limiting yourself.....it's typical leftist brainwashing to make people think they don't have the ability to be more than what they are and thus will need the gov't help to survive....more votes for dumbocrats guaranteed.......



The problem isn't that people are jealous of those making more money, such as CEOs.  The problem is that those making more money are engaged in trying to take even more for themselves by taking what little everybody else has.  It isn't a matter of what kind of job you have or what political office you are in, it's a matter of the greedy taking from everybody else.  

Not everybody can be or wants to be a CEO.  If everybody wanted to be a CEO, even if they could be one, there aren't 350 million CEO positions open.  I sure as shit wouldn't want one.  Because I'd suddenly become the highest paid blue collar guy on the planet.  When your shit breaks you need someone to fix it for you.  And you sure won't be soiling your dainty little pinkies by building your own car.  You'll be paying me a king's ransom just to give you a quote.  

Just because someone is doing a job that the rest of the world looks down on doesn't mean it is an un-needed job.  It means that perhaps the people doing that job should be paid more because if it weren't for them you'd be cleaning out your own septic system.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Oct 26, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The problem isn't that people are jealous of those making more money, such as CEOs.  The problem is that those making more money are engaged in trying to take even more for themselves by taking what little everybody else has.  It isn't a matter of what kind of job you have or what political office you are in, it's a matter of the greedy taking from everybody else.
> 
> Not everybody can be or wants to be a CEO.  If everybody wanted to be a CEO, even if they could be one, there aren't 350 million CEO positions open.  I sure as shit wouldn't want one.  Because I'd suddenly become the highest paid blue collar guy on the planet.  When your shit breaks you need someone to fix it for you.  And you sure won't be soiling your dainty little pinkies by building your own car.  You'll be paying me a king's ransom just to give you a quote.
> 
> Just because someone is doing a job that the rest of the world looks down on doesn't mean it is an un-needed job.  It means that perhaps the people doing that job should be paid more because if it weren't for them you'd be cleaning out your own septic system.



You don't get it Zaphod.

Only CEO's and Bankers deserve luxury.

Everyone else is worthless and should pay 90% into taxes so the wealthy can live in peace.

Irish is 100% correct as usual.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 26, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> You don't get it Zaphod.
> 
> Only CEO's and Bankers deserve luxury.
> 
> ...



Oops.  My bad.


----------



## LAM (Oct 26, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> If there are so many jobs why is unemployment so high?



the tv told him so it must be true, it's where he gets all of his information from.  that's why him and everyone else that gets all their info from the tv have not a single clue.


----------



## Thee_One (Oct 26, 2011)

Jeeper said:


> I have no idea on who would pay more or less and could care less about the studies cited.
> 
> My only opinion is from what I see every day at work as a divorce lawyer.  I review more financial statements for individuals than a lot of accountants do, and I am shocked at how many people lie, cheat and steal on their taxes.  I am also astonished as to how many people pay nothing, despite making very high incomes.  A sales tax is the only way that you will ever actually catch all the tax cheats, and people that deal all in cash.  There is so much money out there that is unaccounted for that simply capturing it all would increase revenue.




Is it really that hard to believe people cheat on their taxes?
I agree with your statement though, about sales tax.

I would prefer Sales Taxes over income taxes. Taking money right out of someone's hands before they even get a chance to see it is just crazy.

Plus with High sales tax and no income tax, people would stop buying shit they don't need everytime they go into town.


----------



## sofargone561 (Oct 26, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> Is it really that hard to believe people cheat on their taxes?
> I agree with your statement though, about sales tax.
> 
> I would prefer Sales Taxes over income taxes. Taking money right out of someone's hands before they even get a chance to see it is just crazy.
> ...


 for real! then maybe i can stop seeing all the money i pay in taxes go to convicted felon drug deals and thei 45'' rims


----------



## hypno (Oct 26, 2011)

Something you seem to forget, even though there are scum free loaders on welfare, there are more that are not there because they are lazy. What about mom and dad, grandma and granddad? Who live on fixed incomes, cant go back to work and can barley pay their bills now? What about people who have become disabled or sick? Someone who got cancer? 

It is a lot more complicated than just saying they are all freeloaders. In 2003 I worked for the DoD and made less than 100k a year. I paid more income tax that year than 7 of the top 10 American cooperation's. It is even worse now.

It is true that everyone that is healthy should pay their fair share. That includes Welfare queens and rich cooperation's.  

I agree that anyone who can work and is not at least trying to work and just getting welfare should be cut off. If they wont work let um go hungry for a while. However there are those who genuinely need the help. They are the ones getting hurt most by all this.

