Recession coming

[Partial]

Do you fear that a major recession is coming? I am reading nothing but negative news about a potential 2nd great depression coming up in the next couple of years with crazy high inflation, unemployment, etc.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think this topic was already covered in the "What did you cook/have for dinner?" thread.

[Jimx29]

I think this topic was already covered in the "What did you cook/have for dinner?" thread.Now there's a logical place to have it discussed

[Freak Out]

I think this topic was already covered in the "What did you cook/have for dinner?" thread.Now there's a logical place to have it discussed

Beans and rice amigo.

[MJZiggy]

Thanks for the warning...

[Partial]

Well, what can be done to prevent this and what can we reasonably expect to see change over the next few years? I am terrified that I won't have a good paying job after college.

[Patler]

You can do nothing to prevent it. None of us can. But, don't worry about it. We may have times of high inflation, astronomical interest rates and unemployment. We had them not that long ago. If it happens you will do what you have to. Any job is a good job when times are bad. But a Great Depression like 80 years ago? Not so likely, in my opinion.

[MJZiggy]

You can do nothing to prevent it. None of us can. But, don't worry about it. We may have times of high inflation, astronomical interest rates and unemployment. We had them not that long ago. If it happens you will do what you have to. Any job is a good job when times are bad. But a Great Depression like 80 years ago? Not so likely, in my opinion.

I thought they learned enough from the Great Depression to prevent it happening again. The recession can't be too bad. I just got a job. :lol:

[LL2]

A recession is defined by 6 consecutive months of negative GDP (gross domestic product) growth. I'm not sure how the GDP did the past couple months, but we will not know for a few months if we are in a recession for sure.

It's more likely that we are in a period of stagflation. Where inflation is growing (which we see in rising food and gas prices), and where unemployment is rising. A ying/yang going on at the same time.

[red]

but our shit for brains president says we are definatly not going into a recession

honestly, does anyone believe or even listen to anything that comes out of that jackasses mouth? i think both parties just roll their eyes and ignore him at this point

[Patler]

Recessions come and go. Yes they can cause some difficulties, but you do what you have to. That's why I said don't worry now about it.

The question was, are we heading to another great depression? That, I think is highly unlikely. There are protections in the banking and investment sectors to curb the panic situations that were a big part of the Depression.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But, don't worry about it. We may have times of high inflation, astronomical interest rates and unemployment.

boy, this reminds me of the standard definition of a recession: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.

[Patler]

But, don't worry about it. We may have times of high inflation, astronomical interest rates and unemployment.

boy, this reminds me of the standard definition of a recession: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.

Nice of you to interrupt the thought by talking only part of the quote. (Manipulative bastard! :lol: ) I went on to say that people cope. They do what they have to do.

What good does it do to worry about it now? Does that make it less likely to occur? Of course not.

[Patler]

But, don't worry about it. We may have times of high inflation, astronomical interest rates and unemployment.
boy, this reminds me of the standard definition of a recession: A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours.

.....and who are you calling "boy"? :smack:

[Tony Oday]

Honestly we just need to identify which industry we will ride through the current credit crunch. That is what it is, when the banks resolidify what they do you will see more borrowing again and that is what the US economy is based on CREDIT.

[MJZiggy]

Honestly we just need to identify which industry we will ride through the current credit crunch. That is what it is, when the banks resolidify what they do you will see more borrowing again and that is what the US economy is based on CREDIT.

I thought it was based on the yen at the moment...

[GBRulz]

I have no doubt that the high gas prices have effected the economy and how people spend their money. However, the biggest problem overall is people overspending beyond their means. I bought my house 6 years ago and I couldn't believe how much I was pre-qualified for. Um, I'd like to have a life outside of paying for my mortgage payment, thank you. However, some people of course took advantage of every penny of credit thrown their way, especially with those ARMs the banks coaxed them with.

What you're hearing about now are the credit problems and the foreclosures. Sure, I know some are affected through job loss, but most are affected because they overspent to begin with.

If I were a betting person, I'd put money on gas prices going down once George W is out of office.

[Partial]

Gas Prices are going to keep going up because the economy is crappy and the dollar is down big time. I remember when Canadian prices for video games were 10-20 dollars higher when I was a little kid, and now they're cheaper!!

Oil has remained fairly constant with gold.

[Freak Out]

Now that Chavez is sending forces to the border with Columbia expect oil to take another leap on Monday.
Anyone seeing lines at the gas pump and rationing yet? Stations out of fuel?

[MJZiggy]

No, but I did see $3.45 a gallon in the yuppie part of town.

[GBRulz]

I think we'll see $4 gas this summer, no doubt. Do you remember the mid-term elections two years ago? Gas went all the way down to $1.99. Coincidence? I think not.

Gas prices are not always steady with oil prices. The price of gas is the same now with oil at 100 a barrel vs when it was $60. The reason they gave is because of refining capacity.

Whatever it is, it's BS that oil companies are making billion dollar profits while the economy goes down the toilet.

[Freak Out]

No, but I did see $3.45 a gallon in the yuppie part of town.

Of course you haven't because surpluses are up. But the price keeps going up as well.

[Partial]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

[LL2]

I think we'll see $4 gas this summer, no doubt.

I've been telling people this for a while. I can't wait to get one of these.

http://evolution.loremo.com/content/view/13/47/lang,en/

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea

If he does, I hope he announces his revelation before Tuesday's vote! :lol:

[Freak Out]

I think we'll see $4 gas this summer, no doubt.

I've been telling people this for a while. I can't wait to get one of these.

http://evolution.loremo.com/content/view/13/47/lang,en/

Interesting...I've never heard of it before. There is lots of good tech out there reducing fuel consumption or doing away with what we know of as fuel consumption all together. I want VW/Audi and Mercedes to start bringing in all the light vans and cargo haulers that they have developed with the newer single rail diesels. That will be the death knell for Detoilet if prices stay high.

[MJZiggy]

No! We need Ford to stay in business so they can keep ownership of the Lions and keep Millen as GM until...well forever.

[LL2]

I think we'll see $4 gas this summer, no doubt.

I've been telling people this for a while. I can't wait to get one of these.

http://evolution.loremo.com/content/view/13/47/lang,en/

Interesting...I've never heard of it before. There is lots of good tech out there reducing fuel consumption or doing away with what we know of as fuel consumption all together. I want VW/Audi and Mercedes to start bringing in all the light vans and cargo haulers that they have developed with the newer single rail diesels. That will be the death knell for Detoilet if prices stay high.

The Loremo is suppose to get 150 mpg.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=457882

I agree with you about getting the cargo haulers to do better on fuel. I'm in the shipping business and often fuel surcharges can be around 25%. The Dodge Sprinter is a nice cargo hauler for loads of 4 pallets or less. The current versions can get around 600 miles on one tank. They are coming out with hybrid versions of the Sprinter.

[Scott Campbell]

The Dodge Sprinter is a nice cargo hauler for loads of 4 pallets or less. The current versions can get around 600 miles on one tank. They are coming out with hybrid versions of the Sprinter.


Isn't that the rebadged Mercedes?

[LL2]

The Dodge Sprinter is a nice cargo hauler for loads of 4 pallets or less. The current versions can get around 600 miles on one tank. They are coming out with hybrid versions of the Sprinter.


Isn't that the rebadged Mercedes?

Yes, Mercedes actually makes the Sprinter for Dodge.

[Freak Out]

They have been around for some time now.....great power train and good MPG (20-30). I thought about getting one but have held off because I don't need anything so large and would like better MPG.

[Freak Out]

This is as good as place as any to post this:
I like how our latest Governor as well as the legislature has started to play a little tougher with the industry as a whole. This lady has her faults like we all do but I can say it was the first Governor I rode next to in coach class on Alaska Airlines before. Pretty nice to look at as well. :satan:

Alaska's Palin, Miss Congeniality, Makes Exxon, Conoco Comply

By Joe Carroll and Sonja Franklin

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, is succeeding where Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper and military coup leader, so far has failed.

Palin threatened to evict Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest oil company, and partners BP Plc, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips from a state-owned gas field, winning their promise to increase Alaska's natural-gas output 17 percent. She raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline.

Politicians and energy companies are haggling for revenue with oil around $100 a barrel. Exxon and partners say higher taxes may lead to fewer investments in Alaska, home to the second-largest U.S. reserves behind Texas. None has quit the state. Exxon and ConocoPhillips last year left Venezuela rather than accept lower profits when Chavez seized oil fields.

``We've got to play hardball,'' says Republican Palin, 44, in an interview. Alaska relies on the energy industry for 85 percent of tax revenue and 33 percent of jobs. ``The time is right to develop these resources because of the price of fuel.''

Palin's approach may backfire, prompting the largest energy companies to decide that Alaska is no longer profitable, says Ron Denhardt, an analyst at Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. in Winchester, Massachusetts. A pullout would leave the state to smaller companies lacking the skill to maximize oil output and tax receipts, he says.

``The economics of huge projects like these have got to look really good for a company to take on that kind of risk,'' Denhardt says. ``We don't know yet if she's asking for too much.''

Evicting Exxon

Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron may hear today whether Palin will stick to her threat to rescind the producers' leases covering the Point Thomson field, a site 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of Prudhoe Bay that's been dormant since its discovery in the 1970s. The companies are scheduled to present to a Department of Natural Resources hearing in Anchorage a six- year, $1.3 billion plan for starting gas production there.

Palin seeks to auction drilling rights for Point Thomson on Alaska's North Slope to accelerate development of gas reserves with a value of $71 billion at current prices. The state hasn't estimated tax revenue from the plan. Exxon and its partners, which won't disclose their return-on-investment requirements, say they are hamstrung by the lack of a pipeline.

``The state is taking a very aggressive stance,'' says James Bowles, president of ConocoPhillips's Alaska operations. ``We see it as a great risk to the investments we make.''

Miss Wasilla

ConocoPhillips, based in Houston, will scale back its $1 billion Alaska drilling plan for 2008 because of higher taxes, Bowles says.

Doug Suttles, president of BP's Alaska business, said his company is committed to working with the state as oil prices rise. Craig Haymes, the production manager who oversees Exxon's Alaskan operations, declined to be interviewed for this story.

Palin, a mother of four, graduated from high school in Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 6,700 that's 40 miles north of Anchorage. The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race starts there each March. She was named Miss Congeniality and Miss Wasilla in 1984, three years before graduating from the University of Idaho. Palin returned home and became mayor in 1996, her highest elected office until being sworn in as governor in December 2006.

Chavez, 53, was jailed in 1992 for leading an unsuccessful military coup and was elected president six years later. He forced six U.S. and European oil companies last year to surrender operating control and majority stakes in fields that pump about $365 million of crude a week.

