WTF ....250K = Corporate Jet?????

[dezfan]

The short list as I'm tired.

US Chamber of Commerce.

It's an INCREASE who cares how big it is.

Glad you don't mind spending others money.

Seizing total wealth used as an example to show how raising taxes isn't the answer, we can't tax our way out of this. CUT THE DAMN SPENDING!!!!

I rarely watch Fox.

The simple reality is, raising taxes are not the answer. Cutting the government and it's out of control spending are. I don't know how to make it any clearer?

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

The short list as I'm tired.

Originally Posted by dezfan

US Chamber of Commerce.

Makes more sense.

Originally Posted by dezfan

It's an INCREASE who cares how big it is.

A small tax increase now will be less detrimental that huge immediate cuts. As long as they can offset the additional taxes being paid by whittling down spending, they should get to a point where the taxes can once again be lowered.

Its a dream, I know.

Originally Posted by dezfan

Glad you don't mind spending others money.

Depends on how they got it and whether or not they are participating in the system they tout. If we're going to help big companies make large amounts of profit by keeping their tax burden low, then they need to uphold their end of the bargain and help drive the economy. If they are not willing to do that, they either need to be relieved of their tax cuts or penalized in some other form.

Originally Posted by dezfan

Seizing total wealth used as an example to show how raising taxes isn't the answer, we can't tax our way out of this. CUT THE DAMN SPENDING!!!!

And it has no relevancy at all to this conversation or reality as a whole.

Originally Posted by dezfan

I rarely watch Fox.

You should never watch Fox. Or MSNBC, or CNN, etc etc etc. Poison. All of it.

Originally Posted by dezfan

The simple reality is, raising taxes are not the answer. Cutting the government and it's out of control spending are. I don't know how to make it any clearer?

Agreed, but like I said, a slight tax increase now followed (and I mean followed, not debated for 6 years) of steady and consistent downsizing of government will ease the pain and eventually get us to a happy place. If they start cutting government programs and scaling down the various branches, thats a shit ton of newly unemployed people being dumped in an already crappy economy. It needs to be done, no doubt, but not until we get rolling again.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Makes more sense.



A small tax increase now will be less detrimental that huge immediate cuts. As long as they can offset the additional taxes being paid by whittling down spending, they should get to a point where the taxes can once again be lowered.

Its a dream, I know.



Depends on how they got it and whether or not they are participating in the system they tout. If we're going to help big companies make large amounts of profit, then they need to uphold their end of the bargain and help drive the economy. If they are not willing to do that, they either need to be relieved of their tax cuts or penalized in some other form.



And it has no relevancy at all to this conversation or reality as a whole.



You should never watch Fox. Or MSNBC, or CNN, etc etc etc. Poison. All of it.



Agreed, but like I said, a slight tax increase now followed (and I mean followed, not debated for 6 years) of steady and consistent downsizing of government will ease the pain and eventually get us to a happy place.

I'm glad you see it my way for the most part.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

I'm glad you see it my way for the most part.

I usually do. But when you start thumpin' the "ain't nutin' wrong wit da GOP!" drum, thats when I take issue.

Go get your beauty sleep. God knows you need it.

[slobin3d]

I was reading somewhere (shocking I know!) that if obama implemented a 100% tax on individuals making over 250K that that would pay the Govt's spending for something like 3 months and that if they taxed business 100% over 250K that it would only pay the govt's spending for something like 18 months.....If the document I was reading is even half accurate no matter of tax increase will make any serious good, the Govt HAS to stop spending, Period end of debate, no logical retort possible!

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by slobin3d

I was reading somewhere (shocking I know!) that if obama implemented a 100% tax on individuals making over 250K that that would pay the Govt's spending for something like 3 months and that if they taxed business 100% over 250K that it would only pay the govt's spending for something like 18 months.....If the document I was reading is even half accurate no matter of tax increase will make any serious good, the Govt HAS to stop spending, Period end of debate, no logical retort possible!

Problem is, we will always be in debt. Always. It is impossible for us not to be. Every dollar, real and electronic, has interest tied to it. That interest can never be repaid. Our government could seize every last penny and there would still be money owed to the Fed.

The only time we have NOT been in debt was when we truly printed our own money. Its value would fluctuate over a period of time and cause a little instability, but it would always self correct. Since the Federal Reserve got its fangs into us (again) in 1913, it has been on a steady decline and has depreciated greatly.



and the rate of inflation...