One idea I have heard a few times that I REALLY LIKE is to drug test everyone getting any kind of welfare. People scream and holler you can't do that blah blah. Who says? If someone is spending money on illicit drugs they don't need welfare money to buy their food.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 26, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Exactly my point.
> 
> Some sleezy politician is making all the decisions for me.
> 
> ...



Its called DEMOCRACY.  Take it up with the founding fathers who thought up the idea of federalism and all that goes with it...  

All you are doing is whining, I don't have time to pander to that.  Either do something about it or get over it by voting for a new congressman when it comes time to vote.  I don't like that I live in Al Green's district but my choices are to vote him out or move, I think I will vote.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> you are not even close.  Dodd Frank is financial reform legislation, what you are referring to was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.  and it makes perfect sense if you understand economics in the US.  we provide the lowest amount of social protection to our citizens in the OECD and social security is only supposed to provide a portion of the retirement income but for many in the bottom income quintile it is the sole source of retirement income as on average they save less than 0% of their annual income, it is all spent on living, rent, food & energy, etc.  for most it costs about the same to rent an apartment as it is to pay a mortgage on a small home both are about 30% of the income.  with home ownership the ability to build equity in the home increases wealth for retirement to supplement social security.  this puts them in a better financial situation at the end of the work life and they are now less of a liability to the gov.
> 
> if you had ever bothered to read any of the documents that I posted you would have found out that neither Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or the CRA had anything to do with the banking collapse. there are numerious reports on this from regulatory commissions, the CBO, FRB, IMF and World Bank along with economists and independent various law firms outside of the US.
> 
> ...



I try to read some of what you post, time is an issue LAM, I am sure you understand.  I admit I was mislead and have some reading up to do on this, serious.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 27, 2011)

hypno said:


> Something you seem to forget, even though there are scum free loaders on welfare, there are more that are not there because they are lazy. What about mom and dad, grandma and granddad? Who live on fixed incomes, cant go back to work and can barley pay their bills now? What about people who have become disabled or sick? Someone who got cancer?



They are all freeloaders.  According to the "conservatives."


----------



## troubador (Oct 27, 2011)

hypno said:


> Something you seem to forget, even though there are scum free loaders on welfare, there are more that are not there because they are lazy. What about mom and dad, grandma and granddad? Who live on fixed incomes, cant go back to work and can barley pay their bills now? What about people who have become disabled or sick? Someone who got cancer?
> 
> It is a lot more complicated than just saying they are all freeloaders.




It isn't wrong because some happen to be freeloaders. The problem I have is that welfare supporters are forcing their morality on everyone else. They are forcing you to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't even know. Perhaps giving to the poor is good but it's another leap to force people into 'giving'. Giving to the poor is even a tenet of the 'conservative christian' ideology but they still respect your freedom not to. Progressives are not motivated by selflessness or any true morality but they need to propagate the idea that it is the moral thing to do(i.e. 'the right thing to do'), otherwise there is no reason for the strong to give to the weak. It's either that or they use the game theory tactic that 'we all benefit from it'.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 27, 2011)

troubador said:


> It isn't wrong because some happen to be freeloaders. The problem I have is that welfare supporters are forcing their morality on everyone else. They are forcing you to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't even know. Perhaps giving to the poor is good but it's another leap to force people into 'giving'. Giving to the poor is even a tenet of the 'conservative christian' ideology but they still respect your freedom not to. Progressives are not motivated by selflessness or any true morality but they need to propagate the idea that it is the moral thing to do(i.e. 'the right thing to do'), otherwise there is no reason for the strong to give to the weak. It's either that or they use the game theory tactic that 'we all benefit from it'.



You are not "giving to the poor" just like I didn't fund the Iraq war. The government taxes you and spends it how it sees fit, whether you agree with what the gov spends it on is irrelevant. Had I any choice I certainly would not have had my tax money spent on the the Iraq war, but that's not my choice. You are taxed x and that gets spent by your elected officials which is the problem, it's other people's money, not theirs. You are probably fine with spending on that war and I was not, you are not for welfare but I would much rather my money go to that. It probably evens out.


----------



## troubador (Oct 27, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are probably fine with spending on that war



No, I do not support our occupation of Iraq.


----------



## LAM (Oct 27, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> The government taxes you and spends it how it sees fit, whether you agree with what the gov spends it on is irrelevant.



this is the way it has always been in every country around the world for hundreds of years.  no country gives the tax payers the choice of how those monies are dispersed. 

what is ironic about the US is that originally it was the Populists that wanted and pushed for a progressive tax system.  these were the farmers, etc. in the south that wanted more social justice.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 27, 2011)

troubador said:


> No, I do not support our occupation of Iraq.



