DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on October 10, 2008, 02:30:10 PM
-
Don't get any plainer than this. Jimmy tells it like it is. After 8 years of Republican rule, who's responsible if not The Decider and his administration?
Ex-president Carter slams Bush on market crisis
Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:09am EDT
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Former President Jimmy Carter said on Friday the "atrocious economic policies" of the Bush administration had caused the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Carter told reporters on a stopover in Brussels that "profligate spending," massive borrowing and dramatic tax cuts since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 were behind the market turmoil and economic crisis.
[Now isn't that just plain old-fashioned common sense?]
"I think it's because of the atrocious economic policies of the Bush administration," said the 84-year-old Democrat, who served in the White House from 1977-1981 during a period of high inflation and energy crisis.
Whoever wins next month's U.S. presidential election would inherit economic problems that would force them to postpone implementing some of their proposed reforms, he said.
"The economic situation is an entrenched problem. It is going to take years to correct what has been done economically," Carter said, adding he hoped Democrat Barrack Obama would win and immediately improve Washington's image in the world.
Eight years ago, the United States had a budget surplus, low inflation and a stable, strong economy, he said.
Carter said he was astonished that the United States now owed China "in the neighborhood of $1 trillion."
Deregulation and what he called a withdrawal of supervision of Wall Street had encouraged irresponsible elements in the U.S. financial system, enabling banks to borrow 30 times their value.
Carter was on his way back from a private peace mission to Cyprus with fellow elder statesmen Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, intended to give a push to talks between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders on a settlement to reunite the divided island.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4993TS20081010 (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4993TS20081010)
====================================================================
TIME for a CHANGE
-
Bush, himself, said that "Wall Street got drunk".
-
Drunks need to be policed just like ordinary citizens. More so when they are staggering around with their pockets full of everyone else's money.
-
Former President Jimmy Carter said on Friday the "atrocious economic policies" of the Bush administration had caused the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Carter told reporters on a stopover in Brussels that "profligate spending," massive borrowing and dramatic tax cuts since President George W. Bush took office in 2001 were behind the market turmoil and economic crisis.
[Now isn't that just plain old-fashioned common sense?]
No, it's pretty damned stupid.
-
Not to throw too much partisanship into the mix, but ....... wasn't the economy and market functioning pretty darned good, with low unemployment all the way up until......Democrats took control of Congress?? Coincidence? I think not
-
Perhaps Jimmy can explain the relationship between govt spending and tax policy to the private business decisions made by wall street.
Prince is correct. Jimmy is just politicking.
-
And please, can the Obamamites explain how increasing taxes on precisely the enterprises that create jobs, (medium <--> large corporations, medium <--> large businesses), and create much of the money this economy makes, is a "good thing"??, in light of the current economic condition of this country ???
-
Carters an ass.... of course many were not around when his cure to the economy was to put a wage freeze on us poor working stiffs.
-
And please, can the Obamamites explain how increasing taxes on precisely the enterprises that create jobs, (medium <--> large corporations, medium <--> large businesses), and create much of the money this economy makes, is a "good thing"??, in light of the current economic condition of this country Huh
===================================================================================
Of course, only those who have so little and earn so little that they cannot open businesses should be taxed.
This is a tried and true plan, last used so successfully by Louis XVI.
-
>>Carters an ass.... of course many were not around when his cure to the economy was to put a wage freeze on us poor working stiffs.<<
Bingo.
Gas lines, 16 percent credit. The Soviet Union pissing all over us. Who did ole Jimma blame? Why America of course. It's a reoccurring theme with democrats.
-
And please, can the Obamamites explain how increasing taxes on precisely the enterprises that create jobs, (medium <--> large corporations, medium <--> large businesses), and create much of the money this economy makes, is a "good thing"??, in light of the current economic condition of this country Huh
===================================================================================
Of course, only those who have so little and earn so little that they cannot open businesses should be taxed.
Care to cite the quote that even implies such, much less advocates such?? Here's a hint, you won't find one. Want to drop the intellectual dishonesty now, before you really start down this debating blackhole??
This is a tried and true plan, last used so successfully by Louis XVI.
So Xo is advocating we go back to a monarchy?? Isn't that what the left keeps condemning for Bush trying to be??
-
This is a tried and true plan, last used so successfully by Louis XVI.
So Xo is advocating we go back to a monarchy?? Isn't that what the left keeps condemning for Bush trying to be??
=========================================================================
I am sorry. I felt that you might have some knowledge of Louis XVI, and recognize irony when you saw it.
It is no fun to explain humor.
Even less so irony.
-
Couldn't find a quote I see.
-
I need a quote to tell you who the guy was that caused the effing French Revolution?
It is impossible to discuss history with someone who is clueless that history exists.
-
No, you need a quote to back up your accusation. Then again, you knew that. More of that intellectual dishonesty on parade so early
-
I suggest that it is not intellectually dishonest on my part to expect that you have a rudimentary knowledge of world history.
Google French Revolution and Louis XVI
Or don't.
I do not consider myself to be responsible for your education. Or lack of same.
-
>>No, you need a quote to back up your accusation. Then again, you knew that. More of that intellectual dishonesty on parade so early<<
Early and late.
It's expected. That and the tried and true, "You're stupid."
-
I suggest that it is not intellectually dishonest on my part to expect that you have a rudimentary knowledge of world history.
Google French Revolution and Louis XVI
Or don't.
I do not consider myself to be responsible for your education. Or lack of same.
I have no idea what point you were trying to make .
-
I got the reference that XO was making, and if you didn't, you know now where to look it up. There's nothing at all intellectually dishonest in what he said. I don't fault you guys for being ignorant because we're all here to learn something, but my God guys, if XO backs up something that should be common knowledge and then he tells you where you can look it up, and you're both too lazy to get up off your asses to look for it, holy shit man, blame nobody but yourselves for your own willful ignorance.
-
I don't have to research the ravings of a lunatic.
-
Still waiting for the "back up" regarding how only the poor & "those who have so little and earn so little that they cannot open businesses should be taxed"
-
I got the reference that XO was making, and if you didn't, you know now where to look it up. There's nothing at all intellectually dishonest in what he said. I don't fault you guys for being ignorant because we're all here to learn something, but my God guys, if XO backs up something that should be common knowledge and then he tells you where you can look it up, and you're both too lazy to get up off your asses to look for it, holy shit man, blame nobody but yourselves for your own willful ignorance.
I know a few things about the French Kings , like that they were very prone to be named Louis.
But If I read the guys entire bio , then I would spot the policy problem that XO thinks is similar to a Republican party plank?
I might not , what is the problem with shorting my search from the history of France during the period before the revolution ( how far?), to exactly what he is referring to?
I know that during this time Dr. Guillotine tried to make exicutions more humane with a machine that made the end sudden , would the Kings support of this policy be the one XO is refering to?
Should I ask about each incident and policy of the king untill I find the pertanent one?
-
Louis XVI Louis the Sixteenth.
Under L'ancien regime, as it was called from Louis XI through Louis XVI, the king paid no taxes. The nobility paid no taxes. The clergy paid no taxes. All these were supported by the peasants and the bourgeoise (townspeople). The theory was that God made people what they were and this should not be questioned. Just as sirs suggests that businesses not be taxed, because they are everyone's employer and they won;t hire so many people if they are taxed.
The reason to tax them, of course, is that is where the money is. It does little good to tax the poor, as they have nothing. It is also true that the government provides all manner of facilities to help businesses sell and distribute their products. There is a tendency of those who pay taxes to want others to also pay their fare share. If this is not done, social disturbance always seems to ensue.
My remark (gee, i HATE to explain humor) was that Loius XVI's policy went over really well. This was an IRONIC statement, because the opposite is true. The poor, enraged by yet another raise in taxes to finance yet another useless war, got their pitchforks, muskets, hunting rifles and handmade lances and overthrew Louis XVI and had him beheaded, along with his nasty Austrian wife and several other mambers of the royal family, though unfortunately not all of them. There was a King Louis XVIII after Emperor Napoleon I.
Look, Guillotte invented the Gullotine AFTER the French Revolution as a way of making executions more humane than hanging, the garotte and the giant axe, all of which were prone to missing their mark and therefore more cruel.