[slobin3d]

One of my buddies was giving me his theory on Jobs, Wadges, and the value of the dollar. he was commenting on the effects of the depression then WWII and that while the men were off fighting the war the women went o work at home, Rosie the riveter, and that when the men came home there was an overabundance of employees, at first it wasn't a big deal because of the economic boom that the war had provided and the unfortunate loss of life and the void that it created in the work force. But over time and coupled with the 60's womens Lib movement and the further separation from a Domestic life further watered down the job pool decreasing wages and increasing the expendablity of employees and that were are now at a point in the culture that for someone to work 40 years for the same company is extremely rare, but layoffs, early retirements, buyouts and such are common place.


His theory got me thinking how much different we would be if the US had 1/3 less people looking for work, would wadges be higher, would a family be able to live on a single income?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think his ideas were intended to be derogatory twords women, but more a observation of a societal shift and the economic repercussions. It's funny what being a single father will do to a guy!

[slobin3d]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Problem is, we will always be in debt. Always. It is impossible for us not to be. Every dollar, real and electronic, has interest tied to it. That interest can never be repaid. Our government could seize every last penny and there would still be money owed to the Fed.

The only time we have NOT been in debt was when we truly printed our own money. Its value would fluctuate over a period of time and cause a little instability, but it would always self correct. Since the Federal Reserve got its fangs into us (again) in 1913, it has been on a steady decline and has depreciated greatly.



and the rate of inflation...

from the looks of your graphs, the eb and flow seemed to be about normal, not until 1913 but later in the mid 30's when the return to normal was abruptly halted IE the great depression, and everything after went to poop. I smell a new deal. The GD instituted several sweeping and extremely damaging changes to the US economy including welfare which have in the long run done nothing good fir the US citizen. For those who didn't know there hasn't always been a income tax until 1913, and it was set to expire, but funny 80 years later it's still here. in 1916 the congress changed the rules again to make it permanent.

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by dezfan

For someone who claims the Independent center position, you sure do seem to carry a lot of water for the Left?

Originally Posted by TexasSP

Binary, you say they're both corrupt and try to act middle of the road, yet you always come at this with extreme left wing talking points, websites, and other sources.

To answer you both, its simple. This site spews forth info on these topics pretty 1 sided. As a middle man myself, why would I cover the Left again...you do that for me. I just add the Rights failures and in the end, I still easily prove both are corrupt failures.

I live by the motto "Work Smarter, not Harder". Believe me I'll call false info out on either side, and you can see most of your Right views I never called out on this so far...meaning I probably agree with the original topic, just adding valid info to both sides for corrupt liars. 50% + 50% = 100%.

Originally Posted by dezfan

Really, the Huff and Puff Post as a reference for accuracy.

Did you watch the video or read the quoted text? I watched the interview live on Fox news when it originally aired. Quoted text is valid (rest of fluff between I can see your reason to retort) and accurate. Or watch the video it's from Fox's own coverage.

Fox New's Chris Wallace - 0
John Stewart (Just a comedian) - 1

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

I usually do. But when you start thumpin' the "ain't nutin' wrong wit da GOP!" drum, thats when I take issue.

This is basically how I feel. I tend to agree with you "Righties" more than you think, but these topics quickly divert to Obama this, Pelosi that. I don't agree it's US GOVERNMENT that should be as one set as the failure, not one party, and especially not one person. I grew up taught to research, don't just assume or use one source, and in that have found for every failure one party has made, the other quickly does their own failure.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by slobin3d

One of my buddies was giving me his theory on Jobs, Wadges, and the value of the dollar.

His theory got me thinking how much different we would be if the US had 1/3 less people looking for work, would wadges be higher, would a family be able to live on a single income?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think his ideas were intended to be derogatory twords women, but more a observation of a societal shift and the economic repercussions.

Absolutely. How many of our parents both had jobs when we were growing up? Probably just one, because you could get by with dad working and mom raising the kids. Its so much harder to do that today. One person can't hold down a fairly decent job and expect to own a home, two cars, etc etc. Even with a college education, the American Dream is nearly dead unless you want to go into debt up to your eyeballs.

The rules of supply and demand apply to the work force and job market. More jobs + fewer workers = good pay. Fewer jobs + more workers = poor pay. High unemployment essentially creates wage slaves, people that will take any shitty job for any shitty paycheck just to survive. These are often jobs with little chance of advancement, and because the job pool is so small, they end up stuck there.