Socialist.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 27, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are not "giving to the poor" just like I didn't fund the Iraq war. The government taxes you and spends it how it sees fit, whether you agree with what the gov spends it on is irrelevant. Had I any choice I certainly would not have had my tax money spent on the the Iraq war, but that's not my choice. You are taxed x and that gets spent by your elected officials which is the problem, it's other people's money, not theirs. You are probably fine with spending on that war and I was not, you are not for welfare but I would much rather my money go to that. It probably evens out.



The hidden message, well it is not so hidden just not mentioned, is that people would be more apt to pay more taxes if it went to meaningful programs (in their eyes).  For me that is a push towards energy independence, technology growth through a completely reformed education system and a realistic immigration policy that doesn't benefit those that broke the law to get here (there is a lot more but those are a few that mean something to me).  Others may see that bringing people out of poverty is a key issue and would be happy to pay for that privilege.  

What you see with such a low approval rating of congress and to some extent the President is the lack of any clear agenda (on pretty much everything, we call this lack of leadership), no meaningful legislation getting passed and constant pandering to the needs of a very few lobbyists.  So with that type of atmosphere people are at ends with everything or just blindly support higher taxes without considering if those revenues will even be used in an efficient and beneficial manor.  I question if any of the occupy wall st. people actually could list 3-5 changes that are needed to make the government work better.  All you will here is the man is holding me down and the bankers are stealing from everyone.  That does nothing to support your cause and gives it no validity.  There are more intelligent arguments on here than you get at most of the GOP debates too; that is just sad and I am a conservative saying this!


----------



## LAM (Oct 27, 2011)

oufinny said:


> What you see with such a low approval rating of congress and to some extent the President is the lack of any clear agenda (on pretty much everything, we call this lack of leadership), no meaningful legislation getting passed and constant pandering to the needs of a very few lobbyists.



you are only looking at the US and what is going on with the economy.  you have to look at the other big country's in the OECD.  this is why so many in the US don't have a firm grasp on what is happening.

all other large OECD countries are seeing 10% or greater losses in profits from large firms, the US is up 12% since the recession for profits in large firms who employee 50% of the US workforce.  the remaining is employed by small firms.

typically during recessions large firms lay off a certain amount of employees to reduce payroll, which only makes sense.  typically workforce reductions are held slightly below the number of jobs needed to produce the desired effect, hiring people costs money. so layoffs are typically held in smaller size rounds.  this is how all other large firms in the other large OECD countries are acting but not in the US.  they are reducing far more than needed so the remaining workers are forced to become more productive, huge increase in profits.  only 13% of US workers are protected by labor unions, all other large OECD countries are at least at 30-40%.  they can not employ the tactic of mass firings simply to reduce payroll and increase profits.  their economies are recovering, ours is not.  ask your friends that work in large firms when was the last time they got a cost of living increase let alone an actual raise at the CPI % +1.

small US firms are reporting a lack of customers, people have not much extra money to spend so they are cutting back.  small firms can not start up, banks are not lending to them.  50% are having to use personal credit cards to fund current operations.  typical loan for a small business is 50K, not worth the time for bankers.  not when you can use deposited monies from savings accounts, etc. and monies from QE to gamble on wallstreet.

tax cuts do not create jobs, they never have in the US or anywhere else in the world.  stated tax rates are just that, on paper but we all know they pay noting even close to that.

FRB is already lending at 0%, monetary policy is exhausted.  the OECD called for central banks to raise rates years ago, ours can not.

the current situation is much worst than many think.  sustained high unemployment causes a loss of income and the inability to pay debt, more defaults on loans and credit accounts.

sustained high unemployment during recession recovery. major stocks climbing while bond rates are failing, these are all indicators and very bad ones.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 27, 2011)

*Just a reminder for those who still do not get it. I love this analogy....

 Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all  ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it  would go something like this:

 The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

 The fifth would pay $1.

 The sixth would pay $3.

 The seventh would pay $7.

 The eighth would pay $12.

 The ninth would pay $18.

 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

 So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every  day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the  owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he  said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks  for the ten now cost just $80.

 The group still wanted to pay  their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were  unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other  six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall  so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

 They realized that  $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from  everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end  up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it  would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and  he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

 And so:

 The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

 The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

 The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

 The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

 The nintth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

 The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four  continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men  began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"  declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"  "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,  too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!"  shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only  two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first  four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits  the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

  The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat  down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,  they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money  between all of them for even half of the bill!