Discarded Accord

ConocoPhillips and Exxon left the country. Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, BP of London, Norway's StatoilHydro ASA and France's Total SA accepted the arrangement.

Palin says there's a difference between her tactics and the strategy of Chavez, an admirer of Fidel Castro who says he wants to use Venezuela's oil wealth to usher in ``21st-century socialism.''

``We have a democratic government in Alaska, a representative form of government here in America, where we would never take over from industry,'' Palin says. ``But we have the right to demand that provisions in leases are adhered to.''

Venezuela's seizure of property was democratically approved because ``a majority of our people voted for our constitution and our laws,'' Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez says.

Palin took on the energy industry right away, endorsing the Natural Resources department's Nov. 27, 2006, move to evict the four oil companies from Point Thomson after decades of inaction. She discarded a $25 billion pipeline agreement negotiated by her Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski, calling it too generous.

The accord would have violated the state constitution by freezing corporate natural-gas taxes for more than three decades, says Jerry McBeath, co-author of ``The Political Economy of Oil in Alaska: Multinationals vs. the State,'' to be released this month by Lynne Reinner Publishers in Boulder, Colorado.

``She came into office on an insurgent campaign and took the ethical high road by saying there will be no secret deals,'' McBeath says. ``This is unusual in the history of this state.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Joe Carroll in Chicago at jcarroll8@bloomberg.net ; Sonja Franklin in Calgary at sfranklin6@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 3, 2008 00:01 EST

[Joemailman]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

Yes, what a travesty it would be if every American could afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

Increasing energy independence will be one of the big issues in the general election campaign. It will be hard for either candidate to win without making a commitment to it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

Yes, what a travesty it would be if every American could afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

Increasing energy independence will be one of the big issues in the general election campaign. It will be hard for either candidate to win without making a commitment to it.

Yep, just 30 or so years after Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown and then Tom Harkins first started talking about it. Sheesh.

[Freak Out]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

Yes, what a travesty it would be if every American could afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

Increasing energy independence will be one of the big issues in the general election campaign. It will be hard for either candidate to win without making a commitment to it.

Hey you commie fucks! They can always go to the ER! Nothing like good reactive health care. That proactive shit is for the birds and would only save us money in the long run.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

Yes, what a travesty it would be if every American could afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

Increasing energy independence will be one of the big issues in the general election campaign. It will be hard for either candidate to win without making a commitment to it.

Hey you commie fucks! They can always go to the ER! Nothing like good reactive health care. That proactive shit is for the birds and would only save us money in the long run.

You ever been to the ER? I have. I enjoyed wailing in pain for two hours as a kidney stone the size of a golfball refused to pass.

Only when Tyrone started sweating profusely, turned an odd shade of gray, and started rocking like a developmentally challenged infant did i see some help.

But, i'm sure little john john with his earache was more deserving.

[MJZiggy]

Uh...Tyrone....I believe that was sarcasm, and yes, turning gray in the ER is about the only way to get attention there short of collapsing unconscious or screaming for an emesis basin (and if someone hears your plea, they hand you one and leave you alone for a few more hours).

If little Johnny was at the docs office with that earache instead of the ER, you'd have gotten treatment faster, no?

[Partial]

Hopefully Mr. Obama realizes that universal health care is a terrible idea and invests all that money into becoming energy independent in the form of phat cash rewards for innovation in the field.

Yes, what a travesty it would be if every American could afford to go to the doctor when they get sick.

Increasing energy independence will be one of the big issues in the general election campaign. It will be hard for either candidate to win without making a commitment to it.

It will be a HUGE travesty if they make those who earn "enough" money pay it and then pay for their own private care since they're above the threshold.

Why would I want to pay for J-bones' health care so he can sit on the couch with his cable and collect welfare checks? Fuck that. Doctors cannot refuse care. They already get treated for free. Why make me pay for them?

26% of my paycheck already goes to the man. The Dems will increase taxes a few %, and then with UHC on top of that? We're talking 50% of your check you're never seeing.

I realize you don't care though since government employees will all get a nice raise to compensate for the added cost of UHC, which leads to more money out of my pocket.

[BallHawk]

The world according to Partial.....

[Joemailman]

I've got news for you Partial. Many, if not most of the people without health insurance in this country are working people whose job does not provide health care benefits. If you are on welfare, there is a good chance you qualify for medicaid. Following the Welfare reform legislation of 1996, there were many cases of people losing health care benefits because they got a job that did not provide benefits, but because they were working no longer qualified for medicaid. Great system, isn't it?

By the way, my salary is determined by a contract between my union and the Postal Service which runs for another 4 years. My salary won't change if a Democrat wins the White House.

[MJZiggy]

Like Joe said, after welfare reform, welfare is pretty hard to get and if you do get it, it sure doesn't pay you enough to have a couch, much less cable. And you're not paying for them, you dolt. It goes into a fund that pays for everyone--including you. I believe (could be wrong) that it means no more insurance deductions coming out of YOUR precious paycheck which is obviously so much more important than making sure all of the kids in this country have access to the same healthcare as you because of course it's their fault they were born to people without your resources.

And remember Mr. Computer Programmer, that the Federal govt. is a HUGE employer of programmers so we'll see if your tune changes should you be up for one of those civil service jobs, though I can tell you, the security's great, but you likely won't make as much as in the private sector.

[Partial]

Ummm... You're kidding me, one of my best friends dad is a social worker for the government (6 weeks paid vacation annually, mind you). He says that the vast majority of the people that he sees in the ghetto don't wake up before noon unless its the first of the month (when they're camped out for their check). They have cable, they just don't pay it.

Kind of a funny story from the Sears day, but Black Friday this year and the weekend following Sears had an issue with their credit card sign-up where anyone who signed up automatically was improved. Well, let me tell you word of mouth spread like wildfire among the poor folk, and I was asked for credit cards by no less than 120 people in three days. That's just me, one person, I know some people were getting over 100 apps per day on the weekend. I'm not trying to stereotype at all, but before that weekend I was asked maybe once or twice by customers if they could sign up, and the rest of the time I did the asking. No, it was not typical in correlation to the volume of people in the store. At any rate, for the following weeks, I still had people coming up to me asking for cards left and right, but by that time they were denied.

I guarantee you those poor assholes are never going to pay a dime of that back. They are essentially stealing, and we're all footing the bills in the form of increased rates, etc. I can't even imagine how many cards are out there from my store alone, let alone every store across the country.

Sadly, the people applying for these cards were living up to the stereotype. Not a single person was white, and not a single one was wearing inexpensive clothes or didn't have their hair and makeup done. For people that can't even pay their bills, they sure managed to come in dressed to impress.

[BallHawk]

Ummm... You're kidding me, one of my best friends dad is a social worker for the government (6 weeks paid vacation annually, mind you). He says that the vast majority of the people that he sees in the ghetto don't wake up before noon unless its the first of the month (when they're camped out for their check). They have cable, they just don't pay it.

Well, if Partial's best friends' dad says it then it must be true!

:roll:

[Partial]

Ummm... You're kidding me, one of my best friends dad is a social worker for the government (6 weeks paid vacation annually, mind you). He says that the vast majority of the people that he sees in the ghetto don't wake up before noon unless its the first of the month (when they're camped out for their check). They have cable, they just don't pay it.

Well, if Partial's best friends' dad says it then it must be true!

:roll:

You have a lot to learn. Maybe you should go start chasing some girls instead of acting like a 13 year old know it all.

Instead of being a little 13 year old bitch, I suggest you take some time to view each and every episode of Hood 2 Hood online and then come back and talk to me.

[Partial]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT7BVyZPATw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT7BVyZPATw

I could go on and on and on.

The scariest part about Barack Obama is he worked as a social worker, he knows exactly how big of worthless assholes most of these people are, and he still wants to pump a ton of money into the ghettos.

Good thing you can't vote Ballhawk. You should wait until you grow up, have to get a job, buy yourself a car, and take a cruise through the ghetto before you speak on which you know not of.

[Partial]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLYzg1w2hKE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6AYhT8X7wE&feature=related

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

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

I don't see these guys out there applying for jobs or contributing anything good to society. As a result, I have no sympathy.

[Partial]

"My watch costs more than your house nigga"

[BallHawk]

Partial, you're the biggest fucking elitist the world has ever had the misfortune of seeing.

[BallHawk]

Good thing you can't vote Ballhawk. You should wait until you grow up, have to get a job, buy yourself a car, and take a cruise through the ghetto before you speak on which you know not of.

I think you're right, P. I'll wait until I obtain the same staggering amount of knowledge and intelligence that you have. I'm sure then I'll be smart enough to vote.

On that note, Partial, it's time to go play with yourself. Your man-sack is due to explode any minute now.

[Partial]

Wow, those insults instead of an actual rebuttle are quite classy and speak volumes about you. The onlyelitist here is you, thinking everyone should get an equal piece of the pie because you've got so damn much money as a 13 year old that you don't know how to spend it all! As for my mansack, I had sex 5 times last weekend. Once you touch a girl for the first time, you can come talk to me about my mansack :lol:

[BallHawk]

Wow, those insults instead of an actual rebuttle are quite classy and speak volumes about you. The onlyelitist here is you, thinking everyone should get an equal piece of the pie because you've got so damn much money as a 13 year old that you don't know how to spend it all! As for my mansack, I had sex 5 times last weekend. Once you touch a girl for the first time, you can come talk to me about my mansack :lol:

Please, do not start with your "this shows me your character" shtick. You've only done it with every goddamn person on this forum already.

And bragging about having sex on an internet forum? Nice one, dude. I'm sure Anna's proud of ya.

[Partial]

Wow, those insults instead of an actual rebuttle are quite classy and speak volumes about you. The onlyelitist here is you, thinking everyone should get an equal piece of the pie because you've got so damn much money as a 13 year old that you don't know how to spend it all! As for my mansack, I had sex 5 times last weekend. Once you touch a girl for the first time, you can come talk to me about my mansack :lol:

Please, do not start with your "this shows me your character" shtick. You've only done it with every goddamn person on this forum already.

And bragging about having sex on an internet forum? Nice one, dude. I'm sure Anna's proud of ya.

Ballhawk, when you get to be my age and are getting some on a regular occasion it isn't bragging and it isn't a big deal. It's called a joke.

You're a 13 year old kid who's not even legally allowed to work. Yet, you go around talking a big game like you know all the answers. Hell, I was a 13 year old once too, so I know how it is, except the difference was I was far more concerned with learning about myself, my friends, rec basketball, pirating dreamcast games, and flirting with every girl in site. I sure as hell didn't have an attitude or act like I knew anything about politics, jobs, the economy, or how the world works.