Unfortunately, the guillotine was also far more efficient, as it was a lot less time-consuming. This meant that more people could be executed for disagreeing with Robespierre, and were beheaded. Eventually, Robespierre was beheaded himself and the Reigh of Treeor came to an end.
If you don't understand the French Revolution, you don't understand politics, period. No one should allow you to be treated as an expert.
-
Speaking of "expert"......still no quote I see. Again, probably because there isn't any.
-
Goddamn it, I am not going to post the entire French Revolution for you.
As I said, it was a joke, aimed way over the level someone of your ilk. I explained it and even explained why it was ironic.
Just google it, stay dumb or shut up.
I am convinced that your determination to remain ignorant will succeed.
-
News flash, my question had ZIP to do with Louie or the French Revolution. I tried to warn you about that abyss of a blackhole you were digging
-
You make no sense whatever.
No, I do not favor a monarchy.
Some may have accused Juniorbush of wanting to be a king, but not me.
It does not appear that you ever actually want to learn anything about anything.
-
Answering a simple question (who advocates or claims that we need to tax the poor only?) was apparently beyond your pay grade
-
Louis XVI Louis the Sixteenth.
Under L'ancien regime, as it was called from Louis XI through Louis XVI, the king paid no taxes. The nobility paid no taxes. The clergy paid no taxes. All these were supported by the peasants and the bourgeoise (townspeople). The theory was that God made people what they were and this should not be questioned. Just as sirs suggests that businesses not be taxed, because they are everyone's employer and they won;t hire so many people if they are taxed.
The reason to tax them, of course, is that is where the money is. It does little good to tax the poor, as they have nothing. It is also true that the government provides all manner of facilities to help businesses sell and distribute their products. There is a tendency of those who pay taxes to want others to also pay their fare share. If this is not done, social disturbance always seems to ensue.
That is not easy to understand because it isn't accurate.
As it is ,our rich pay most of our government expenses by an order of magnitudes diffrence above our poor's share of the taxes is paid . The poor pay mostly indirectly , by taxing them for Social security and then diverting the SS payment to the use of the congress and by taxing the commodities the poor must buy.
So taxing companys is indeed raiseing the liveing expenses of the poor , but in a disguised way .
Do you suppose that poor Louis could have saved his own life by disguiseing the taxes this way?
-
>>So taxing companys is indeed raiseing the liveing expenses of the poor , but in a disguised way.<<
Not to mention the effect taxes have the poors ability to get a job. I've seen McCain's example of Irelands low corporate tax rate first hand. Two years ago Ireland was enjoying a growth rate of 13 percent. 13 percent! Business is booming and jobs are plentiful.
-
>>Carters an ass.... of course many were not around when his cure to the economy was to put a wage freeze on us poor working stiffs.<<
Bingo.
Gas lines, 16 percent credit. The Soviet Union pissing all over us. Who did ole Jimma blame? Why America of course. It's a reoccurring theme with democrats.
Thank goodness for Reagan and his trickle down theory
-
>>Thank goodness for Reagan and his trickle down theory<<
Yup. Reagan was my first presidential election. Most people went by the ABC rule. Anybody but Carter. I'm guessing we'll have a similiar rebellion in 2012. If there's anything left.
-
I think I'm seeing a very selective application of the principles of business competition from our right-wing friends on this board. Apparently, if taxes are raised on those earning over $250,000, they just won't go on expanding their business and creating new jobs. So the whole country is really a hostage to "the rich" because they have to be incentivized with low taxes to be productive and create jobs.
Well, guess what? If there's a real need for a product or service and Mr. Rich Guy doesn't think it's worth his while to fill that need, somebody else who's satisfied with a lower profit margin WILL. There is no Iron Rule of Business that every businessman has to earn $250,000 minimum. If some guy making $250,000 won't stay in the game because of tax increases eating away his net income, somebody else will be happy to step into his shoes for $75,000 instead. That's what competition is all about. Some on the right seem to grasp the principle easily enough when a working wage is being discussed, but just can't seem to get their head around the idea that it also applies to profit margin and CEO compensation as well.
-
The $250K is on personal income. If someone owns a successful business and wants it to grow, he would take $249,999.99 in salary and a nice company car and leave the rest with the company, to give it capital to grow with, and to limit by doing this interest on loans.
Anyone who can't make it on $250,000 a year is not much of a businessman anyway. I am pretty sure that most of our resident ratwingers make about a tenth of this amount.
-
I think I'm seeing a very selective application of the principles of business competition from our right-wing friends on this board. Apparently, if taxes are raised on those earning over $250,000, they just won't go on expanding their business and creating new jobs. So the whole country is really a hostage to "the rich" because they have to be incentivized with low taxes to be productive and create jobs.
Well, guess what? If there's a real need for a product or service and Mr. Rich Guy doesn't think it's worth his while to fill that need, somebody else who's satisfied with a lower profit margin WILL. There is no Iron Rule of Business that every businessman has to earn $250,000 minimum. If some guy making $250,000 won't stay in the game because of tax increases eating away his net income, somebody else will be happy to step into his shoes for $75,000 instead. That's what competition is all about. Some on the right seem to grasp the principle easily enough when a working wage is being discussed, but just can't seem to get their head around the idea that it also applies to profit margin and CEO compensation as well.
No one operates on a negative profit margin .
When you raise the expense with taxes you eliminate the marginal player who was getting along with a narrow margin , unless of course he is willing to raise his prices.
The first hurt then are the businessmen who are makeing a go of small margin , next is the consumor who will actually pay the tax.
-
When you raise the expense with taxes you eliminate the marginal player who was getting along with a narrow margin , unless of course he is willing to raise his prices.
He could also move out of the Mall, sell different products, or find a way to attract more customers. If he is really offering a superior product or service at the present price, then he could raise prices and still compete. His competitors have similar expenses to his, after all.
There is a European Car Parts House here that sold me a used wheel bolt for $3.00. When I took it back, because it was too long, he would not exchange it. Shortly afterward, I bought a NEW bolt that DID fit for $1.50. $1.50 is not enough to bother with, but the attitude was that this bolt HAD to fit, and we NEVER give exchanges.
I will never go back to the first place again. I have told everyone in my car club about this, and I don't think they will try it either. Price is not everything in running a business. Some people are just incompetent assholes.
-
No one operates on a negative profit margin . When you raise the expense with taxes you eliminate the marginal player who was getting along with a narrow margin , unless of course he is willing to raise his prices. The first hurt then are the businessmen who are makeing a go of small margin , next is the consumor who will actually pay the tax.
I don't think they care, Plane. As long as Government is "sticking it" to business, for daring to try and make a profit, that's a good thing. And with the repercussions you've outlined, translates into Government having to "do more", even take over if necessary
It is so intellectually dishonest by any politician, be it McCain or Oblather, to reference how "Government has a responsibility to take care of X". When that phrase is used, they need to replace "Government" with "TAX PAYERS", because that's who they're referring to. and when the term "investing" is used, they should be saying "more taxing". It is far more accurate
-
<<When you raise the expense with taxes you eliminate the marginal player who was getting along with a narrow margin , unless of course he is willing to raise his prices.>>
EXACTLY. If the guy can't make enough to pay himself and his employees a fair living wage, and can't convince a bank or private lender or family to back him till he picks up speed, then this is the guy who SHOULD fall by the wayside.
Ever hear of a fella called Darwin?
-
>>I don't think they care, Plane. As long as Government is "sticking it" to business, for daring to try and make a profit, that's a good thing.<<
Which is why the market continues to decline. Speculation is Obama becaomes president and will attack what makes America run. Get out while the gettin's good.
-
<<Which is why the market continues to decline. Speculation is Obama becaomes president and will attack what makes America run. Get out while the gettin's good.>>
Or engineer a panic so all the dumb schmucks who don't know what's going on dump their holdings and the Wall Street insiders hold what they have and then buy up all the dumped stuff at bargain basement prices because they know the market will rise up later.
-
>>Or engineer a panic so all the dumb schmucks who don't know what's going on dump their holdings and the Wall Street insiders hold what they have and then buy up all the dumped stuff at bargain basement prices because they know the market will rise up later.<<
Which is exactly what I'm doing.