The other thing that currently concerns me, is what will all the military personnel do when they start winding down the middle east? Unless they've got jobs lined up for when they get back, thats a big fat addition to our unemployment rate. Welcome to the war machine.

Originally Posted by slobin3d

from the looks of your graphs, the eb and flow seemed to be about normal, not until 1913 but later in the mid 30's when the return to normal was abruptly halted IE the great depression, and everything after went to poop. I smell a new deal. The GD instituted several sweeping and extremely damaging changes to the US economy including welfare which have in the long run done nothing good fir the US citizen. For those who didn't know there hasn't always been a income tax until 1913, and it was set to expire, but funny 80 years later it's still here. in 1916 the congress changed the rules again to make it permanent.

Welfare, social security, and income tax were all supposed to be temporary measures. That was the government helping the people that needed it most in a time of hardship, which is what a government should do. The tax helped fund those programs. Welfare and SS were not stopped because there was not enough economic upturn for those people to survive without it. With inflation on the rise, the dollar devaluing, your savings and retirement wiped out, there aren't many places to go.

It is rumored that the GD was another money grab. It comes down to this: any time the economy gets bad like that, or even like it did a few years ago, someone is playing with the system to make profits and acquisitions. There has only been one group of people that have consistently profited since 1913. Guess who.

Originally Posted by binaryterror

Did you watch the video or read the quoted text? I watched the interview live on Fox news when it originally aired. Quoted text is valid (rest of fluff between I can see your reason to retort) and accurate. Or watch the video it's from Fox's own coverage.

Fox New's Chris Wallace - 0
John Stewart (Just a comedian) - 1

You should watch the unedited web version, it makes a lot more sense.

btw: did you catch the part where CW more or less admits that Fox is NOT fair and balanced, and is the "counterweight to the liberal media".

[TexasSP]

Binary, you can claim what you want but you continually come out with far left talking points and sources from far left sites and sources. You make many incorrect assumptions and can't actually back up what you post most of the time with actual facts.

For some reason it's okay with you to have multiple media outlets that are left and far left leaning but it's not okay for Fox? This other media outlets also claim to be unbiased as well FYI.

I myself don't subscribe to any one news source and get my information from many sources from all walks and even different countries. Personally I am never interested in any of the commentators opinions I am simply looking for facts. Most all news sources fail on facts because they are either skewed because of bias or skewed because the researchers and reporters do such a piss poor job of verifying their facts. This happens on every major news outlet there is.

Going back to all the Bush did this Clinton did that crap is USELESS at this point in time. What has to happen are for us to apply real fixes to the current situation that doesn't further burden an already fragile economy. This will have to incorporate major changes and not just a lot of talk. Obama is the man that took the reigns and said he would take the lead and so far he has done a piss poor job at best including pushing through the largest piece of entitlement in US history against the will of the majority of US citizens. He refuses to make any significant cuts. His only solution is the increase debt and taxation.

As far as always having to have debt that is a false notion and EXTREMELY naive. It is a lie that enslaves you under the guise of empowering you. Non one can simply create a budget they want the force the numbers to happen to fulfill their wishes. This does not work on any level. The only way any type of debt can work in everyone's favor is in a mutual investment type situation. An example would be two people create a business that requires a 100k dollar initial investment. One guy puts up 80% of the cash and provides 20% of the effort in work and the other guy puts up 20% of the cash and provides 80% of the work involved.

The fact remains that the peoples money does not automatically belong to the government. The government needs to learn to live within it's means and politicians need to be reminded they are public servants and not royalty.

The cycle cannot go on as is and sustain itself, it's a mathematical impossibility. No amount of skewing and talk will change this fact.

For all those that seem to think that a socialist/communist style government can work where every one is equal you are lying to yourselves. In every example of those world wide there are still super rich and still super poor. This will never change. All you do is eliminate all the subtle levels in between and take away the incentive to do more. Class envy will get you no where. I fault no one for having more than me and certainly am not jealous or envious of their abundance.

[TexasSP]

Wanted to add a little example of how raising tax rates will sting small businesses the worst. California with its new "internet tax" has caused Amazon.com to pull out. As the article states, this will do little to hurt amazon but will affect the people it had been doing business with which are all small 1-75 employee businesses.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...alifornia.html

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by TexasSP

Binary, you can claim what you want but you continually come out with far left talking points and sources from far left sites and sources. You make many incorrect assumptions and can't actually back up what you post most of the time with actual facts.

Again, I attack the right because no one else here does. I’m only trying to show both sides and the ideals of far reaching as not helping. Far left and Far right isn’t going to get anything done.