That's good that you're ambitious and like learning about this stuff, but these are things that you can't read in a book or google. You've got to see it first hand. Assanine claims about how the Obama support group is going to show up in full-force while the Republicans and older crowd are going to stay at home are a prime testament to this. Every time I have gone to the polls (yes, even that first time in high school to cast an ignorant ballet for that crook Jimmy D, Herbert Kohl and Russ Feingold), it has been by far and away a majority of older people w/ the exception of when I voted on campus at Platteville.

You should start discussing life with Madtown. I think you'll learn a lot.

[BallHawk]

Partial, for the love of God, I'm 15. I can legally work and I have a job.

And, no, Partial, I don't claim to know all the answers. I don't go around telling people they are wrong and I am right. I don't pretend like I've lived a hard life. I don't act like I'm above people. I don't tell people that they need to get a job. I don't tell people how to raise their kids. I give my opinion and that is it.

Partial, if anybody thinks they know all the answers it is you. If there is one person on this forum that goes around waffling their mouth off on topics that they have no clue on it is you. I'm sure others could testify to that.

And, one more thing Partial, I don't act like I know how things work about politics, jobs, and the economy. I know how these things work. Do I know them to the degree of people like Joe, Harlan, and others on here? Of course not. But I will stand behind what I know and what I believe and to have somebody like you tell me what I know and don't know is laughable.

[Freak Out]

I thought Ballhawk was a 52 year old perv.....he's 13?

[BallHawk]

I thought Ballhawk was a 52 year old perv.....he's 13?

The age-old debate..... :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Uh...Tyrone....I believe that was sarcasm, and yes, turning gray in the ER is about the only way to get attention there short of collapsing unconscious or screaming for an emesis basin (and if someone hears your plea, they hand you one and leave you alone for a few more hours).

If little Johnny was at the docs office with that earache instead of the ER, you'd have gotten treatment faster, no?

I knew it was sarcasm. I was illustrating how bad it is to go to the ER. And, that is the point...i had a SERIOUS medical issue and freakin moronic parents bring their kid who can wait to the ER.

C'mon Zig, you should know be better than that.

But, i love how you are on the same page as me. When will you be flying out to glorious scottsdale to consumate our forbidden love?

[GrnBay007]

Why would I want to pay for J-bones' health care so he can sit on the couch with his cable and collect welfare checks? Fuck that. Doctors cannot refuse care. They already get treated for free. Why make me pay for them?


When it all comes down to it, you are paying for it in some shape or form. If someone without insurance goes to the ER for medical attention because that is the only way they can receive care the money for that medical attention is going to be received somehow.....whether it be through your higher taxes, higher insurance, higher co-pay, higher doctor fees....they are going to retrieve that money someway.

[GrnBay007]

You're a 13 year old kid who's not even legally allowed to work. Yet, you go around talking a big game like you know all the answers.


With all due respect, you are only what, 22, 23? There is a wealth of knowledge...."life lessons" you can learn as well from many of those at this site, IMO.

[GrnBay007]

Anyway, back to the question of a recession. I, for one, have noticed my paycheck is not stretching as far as it used over the last 4 months or so. I've asked others if they have noticed it because for me it was about the same time I increased my money going into a deferred compensation at work and I was beginning to think I went overboard with that.

[oregonpackfan]

Respected economist Warren Buffet stated today that America is already in a recession. The question is no longer "if" or "when," according to Buffet.

[Partial]

My dad says we've been in a recession for a couple of years. He has said that everyone that he talks to that owns a small business says business is pretty darn bad, and that no one has any spare money these days.

I question whether this is a result of overspending, recession looming, or if people are merely shopping at the big chains versus the local businesses.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Respected economist Warren Buffet stated today that America is already in a recession. The question is no longer "if" or "when," according to Buffet.

Not to quibble with Mr. Buffet about whether we are in a recession or not, but rather to note to you that he is not an economist.

[Zool]

Respected economist Warren Buffet stated today that America is already in a recession. The question is no longer "if" or "when," according to Buffet.

Not to quibble with Mr. Buffet about whether we are in a recession or not, but rather to note to you that he is not an economist.

What does a parrot head know about the economy?

[oregonpackfan]

Respected economist Warren Buffet stated today that America is already in a recession. The question is no longer "if" or "when," according to Buffet.

Not to quibble with Mr. Buffet about whether we are in a recession or not, but rather to note to you that he is not an economist.

Perhaps "Respected Businessman" would have been a more appropriate description. In any event, I agree with Buffet that the U.S. is indeed in a recession whether the President agrees with him or not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Respected economist Warren Buffet stated today that America is already in a recession. The question is no longer "if" or "when," according to Buffet.

Not to quibble with Mr. Buffet about whether we are in a recession or not, but rather to note to you that he is not an economist.

Perhaps "Respected Businessman" would have been a more appropriate description. In any event, I agree with Buffet that the U.S. is indeed in a recession whether the President agrees with him or not.

That is better. Because no econonist would say we are in a recession. The #s don't back it up.

BTW, i'm in agreement with Mr. Buffet.

[Freak Out]

Read this crap....forgive part of the principal? WTF man......they signed the mortgage.

Bernanke Urges Banks to Forgive Portion of Mortgages (Update6)

By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, battling the worst housing recession in a quarter century, urged lenders to forgive portions of mortgages held by homeowners at risk of defaulting.

``Efforts by both government and private-sector entities to reduce unnecessary foreclosures are helping, but more can, and should, be done,'' Bernanke said in a speech to bankers in Orlando, Florida, today. ``Principal reductions that restore some equity for the homeowner may be a relatively more effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure.''

Bernanke's call goes beyond the stance of the Bush administration and previous Fed comments, indicating that he sees housing as a serious threat to the economy that can't be addressed by fiscal or monetary policy alone. The Fed's Feb. 27 report to Congress called for lenders to ``pursue prudent loan workouts'' through means such as modifying mortgage terms and deferring payments.

The Fed chief highlighted the threat posed by home values falling below mortgage balances, something Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson played down yesterday. Bernanke said the ``recent surge'' in delinquencies has been ``closely linked'' to the slide of home equity.

Paulson said in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday that ``almost too much'' has been made out of concerns about homeowners whose house prices have dropped below their mortgages. He also said the administration's strategy is ``the right approach and we are making substantial progress.''

`My Focus'

``There will be instances where lenders are going to clearly see that the best solution for them which is less costly than a foreclosure is going to be a writedown of principal on a mortgage,'' Paulson said today in an interview with American Public Radio's ``Marketplace'' program, according to a transcript on its Web site. ``My focus is on the homeowner who wants to stay in the home, is willing to reach out, talk to someone to solve the problem.''

Mortgage servicers ``should have a clear basis for concluding'' that borrowers are unable to make their payments, ``rather than simply being unwilling to do so'' before reducing loan principal, the American Securitization Forum said.

The forum, whose members include Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc., lobbies for investors, traders, underwriters, accounting firms, ratings companies and other institutions involved in the creation and sale of mortgage- backed securities. The group commented in a statement today.

The Mortgage Bankers Association also stopped short of endorsing Bernanke's call.

Legal Contracts

``It is not a casual thing to disrupt an existing legal contract, as those contracts are the basis on which our market system is based,'' the group's president, Jonathan Kempner, said in a statement. ``That said, there is an incentive for lenders, borrowers and investors to work together to maximize the value of the relationship.''

The American Financial Services Association, a 350-member trade group for the U.S. consumer-credit industry, is supportive of Bernanke's idea, as long as it's voluntary, said spokeswoman Lynne Strang.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Thrifts and Mortgage Finance Index, based on seven stocks including Fannie Mae and Countrywide Financial Corp., fell 2.5 percent to 42.61 today. That compares with a 0.3 percent drop in the full S&P 500 benchmark stock index.

Democrats in Congress have said relying on lenders to alter loan terms hasn't yielded enough progress and are pushing for a stronger government response.

House Declines

Bernanke warned today that the housing crisis may deepen.

``Delinquencies and foreclosures likely will continue to rise for a while longer,'' Bernanke said in the comments to the Independent Community Bankers of America. A surfeit of homes for sale indicates ``further declines in house prices are likely,'' he said.

The Standard & Poor's Thrift & Mortgage index, which includes Countrywide Financial Corp. and Washington Mutual Inc. slumped 4.2 percent today to 40.83 at 1:56 p.m. in New York.

Bernanke spoke in a state that's among the worst affected by the housing collapse. Miami home prices have dropped 17.5 percent in the past year, the most of 20 large U.S. cities, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index. Foreclosures in Florida jumped at more than double the nationwide pace, rising 158 percent in the past year, according to RealtyTrac.

Subprime borrowers are about to see their mortgage rates increase more than 1 percentage point, he said. ``Declines in short-term interest rates and initiatives involving rate freezes will reduce the impact somewhat, but interest-rate resets will nevertheless impose stress on many households.''

`Vigorous' Response

In the past, homeowners could refinance, though that option is now ``largely'' gone because sales of bonds backed by subprime mortgages ``have virtually halted,'' Bernanke said. ``This situation calls for a vigorous response.''

Bernanke didn't comment on the outlook for interest rates. Traders expect the Federal Open Market Committee to lower the benchmark rate by 0.75 percentage point by or at the panel's next meeting on March 18, based on futures prices.

Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn told lawmakers today that officials are considering whether ``we have adequate insurance'' against the risks of a deeper downturn in growth. He also reiterated policy makers' call for banks to raise capital, and added that they ought to review their dividend plans.

``Lenders tell us that they are reluctant to write down principal,'' Bernanke said. ``They say that if they were to write down the principal and house prices were to fall further, they could feel pressured to write down principal again.''

Short Payoffs

The Fed chairman countered that by reducing the amount of the loan, this ``may increase the expected payoff by reducing the risk of default and foreclosure.''

Bernanke also urged investors in mortgage bonds to accept ``short payoffs'' of loans by allowing borrowers to refinance at a lower principal.

For investors, a reduction in principal that's ``sufficient to make borrowers eligible for a new loan would remove the downside risk'' of further writedowns or defaults, Bernanke said. Investors may be able to share in future gains in home prices under some plans, he said, citing a proposal by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Paulson, by contrast, has declined to endorse the OTS plan. John Reich, director of the OTS, last month proposed a program where borrowers would refinance mortgages at current home values. The lender would receive a ``negative equity'' certificate that could be redeemed if the house is sold.

Owners' Responsibility

The Treasury chief yesterday stressed that it's the responsibility of borrowers to get in touch with lenders if they're facing payment problems. He said 80 percent of homeowners who were sent letters by the Hope Now alliance of mortgage servicers haven't responded.