-
Still a gamble cuz you don't know where the bottom is or how long it will take to get there. I've been out for a while and I'm staying out for now. If I buy anything, it'll be Florida real estate, but it still has a long way to sink before I'll look at anything there.
-
>>but it still has a long way to sink before I'll look at anything there.<<
I wouldn't wait to much longer.
-
On Florida? I'm in no hurry. I'll pass if it stays where it is.
-
On Florida? I'm in no hurry. I'll pass if it stays where it is.
The market is low, Michael, but it will be one of the first places to rebound. Things have always been overpriced on the cold tundra you live on.
-
<<When you raise the expense with taxes you eliminate the marginal player who was getting along with a narrow margin , unless of course he is willing to raise his prices.>>
EXACTLY. If the guy can't make enough to pay himself and his employees a fair living wage, and can't convince a bank or private lender or family to back him till he picks up speed, then this is the guy who SHOULD fall by the wayside.
Ever hear of a fella called Darwin?
Why does the government want ssmall businesses to go out of business this way ?
That is not just one less taxpayer , it is one less employer too.
-
EXACTLY. If the guy can't make enough to pay himself and his employees a fair living wage, and can't convince a bank or private lender or family to back him till he picks up speed, then this is the guy who SHOULD fall by the wayside.
Ever hear of a fella called Darwin?
What a wonderful argument against welfare, as well as progressive taxation.
-
>>Why does the government want small businesses to go out of business this way ? That is not just one less taxpayer , it is one less employer too.<<
It seems like a simple argument doesn't it? Why on Earth do democrats want to put small business, the largest employer in America, out of business? Do they have a clue? Do they think the only companies that employ people in America are Boeing, Exxon, Johnson & Johnson, or Haliburton? Their vilification of American business can be directly linked to the continuing stock market plunge. What is wrong with these people? I can only assume that democrats, for the most part, are wage slaves who hate the boss, any boss. Hate anybody who does better than them and they don't care what happens as long as their hatred has a direction and a face, "business".
Go through the Yellow pages democrats. You see all those businesses? Those are the people making 250K a year. Those are the people who own Mail Order Companies, Travel Agencies, Machine shops, and Neighborhood Restaurants. Aren't they just the picture of evil!? That bakery owned by your neighbor, he's a real rich bastard ain't he? Marsella's Pizza, rich bastard.
And of course the pied pipers of hate, the leaders of the democrat party throw gas on the fire so they can stay in Washington and soak Fanny Mae.
-
<<Go through the Yellow pages democrats. You see all those businesses? Those are the people making 250K a year. Those are the people who own Mail Order Companies, Travel Agencies, Machine shops, and Neighborhood Restaurants. Aren't they just the picture of evil!? That bakery owned by your neighbor, he's a real rich bastard ain't he? Marsella's Pizza, rich bastard.>>
Whether he's a bastard or not, a guy making $250K can afford another 10% of his income go to Uncle Sam and still have a nice chunk for himself, take a vacation in the Caribbean and drive a nice car. How much money does this guy need anyway? A lot of the Yellow Page businesses you see, the guy is NOT making $250K and Obama's not looking to increase his taxes by one cent.
If any one of those businessmen who ARE making $250K before-tax income or more would come to me and tell me, "You know, with this tax increase, my net after-tax income will fall to only $112K, so I'm just shutting down shop," I'd want to know who his customers are. In many cases, they'd just take their business to other Yellow Page small businesses in the area - - the other businesses would have to add on extra staff to cope with the overflow, but there wouldn't be any great loss of jobs, net. If there were some net job loss it would only mean that the same volume of customers is being serviced by fewer providers and a fewer employees, i.e., more efficiently.
Suppose the customers are left stranded high and dry. Well, if there's a need, some enterprising new businessman will set out to fill it. Maybe he can cut overhead to less than what the last guy had, maybe he can increase sales or maybe he's content to run the business and take home less net after-tax income than the old guy, but who gives a shit? If the old guy was earning a pre-tax $250K from his business, he had it pretty good. Maybe he shoulda just shut up and absorbed the tax hike himself.
-
Aaah. The magic of the marketplace. Somehow it's always the government's fault if the business fails.
Taxes are just another cost of doing business, like rent. The business needs the police protection, the streets and roads, the services of government lots more than the average citizen.
Capitalism is inherently unfair. Taxing those who manage to harness this unfairness should pay for the added benefits they enjoy.
-
If the old guy was earning a pre-tax $250K from his business, he had it pretty good. Maybe he shoulda just shut up and absorbed the tax hike himself.
Of course, what happens in the real world is that the business raises it's prices to cover the increase in taxes. So, the little guy ends up paying it anyway.
-
It's not always possible to pass tax hikes on to customers, and many businesses hike prices with no justification whatever.
Observe that any day when the price of crude oil goes up, the corner gas station raises prices. No way that the oil gets refined that fast.
When the price drops, it takes many days for the station to drop them.
-
>>Of course, what happens in the real world is that the business raises it's prices to cover the increase in taxes. So, the little guy ends up paying it anyway.<<
It's a simple concept really. One that seems to allude millions of Americans.
-
They are alluded in their millions.
Allude?
Actually, it is not always true. Often added costs cannot be passed on. In the case of the inept businessman who decided to pay himself a $250L + salary in lieu of using some of this money for growth, improvement or expansion, he would not be competitive with a second businessman who either could not or did not pay himself $250K+.
If you are in charge of the business, you can pay yourself any bloody thing you wish.
To create jobs, almost always, some investment of capital is required, and that is deductible from your IRS form as a business expense.
Naturally, with your extensive business experience and your $250K income, you may have failed to inquire with your accountant as to how tax laws actually work, much as you forgot to look up the word "allude"
You mean 'elude' by the way.
You have it within your power to be a tiny bit smarter today.
Will you seize the moment?
-
>>You mean 'elude' by the way. You have it within your power to be a tiny bit smarter today. Will you seize the moment?<<
Creative? Insightful?
-
<<Of course, what happens in the real world is that the business raises it's prices to cover the increase in taxes. So, the little guy ends up paying it anyway.>>
Oh yeah, right, the businessman passes the tax increase on to his customers. That's OK for a little increase. How long before another small businessman comes along who figures he DOESN'T have to earn $250K from his business, $90K will do him quite nicely, thank you, and he goes into business to provide the greedy fuck a little price-based competition?
You talk free enterprise but you somehow fetishized the small businessman and his right to earn $250K per annum as if it were one of the fundamental rights of the American Constitution right up there with freedom of speech and religion. And the government is under some kind of sacred duty to keep the rich rich.
-
How long before another small businessman comes along who figures he DOESN'T have to earn $250K from his business, $90K will do him quite nicely, thank you, and he goes into business to provide the greedy fuck a little price-based competition?
No problem if that happens. That's the whole point of free enterprise.
-
Iggzackly. And that's why there's no huge problem if Mr. $250K folds up his tent, someone else will come along to do the job cheaper, quicker and better.
-
Iggzackly. And that's why there's no huge problem if Mr. $250K folds up his tent, someone else will come along to do the job cheaper, quicker and better.
That's assuming that it can be done. There are many areas were a tax will just eliminate the service / product.
-
That's assuming that it can be done. There are many areas were a tax will just eliminate the service / product.
================================================
There are?
For example?
-
Re: Carter Nails It - - All Bush's Fault
I have been scanning this thread for a bit and even did a well thought out post that some how got eaten. That always frustrates me so I just closed my browser and went on to the rest of my day.
Common sense said all of these things could happen and if we had used bottom up thinking instead of top down we may have avoided much of it.
First the blame lies at our feet -
1. We spent more than we earned
2. We committed future income based on the presumption that life would continue at status quo (and in case you have not figured it out yet it never does.