 And that, boys  and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system  works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a  tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and  they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking  overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

 Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.*


----------



## LAM (Oct 27, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> *
> And that, boys  and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system  works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a  tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and  they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking  overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
> 
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> ...



tax rates have been falling for US corps and the top earners for the past 30+ years.  US corps have been outsourcing jobs to take advantage of cheaper labor costs in other country's and higher rates of return on FDI.  the FRB has been continually lowering interest rates since the mid 80's yet the GDP of the US has increased by 12T a year and the US also has the most number of millionaires and billionaires and 70% of the Global 500's.  the US collects the least amount in taxes out of ALL country's in the OECD.

sounds like this economics guy with a Phd might want to leave Georgia as his views are outdated and not reality based.


----------



## ExLe (Oct 28, 2011)

Best Presidential campaign add ever...






YouTube Video










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6VnTqpTqvQ


"I am America"


----------



## LAM (Oct 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.[/B]



You and the "Professor" need to catch up to the 20th century


Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, 1946-2009

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/oecd201106.pdf


----------



## Thee_One (Oct 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> *Just a reminder for those who still do not get it. I love this analogy....
> 
> Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all  ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it  would go something like this:
> 
> ...




You're either very rich, very stupid, or both.

Were you in hibernation from 2000-2008, when massive tax cuts were levied on the highest earners?

How about the fact that the corporate tax rate is at *0%*
Leaving more money and power in the hands of CEO's, etc.

Just food for thought.


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> * And that, boys  and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system  works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a  tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and  they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking  overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
> 
> David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
> 
> Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.*



Since the atmosphere overseas is so much friendlier why are the rich still here?  

I'll tell you why.  Here they have it made.  The worst they have to worry about is getting taxed a little more and maybe have some Jehovah's Witnesses stop in.  Overseas they have to worry about getting kidnapped and held for ransom or outright murdered.


----------



## troubador (Oct 28, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> You're either very rich, very stupid, or both.
> 
> Were you in hibernation from 2000-2008, when massive tax cuts were levied on the highest earners?
> 
> ...



Unless something recently changed we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Or course our corrupt government has created all kinds of loopholes so companies like GE pay nothing.


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Oct 28, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> Since the atmosphere overseas is so much friendlier why are the rich still here?
> 
> I'll tell you why.  Here they have it made.  The worst they have to worry about is getting taxed a little more and maybe have some Jehovah's Witnesses stop in.  *Overseas they have to worry about getting kidnapped and held for ransom or outright murdered*.



Is that your vision of the outside of your bubble?


----------



## Zaphod (Oct 28, 2011)

HialeahChico305 said:


> Is that your vision of the outside of your bubble?



Only in certain areas of the world.  Like where you are from.


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Oct 28, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> *Only in certain areas of the world.*



oh ok, I got ya now.


----------



## Thee_One (Oct 28, 2011)

troubador said:


> Unless something recently changed we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Or course our corrupt government has created all kinds of loopholes so companies like GE pay nothing.




Yes exactly.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> You and the "Professor" need to catch up to the 20th century
> 
> 
> Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, 1946-2009
> ...



I think you meant 21st Century right?


----------



## oufinny (Oct 28, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> Yes exactly.



The rate the amount collected as a percentage of revenue are vastly different, I would argue the difference is one of the highest in the world between those two.  Corporate rates can be lowered and many if not all loopholes can be eliminated and that will be an effective revenue generator; it is the sticker shock of seeing 35% that I have to think doesn't help the US at all.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 28, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The rate the amount collected as a percentage of revenue are vastly different, I would argue the difference is one of the highest in the world between those two.  Corporate rates can be lowered and many if not all loopholes can be eliminated and that will be an effective revenue generator; it is the sticker shock of seeing 35% that I have to think doesn't help the US at all.



I agree in lowering the tax rate, but our corporate tax rate should be the highest.  We have better infrastructure, better opportunity, better living situations, etc.  I would never go to a high end restaurant, scoff at the idea of paying $15 for a bison burger, and use the fact that hamburgers are only a dollar at McDonalds as my logic for it being too much.


----------



## oufinny (Oct 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I agree in lowering the tax rate, but our corporate tax rate should be the highest.  We have better infrastructure, better opportunity, better living situations, etc.  I would never go to a high end restaurant, scoff at the idea of paying $15 for a bison burger, and use the fact that hamburgers are only a dollar at McDonalds as my logic for it being too much.



That is reasonable though it would mean that we would actually have to be keeping out infrastructure and port system up to international standards and it is not.  I have seen how crappy the Port of Long Beach is, Port of Houston, they all need work and are nothing compared to the automation that exists in other parts of the world namely Asian ports (China, Korea, Japan).  Also, our road system is complete shit here.  I am all for paying for that, it benefits us all and causes less wear and tear on my car; it is like insurance, you don't like to pay it but you love it when you need it (and stop bitching about that payment each month too).  It is fair to say corporations need to pay their fair share for infrastructure as they are the main users of it, or I should say, main destroyers of it through heavy trucks.  Part of that is dealt with through permitting but huge exporters paying no taxes is shit; cough some money up and find ways to be more efficient.