The number of U.S. homeowners entering foreclosure rose 75 percent in 2007, with more than 1 percent in some stage of foreclosure during the year, according to RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, California. For the year, more than 2.2 million default notices, auction notices and bank repossessions were reported on about 1.3 million properties.

Yesterday, the Fed and other regulators sent letters to institutions they supervise, encouraging the banks to report on their efforts to modify mortgages at risk of default.

``This will make it easier for regulators, the mortgage industry, lawmakers and homeowners to assess the effectiveness of these efforts,'' Fed Governor Randall Kroszner said in a statement yesterday.

To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg.net; Steve Matthews in Atlanta at smatthews@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 4, 2008 18:15 EST

[MJZiggy]

I want my principle reduced too...I had the option of taking an ARM and flat refused for this exact reason. So I paid more in interest in the first 5 years of the loan.

[LL2]

Owners' Responsibility

The Treasury chief yesterday stressed that it's the responsibility of borrowers to get in touch with lenders if they're facing payment problems. He said 80 percent of homeowners who were sent letters by the Hope Now alliance of mortgage servicers haven't responded.

80% of homeowners received a letter from Hope Now and HAVE NOT responded! Hope Now is a non-profit that's there to help people keep their homes. If people do nothing to try to save their home then it's their stupid fault for losing it.

[The Leaper]

The entire concept of a RECESSION, as the term would imply, is that you are going backwards.

In terms of the numbers, our economy has slowed to a mere crawl, but it is not going backwards.

As such, I find it difficult to claim we are in a recession. I think the chances that we actually will reach the point of a recession are very high...as the forces impacting the economy negatively in the last 2 years are still at work, and by most accounts still are having a strong impact.

Buffet is merely spouting off because he now has a political stake on the Democratic side of the ledger...so of course he will claim the economy is worse currently than the numbers truly suggest. In an election year, you can't take anyone's opinion as unbiased.

Neither Buffet or Bush is right IMO. There is no need to claim our economy is horrible. The problem is due to reasons we all recognize and understand. However, there is also no need to claim there is no cause for concern.

We aren't in recession, but we are heading there. Why the hell can't people recognize the truth rather than twist words to meet their own agendas?

[the_idle_threat]

Leaper is right. We are not in a recession, according to the latest numbers. "Recession" is a term defined by a numerical measure, it is not defined by opinion---whether the opinion comes from red or Partial's dad or Warren Buffett. If the Gross Domestic Product (basically, the value of all goods and services produced by domestic businesses) recedes rather than grows for two consecutive quarters, we are in a recession. This hasn't happened. Look up the GDP numbers. The 4th quarter of 2007 still showed GDP growth, so we're not even halfway there.

But recession is not the sole measure of economic well-being. It measures economic output by our economy, but it really doesn't measure costs. And since it's the cost side of the ledger that has spiraled upwards (gas and energy costs, housing costs, healhcare costs, etc.) we've had hard economic times for a while now while not actually being in a recession. But those higher costs (along with other factors) have been a drag on output, and GDP growth has been slowing even though it hasn't gone negative. That's why many believe we will see a recession yet.

Also, some individual industries have been in a recession even if the overall economy has not been. Housing and lending sectors, for example, have been in recession for a while. But nobody seems to mention that these recessionary times were preceded by rapid and unsustsainable growth in those same industries. It's just a reversion to the mean, like we saw in the technology sector after the tech boom. Nobody complains when growth exceeds expectations, but everybody acts surprised when the industry gets ahead of itself and stumbles a bit. Nobody complains when their house doubles in value in a 5 year period, but then they complain when they find out afterward that it was overvalued after all? Common sense, folks.

A recession might happen, but then again it might not. Unemployment numbers are still historically below average. Businesses adapt and are still making money and producing goods/services. Most of you still go to work every day and create value for the economy. We will get past this housing & financing bubble and things will go back to normal.

Overinflated home values will stagnate or even fall, but the flip side is that inflated housing costs should stagnate or fall too. Creditors may tighten lending standards and offer less easy credit than before, but the flipside is that less risky lending should eventually mean lower lending costs from defaults. It evens out---it just takes time. How much time is the question. In the meantime, put one foot in front of the other and don't panic.

[Joemailman]

I think the question is whether the perception that we are in a recession will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people pull back on spending because they are afraid of the future effects of the imagined recession, could that not help push us into an actual recession?

[Freak Out]

There will be blood.....we haven't seen anything yet as far as I'm concerned. Just look at some of the data out there. The credit market is the worst it's been in 30 years.....longer probably. Businesses that need to refinance are screwed and will be forced to file bankruptcy. It could very well turn into a brutal time for many.

[Freak Out]

Fucking Bernanke.

[Scott Campbell]

Costco and BJ's are raking in the cash due to the slowing economy. Opportunity is everywhere for those willing to look hard enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Costco and BJ's are raking in the cash due to the slowing economy. Opportunity is everywhere for those willing to look hard enough.

People with deep pockets can often ride-out specific losses and get much richer in recessions and depressions. Something about buying low and selling high. Its not JUST intelligence/willingness/superiority on their part. Smaller fish have assets tied-up in investments they can't afford to drop at bottom of market, or they sell and take terrible losses. Not everybody is so liquid.

A lot of fortunes were made in the Great Depression.

[The Leaper]

People with deep pockets can often ride-out specific losses and get much richer in recessions and depressions.

It is not about deeper pockets...it is about being relatively free of debt.

In a credit crunch, those who do not rely on the accumulation of debt to finance their lives are at an advantage. Those who rely on an accumulation of debt live outside of their means...and it is difficult for those people to survive when the belt needs to tighten, even if they have the ability to produce a large cash flow for themselves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know shit about this stuff, I'm just faking it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People with deep pockets can often ride-out specific losses and get much richer in recessions and depressions.

It is not about deeper pockets...it is about being relatively free of debt.

In a credit crunch, those who do not rely on the accumulation of debt to finance their lives are at an advantage. Those who rely on an accumulation of debt live outside of their means...and it is difficult for those people to survive when the belt needs to tighten, even if they have the ability to produce a large cash flow for themselves.

Umm, who the eff doesn't use credit. That is what made this country great. :oops:

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

[The Leaper]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

I'm sure you could almost count the number without any debt on one hand.

What I'm getting at are people who use debt to live beyond their means...paying more than 40% of your monthly income toward your home and/or using debt to finance common big ticket purchases. If you have the coin to afford the debt you are taking on and do so because you can get a good rate on it, I don't think that is necessarily living beyond your means.

People who train themselves to use cash rather than plastic are typically the ones who are better off in a credit crunch.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

I'm sure you could almost count the number without any debt on one hand.

What I'm getting at are people who use debt to live beyond their means...paying more than 40% of your monthly income toward your home and/or using debt to finance common big ticket purchases. If you have the coin to afford the debt you are taking on and do so because you can get a good rate on it, I don't think that is necessarily living beyond your means.

People who train themselves to use cash rather than plastic are typically the ones who are better off in a credit crunch.

And, who doesn't live beyond their means in this country? Take out the depression era folks who have an apocalypse could happen any minute mindset and there are very few.

This country has a poor savings rate..and that is being kind. Perhaps you might wanna talk to our prez who told us the best thing we could do was to spend.

[red]

one thing no to forget is the mass amounts of outsourcing, or companies just opening factories in other countries

these companies can still post decent numbers, they are making money and showing good gains. but the only americans that are making money are the stockholders and the very upper management. they take the money from americans by selling their products, but don't reinvest in this country, or supply any american workers with money that they can then spend in the market

i'm not sure if this would make a bad economy look better then it is or not

but its something to consider.

if american companies don't have american workers, sooner or later on a long enough time line americans will no longer have the money to buy any of those products. even if those companies are showing large profits

[red]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

I'm sure you could almost count the number without any debt on one hand.

What I'm getting at are people who use debt to live beyond their means...paying more than 40% of your monthly income toward your home and/or using debt to finance common big ticket purchases. If you have the coin to afford the debt you are taking on and do so because you can get a good rate on it, I don't think that is necessarily living beyond your means.

People who train themselves to use cash rather than plastic are typically the ones who are better off in a credit crunch.

And, who doesn't live beyond their means in this country? Take out the depression era folks who have an apocalypse could happen any minute mindset and there are very few.

This country has a poor savings rate..and that is being kind. Perhaps you might wanna talk to our prez who told us the best thing we could do was to spend.

this is exactly what you're suppose to do to get the economy going again. usualy if people spend, companies make money, and that money funnels to the workers in terms of wages, that they then reinvest in the economy.

however if we spend more now, that money just ends up going overseas, and doesn't help the economy much at all, except for a a handfull of people.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.


Start a poll.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

I'm sure you could almost count the number without any debt on one hand.

What I'm getting at are people who use debt to live beyond their means...paying more than 40% of your monthly income toward your home and/or using debt to finance common big ticket purchases. If you have the coin to afford the debt you are taking on and do so because you can get a good rate on it, I don't think that is necessarily living beyond your means.

People who train themselves to use cash rather than plastic are typically the ones who are better off in a credit crunch.


I use plastic for virtually every purchase - for the convenience and the audit trail. But it has little to do with debt. Lots of people pay off balances in full each month.

[MJZiggy]

Me too. And I don't live beyond my means either.

[Freak Out]

I put everything on my Alaska Airlines visa......home and business. But it gets paid off every month. Were not going to spend our way out of this one folks....that's the problem right now with our Government. Spending money we don't have.

[Partial]

I don't know the figures, but i'd love to know what percent don't have debt..or extreme debt.

I'm sure you could almost count the number without any debt on one hand.

What I'm getting at are people who use debt to live beyond their means...paying more than 40% of your monthly income toward your home and/or using debt to finance common big ticket purchases. If you have the coin to afford the debt you are taking on and do so because you can get a good rate on it, I don't think that is necessarily living beyond your means.

People who train themselves to use cash rather than plastic are typically the ones who are better off in a credit crunch.


I use plastic for virtually every purchase - for the convenience and the audit trail. But it has little to do with debt. Lots of people pay off balances in full each month.

Correct. It is simply for conviences sake. It's a scary thought though that people have come into Sears to pay their bill and have had as high as 31k in debt on a 26% card. Talk about a DFI

[Partial]

I put everything on my Alaska Airlines visa......home and business. But it gets paid off every month. Were not going to spend our way out of this one folks....that's the problem right now with our Government. Spending money we don't have.