3. Many looked for a hand out when in too deep.
Expect the unexpected because if you do, when the unexpected happens it will be less devastating. After 911 my husband saw his chosen field dry up and blow away. Thousands of planes were parked in the dessert. Boeing and Lockheed, et al, started to turn their focus from improved aerospace to improved weaponry. We became very concerned; his job became tenuous and soon after our 401K was devastated by the stock market to the tune of 60% losses. Shortly thereafter his company closed the five divisions he ran and he became unemployed and basically without hopes of finding a job (even with a 50% pay cut) in his field. We had developed an escape plan. We re-financed our house paid off all other debt and dumped our expensive lease cars for less expensive lease cars. When his job went away we initiated our escape plan but even then the unexpected happened and my mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I could not leave her and so we were forced to stay in Michigan for another year. I went to work as a temp and he set about getting his builders license. Our leases were now due and he purchased a work van and I purchase a Saturn Vue, we packed up our belongings and moved to Florida Labor Day of 2003. He went to work for a handyman company and I found an administrative assistant position and we were off and running. By April 2004 we had sold our condo and purchased a home. Now here is my point.
Because our circumstance we did not fall under the guidelines for a conforming mortgage.... our only option was to go with the non-conforming.
We had the opportunity to purchase a home with little down with a teaser rate of 1.75 % that would adjust monthly. This loan would increase no more than 2% per year with a ceiling of 9%. This meant that at some point we would be in a neg am position.
Let's do the math on this.... at the time the (non-teaser) rate was 3.75% for the above mortgage yielding a payment of under $600.00 per month. A thirty-year fixed would yield a payment of about $1100.00. I could afford $1100.00 per month.
Two things I know.... rates always go up and the economy periodically tanks.
I could easily given way to temptation and purchased a house for twice the mortgage amount and qualified been given the loan and now be in a position that I was looking down the gun of foreclosure. Even if you give yourself the argument that you can afford an additional 2 percent rate rise over the year, what they didn't tell you is that A. your loan can only increase X $ and that once your rate gets to the 9% ceiling you will be forced to refinance. Again.... foreclosure.
It is not their job to make you an informed consumer.... it is your job. That said, when we have a population that demands the government to baby-sit them.... how can we expect the population to see the value of being informed. This is just a typical process spin off from the Democrats telling us that they will look after us.
The third thing that I know…. Small businesses make for a healthy economy. Why?
Because when we have neighborhoods that have ma & pa restaurants, the local bank, the miscellaneous retail stores that are necessities for our everyday – our neighborhood will prosper. Where does it go wrong? First we as consumers will drive by most ma & pa restaurants and park our buts at a ‘Friday’s,’ Applebee’s, or any other chain that we see on the telly…. we start to bank at banks that are all over the state on the off chance we need an ATM machine, and finally we will shop chains were some mo mo will look blankly into our face when we ask a question about something we are about to purchase.
Take that one step further and realize that we don’t even support our countries businesses. The big 3 built automobiles and the rest of the country decided that they were not good enough and started buying Japanese products. The battle cry was re-educate and get service-oriented occupations. That was a chuckle because once the factory worker is unemployed, he stops supporting his local restaurants, retail shops. His wife starts cleaning her own house, doing her own hair and nails and even their own taxes. Everyone pulls in. Pretty soon we are in a downward spiral.
Don’t get me wrong… I am not ignoring the fact that we are having massive financial failures (and of course I know that ultimately the government will get the blame) but had we supported the small local bank they may not have been in a position to have to sell themselves to Wachovia, Fifth Third, Bank of America, Citi Group or the like. If the natural growth or failure of small businesses were allowed to happen without being gobbled up by big conglomerates the impact would be less substantial and easier for the country to recover
-
>>That's assuming that it can be done. There are many areas were a tax will just eliminate the service / product.<<
What it really comes down to is the liberal mentality of penalizing people who work hard and achieve success. I'm sure none of these "eat the rich" people have a clue as to what kind of income people make in order to fall under Barry's axe. Gross income, prededuction ... they haven't the faintest idea. All they know is they wish they made that kind of money.
-
There are many areas were a tax will just eliminate the service / product.<<
If this is true, none of you have been able to provide even ONE example of this sort of business.
SOMEONE has to pay taxes. If we had some sort of "flat tax" that everyone pays, this ignores the fact that some people require the government more than others. Someone who has no investments does not require the Dept of Commerce to supervise the stock market or to promote US products abroad. Some drive many miles and require Interstate highways, and require them to deliver their products, while others travel only a short distance, and have no products to sell. A bank requires far more police protection than the average person.
It is absolutely silly to think that someone who finds that their personal small business and pays himself $250-K per year will close down that business, retire, and fire all their employees. What he will do if he wishes to expand his business is to pay himself $249K or less and invest the remainder in his business. This could result in MORE jobs, not fewer.
Wealthier people should pay more in taxes because they have more to pay, and going without it is unlikely to damage their lifestyle. Anyone can easily live very comfortably on $249K per year.
Taxes are not a penalty or a punishment. They are necessary to an effective government.
====================
I'm sure none of these "eat the rich" people have a clue as to what kind of income people make in order to fall under Barry's axe
OF COURSE they do, because he has made it quite clear: no one pays more in taxes under his plan unless he makes more than $250,000.
Everyone else pays less. That would surely include everyone in this forum. I find it bizarre that people bitch so much about a tax rate that they will never pay.
I really doubt that the will be tax cuts very soon, as any new president must get all the details about the economy. I would imagine that Obama new tax code would not go into effect until 2010.
-
What it really comes down to is the liberal mentality of penalizing people who work hard and achieve success. I'm sure none of these "eat the rich" people have a clue as to what kind of income people make in order to fall under Barry's axe. Gross income, prededuction ... they haven't the faintest idea. All they know is they wish they made that kind of money.
====================================================================
No what it really comes down to is some greedy bastard making more money than he has any right to make and unwilling to share his good fortune with his neighbours whose kids through no fault of their own don't have enough to eat. This bastard if he makes over $250K per year can well afford any tax increase that Obama is likely to inflict upon him and if he cries about it nobody will give a shit. He'll still be doing better than 95% of the population even after paying his tax increase. So fuck the greedy bastard and let's look after those who CAN'T help themselves. Everybody's got a basic right to decent housing, decent health care and decent education. If Mr. $250K doesn't like it, he better find himself a new country to live in. Obama is gonna spread some economic equity around, like it or not. The people are ready.
-
Everyone else pays less. That would surely include everyone in this forum. I find it bizarre that people bitch so much about a tax rate that they will never pay.
Probably for the same reason that white people took part in the civil rights movement. They see people being treated as "others" and they don't think that is fair.
-
Precisely....which was my point being made to Kimba
-
What it really comes down to is the liberal mentality of penalizing people who work hard and achieve success. I'm sure none of these "eat the rich" people have a clue as to what kind of income people make in order to fall under Barry's axe. Gross income, prededuction ... they haven't the faintest idea. All they know is they wish they made that kind of money.
====================================================================
No what it really comes down to is some greedy bastard making more money than he has any right to make and unwilling to share his good fortune with his neighbours whose kids through no fault of their own don't have enough to eat. This bastard if he makes over $250K per year can well afford any tax increase that Obama is likely to inflict upon him and if he cries about it nobody will give a shit. He'll still be doing better than 95% of the population even after paying his tax increase. So fuck the greedy bastard and let's look after those who CAN'T help themselves. Everybody's got a basic right to decent housing, decent health care and decent education. If Mr. $250K doesn't like it, he better find himself a new country to live in. Obama is gonna spread some economic equity around, like it or not. The people are ready.
Michael,
I have a question because when I read your posts about people making (what you consider) a lot of money, you seem almost in a rage.
You don't seem to consider that the person may have gone to school( borrowing many thousands of dollars to pay for it). They may donate money or time to some worthy cause. They may in fact not be greedy bastards at all.
You also don't even flinch about those in need and how they came to be such. They could be crack heads... alcoholics that put every dime they make into making themselves numb. They may in fact choose not to take care of themselves.
But before you get on your high horse.... one can be as true as the other.
To go to medical school a student is faced with $200,000.00 in debt. If they can get in Harvard, that amount is understated as it cost $68,000 per year there. The rates paid a primary care physician are between 111,000.00 and 211,000.00.
Eight years additional schooling
Law school, approx $50,000 per year.
seven years additional schooling
GED.... about $100.00 + the opportunity to get right to work on career choice.
I really don't think everything is as black and white as you seem to believe.