----------



## Thee_One (Oct 28, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I think you meant 21st Century right?



1946-1999 is the 20th century.


----------



## LAM (Oct 28, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The rate the amount collected as a percentage of revenue are vastly different, I would argue the difference is one of the highest in the world between those two.  Corporate rates can be lowered and many if not all loopholes can be eliminated and that will be an effective revenue generator; it is the sticker shock of seeing 35% that I have to think doesn't help the US at all.



there is no logical reason for large firm tax rates to be lowered.  they have shifted the focus to other countries with higher rates of consumption and transferred a decent portion of the higher paying jobs to those foreign markets.  since the recession started in 2007 50% of the job losses out of the 30 OECD countries have occurred in the US alone, the US does not protect it's workers like other countries do (labor unionization rate of 13% the lowest in the OECD).  1/5 of US workers are employed by US large multinational's.  they have also reduced capital spending so they are not even investing in their US based firms this is why the GDP of the US barely decreased during the recession and how many large US firms have increased profits by 10-12% during a global recession while large firms in other countries have seen losses of 10% or greater.  a perfect example of this is they merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, instead of investing in their own they would just acquire another saving money and of course workforce reductions that come along with those transactions.

then you also have to factor in the effects of currency translation in those foreign markets as those activities are reported in foreign currency's against a weak dollar, this obviously effects the ROI and ROA.

in regards to large US firms since 1990 they have increased their profits by 200%, while corporate workers have received 20% increase in real income since then. and have had more costs of healthcare shifted onto them.

foreign company's do not even want to invest in the US anymore because of our crumbling infrastructure and failing education system.

tax loopholes will not be closed, these count as tax increases and all of the GOP have signed the pledge to Grover to not increase taxes.  this is the same reason why the Tax Haven Act can never make it out of committee.  this alone has cost the US about 2T in taxes in the past decade.

and people wounder why the fed gov has been increasing payouts for entitlements.

* and on a side not BOA just transferred a shit load of toxic assets (derivatives) into a FDIC insured subsidiary to the sum of 53T, putting  the US taxpayers potentially on the hook for these losses.

more deregulation in the banking industry anyone?


----------



## oufinny (Oct 28, 2011)

So you feel that unionization of the American workforce is the solution to some degree?  Granted it may protect people but I just can't see that working for anyone in a white collar job; limits upward mobility as I see it but I could be wrong.  The GOP's stance on taxes doesn't make a whole lot of sense... not sure what is being said by the other side of the aisle is the solution either.  Based on all the facts you presented, you make it clear that the US needs to tax everyone more since our rates are lowest and collect the least as a percentage of GDP.  I don't believe that alone will make entitlements solvent or deal with the the ridiculous healthcare legislation's costs either.  More than revenues need to be addressed, just like wages of the average worker do as well.  Again, how can you force companies to pay more without unionizing the entire workforce which is completely unrealistic.


----------



## Thee_One (Oct 28, 2011)

If all jobs are necessary, why pay some more than others?
Excluding the price of education/training, I don't see any reason for paying a CEO more than a plumber.

I mean, which job sucks more?

Maybe we should pay the people who's jobs are hardest/most taxing on body/mind the most.


Idealistic I know.


----------



## Gissurjon (Oct 28, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> If all jobs are necessary, why pay some more than others?
> Excluding the price of education/training, I don't see any reason for paying a CEO more than a plumber.
> 
> I mean, which job sucks more?
> ...



"Hard" work doesn't pay anymore. If you are positioned right you actually get paid more the less you do. Sad thing is, positioning isn't solely based on the individual's abilities, hence Georg W. Bush.


----------



## ExLe (Oct 28, 2011)

Gissurjon said:


> "Hard" work doesn't pay anymore. If you are positioned right you actually get paid more the less you do. Sad thing is, positioning isn't solely based on the individual's abilities, hence Georg W. Bush.


 
hence... Obama

Community organizer...
Jr. Senator...
President...

He was at the right place at the right time with the full backing of the media...

At least Bush ran a State for 6 years...


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 28, 2011)

ExLe said:


> hence... Obama
> 
> Community organizer...
> Jr. Senator...
> ...



another well known "chicago" community organizer:

Larry Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## IronAddict (Oct 28, 2011)

I won't even comment about this man not having a snowballs chance in hell to be POTUS. He knows he has no shot.

I just have 2 concerns, I thought the same ole shit about that Nazi W. being the prez.