Correct, but you are a democrat I would guess from the posts that I've seen and if you haven't noticed, there plan is to take the money out of iraq and give it to the ungrateful poor and for universal health care for the poor, so guys like you and me who earn over the threshold have to pay into that as well as get our own private insurance.

[MJZiggy]

Where the hell do you get that? Universal means universal. Like for everyone. And please explain to me what keeping troops in Iraq is getting us that's better than healthcare for everyone?

[Partial]

Where the hell do you get that? Universal means universal. Like for everyone. And please explain to me what keeping troops in Iraq is getting us that's better than healthcare for everyone?

Listen to what Obama has to say. It's keeping myself and my family and my friends from being blown up.

[The Leaper]

Where the hell do you get that? Universal means universal. Like for everyone. And please explain to me what keeping troops in Iraq is getting us that's better than healthcare for everyone?

Oh, I don't know...perhaps a civil war in the Middle East and $10 a gallon gasoline.

If Iraq collapses into civil war...which is a real possibility if we go Obama-o-rama and just yank everyone out and tell them to get along nice without us...the world economy, which is based strongly on the oil coming from that region of the world, will become increasing unstable.

I'm fine with people who don't agree with the Bush administration's decisions regarding Iraq...Rumsfeld was an incompetant moron and Bush isn't exactly a genius. Disagreement doesn't change the status quo though. We are there and basically the one thing standing between peace and civil war. Ignoring that reality is very dangerous IMO. Thinking you can just reverse everything and make it all better by pulling everyone out is NOT a solution at this point.

We can easily maintain peace in Iraq and provide a solution to health care and balance the budget. However, it will take politicians who want to find solutions...not cling to party lines and special interests. Unfortunately, Washington has very few of these individuals...so WHOEVER becomes president doesn't have a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.

[Partial]

We can easily maintain peace in Iraq and provide a solution to health care and balance the budget. However, it will take politicians who want to find solutions...not cling to party lines and special interests. Unfortunately, Washington has very few of these individuals...so WHOEVER becomes president doesn't have a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.

Now that I do not believe.

Health Care was going to boost the taxation to something like 40-50% of take-home pay. That is ridiculous. That means they need to generate new revenue to accomplish this. That means it is very, very expensive(especially when handled by the efficient government).

This, paired with Iraq operations will be very expensive.

We need to get a small government that doesn't spend a lot of money.

[Scott Campbell]

if american companies don't have american workers......



If?

That horse left the barn years ago. The american factory worker can not compete in a global economy when skilled Chinese factory workers are making 70 cents a day. And if it weren't China, it would just be some other low wage country.

Capitalism has little pity for the weakest competitors. You either adapt, or die.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if american companies don't have american workers......



If?

That horse left the barn years ago. The american factory worker can not compete in a global economy when skilled Chinese factory workers are making 70 cents a day. And if it weren't China, it would just be some other low wage country.

Capitalism has little pity for the weakest competitors. You either adapt, or die.

How do you expect American workers to adapt to these realities? Work for 65 cents per day? Beg in the streets?

If health care is tied to employers, many people are going to suffer badly, there simply aren't enough jobs with good benefits to go around. It is very hard for people to retrain themselves.

I don't see how we can have relatively free trade without massive consequences to people. Yes, people must adapt, but do you truly beleive they will be able to do it, in large numbers, on their own?

[Scott Campbell]

if american companies don't have american workers......



If?

That horse left the barn years ago. The american factory worker can not compete in a global economy when skilled Chinese factory workers are making 70 cents a day. And if it weren't China, it would just be some other low wage country.

Capitalism has little pity for the weakest competitors. You either adapt, or die.

How do you expect American workers to adapt to these realities? Work for 65 cents per day? Beg in the streets?

I don't understand you. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you aren't stupid. A little less secure in thinking you are not cruel, but we'll go with that theory for sake of discussion. Why are you so unwilling to help people who are displaced by globalization? If health care is tied to employers, many people are going to suffer badly, there simply aren't enough jobs with good benefits to go around. It is very hard for people to retrain themselves.

I don't see how we can have relatively free trade without massive consequences to people. Yes, people must adapt, but do you truly beleive they will be able to do it, in large numbers, on their own?

First off, don't shoot the messenger. Life is cruel. Nature is cruel. Capitalism is cruel. Competition is cruel. The government has its hands full without taking on all life's injustices. First you wanted Forum Utopia. Now you propose Government Utopia. I believe that much of the well intentioned Liberal agenda will just end up enabling mediocrity.

I think our philosophical differences come down to just a few things. I think people are capable of more. You think nobody is lazy, or that nobody has made poor choices that resulted in their misfortune. Everyone has reached their full potential in your world. The "haves" are just lucky, and the "have nots" are just unlucky. I think you struggle accepting personal accountability for your own lot in life, and project those same rationalizations on everyone else who struggles.

Do I enjoy other people's suffering? No, not even yours. I just think that the government can't make it all better by stealing even more than they already do from those who are achieving. It'll destroy this country.

[Freak Out]

Cheney goes to rehab.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/telnaes/telnaes03072008.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Scott Campbell]

I don't see how we can have relatively free trade without massive consequences to people.



"IF YOU DON'T LIKE CHANGE, YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE IRRELEVANCE EVEN LESS."

--Gen. Eric Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff

[Scott Campbell]

If health care is tied to employers........


I do think that employer provided health care is not working. It restricts free agency. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe insurance portability. Though I am fairly certain that the answer isn't free boob jobs for everyone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

First off, don't shoot the messenger. Life is cruel. Nature is cruel. Capitalism is cruel. Competition is cruel. The government has its hands full without taking on all life's injustices.

We could go back to 1800's Charles Dickens world. Let everybody fend for themselves.

But that is an extreme characterization. I don't THINK you would vote for an end of social security, public education, labor laws. Or would you?

There is a happy balance. It is possible to be pro-business AND care about people. Most people are trying to find that balance. And then you have a few extremist who think they can just implement a one-sided ideology. You caricature me as utopian socialist, but that's not where I'm coming from, I look for a practical compromise.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If health care is tied to employers........


I do think that employer provided health care is not working. It restricts free agency. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe insurance portability. Though I am fairly certain that the answer isn't free boob jobs for everyone.


Employer-provided health care is certainly not working. It is crushing innovation from entrepreneurs, overburdening other businesses. 58 M people run around without insurance.

Its doable to provide health insurance to all.

[Scott Campbell]

I look for a practical compromise.



....as long as it involves you getting more government handouts at the expense of people making more than you.

[Scott Campbell]

Its doable to provide health insurance to all.


Possibly very basic health care. Much healthcare has gotten too expensive for the government to provide the best care to everybody.

[Scott Campbell]

There is a happy balance.


There is no happy balance. Every choice involves unpleasant consequences.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I look for a practical compromise.

....as long as it involves you getting more government handouts at the expense of people making more than you.

no, um, not so. In fact, my opinions have little or nothing to do with my own personal finances or situation. I am looking for policies that both expand the economy and help people who are struggling & under-represented.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its doable to provide health insurance to all.


Possibly very basic health care. Much healthcare has gotten too expensive for the government to provide the best care to everybody.

the government can provide basic care to all. We're already paying for this anyway through indirect costs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is a happy balance.


There is no happy balance. Every choice involves unpleasant consequences.


No, the world is not a zero-sum game. Latin America, where the economies grew wildly without helping the lower classes, is not a pretty place to live. It is possible to help people and have a thriving economy. Our economy is built on this model, we have a mixed economy. Things are just a bit out of balance.

[The Leaper]

No, the world is not a zero-sum game.

I would agree. There can be win-win scenarios...not always, but the vast majority of the time.

The problem is that it takes visionary people who are out to actually solve the issues facing them, not hold to party lines or accomodate special interests. Washington doesn't have many of those kinds of people on either side.

[Freak Out]

No, the world is not a zero-sum game.

I would agree. There can be win-win scenarios...not always, but the vast majority of the time.

The problem is that it takes visionary people who are out to actually solve the issues facing them, not hold to party lines or accomodate special interests. Washington doesn't have many of those kinds of people on either side.

Bingo bango bongo.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Where the hell do you get that? Universal means universal. Like for everyone. And please explain to me what keeping troops in Iraq is getting us that's better than healthcare for everyone?

Oh, I don't know...perhaps a civil war in the Middle East and $10 a gallon gasoline.

If Iraq collapses into civil war...which is a real possibility if we go Obama-o-rama and just yank everyone out and tell them to get along nice without us...the world economy, which is based strongly on the oil coming from that region of the world, will become increasing unstable.

I'm fine with people who don't agree with the Bush administration's decisions regarding Iraq...Rumsfeld was an incompetant moron and Bush isn't exactly a genius. Disagreement doesn't change the status quo though. We are there and basically the one thing standing between peace and civil war. Ignoring that reality is very dangerous IMO. Thinking you can just reverse everything and make it all better by pulling everyone out is NOT a solution at this point.

We can easily maintain peace in Iraq and provide a solution to health care and balance the budget. However, it will take politicians who want to find solutions...not cling to party lines and special interests. Unfortunately, Washington has very few of these individuals...so WHOEVER becomes president doesn't have a chance in hell of accomplishing anything.

There is going to be war no matter what. THe current policy is just to pay off both sides, we can't keep that up. The sunnis and shites aren't really getting along...they are just taking our money. The still regularly find "al queda" members among them...is it real or just feuds.

Bush and Cheney: That may be the understatement of the year.

I'm sorry, but we can't continue to spend money in that country and do all that we need to do here. The fraud, the waste is just mind blowing. Do you realize how much money has gone unaccounted for?

I kick myself in the ass everyday for not going over there and starting some bs company and stealing from OUR TAX PAYERS like all the other companies.

[The Leaper]

I kick myself in the ass everyday for not going over there and starting some bs company and stealing from OUR TAX PAYERS like all the other companies.

News to Ty...

You don't have to go over there to do that. There are plenty of companies that have nothing to do with the war that are stealing from taxpayers at home.

[MJZiggy]

Health Care was going to boost the taxation to something like 40-50% of take-home pay. That is ridiculous. That means they need to generate new revenue to accomplish this. That means it is very, very expensive(especially when handled by the efficient government).

This, paired with Iraq operations will be very expensive.

We need to get a small government that doesn't spend a lot of money.

First off, 50% taxation? Source?

Secondly, we had a comparatively small government that comparatively didn't spend a lot of money. It was called the Clinton Administration.

[Scott Campbell]

Health Care was going to boost the taxation to something like 40-50% of take-home pay. That is ridiculous. That means they need to generate new revenue to accomplish this. That means it is very, very expensive(especially when handled by the efficient government).

This, paired with Iraq operations will be very expensive.

We need to get a small government that doesn't spend a lot of money.