-
This is not about beginning doctors and lawyers, most of whom do not come close to $250,000 per year after deductions. The truth is that the middle class of this country has made HUGE increases in productivity, and yet the amount they are paid has barely budged for most and for some it has gone down. The productivity has gone to pay the CEO's and the rest of management.
Before we worry about people who are in no way hurting, we need to make sure we are fairly treated, and the fact is, we aren't.
-
EXACTLY. If the guy can't make enough to pay himself and his employees a fair living wage, and can't convince a bank or private lender or family to back him till he picks up speed, then this is the guy who SHOULD fall by the wayside.
Ever hear of a fella called Darwin?
As I recover from the shock of Michael Tee saying something with which I completely agree, I feel I should ask, did he advocate social darwinism? It looks like he did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Social Darwinism of businesses makes sense. I don't think individuals should be left to starve if they can't hack it, though.
Its' not like AIG execs are going to curl up and die of starvation.
Mostly, they just will visit that spa less often. In extreme cases, some will be subjected to the humiliation of wearing Florsheims instead of Bruno Magli's or Gucci's shoes.
-
Aaah. The magic of the marketplace. Somehow it's always the government's fault if the business fails.
No, not always. But denying the costs added by government would be foolish.
Taxes are just another cost of doing business, like rent. The business needs the police protection, the streets and roads, the services of government lots more than the average citizen.
That is not a reason to see how much cost government can add to doing business. I always find amazing how much people who claim to speak for the common man want to make sure he faces the most insane uphill battle to own and operate his own business while large, humongous corporations that get corporate welfare continue to prosper.
Capitalism is inherently unfair. Taxing those who manage to harness this unfairness should pay for the added benefits they enjoy.
Complete and utter nonsense. There is nothing unfair about capitalism. You might as well say hammers are unfair or that combine harvesters are unfair or that food banks are unfair or that churches are unfair. Capitalism is a tool. People are sometimes unfair. And sometimes the results of capitalistic endeavors are not what someone might like, but that hardly makes capitalism unfair. And raising taxes to increase the costs, thereby making success that much more difficult, hardly makes capitalism somehow less unfair.
-
<<You don't seem to consider that the person may have gone to school( borrowing many thousands of dollars to pay for it). They may donate money or time to some worthy cause. They may in fact not be greedy bastards at all.>>
Those schools, and particularly the medical schools, get by on endowments and government grants. Tuition is a drop in the bucket. You might be interested to know that in the U.S.S.R., as in Cuba, as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, education from JK through grad school is paid for by the state, and at least in the U.S.S.R., and perhaps in other socialist countries as well, university students were paid a salary to go to school and learn.
The obvious difference in underlying philosophy is that in a socialist country, it is realized that society as a whole has an interest in producing the best educated population that it can, whereas in the capitalist world, education is something that a smart, selfish & greedy bastard will buy for himself because it gives him a leg up in the race for the biggest bucks and the most material rewards.
I would rather live in a world where doctors' incomes are limited by taxation or government planning to a reasonably comfortable amount, so that the medical schools will attract more of the kind of students who are genuinely interested in healing and less of the selfish greedy bastards who are primarily interested in $$$$$$$$$$$ka-ching!
Before-tax income of $250K looks pretty good to me, and if a heftier tax bite than what's presently exacted will force some out of the profession, then I would say, Good riddance! The medical profession does not need more doctors like that, it needs more doctors who would be content to live on $250K before-tax income regardless of what the tax ultimately is. (So long as it's within reason.) The problem with capitalism is (1) everyone's greedy and (2) everyone gets to set his or her own level of compensation. A mature, adult society cannot operate on such infantile, self-interested principles. The end result is widespread misery for the masses, and material satisfaction only for the very few at the top.
<<You also don't even flinch about those in need and how they came to be such. They could be crack heads... alcoholics that put every dime they make into making themselves numb. They may in fact choose not to take care of themselves.>>
Crackheads, alcoholics etc. these are people who fell through the numerous cracks of a system that never gave a shit about its most vulnerable people. Most of the crackheads come from crackhead neigbourhoods and are the children and grandchildren of similar unfortunates. They never had a chance. You don't see many crackheads from Grosse Pointe, do you? We can practically predict, given the parentage, the neighbourhood, the school and the family income, who is at a 50% or higher risk of turning into a crackhead and who is at a 1% or less risk. We have NEVER (and I include Canada in this) never spent the capital necessary to make even the smallest dent in the social problems that plague North America, yet the pittance we HAVE spent is constantly derided by the crypto-fascist right as "throwing money at the problem." A truly laughable and ridiculous mischaracterization.
In order to truly give disadvantaged children an equal opportunity in life, there is no alternative to spending massively on their social entitlements, and there is no other place to get the funds necessary for than than to TAX THE RICH. How much more obvious can that be? A guy earning a B4 tax income of $250 should not be in a position to ask for one penny more. Fuck him if he can't pay the present tax on that income and fuck him twice if he can't pay Obama's tax on it. I am sick and tired of these guys who can stand by and watch children turn into crackheads for lack of funding of aggressive social engineering and yet bitch if he can't afford his luxury automobile, his private plane or his speedboat. This kind of whining in the old Soviet Union would have earned the guy a place up against the wall, but all that is going to happen to him here is that his exorbitant life-style will have to be trimmed down a bit till it matches more with everyone else's - - teachers, nurses, cops, firemen - - people who really perform some kind of TRULY VALUABLE SERVICE to the community, unlike Mr. $250K.
-
No what it really comes down to is some greedy bastard making more money than he has any right to make and unwilling to share his good fortune with his neighbours whose kids through no fault of their own don't have enough to eat.
Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make? I notice you haven't sold your computer to feed your neighbor's kids. What bugs me about this is the attitude that it's always someone else's responsibility to do something to help people. That rich guy, it's his responsibility. It's government's responsibility. Always someone else is demanded to do what we are supposed to do. And always this selfishness is couched in accusations of someone else's greed. They have more and it's not fair. It's like listening to five-year-olds.
-
<<Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make? >>
Um, I DON'T decide that. It's a decision I'd leave to my elected socialist representatives, or that I hope will be made by President Obama and his Cabinet. The decision is above my pay grade, but I feel that $250K is more than reasonable. That's my opinion. What you are really asking me is, "Who the fuck are you to have an opinion on anything?" To which I reply, I have the same right to an opinion as you or anyone else.
<<I notice you haven't sold your computer to feed your neighbor's kids. >>
Why, how perceptive you are. I hope the next thing you notice is that I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility, as a means of ensuring some fairness in the contributions made by all the members of our society.
<<What bugs me about this is the attitude that it's always someone else's responsibility to do something to help people. >>
I guess I should have made it plainer that I also am a citizen and not some alien phoning in my opinion from another planet. Thus, as a member of the society that I live in, it will NOT be "someone else's responsibility" to do something to help people, it will be MY responsibility and that of my fellow citizens.
<<That rich guy, it's his responsibility. >>
[sigh] OK class, one more time: MY responsibility and that of my fellow citizens. ALL of us together according to what each of us can bear.
<<It's government's responsibility. >>
Yes.
<<Always someone else is demanded to do what we are supposed to do. >>
Government is the representative of the people. It IS "we the people" in action, through duly elected representatives.
<<And always this selfishness is couched in accusations of someone else's greed. >>
Yes. GREED. How else would you describe it when some rich ass-hole says, "Yes it's a shame to watch kids turn into crackheads but I don't want to pay to help them because then I'll have fewer toys to play with. $250K isn't enough for me to live on." Well, come on now, I know there's another word than greed, tell me what YOU would call that.
<<They have more and it's not fair. >>
Not fair that this guy has $250K annual before tax income and some kid is turning into a crackhead because this asshole won't sacrifice any of that income to help out? Fucking A it is not fair for him to have what he has while kids' lives are being ruined in front of his eyes in slow motion. No, it is not fair.
<<It's like listening to five-year-olds.>>
There is nothing at all mature about greed and selfishness. Don't kid yourself. The five-year old is the selfish greedy bastard who clings to his toys rather than sacrifice some of that money to fund a crash course to prevent the further spread of human misery. YOU'RE not listening to five-year-olds, I'M listening to five-year-olds.