For some reason it's okay with you to have multiple media outlets that are left and far left leaning but it's not okay for Fox? This other media outlets also claim to be unbiased as well FYI.

My bringing up Fox news was directly correlated to Dezfan saying AM radio, and Fox news were correct/unbiased. Which they are not either. Hell if you want unbiased information you’d need to at minimum look outside out US media sources just to start. Though those can swing just as much. You have to take both sides into account. Every story has 3 sides, Left, Right, and actual. It’s up to the person to sort out information to find correct sources.

Further Chris Wallace (Fox News) even admitted to being biased when speaking on Fox News.

I myself don't subscribe to any one news source and get my information from many sources from all walks and even different countries. Personally I am never interested in any of the commentators opinions I am simply looking for facts. Most all news sources fail on facts because they are either skewed because of bias or skewed because the researchers and reporters do such a piss poor job of verifying their facts. This happens on every major news outlet there is.

Not many people, in fact very few do what you do. Many just hear news from one source and run and play telephone on some misinformation based on incorrect data in these stories. They don’t weight the facts, they run like Chicken Little and their world is ending. As you know, the media is humans and paid by sponsors. So they need people watching…hence the exciting stories being their big bread and butter.

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

Hell if you want unbiased information you’d need to at minimum look outside out US media sources just to start. Though those can swing just as much.

Haha....wrong. If you want unbiased news, then you'd better just close your eyes and ears. There is not a single form of news out there that doesn't have some sort of influence from the author/anchor/reporter/sponsors (and I am a fan of NPR....they try, but still show bias). And yes, news about the US reported by other countries can show as much, if not more, bias than our own country, depending on their relationship with this country goes....

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

My bringing up Fox news was directly correlated to Dezfan saying AM radio, and Fox news were correct/unbiased.

You better re-read my post Mr. HUff and Puff, I never stated that. I said they were successful because this is a right leaning country. I NEVER stated they were "correct/unbiased. I think you read what you wanted to read.

So much for accuracy.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by TexasSP

As far as always having to have debt that is a false notion and EXTREMELY naive. It is a lie that enslaves you under the guise of empowering you. Non one can simply create a budget they want then force the numbers to happen to fulfill their wishes. This does not work on any level. The only way any type of debt can work in everyone's favor is in a mutual investment type situation. An example would be two people create a business that requires a 100k dollar initial investment. One guy puts up 80% of the cash and provides 20% of the effort in work and the other guy puts up 20% of the cash and provides 80% of the work involved.

Debt on a personal level is avoidable, unquestionably. I'm living proof of that. I may not have the nicest home or the nicest car or the coolest toys, but I don't owe anybody anything.

However, once our government signed an agreement with the Federal Reserve it plunged this nation into perpetual, unending debt.

Like I said before, every penny of every dollar ever produced is owed back to the Fed. Worse than that, there is "money" that has no physical presence, it exists only in the electronic realm. When this country makes big transactions, in the millions and billions, they don't cart around a truck load of cash. Its all transferred and moved around electronically. It never exists in the real world.

So now we've borrowed all this money from the Fed. Only, the Fed charges interest. If every dollar we've ever gotten comes from the Fed, and is owed to the Fed, then where do we get the money for the interest? We don't. Ever. Perpetual national debt.

Now, we can balance the deficit, even put it into the black, but that is a different thing entirely. The deficit is our yearly budget for our bills. There can be enough taxation and spending reduction to do that, but we still have those bills to pay and always will under this debt based monetary system.

Originally Posted by TexasSP

The fact remains that the peoples money does not automatically belong to the government. The government needs to learn to live within it's means and politicians need to be reminded they are public servants and not royalty.

And that is probably the worst incident of entitlement ever. That money is not meant to be spent willy-nilly like it is now, like it has been for many years.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

I said they were successful because this is a right leaning country. I NEVER stated they were "correct/unbiased.

So the right favors incorrect, biased information? So much for accuracy, indeed.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

So the right favors incorrect, biased information? So much for accuracy, indeed.

You been Huffin and Puffin too?

Seems like the fact that this is a right leaning country really tweaks your melon.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

You been Huffin and Puffin too?

Seems like the fact that this is a right leaning country really tweaks your melon.

Not at all, I just found it really funny that you would basically state that this is a country of ignorant, misinformed people and that they like it that way.

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

...there is "money" that has no physical presence, it exists only in the electronic realm.

Electrons dont exist?