First off, 50% taxation? Source?

Secondly, we had a comparatively small government that comparatively didn't spend a lot of money. It was called the Clinton Administration.


35% Income Tax - top rate
2.9 % Medicare (employer pays half)
15% Social Security - though its phased out at around $100K and employer pays half.
~7% State Tax
~7% Sales Tax
~5% Property Tax (varies, based on value of home and income earned)


It adds up in a hurry.

[Harlan Huckleby]

35% Income Tax - top rate
2.9 % Medicare (employer pays half)
15% Social Security - though its phased out at around $100K and employer pays half.
~7% State Tax
~7% Sales Tax
~5% Property Tax (varies, based on value of home and income earned)


wealthy people pay little or no Social Security relative to their incomes. (the justification is that social security is earmarked for an insurance plan, but this has long been bogus, it's just another collected tax.)

wealthy people often pay far less than 35% tax rate, since much of their income comes from investment taxed at a lower rate.

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass. I got nothing against wealthy people, just want them to pay the same percentage as others.

Ya, income taxes are high. If I were the Czar, they might be higher. That's because I would eliminate all corporate & business taxes, only tax money that people take out of businesses as personal income. I think the it would come out well, but doesn't matter to me - it's great to be the Czar! :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

wealthy people pay little or no Social Security relative to their incomes.


The key phrase being "relative to their incomes". They pay far more in real dollars than the lower and middle classes. Though that doesn't count in Harlan math.

[Scott Campbell]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.


People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

[Harlan Huckleby]

wealthy people pay little or no Social Security relative to their incomes.

The key phrase being "relative to their incomes". They pay far more in real dollars than the lower and middle classes. Though that doesn't count in Harlan math.

actually a rich person doesn't pay far more, even in absolute dollars, because of the cap, and a total absence of SS charges on investment income.

Coincidentally, there was a radio show on tonight talking about how much taxes rich people pay. Check it out. The actual rate that wealthy people pay in Federal taxes is about 18%, not the 35% that you estimated. This is because of the capital gains dodge that I mentioned.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp

It seems that my "Harlan math" is catching on. I notice when I buy something at the store, they don't have a flat fee tax, like $5 a purchase. No, the sales tax is a percentage, 5.5%. Most people agree that taxes are most fairly applied as a percentage. Good luck with your flat-fee for the wealthy movement.

[Harlan Huckleby]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.

People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

:lol: Yes, by your unique way of viewing taxes, poor people pay far fewer tax dollars than rich people.

I had a similar argument with my Republican old man recently. He points out that the top 5% earners in our society are carrying a larger and larger tax burden. They pay a far larger percentage of total income taxes than 30 years ago.

I tried to explain to my dad the obvious explanation that wealth has become far more concentrated in the top 5%. The wealthy are not more virtuous, just more wealthy. The tax rate for wealthy is at historically low rate.

He'll not hear of it. BTW, I think he would be very interested in your flat-fee-for-the-wealthy plan.

[MJZiggy]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.


People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.

And another issue we haven't even mentioned is the availability of tax shelters for richer people. I hear that the IRS has tightened this over the years, but I expect it is still a factor.

[Partial]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.


People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.

So maybe they should get a second job? The jobs that pay a lot of money are rarely 40 hours a week, ya know. My boss probably works about 70.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So maybe they should get a second job?

:lol: Little hard to see how this applies to tax fairness.

You're right that a lot of high earning people work long hours. A lot of low paid workers end of working long hours too, though. Lots of people work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

[Partial]

I just am sick of excuses. I think taxing someone more because they make more money is ludacris. Fosco hit the nail on the head with his post several months back.

[GrnBay007]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.


People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.

So maybe they should get a second job? The jobs that pay a lot of money are rarely 40 hours a week, ya know. My boss probably works about 70.

Partial, sometimes I wonder if you think things through before you post. I'm middle class and work over 40 hours a week. I'm a single mom and have worked weekends for 10 years even though my job doesn't require it but have done so in order to be at every one of my kids after school activities and sporting events. So are you saying people that have this "tax issue" should totally negating family values? .....who cares about your family, dammit.....work 70 hours a week!!!! With all due respect you need to live a bit more of the adult life before you begin spouting all this stuff. Right now it appears you are living in a glass house.

[Scott Campbell]

BTW, I think he would be very interested in your flat-fee-for-the-wealthy plan.



Sounds like your old man already likes me more than you.

I'm still not for a flat fee for the wealthy plan.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm obviously not advocating working moms taking on 2nd jobs so they can pay more tax.

I'm correcting Harlan on his math. He says lower income people pay more tax, and that is not true. They pay less tax.

They only pay more tax - as a percentage of their income. They also pay more for gas, lightbulbs, soup, hair dryers, crayons, recliners and toothpaste - as a percentage of their income. That's part of the advantage of having more money - you actually get to buy more stuff if you like. Unless Handout Harlan gets his way.

[Scott Campbell]

That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.



Did you add up the percentages? It's pretty staggering how success gets penalized in this country.

[Scott Campbell]

The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.


So abolish it altogether. Good riddance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I kick myself in the ass everyday for not going over there and starting some bs company and stealing from OUR TAX PAYERS like all the other companies.

News to Ty...

You don't have to go over there to do that. There are plenty of companies that have nothing to do with the war that are stealing from taxpayers at home.

News to Leaper...you can't make the millions over here that you can over there in like 6 months.

[oregonpackfan]

I just am sick of excuses. I think taxing someone more because they make more money is ludacris. Fosco hit the nail on the head with his post several months back.

Partial,

A progressive tax system has been the foundation of America's tax system. They make more money, therefore they pay more taxes.

What stymies me is the President's tax position is that the best way to economically help the middle class, the working class and the poor is to provide more tax breaks for the very wealthy.

It is just a recycled version of Ronald Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory. As long as America takes care of the wealthy, the financial benefits will "Trickle Down" to the rest of American Society.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Funny how people always want to argue with Partial. He is just babbling.

Scott Campbell argues repeatedly for regressive taxes, and now he suggests we can just throw away the Social Security system. No response from the cowering masses.

Wake up, people! Partial is just a diversion, an easy punching bag for old people to lecture. The real devil is in our midst, and his name is Scott Campbell. He's a powerful man who sponsors people in high places, and he's out to destroy our way of life. You must not fear him, now is the time for all people of good faith to stop him cold.

[GrnBay007]

:lol:

[falco]

anyone else notice that favre's retirement has actually given us a reason to spend the offseason somewhere other than the romper room

[Joemailman]

I think Scott is an elitist jerk...unless I win the Powerball this weekend. Then I'll be pissed that most of my winnings will be taxed to fuel Harlan's socialist agenda.

[Partial]

People in the lower and middle classes are taking it up the ass.


People in the lower and middle classes pay less tax - despite your weasel words.

That's because they have less to pay tax with and when you're done paying your taxes, you will have far, far more left over than they start with before paying a dime.

So maybe they should get a second job? The jobs that pay a lot of money are rarely 40 hours a week, ya know. My boss probably works about 70.

Partial, sometimes I wonder if you think things through before you post. I'm middle class and work over 40 hours a week. I'm a single mom and have worked weekends for 10 years even though my job doesn't require it but have done so in order to be at every one of my kids after school activities and sporting events. So are you saying people that have this "tax issue" should totally negating family values? .....who cares about your family, dammit.....work 70 hours a week!!!! With all due respect you need to live a bit more of the adult life before you begin spouting all this stuff. Right now it appears you are living in a glass house.

No, I am saying the excuse that these people who work don't make enough money to pay taxes is a stupid excuse. If they can't afford it, than maybe they should stop making excuses and do what it takes. If they cannot afford to pay an equal share of taxes, than maybe they shouldn't be having their kids. These people bitch and bitch and bitch and excuses are made for them when they are their own worst enemy.

Sound logic dictates that if you can't afford kids, than you should wrap your tool or better yet not have sex. Or better yet, if you're not in a committed, healthy marriage with someone you can trust long term, you shouldn't have kids.

So often people are excused for the poor choices they make. I am quite frankly sick of it.

[Partial]

I'm obviously not advocating working moms taking on 2nd jobs so they can pay more tax.

I'm correcting Harlan on his math. He says lower income people pay more tax, and that is not true. They pay less tax.

They only pay more tax - as a percentage of their income. They also pay more for gas, lightbulbs, soup, hair dryers, crayons, recliners and toothpaste - as a percentage of their income. That's part of the advantage of having more money - you actually get to buy more stuff if you like. Unless Handout Harlan gets his way.

Ding ding ding.

Except that if they cannot afford to have kids and contribute their fair share, then they should get another job, or not have kids. Having kids is a choice, after all, and if you can't afford to pay taxes than you can't afford to give a kid a good life.

[Partial]

I just am sick of excuses. I think taxing someone more because they make more money is ludacris. Fosco hit the nail on the head with his post several months back.

Partial,

A progressive tax system has been the foundation of America's tax system. They make more money, therefore they pay more taxes.

What stymies me is the President's tax position is that the best way to economically help the middle class, the working class and the poor is to provide more tax breaks for the very wealthy.

It is just a recycled version of Ronald Reagan's "Trickle Down" theory. As long as America takes care of the wealthy, the financial benefits will "Trickle Down" to the rest of American Society.

That's why we should have fair tax. It is fair to all parties as the amount you spend dictates the amount you're taxed. Not only that, but it also taxes all the people who don't fill out the paper work currently, and all the illegal immigrants as well.

[Partial]

The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.


So abolish it altogether. Good riddance.

See now that I don't know about. There are plenty of older people who are handicapped from the lack of quality health care back then who gave their good health for our freedom in the form of WW2, Vietnam, etc.

Since the baby boomers are going to take all the money anyway, I think they should start phasing it out so that by the time the baby boomers are dying off no one in paying into it anymore.

It kind of sucks for my generation that will have paid into it and won't get anything back, but it would be a disservice for those that need it currently.

My generation is young enough that we can fund our retirements ourselves if we start today.

[Partial]

I think Scott is an elitist jerk...unless I win the Powerball this weekend. Then I'll be pissed that most of my winnings will be taxed to fuel Harlan's socialist agenda.

Why?

Because he doesn't think he should have to more in taxes that you? He doesn't use the roads, use the water, send his kids to school on any more buses, or require extra teachers than your kids.

Why should someone that makes 150,000 pay a higher pecentage of taxes when a flat tax percentage would already be more money than someone that makes 50,000?

Why should they even pay the same percentage? That is dumb. He doesn't use the services any more than anyone else yet is penalized for probably working twice as many hours, having twice as much higher education, and working twice as hard. I think its bullshit.