-
>>Um, I DON'T decide that. It's a decision I'd leave to my elected socialist representatives, or that I hope will be made by President Obama and his Cabinet.<<
Here's the thing. In America, if the government begins to decide what you're paid for a job, or what kind of job you will do, it's revolution time Mike. We're armed, and we won't allow that to happen. I'm confident the military would never allow president Obama to turn this country into the Soviet People's Republic of America. So without insulting you personally, I have to tell you that you are the tiniest of minorities on the continent. Even Canadians wouldn't allow the government to take complete control. History has proven, and current events also prove that Communism is a failure and only lasts because murdering despots force it upon people through the threat of torture and death. It's against human nature. I'm all for any American earning 250K, or $million. I'm not sure I can get to $million, but I hope my children can. If they do, I know they'll give to the poor because they've been taught the meaning of charity. something Joe Biden and Algore apparently have not learned.
-
<<Here's the thing. In America, if the government begins to decide what you're paid for a job, or what kind of job you will do, it's revolution time Mike. We're armed, and we won't allow that to happen.>>
How about bringing the discussion back to the real world, Rich? All that Obama suggested so far is increasing the income tax paid by folks earning more than $250K per year. To be specific, he did NOT propose deciding what you're paid for a job, or what kind of job you'll do. So, is it "revolution time" when President Obama decides to tax the over $250K more or are you and the other revolutionaries in waiting prepared to put up with that?
<<I'm confident the military would never allow president Obama to turn this country into the Soviet People's Republic of America. >>
Wouldn't that be something for the Supreme Court to decide rather than the military? Either Obamas acts within the Constitution or he does not. How the fuck would the military be the judge of what's constitutional and what's not?
<<So without insulting you personally, I have to tell you that you are the tiniest of minorities on the continent. >>
No offense taken, Rich. I am what I am.
<<Even Canadians wouldn't allow the government to take complete control. >>
That would depend on a lot of things.
<<History has proven, and current events also prove that Communism is a failure . . . >>
Yeah? Tell it to the Chinese. Tell it to the Cubans.
<< . . . and only lasts because murdering despots force it upon people through the threat of torture and death. >>
Wrong. But it does need a strong hand at the controls to stop capitalist subversion, choke it off at the source.
<<It's against human nature. >>
Most of the human nature you know is the nature of folks who, like you, grew up in capitalism. Or fled from communism. You DON'T know that human nature of anyone who grew up under communism and did NOT run away from it.
<<I'm all for any American earning 250K, or $million.>>
I don't give a shit if they do or don't, but if they do, then they damn well better pay their fair share of the taxes the nation needs to eliminate poverty.
<< I'm not sure I can get to $million, but I hope my children can. >>
I did not raise my children to make a million. I raised them to respect other people, other races and other people, no matter how poor and downtrodden. I taught them to support the underdog. And I taught them to respect and value education. Any kind of education. One of them I even taught to love poetry.
<<If [my children make a million] I know they'll give to the poor because they've been taught the meaning of charity. >>
So would mine. Because my wife made them go to religious school on weekends.
<<something Joe Biden and Algore apparently have not learned.>>
Now why would you say that?
-
<<I notice you haven't sold your computer to feed your neighbor's kids. >>
Why, how perceptive you are. I hope the next thing you notice is that I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility
my, how abysmally convenient >:(
-
<<Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make? >>
Um, I DON'T decide that. It's a decision I'd leave to my elected socialist representatives, or that I hope will be made by President Obama and his Cabinet.
Why the f--- should they get to decide?
The decision is above my pay grade, but I feel that $250K is more than reasonable. That's my opinion. What you are really asking me is, "Who the fuck are you to have an opinion on anything?" To which I reply, I have the same right to an opinion as you or anyone else.
No, what I was really asking was, "Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make?" Having an opinion is not the issue. If I wanted to question that, I would. If you want to try to get to the essence of the question, the essence would be "who are you to decide such things for other people"?
<<I notice you haven't sold your computer to feed your neighbor's kids. >>
Why, how perceptive you are. I hope the next thing you notice is that I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility, as a means of ensuring some fairness in the contributions made by all the members of our society.
Which, seems to me, means basically ensuring that you don't actually have to do much of anything at all to help others. That is selfish.
I guess I should have made it plainer that I also am a citizen and not some alien phoning in my opinion from another planet. Thus, as a member of the society that I live in, it will NOT be "someone else's responsibility" to do something to help people, it will be MY responsibility and that of my fellow citizens.
Mostly your fellow citizens, as I take it from your comment, "I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility".
<<That rich guy, it's his responsibility. >>
[sigh] OK class, one more time: MY responsibility and that of my fellow citizens. ALL of us together according to what each of us can bear.
I suggest you'd get farther helping by actually helping rather than waiting for someone to take from the rich guy.
Government is the representative of the people. It IS "we the people" in action, through duly elected representatives.
What a crock. It still amounts to expecting someone else to do the job. And frankly, that you expect government to forcibly take from people on your behalf does not give you the moral high ground you seem to assume you have.
<<And always this selfishness is couched in accusations of someone else's greed. >>
Yes. GREED. How else would you describe it when some rich ass-hole says, "Yes it's a shame to watch kids turn into crackheads but I don't want to pay to help them because then I'll have fewer toys to play with. $250K isn't enough for me to live on." Well, come on now, I know there's another word than greed, tell me what YOU would call that.
Show me someone saying that, and I'll let you know. That you assume someone who earns more than $250K must think that way does not mean they do.
<<They have more and it's not fair. >>
Not fair that this guy has $250K annual before tax income and some kid is turning into a crackhead because this asshole won't sacrifice any of that income to help out? Fucking A it is not fair for him to have what he has while kids' lives are being ruined in front of his eyes in slow motion. No, it is not fair.
Again, show me he isn't sacrificing any of his, as you said, before tax income to help out. He never ever gives to charity? Refuses to pay taxes? And how is now suddenly solely the fault of this person that some kid is turning into a crackhead? Talk about not fair.
There is nothing at all mature about greed and selfishness.
Kinda my point, just directed differently.
The five-year old is the selfish greedy bastard who clings to his toys rather than sacrifice some of that money to fund a crash course to prevent the further spread of human misery.
When you can prove to me that is the case, I'll agree. In the mean time, the other five-year-old is the envious and no less selfish person who insists other people having "too much" is unfair and sloughs off responsibility to help others onto everyone else.
-
<<Why the f--- should [Pres. Obama and his cabinet] get to decide [how much money someone else should make]?>>
If I were a U.S. citizen, the answer would be: "Because that's WTF I elected them to do."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<No, what I was really asking was, "Who the f--- are you to decide how much money someone else should make?" Having an opinion is not the issue. If I wanted to question that, I would. If you want to try to get to the essence of the question, the essence would be "who are you to decide such things for other people"?>>
Sorry. I should have been more precise. I don't want to decide how much money someone else should make before becoming subject to increased income tax. I want my government to decide that. My personal opinion is that anybody should be able to live quite nicely on a pre-tax income of $250K. I believe in the principle that the rich should pay more, LOTS more. We need to level out the gross inequalities in the distribution of our wealth. People shouldn't WANT to eat well while others go without. If they do, fuck them - - tax them anyway. The tax isn't 100% - - far from it. Those greedy little fucks will still have more than the rest of us, the crackheads, the bunglers, the dreamers. So they can still be "happy" with their wealth, it's just that they'll have less to be happy with.
<<Which, seems to me, [not selling your computer to feed the poor and assuming no personal responsibility for them] means basically ensuring that you don't actually have to do much of anything at all to help others. That is selfish.>>
No it's just very smart. I realized it's more effective if we all pitch in to help together that it requires less personal sacrifice from me. The important thing is helping those in need, not punishing me or even the rich. But if we're gonna be at our most effective in delivering the needed assistance, the effort must be collective and must be as painless as possible for all involved. It's a lot less painful for Mr. 250K to give up 20K than it is for me to give up 10. Or should be. And if it isn't, then fuck the greedy little bastard anyway. End of story.