Why have the lobbyists on wall St. given the majority of money to Obama, and why has he accepted that shit.

We here as the rabble, mean nothing in a corporate state, just watch your local news, if they even mention the shit happening right now.

Your media dictates to you what most of you believe, your media chooses what you should believe, and you follow it, hook line and sinker.

Your media even helps you destroy or validate a persons character, even if he is just a character!


----------



## ExLe (Oct 28, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> I won't even comment about this man not having a snowballs chance in hell to be POTUS. He knows he has no shot.
> 
> I just have 2 concerns, I thought the same ole shit about that Nazi W. being the prez.
> 
> ...


 


As I was reading your post Fox News just had a segment on t.v. on Obama and lobbyist...

I looked it up...
With Lobbyist Donors, Obama Lets Himself Off On A Technicality | Fox News


----------



## IronAddict (Oct 28, 2011)

ExLe said:


> As I was reading your post Fox News just had a segment on t.v. on Obama and lobbyist...
> 
> I looked it up...
> With Lobbyist Donors, Obama Lets Himself Off On A Technicality | Fox News



This is all a shell game. A well played shell game, but people are finally catching on. 

Down with this this shit, this is why I'm heading down to L.A. for the 3rd weekend in a row. Which will probably mean shit!

That Nazi W. with his greed and his exploitation of all to take what they can, while they can, while he purveyed in the highest office in the land. 

I know, people are gonna say, He's not a nazi! Sure he is.

Who was Hitlers chief money launderer?  Why that was Prescott Bush. "If" that MF'er did kill himself, who took his wealth and fled to the U.S. conveniantly his son became the prez. And his grandson, is this just a coincidence we are where we are? W. fomented this shit!


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 28, 2011)

ExLe said:


> At least Bush ran a State for 6 years...



plus, it only took him 8 to run a country completely  into the ground.


----------



## ExLe (Oct 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> plus, it only took him 8 to run a country completely into the ground.


 
I agree...

And Obama has kept us there another 3 years...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 28, 2011)




----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 28, 2011)

ExLe said:


> I agree...
> 
> And Obama has kept us there another 3 years...



3 years and counting...


----------



## sofargone561 (Oct 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> plus, it only took him 8 to run a country completely into the ground.


 i dont blame bush in all honesty. so its w.e. things could have went much better. and things should have been handled differently and the guy is a moron. but he has my vote again i have to choose him or osama


----------



## IronAddict (Oct 28, 2011)

Lord, or, whoever....

Must my eyes start to bleed,  

Will you not see the people have spoken,

 Or just the world series.


----------



## LAM (Oct 28, 2011)

oufinny said:


> So you feel that unionization of the American workforce is the solution to some degree?  Granted it may protect people but I just can't see that working for anyone in a white collar job; limits upward mobility as I see it but I could be wrong.  The GOP's stance on taxes doesn't make a whole lot of sense... not sure what is being said by the other side of the aisle is the solution either.  Based on all the facts you presented, you make it clear that the US needs to tax everyone more since our rates are lowest and collect the least as a percentage of GDP.  I don't believe that alone will make entitlements solvent or deal with the the ridiculous healthcare legislation's costs either.  More than revenues need to be addressed, just like wages of the average worker do as well.  Again, how can you force companies to pay more without unionizing the entire workforce which is completely unrealistic.



there is a direct correlation between the loss of collective bargaining rights for the majority of US workers in the 80's with the loss of income increases that scaled right along with productivity, this is an economic fact.

the 1980 Monetary Control Act gave the FRB more powers over non-member banks and for banks to have no limit on interest rates in relation to what they were getting from the FRB (prime rate).  years later in the 80's is when labor unions in the US were crushed and Americans in most metro areas started accruing substantial revolving debt once wages began to no longer scale with increases in productivity and/or inflation.  public debt is how financial institutions get the capital they they gamble and invest with, they do not earn it themselves.  you can trace the decline in the interest rates at the FRB in the 80's with the decline of collective bargaining rights and wages for most americans.  from this you can see how not only the financial sector in the US took off by the DOW Index but by the growth of profits from large US corps.  it is one of the main reasons why US corps are so profitable as compared to their counterparts in other wealthy industrialized countries and how the US financial sector came to be so large, along with the benefits of the dollar hegemony that US capital account holders received every-time a foreign nation purchased US dollars for use on the world market from the treasury.  free capital to invest overseas in countries with high interest rates.

free markets are bullshit, the US financial system is bullshit and the stock market is bullshit, you can trace the times when the money supply is increased by the FRB with large gains in the stock market.  this is why many of us have called shenanigans on this whole "capitalist system" in the US long ago.