If people don't have enough money to get by, then perhaps they should consider going back to school and working a little bit harder to make more money. My belief is there is plenty of money to be made in the world, but people aren't willing to do what it takes to make it.

When I look at my friends parents who do very well for themselves, I see people that dedicate more time to their families, more time to their work, and more time to themselves than your average 50k worker. They accomplish this because they are not lazy and work hard in everything that they do. I don't see them wasting 6 hours a day watching TV or surfing the internet, I see them living very full, busy lives.

Also, I think they're quite a bit more responsible with money. My grandpa has always told me that being well off has nothing to do with how much money you make, its how you live your life. He is 100% accurate.

[GrnBay007]

Or better yet, if you're not in a committed, healthy marriage with someone you can trust long term, you shouldn't have kids.


I sure hope you have that perfect life you have planned out for yourself because I certainly don't think you will be able to handle adversity with your tunnel vision.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why should someone that makes 150,000 pay a higher pecentage of taxes when a flat tax percentage would already be more money than someone that makes 50,000?

Why should they even pay the same percentage? That is dumb. He doesn't use the services any more than anyone else yet is penalized for probably working twice as many hours, having twice as much higher education, and working twice as hard. I think its bullshit.

Mailman was just joking.

But I will try to answer your questions, grasshopper. The concept is that we will all help each other to some extent to improve society, and because we can accomplish things working together (like raise an army to defend the country) that couldn't be done as individuals. You may not agree with this value of contributing to the social good, but that's the explanation.

Most people believe that the social burden should be shared relatively equally. That's why taxes are done as a percentage. A $10,000 tax bill for you is a far greater burden than a $10,000 tax bill for Bill Gates. Again, I understand that you oppose this on philosophical grounds, but that is how most people think.

In actuality rich people pay a significantly lower percentage of their income in taxes than working people, so the system does not meet the standards of fairness that people have generally agreed upon. Perhaps this has something to do with wealthy people having greater influence in government? I don't know, just a thought.

[Partial]

Or better yet, if you're not in a committed, healthy marriage with someone you can trust long term, you shouldn't have kids.


I sure hope you have that perfect life you have planned out for yourself because I certainly don't think you will be able to handle adversity with your tunnel vision.

I handle adversity just fine. I do what it takes to get by. I bet if you'd look at statistics of people who don't make enough money to support a family, most of them had their kids too young, and as a result weren't mature enough for their marriage to be a success, and they probably don't have a college degree let alone a masters or better degree.

My philosophy is if you're not winning, you're losing. I have no sympathy for losers because they have every opportunity to get on top of the world and hump it into submission, but they choose not to. Higher education is practically free if you don't make 30 grand a year and aren't a dependent. Why anyone wouldn't pursue this is beyond me.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Higher education is practically free if you don't make 30 grand a year and aren't a dependent. Why anyone wouldn't pursue this is beyond me.

:?: You mean because grants are widely available? I think not.

[Partial]

Why should someone that makes 150,000 pay a higher pecentage of taxes when a flat tax percentage would already be more money than someone that makes 50,000?

Why should they even pay the same percentage? That is dumb. He doesn't use the services any more than anyone else yet is penalized for probably working twice as many hours, having twice as much higher education, and working twice as hard. I think its bullshit.

Mailman was just joking.

But I will try to answer your questions, grasshopper. The concept is that we will all help each other to some extent to improve society, and because we can accomplish things working together (like raise an army to defend the country) that couldn't be done as individuals. You may not agree with this value of contributing to the social good, but that's the explanation.

Most people believe that the social burden should be shared relatively equally. That's why taxes are done as a percentage. A $10,000 tax bill for you is a far greater burden than a $10,000 tax bill for Bill Gates. Again, I understand that you oppose this on philosophical grounds, but that is how most people think.

In actuality rich people pay a significantly lower percentage of their income in taxes than working people, so the system does not meet the standards of fairness that people have generally agreed upon. Perhaps this has something to do with wealthy people having greater influence in government? I don't know, just a thought.

Except it shouldn't be a percentage. That isn't fair. Thus the need for fair tax, a tax system that IS fair.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There was an amazing story in paper today. I guess they can pull it off because they are so generously endowed. (here come the wise guys) :

MIT OKs Plan to Offer Tuition-Free Break

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — The Massachusetts Institute of Technology says undergraduates whose families earn less than $75,000 a year will not have to pay tuition.

The school says in its plan approved Friday that students will also not be expected take out loans beginning next academic year.

The plan is the latest move by elite U.S. universities to cut costs for middle class families. It is expected to cover about 30 percent of MIT's 4,000 undergraduates.

The university is increasing its financial aid budget by $7 million to $74 million a year and students who have work-study jobs as part of their aid will work fewer hours.

The school says tuition and fees will go up next year by 4 percent to $36,390.

[GrnBay007]

I handle adversity just fine. I do what it takes to get by. I bet if you'd look at statistics of people who don't make enough money to support a family, most of them had their kids too young, and as a result weren't mature enough for their marriage to be a success, and they probably don't have a college degree let alone a masters or better degree.


I support my family just fine on my own. I did not have kids at a young age and I was most definitely mature enough to get married (not that maturity by any means defines a successful marriage) and I do have a college degree. My whole point in adding my two cents to this is that you don't seem to be able to look outside the box. Just curious, you handle adversity just fine....or haven't yet been faced with it? Huge difference.

[Scott Campbell]

He's a powerful man who sponsors people in high places, and he's out to destroy our way of life.


I thought your life sucked, and that destroying it would be doing you a favor.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Scott is an elitist jerk...unless I win the Powerball this weekend. Then I'll be pissed that most of my winnings will be taxed to fuel Harlan's socialist agenda.


:lol:

[Partial]

Higher education is practically free if you don't make 30 grand a year and aren't a dependent. Why anyone wouldn't pursue this is beyond me.

:?: You mean because grants are widely available? I think not.

Are you kidding me? Someone I lived with in college went to school for about a grand a semester.

[Scott Campbell]

A progressive tax system has been the foundation of America's tax system. They make more money, therefore they pay more taxes.


That's not my understanding of progressive taxes. People earning more pay more taxes even with a flat tax. I believe the wealthy should pay more than the poor. But I don't believe in a 35% tax bracket. That's insane.

A progressive tax is where tax percentage rates rise as you earn more. Not only do you pay more, you actually pay a higher percentage. I believe this type of progressive tax scheme to be a disincentive to working hard and earning more.

I also believe that trickle down economics set the table for the unprecedented economic growth of the 90's. It wasn't a matter of taking care of the rich. There were additional tax incentives offered for them to invest in their businesses. Which grew the economy. Which helped out everybody.

Lastly, if MIT is $40K a year, and I make $125 a year - guess what? I'll take the last 5 months off work - quitting at $75K. After taxes, it'd be a wash.

[Partial]

I handle adversity just fine. I do what it takes to get by. I bet if you'd look at statistics of people who don't make enough money to support a family, most of them had their kids too young, and as a result weren't mature enough for their marriage to be a success, and they probably don't have a college degree let alone a masters or better degree.


I support my family just fine on my own. I did not have kids at a young age and I was most definitely mature enough to get married (not that maturity by any means defines a successful marriage) and I do have a college degree. My whole point in adding my two cents to this is that you don't seem to be able to look outside the box. Just curious, you handle adversity just fine....or haven't yet been faced with it? Huge difference.

The difference between me and those who don't earn enough money is they aren't willing to do what it takes. If I have to flip burgers to make ends meet, I'll do it. If I have to wear walmart brand clothing, than so be it. If I can't go out to eat and tip 20%, than I'll eat some ramen noodles at home.

You make enough money to get by and pay your fair share of taxes. You're a success story, not a detriment to society.

[Scott Campbell]

The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.


So abolish it altogether. Good riddance.

See now that I don't know about. There are plenty of older people who are handicapped from the lack of quality health care back then who gave their good health for our freedom in the form of WW2, Vietnam, etc.

Since the baby boomers are going to take all the money anyway, I think they should start phasing it out so that by the time the baby boomers are dying off no one in paying into it anymore.

It kind of sucks for my generation that will have paid into it and won't get anything back, but it would be a disservice for those that need it currently.

My generation is young enough that we can fund our retirements ourselves if we start today.



I didn't mean cut it off immediately. We'd have to wean off it. But what a massive waste. There should be other programs for vets injured in war. I philosophically oppose a national government sponsored mandatory retirement scheme. The government sucks at this kind of stuff. Use your 401K's and Roth’s, or just sock it away yourself.

[Partial]

The social security tax is anal penetrator numero uno for the lower/middle class earner.


So abolish it altogether. Good riddance.

See now that I don't know about. There are plenty of older people who are handicapped from the lack of quality health care back then who gave their good health for our freedom in the form of WW2, Vietnam, etc.

Since the baby boomers are going to take all the money anyway, I think they should start phasing it out so that by the time the baby boomers are dying off no one in paying into it anymore.

It kind of sucks for my generation that will have paid into it and won't get anything back, but it would be a disservice for those that need it currently.

My generation is young enough that we can fund our retirements ourselves if we start today.



I didn't mean cut it off immediately. We'd have to wean off it. But what a massive waste. There should be other programs for vets injured in war. I philosophically oppose a national government sponsored mandatory retirement scheme. The government sucks at this kind of stuff. Use your 401K's and Roth’s, or just sock it away yourself.

Agreed. Problem is how many of these 50 year olds did that knowing they'd have SS. It's now an accepted fact that my generation won't see SS, so I think we should phase it out after the people who deserve it get paid.

[Partial]

Lastly, if MIT is $40K a year, and I make $125 a year - guess what? I'll take the last 5 months off work - quitting at $75K. After taxes, it'd be a wash.

And that my friends is what people don't get. Taxing the hard working and wealthy and not offering them equal incentives to the lesser people is a horrible way of running things.

The government continually tries to bitch slap companies and successful people with high taxes. I think it'd be interesting to watch the US implode on itself if those wealthy business owners said fuck off, we're retiring and closing up shop and laid off every one of their employees.

[Scott Campbell]

Lastly, if MIT is $40K a year, and I make $125 a year - guess what? I'll take the last 5 months off work - quitting at $75K. After taxes, it'd be a wash.

And that my friends is what people don't get. Taxing the hard working and wealthy and not offering them equal incentives to the lesser people is a horrible way of running things.

The government continually tries to bitch slap companies and successful people with high taxes. I think it'd be interesting to watch the US implode on itself if those wealthy business owners said fuck off, we're retiring and closing up shop and laid off every one of their employees.