<<Mostly [the responsibility is that of ] your fellow citizens, as I take it from your comment, "I advocated a collective responsibility, not my personal responsibility".>>
Well, yeah, if I lived in a community of two, my responsibility would be 50% and in a community of about 33 million - - well, YOU do the math. And be sure to weight it so the handful of rich pay substantially more. I don't want to hog any credit I'm not entitled to. I'm just a small (but productive) cog in a large machine, but I do want to pay my fair share and I'll even advocate higher taxes across the board, as I do now, to get the job done, but I wanna make sure that Mr. 250K pays what's fair for him.
<<I suggest you'd get farther helping by actually helping rather than waiting for someone to take from the rich guy.>>
I'm really flattered, but you have to trust me on this one: my maximum possible contribution would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.
<<What a crock [that government is "we the people" in action]. It still amounts to expecting someone else to do the job. >>
Guess you believe in a Swiss-style or Israeli-style military, the people in arms. Guess you'd like to go back to the good old days when food producers certified their own product, and if anyone got killed, well, the marketplace would punish the guilty. Better wake up one day and figure out what century you're living in. Life is complex, problems are created by the interaction of many factors, government being one of them, and government will have to solve many problems whether or not it's the sole or even a contributing causative factor. Think "Manhattan Project."
<<And frankly, that you expect government to forcibly take from people on your behalf does not give you the moral high ground you seem to assume you have.>>
I'm a pragmatist. Shooting the enemies of the people doesn't give me your idea of the moral high ground either, so I'm not particularly worried about taxing the rich more. I see the problem and I try to fix it. To erase the misery of the masses. THAT'S the real moral high ground. Lifting people out of misery.
"Well, come on now, I know there's another word than greed, tell me what YOU would call that.
<<Show me someone saying that, ["Yes it's a shame to watch kids turn into crackheads but I don't want to pay to help them because then I'll have fewer toys to play with. $250K isn't enough for me to live on."]and I'll let you know. >>
You know and I know that the greedy hypocritical little bastards will never say that, that's why I say it for them. I know, and everyone else knows, that their opposition to higher taxes is not based on fairness but on greed. THAT is just plain common sense, realism, and experience of life.
<<Again, show me [Mr. 250K] isn't sacrificing any of his, as you said, before tax income to help out. He never ever gives to charity? Refuses to pay taxes? >>
Look at the need for massive social expenditures in welfare, education, housing, health-care, etc. Look at the enormous wealth of the country. Compare the one with the other. There is your answer.
Compare the lives of the 500 wealthiest with the lives of 10 million crackheads. There's your answer. If Mr. 250K IS paying lots to charity, he gets a tax break, he gets to deduct from taxable income. So the guy who is Mr. $250K MAY have paid to charity, but the net result is the rich have tons and the poor need tons. WHATEVER they bin givin to charity just ain't enough. Time for the government to step up to the plate and do the job right.
<<And how is now suddenly solely the fault of this person that some kid is turning into a crackhead? Talk about not fair.>>
It's his fault because with all his wealth, power and influence, he didn't do enough to stop the train wreck. He didn't contribute what he could, and more importantly, he didn't support candidates who would raise more (by taxation if necessary) because as great as the need was, he and his class allowed to fester and grow. And now it's gotta be fixed, and the only way to pay for that is to tax the rich more.
<<Kinda my point [that there's nothing mature about greed and selfishness] just directed differently.>>
Yeah, like in your case MIS-directed by about 180 degrees.
------------------------------------------------------------
MT:The five-year old is the selfish greedy bastard who clings to his toys rather than sacrifice some of that money to fund a crash course to prevent the further spread of human misery.
<<When you can prove to me that is the case, I'll agree. >>
Yeah, prove the effectiveness of a program before it's put into action and meantime withhold the raising of funds. Nice trick. Old trick. That's why we want Obama. CHANGE.
<<In the mean time, the other five-year-old is the envious and no less selfish person who insists other people having "too much" is unfair . . . >>
Yes it is unfair and there's nothing childish about it. A man living like the rich live here in the face of so much want and need is unfair. Call that childish, call it five-year-old and at the end of the day it is still unfair. And it won't stand.
<<and sloughs off responsibility to help others onto everyone else.>>
Bullshit. Shoulders his responsibility along with every other law-abiding taxpayer is the phrase you want, but it probably sticks in your throat because it's too honest for you.
-
You can tangibly see the mindset of Tee and like minds. It's not about "fairness" at all. It's really an effort to punish 'the rich", and with the proper amount of overt & egregious levels of progressive taxation, make everyone roughly equal in their economic portfolio. If "the rich have to pay thru the nose....they can afford it. A round about effort to in essence "aboilish the rich", which I guess theoretically is supposed to make "the poor", not so poor, so that everyone is equally.....miserable. But at least everyone is. Kinda like UHC
-
A round about effort to in essence "aboilish the rich", which I guess theoretically is supposed to make "the poor", not so poor, so that everyone is equally.....miserable.
================================
aboilish? Youse from Bwooklin?
Denmark does precisely this, and has the happiest people on the planet.
Spo bzzzt you lose, as you like to say.
-
The spelling nazi strikes again. Heil Xo
News Flash.....we're not Denmark
-
Denmark is an attainable goal.
What you lot want is just more war, more inequality, more opportunities to lord it over everyone else.
Reagan's Shining City on the Hill...surrounded by miles of squalid slums for the fatcats to look down on.
-
Denmark is an attainable goal.
Then move. What was their suicide rate again compared to the U.S.? At least they were happy, right?
What you lot want is just more war
Nope, I want a war won, & over with
more inequality, more opportunities to lord it over everyone else.
LOL, the irony is indeed thick
-
Then move. What was their suicide rate again compared to the U.S.? At least they were happy, right?
I will not move. This is my country, and it is my patriotic duty to improve it.
For your information, the suicide rate in Denmark in 2001 per 100,000 was 13.6 (men, 19.2, women 8.1)
the suicide rate in the US in 2002 per 100,000 was 11.0 (men, 17.9, women 4.2)
The highest was Lithuania, at 40.2 per 100,000 in 2004 (men 70.2 , women 40.2)
Haiti, Jordan, St. Kitts and Nevis reported NO suicides at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
No one believes that the suicide rate has any real relationship to the happiness of the general population. It is related to alcoholism, and also countries that have a lot oc Catholics simply do not report even obvious suiides (such as someone driving their car off a cliff in Thelma & Louise style) as suicides, because it prevents them from having a Catholic funeral. Danes are nearly all Protestant, and suicide is not socially inacceptable.
The saddest country in surveys seems to be Moldova, but they report a rate of 16.7 (29.2,m and 5.7,w) . Moldova is traditionally Catholic, but was officially atheist when it was in the USSR.
My point is that the US should stop waving the Giant Rubber Finger and chjanting "We're Numbah One! We're Numbah One!" and try harder to BE better than it is.
It has become a worse place for most Americans during the past seven years, by nearly any index.
-
The spelling nazi strikes again. Heil Xo
And then goes on to write this:
Spo bzzzt you lose, as you like to say.
-
So bzzzt, you lose.
Sorry, I can't edit.
-
Sorry, I can't edit.
Then again, it would just be easier if you didn't make fun of other's spelling errors. It's a self control thing.
-
Spo for So is an obvious typo, NOT a spelling error.
A lot of the spelling errors in here are errors of usage, where the wrong word has been used and that has been misspelled.
I have been paid a lot of money over the years for editing. I find it hard to believe that people who consistently write unintelligibly ( and you are not one of them) would not appreciate not sounding illiterate.
-
Suicide rates don't measure general happiness because they depend on too many variable factors, but there HAVE been studies of happiness published. I don't have any handy. Canada usually does pretty well, but I don't think Canada or the U.S. ever comes close to No. 1. And I can't see any good reason why they should.
-
I've done plenty of editing myself. Matter of fact, I'm an editor for a game manufacturer and an online magazine.
I have been paid a lot of money over the years for editing. I find it hard to believe that people who consistently write unintelligibly ( and you are not one of them) would not appreciate not sounding illiterate.
Nobody here pays you to edit their posts - or even asks you to do it for free - and even if they did, I'm sure that they would not ask you to ridicule them in the course of your editing tasks. Is that how you edited documents when you were paid for it? Made fun of the mistakes?