the banks set up the working class in the late 90's and 2000's for another shellacking.  home values are supposed to appreciate with real income growth, it is how housing remains affordable and how a healthy economy grows and creates lasting equity in that type of property.  the banks new exactly what they were doing, they could care less about the working class. unemployment on wallstreet historically never really gets much higher than 4-5%.

most of the debt that the US is in was not spent on the people, it was debt that the fed gov was "buffering" from the loss of income from the working class since the 80's and the loss of tax progressivity and taxes on large US corps in the US since the 80's and subsidizing large firms in a variety of different ways.

other country's in the OECD are recovering much better from the global banking collapse much, much better than the US.  the US not only taxes the least but it also spends the least amount of social protections so when there is an economic downturn so the working class in the US is always the hardest hit in the OECD as we are the least protected.  many euro countries unemployment benefits on average are 9-12 months.  they also suffer from far less recessions than the US due to higher levels of economic growth due to less inequality.  I am not saying it's a good thing but it helps to keep people from failing into poverty which gets harder and harder to climb out of in the US with low wages, high inflation, ever increasing costs of food and energy and a ever shrinking job market.  many that live in rural US think that all these problems are new while many of us that have always lived in the metro area have been experiencing this crap for decades. I worked for a firm once in the mid 90's that was bought and sold 4x in 3 years.  do you know how fucking stressful that is? knowing that every-time there are workforce reductions and you could be next no matter how well you perform your job.

so to answer your question do I think unions are the answer, they are part of the answer.  as the past 40 years of economic history has shown us that US corps will not do the right thing on their own, only what is required by law.

regarding the GOP and the tax pledge to Grover, he is the leader of the far, far right "starve the beast" movement. neo-cons like him want to reverse everything that was done during the new deal, he does want a middle class.  he is a text book wealthy conservative that never had to worry about a day in his life that just simply hates poor people.  educated people like him from Harvard, etc. are the worst because they know the reality's and history of the US version of capitalism.

I can not tell you how many people I know with multiple college degrees, MBA's ,etc that can not find work.  many have been unemployed for years.


----------



## ExLe (Oct 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> there is a direct correlation between the loss of collective bargaining rights for the majority of US workers in the 80's with the loss of income increases that scaled right along with productivity, this is an economic fact.
> 
> the 1980 Monetary Control Act gave the FRB more powers over non-member banks and for banks to have no limit on interest rates in relation to what they were getting from the FRB (prime rate). years later in the 80's is when labor unions in the US were crushed and Americans in most metro areas started accruing substantial revolving debt once wages began to no longer scale with increases in productivity and/or inflation. public debt is how financial institutions get the capital they they gamble and invest with, they do not earn it themselves. you can trace the decline in the interest rates at the FRB in the 80's with the decline of collective bargaining rights and wages for most americans. from this you can see how not only the financial sector in the US took off by the DOW Index but by the growth of profits from large US corps. it is one of the main reasons why US corps are so profitable as compared to their counterparts in other wealthy industrialized countries and how the US financial sector came to be so large, along with the benefits of the dollar hegemony that US capital account holders received every-time a foreign nation purchased US dollars for use on the world market from the treasury. free capital to invest overseas in countries with high interest rates.
> 
> ...


 

I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...

These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...

Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC


----------



## IronAddict (Oct 28, 2011)

ExLe said:


> I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...
> 
> These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...
> 
> Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC



This guy's a sell out, just like any other career politician.

Are you going to stand up with me?


----------



## troubador (Oct 29, 2011)

Thee_One said:


> If all jobs are necessary, why pay some more than others?



Because they are more valuable. The person who designs an airplane will bring in more money to the company and is harder to replace than the guy on the assembly line turning a wrench. Who gives a fuck how hard someone works if they don't produce anything of value. Your postulate would undermine the entire purpose of money.


----------



## LAM (Oct 29, 2011)

ExLe said:


> I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...
> 
> These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...
> 
> Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC



7.5% return isn't going to happen today not with the FRB lending at 0%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PRIME.txt

State pension funds across the country have fallen victim to low interest rates as well as years of mismanagement since the tech boom in the 90's and also from the banking collapse in 2007.

I never understood how those plans based on inflated incomes from overtime, etc. where ever allowed.

and how is it that the country with the highest GDP has so many money problems?