-
Spo for So is an obvious typo, NOT a spelling error.
Likewise, "aboilish" for "abolish" is an obvious typo.
-
Sorry. I should have been more precise. I don't want to decide how much money someone else should make before becoming subject to increased income tax. I want my government to decide that. My personal opinion is that anybody should be able to live quite nicely on a pre-tax income of $250K. I believe in the principle that the rich should pay more, LOTS more. We need to level out the gross inequalities in the distribution of our wealth. People shouldn't WANT to eat well while others go without. If they do, fuck them - - tax them anyway. The tax isn't 100% - - far from it. Those greedy little fucks will still have more than the rest of us, the crackheads, the bunglers, the dreamers. So they can still be "happy" with their wealth, it's just that they'll have less to be happy with.
And here we get to crux of your argument. You want to punish people who don't agree with you. This is the fundamental problem I have with your argument.
I realized it's more effective if we all pitch in to help together that it requires less personal sacrifice from me. The important thing is helping those in need, not punishing me or even the rich.
So what do you do to help those in need? No, you don't need to answer that question but all I see is you bitching about the rich having too much. I don't see anything about what is really needed to help the rich. Your plan seems to be take from other people who have more than you think they should be allowed to have. That isn't about helping people. That is about punishing people for not agreeing with you. Me, I don't bitch about what someone else should do. I do what I can. I try to help the local food bank as best I can. I try, as my skills allow, to help youth get involved in a program to help rebuild homes for people in extreme poverty. Bitching because other people have more than I do is doesn't help anyone. And it isn't altruism. It's envy. I have no time for that. So when I see people who seem to do nothing but complain about other people having more, it strikes me a nothing but childish selfishness, like the child who whines because some other child has a Tonka truck or a Gameboy, or the child who complains that some other child getting to do something or have something as a reward is "unfair".
But if we're gonna be at our most effective in delivering the needed assistance, the effort must be collective and must be as painless as possible for all involved. It's a lot less painful for Mr. 250K to give up 20K than it is for me to give up 10. Or should be. And if it isn't, then fuck the greedy little bastard anyway. End of story.
Why does it have to be painless? Anyway, here you are again making zero allowances for what "Mr. 250K" does with his money. You just assume that if he doesn't go along with your plan, he is a "greedy little bastard". You're like the child who decides he doesn't like someone because they did their homework or chores and got to go play.
Well, yeah, if I lived in a community of two, my responsibility would be 50% and in a community of about 33 million - - well, YOU do the math. And be sure to weight it so the handful of rich pay substantially more. I don't want to hog any credit I'm not entitled to. I'm just a small (but productive) cog in a large machine, but I do want to pay my fair share and I'll even advocate higher taxes across the board, as I do now, to get the job done, but I wanna make sure that Mr. 250K pays what's fair for him.
And of course you want to define fair, or have your representatives define fair as you want it defined. And if someone doesn't agree, then he is a "greedy little bastard". Again, this looks like nothing but childishness to me.
I'm really flattered, but you have to trust me on this one: my maximum possible contribution would be less than the proverbial drop in the bucket.
Well, from what I have seen of your comments so far, a drop in the bucket seems to be asking a lot from you.
Guess you believe in a Swiss-style or Israeli-style military, the people in arms. Guess you'd like to go back to the good old days when food producers certified their own product, and if anyone got killed, well, the marketplace would punish the guilty. Better wake up one day and figure out what century you're living in. Life is complex, problems are created by the interaction of many factors, government being one of them, and government will have to solve many problems whether or not it's the sole or even a contributing causative factor. Think "Manhattan Project."
I believe in protecting people's rights, which means not demanding they all be made to obey my personal social preferences. Indeed, life is complex, and trying to force life into a box by forcing people to obey what I think or you think people should want to do is foolishness. That kind of massive top down control is not a solution to the complexity of life.
I'm a pragmatist. Shooting the enemies of the people doesn't give me your idea of the moral high ground either, so I'm not particularly worried about taxing the rich more. I see the problem and I try to fix it. To erase the misery of the masses. THAT'S the real moral high ground. Lifting people out of misery.
Lifting people out of misery. Yes, you're not the only one who wants to see that. And one does not have to agree with you or be a socialist to believe in trying to help people out of misery. And this apparently "let's just tax the wealthy and fix it" solution of yours is not pragmatic in the least. It's foolishness. Erase the misery of the masses. It sounds nice, but it ignores that the masses are fundamentally individuals, not fundamentally the masses.
You know and I know that the greedy hypocritical little bastards will never say that, that's why I say it for them. I know, and everyone else knows, that their opposition to higher taxes is not based on fairness but on greed. THAT is just plain common sense, realism, and experience of life.
Nonsense. Prejudiced, envious, covetous, narrow-minded nonsense. I know that due do the experience of like and the experience of seeking understanding beyond the cliches, stereotypes and dogma.
<<Again, show me [Mr. 250K] isn't sacrificing any of his, as you said, before tax income to help out. He never ever gives to charity? Refuses to pay taxes? >>
Look at the need for massive social expenditures in welfare, education, housing, health-care, etc. Look at the enormous wealth of the country. Compare the one with the other. There is your answer.
This does not prove that your Mr. 250K is selfish or greedy. This is far too simplistic and assumes far too much to prove anything, except perhaps that your position is simplistic and based on assumptions.
Compare the lives of the 500 wealthiest with the lives of 10 million crackheads. There's your answer. If Mr. 250K IS paying lots to charity, he gets a tax break, he gets to deduct from taxable income. So the guy who is Mr. $250K MAY have paid to charity, but the net result is the rich have tons and the poor need tons. WHATEVER they bin givin to charity just ain't enough. Time for the government to step up to the plate and do the job right.
That assumes that government can do the job right. So far, it has not proven to even remotely have the ability to do the job right. But your comparison is flawed. The real comparison that needs to be made, if we are to find any actual solutions, is to look at the life of someone who became a "crackhead" and someone who started in poverty and worked his way out of it without becoming a "crackhead".
It's his fault because with all his wealth, power and influence, he didn't do enough to stop the train wreck. He didn't contribute what he could, and more importantly, he didn't support candidates who would raise more (by taxation if necessary) because as great as the need was, he and his class allowed to fester and grow. And now it's gotta be fixed, and the only way to pay for that is to tax the rich more.
Where in all this is the responsibility of the person who became the "crackhead". You're entire argument here seems to assume that the poor person addicted to drugs was forced into it against his own will simply by someone else having more than he did. This is not a practical approach to a solution to the problem. This is an ignorant and blind approach that will not solve the problem at all.
Yeah, like in your case MIS-directed by about 180 degrees.
I have yet to see how your prejudiced assumptions provide better aim.
MT:The five-year old is the selfish greedy bastard who clings to his toys rather than sacrifice some of that money to fund a crash course to prevent the further spread of human misery.
<<When you can prove to me that is the case, I'll agree. >>
Yeah, prove the effectiveness of a program before it's put into action and meantime withhold the raising of funds. Nice trick. Old trick. That's why we want Obama. CHANGE.
Misdirection is an old trick too. You've missed my point entirely. Not prove the effectiveness of a program before it is put into action. Prove that the "selfish greedy bastard" clings to his toys and never sacrifices some of his money to help people, and I'll agree with you that he is a selfish, greedy bastard. If all you've got is that he is wealthy, then you haven't proven anything.
And what the hell is this "we want Obama" bit? You're Canadian. Why should I care who you want to be President of the U.S.?
Shoulders his responsibility along with every other law-abiding taxpayer is the phrase you want, but it probably sticks in your throat because it's too honest for you.
Too honest? No, it hardly seems honest at all. Your idea of shouldering responsibility to help people seems to be merely paying your taxes. That isn't shouldering any responsibility at all. That is expecting someone else to remove the responsibility from your shoulders. Now that is honest, but I am guessing the craw that sticks in is yours.
-
Nobody here pays you to edit their posts - or even asks you to do it for free - and even if they did, I'm sure that they would not ask you to ridicule them in the course of your editing tasks. Is that how you edited documents when you were paid for it? Made fun of the mistakes?
You could pay me and find out... ;D