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 29, 2011)

ExLe said:


> I am glad see even Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown knows pension reform for State employees must be reformed for the good of the State...
> 
> These Cadillac plans can no longer be the status quo...
> 
> Gov. Brown's pension-reform plan: Painful but necessary | 89.3 KPCC



yep, this was big in Wisconsin news last week.....he's following in my gov's footsteps and doing something that some don't like (pelosi's broke 9th district), but needs to be done......i commend gov brown for following the format that scott walker is proving successful here


----------



## oufinny (Oct 29, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> 3 years and counting...



Yep, all promises and no changes (could have been McCain and it would have beed the status quo of Bush).  Legislation that is 1100 pages long passed with no review (healthcare law), a congress that did nothing when it had the chance to (whether it would have been good or not I don't know but it would have been nice to see a little less inaction), and bad investments into alternative energy not ready for the mainstream.  Sounds a lot like what many of the Presidents have done in the last 30 years.  I can't believe I am saying this but the Clinton years are looking pretty good compared to right now... wow I can't believe I typed that.

The good thing is we are leaving Iraq, maybe Afghanistan too but we are too hard headed to see the light there like the Soviets did.


----------



## LAM (Oct 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The good thing is we are leaving Iraq, maybe Afghanistan too but we are too hard headed to see the light there like the Soviets did.



the Soviets ran out of money just like the US but they did not have the ability to get into the kind of debt that the US could because of the dollar hegemony.  since the end of WWII the US is the only major country that has been waring as historically it has always bankrupted nations.  the US does not care about have an indebted population, as the people are not in control the lobbyists are.


----------



## LAM (Oct 30, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I can't believe I am saying this but the Clinton years are looking pretty good compared to right now... wow I can't believe I typed that.



the Clinton years were the first in decades where there was real income growth for many due to the "markets".  this is what people just don't understand the problem with job loss in the US has been going on for 3 decades and it has effected different industry's in different states at different times.  since the BLS doesn't track jobs that were outsourced the unemployment numbers that they state are not even close to the actual representation, it is probably a good 20%, and the underemployed in the US are at about 20% as well.  

when company's go multinational the jobs eventually go with them.  the problem is that US multinationals still have a significant hold/market share in the US and there is no way to directly compete with them as they have all the benefits, political power, capital and credit.  large firms have never been big job growth creators in recession recovery's, small firms with less than 100 employees are but with tight lending and credit standards not many could even qualify for a sizable loan to start-up.  it's not like anyone was making money in the past decade and trillions in home wealth was lost, so there is no equity there to put up as collateral.

a report was released from the Senate the other week as large firms have been pushing for another tax holiday like in 2004.  that tax holiday created no jobs as most of those monies were returned to shareholders for stock buy backs, exactly what the large firms promised they would not do.

the report also stated that because of the effect of foreign currency exchange it could boos the dollar making US exports more costly reducing the demand for US products.

mergers and acquisitions was up 12% in 2010 at almost 1T.

* things will be bleak in the US for many, many years (decades) until there is another "new thing" like the Internet, etc. where many people can benefit and increase the income.  the US has far to many large firms in the various markets and in each market there is an oligopoly, where 4-5 large firms have almost 100% of the market share.

and on this note, I'm going to hit the bong because knowing all this shit is a bummer sometimes...


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 30, 2011)

my only arguments during the clinton years that really turned me off to the liberal movement (i'd say i was more of an independent or conservative dem back then) was while active duty seeing so many defense spending cuts that military families were on food stamps while serving and our cost of living increase were no where near what they are now.....but also much of this so-called "growth" was people using credit for everything....well guess what....if it's not payed back, it's big problems.....and we started seeing that in the mid 2000's, when all those borrowed purchases started going bad......

i really respect the WWII Generation.....they overall had less, but what they had they OUTRIGHT OWNED....they saved for their purchases and didn't spend what they didn't have.....they most hardworking, patriotic, AND family-oriented generation there was that i've known......


----------



## Gissurjon (Oct 30, 2011)

ExLe said:


> hence... Obama
> 
> Community organizer...
> Jr. Senator...
> ...



You must think I'm a Obama supporter...


----------



## Dark Geared God (Oct 30, 2011)




----------



## troubador (Oct 30, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> my only arguments during the clinton years that really turned me off to the liberal movement



The assault weapons ban was a terrible piece of legislation.


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 30, 2011)

troubador said:


> The assault weapons ban was a terrible piece of legislation.



agreed....it's not a ban on weapons potentially being dangerous to other americans, it's a ban on americans defending themselves against those who run america


----------



## troubador (Oct 30, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> agreed....it's not a ban on weapons potentially being dangerous to other americans, it's a ban on americans defending themselves against those who run america



and a ban on the shoulder thing that goes up 






YouTube Video


----------



## irish_2003 (Oct 30, 2011)

troubador said:


> and a ban on the shoulder thing that goes up
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the problem with that whole scenario is that people were warned of his depression and other psychological crap/meds, etc he had going on and they ignored it.....so the logical thing to do is ban something to transfer the attention away


----------