Harlan can piss and moan all he likes. He's still not going to screw people with money just so he doesn't have to work. There's always a workaround. Always. He's been whining about the low tax rates on Capital gains. That will be nothing compared to what my generation is able to do with Roth income. Picture this - I take just enough money out of my taxable IRA's so that I have lower taxable income than Harlan, and pay even less than him in taxes. The reminder of my living money comes out of my Roth - tax free. Sweet. And the sooner I retire, the sooner I get to stop paying Harlan's ridiculous inflated progressive income tax rates. So I retire. Harlan gets nothing. Neither do all the other people who could have benefited from the tax revenue I would have gladly paid had Harlan not been so greedy. In other words, Harlan screwed the masses once again. But he meant well.

Load up your Roth IRA's people. The Roth was designed to keep Harlan's grubby paws away from your hard earned cash. Your government wants you to save, and this is the carrot they gave us. And it's huge.

[MJZiggy]

I handle adversity just fine. I do what it takes to get by. I bet if you'd look at statistics of people who don't make enough money to support a family, most of them had their kids too young, and as a result weren't mature enough for their marriage to be a success, and they probably don't have a college degree let alone a masters or better degree.


I support my family just fine on my own. I did not have kids at a young age and I was most definitely mature enough to get married (not that maturity by any means defines a successful marriage) and I do have a college degree. My whole point in adding my two cents to this is that you don't seem to be able to look outside the box. Just curious, you handle adversity just fine....or haven't yet been faced with it? Huge difference.

I agree. I wasn't a kid when I got married either and for the record, my first job was one in which I worked 70 hour weeks and still didn't bring home a lot of money. And I guess this means that Partial is giving up sex entirely because he's not ready to have kids yet. It's the only failsafe method of birth control you know. I know you'll do it, too because there's a rule in life that goes something like: Never ask others to do that which you wouldn't do yourself. So next time you and your sweetie are together, you should think about putting off sex with her for the next 5 to 10 years until you're financially ready to have kids. It's the only responsible thing to do.

And to Scott. I've had money that was taxed lots, and done without money to where I wasn't taxed at all. You have it good. Quit complaining.

[Scott Campbell]

It's the only failsafe method of birth control you know.



Psst. I know a few others. Come see me in the Garbage Can.

[Scott Campbell]

You have it good. Quit complaining.


You don't need to worry about whether I quit complaining or not. I'll have it good regardless of Harlan and his ilk. You need to worry about whether I and others like me quit working or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The government continually tries to bitch slap companies and successful people with high taxes. I think it'd be interesting to watch the US implode on itself if those wealthy business owners said fuck off, we're retiring and closing up shop and laid off every one of their employees.

What is your evidence that the government is bitch-slapping wealthy people?

Take some time to listen to a radio program that debates the issue:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp

[Harlan Huckleby]

You need to worry about whether I and others like me quit working or not.

How would you define this noble group of people, "I and others like me"?
IS it all employed people? Or a subset of key contributors?
Does this group include High School teachers?
Does it include the McDonald's worker?
Are unemployed people in this group?

[MJZiggy]

I wonder if everyone in this entire discussion remembers that our economy is dependent on lower income people...

Partial, because you know one dude who worked the system does not mean that everyone can do the same. And if you were flipping burgers and eating ramen every night (great nutrition--on that you better hope Mickey D's offers health coverage), I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled with what was left over when the government got done with your check.

And for the record, since they used the surplus to start a war instead of fixing Social Security, I'm for getting rid of it too, which is sad because I paid in a lot of years money that I will never get out.

Scott, every single other method of birth control that exists has a failure rate. Every one. Including surgical methods.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, every single other method of birth control that exists has a failure rate. Every one. Including surgical methods.


Would one of you guys rather take care of this one?

[MJZiggy]

That doesn't count--it's just not the same.

[GrnBay007]

You need to worry about whether I and others like me quit working or not.

I'm just curious, what did you mean by this?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Scott refers to the class of people who count.

[GrnBay007]

The difference between me and those who don't earn enough money is they aren't willing to do what it takes. If I have to flip burgers to make ends meet, I'll do it. If I have to wear walmart brand clothing, than so be it. If I can't go out to eat and tip 20%, than I'll eat some ramen noodles at home.


I appreciate your statements here, really, because I was there once. I think you just struck a nerve when you posted about who should and should not have children and that you shouldn't have children if you don't have a successful marriage. You may look at it as an insult, which I'm sure I would have at your age too, but seriously, with all due respect, you have SO much life to live before you should even consider judging others.

[Partial]

You need to worry about whether I and others like me quit working or not.

I'm just curious, what did you mean by this?

He means that the upper middle class are the people that fund this country's bloated government. Not rich enough to hide the money overseas, yet rich enough that you don't see half of what you earn.

[Partial]

The IRS is spending 42 million to alert every american that their rebate check will be coming to them. Why bother?

[Harlan Huckleby]

He means that the upper middle class are the people that fund this country's bloated government. Not rich enough to hide the money overseas, yet rich enough that you don't see half of what you earn.

Partial, if you are going to hold such strong opinions, you really ought to look into the facts. People in the upper middle class, as you so tenderly describe your people, have many tax advantages beyond hiding money in the Cayman Islands.

People who earn 20K ->80K are really, really getting fucked. Every dollar they earn gets clobbered by the Social Security tax. (I won't repeat why the SS collection/accounting is a massive tax offset benefiting wealthier person, I doubt you are listening anyway.) And just as importantly, people earning > 80K are taking far greater advantage of the Capital Gains dodge.

You & Scott have expressed the view that taxes should be similar to other expenses, more-or-less fixed costs, rather than a percentage of income. I get the rational for your argument. You have to accept that you are at odds with the vast majority of Americans who do not view this approach as fair. Your views are extremist right wing, which doesn't in itself make them wrong.

Your views reflect no sense of shared social responsibility. We passed that threshold about 200 years ago.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The IRS is spending 42 million to alert every american that their rebate check will be coming to them. Why bother?

That is like spending $42 to explain/promote a $160,000 program. That doesn't sound so unreasonable now, does it?

Actually, if the 42M is stupidly spent then it is wasted, of course. I don't know the justification, maybe you are right.

[Scott Campbell]

Your views reflect no sense of shared social responsibility.


What complete hogwash. I've never said that, nor do I advocate it. There are many avenues for shared social responsibility - not just the government. I don't believe in government mandated programs for handout junkies like you.

[Scott Campbell]

You need to worry about whether I and others like me quit working or not.

I'm just curious, what did you mean by this?


Everyone benefits from creating tax structures that encourage people to earn more. Penalize high earners with Harlan's hate tax, and you've just screwed everybody. These are the people in this country who can afford to not work, and ride out nutbags like Harlan. Or worse yet, they put their money into other countries economies. The way to get them to contribute more to the economy, create more jobs and pay more tax is not by raising rates - it's by lowering them.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott refers to the class of people who count.


And Harlan is the type of person who can't count, nor be counted upon.

[Joemailman]

The IRS is spending 42 million to alert every american that their rebate check will be coming to them. Why bother?

That is like spending $42 to explain/promote a $160,000 program. That doesn't sound so unreasonable now, does it?

Actually, if the 42M is stupidly spent then it is wasted, of course. I don't know the justification, maybe you are right.

I suspect it is to let people know to look for the check so they don't accidentally throw it away thinking it's more advertising. It comes out to about 31 cents per check.

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan is like the chess player that can only look one move ahead. Sure, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor sounds like a good deal on face value - if you're poor.

A rising economic tide will raise all ships - even Harlan's little dinghy.

[Scott Campbell]

Your views are extremist right wing, which doesn't in itself make them wrong.



More Harlan lies. I'm on the fence on abortion for starters. Extreme right wingers wouldn't even be seen with me.

[Scott Campbell]

That doesn't count--it's just not the same.



Maybe you're doing it wrong. :wink:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Your views reflect no sense of shared social responsibility.

What complete hogwash. I've never said that, nor do I advocate it. There are many avenues for shared social responsibility - not just the government. I don't believe in government mandated programs for handout junkies like you.

:lol: What handouts do you imagine that I benefit from, or wish to gain?
I don't mind you joking about me being a socialist, or a lazy boy looking for government handouts. And if you think either are these are true, guess that's ok too.

There is no substitute for government in achieving a stable society. Well, maybe private armies guarding feudal lords like in Dark Ages might protect you. Or maybe the rent-a-cops at gated communities can save you from the desperate masses. :lol:

Public education, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, these programs that you regular attack keep our country from unraveling.

Philanthropy ain't gonna cut it, jack. I urge you to check out the radio program I recommended, so much to learn, regardless of your ideology. It deals with the very wealth, people with money even more than you and my dad, but lots of relevent comments and callers. It turns out that the very wealthy donate only about 9% of their wealth to charity. Bill Gates and Warren Gates are highly unusual in donating much higher amounts.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080307_b_main.asp[/url]

[Harlan Huckleby]

Your views are extremist right wing, which doesn't in itself make them wrong.

More Harlan lies. I'm on the fence on abortion for starters. Extreme right wingers wouldn't even be seen with me.

I imagine you to be moderate on most issues. But your opinion on taxes are way out there.

(And not wanting to be seen with you is not particular to right wingers. :lol: )

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan is like the chess player that can only look one move ahead. Sure, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor sounds like a good deal on face value - if you're poor.

A rising economic tide will raise all ships - even Harlan's little dinghy.

I'm pro-business, very pragmatic, am very concious of growing the economy.

Hey, I don't want to steal from the rich. Just want them to pay a fair share of taxes. "Fair" being as how americans have generally agreed taxes should work, in prinicple. The rich are getting away with murder in the particulars of our tax system.

[Scott Campbell]

I won't repeat why the SS collection/accounting is a massive tax offset benefiting wealthier person.


Wealthy people don't need Social Security benefits, yet they are required by law to contribute a portion of their earned income to the program anyway. I'd argue that most people (outside of AARP members) in this country would be better off without Social Security. We've mortgaged the future of our younger generation in order to pay for the lack of planning of our older generations. That's what happens when you rely on the government to take care of you. But they, like Harlan, meant well.

Harlan's tax policies will penalize achievement, and subsidize mediocrity. And that is perfect if you're Chinese, Indian, or any of the other countries of the world hoping to compete with lazy Americans.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm pro-business, very pragmatic, am very concious of growing the economy.


No you're not. Your proposed policies make taking on the financial risk of starting a business look completely fool hardy.

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan is like the chess player that can only look one move ahead. Sure, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor sounds like a good deal on face value - if you're poor.

A rising economic tide will raise all ships - even Harlan's little dinghy.

I'm pro-business, very pragmatic, am very concious of growing the economy.

Hey, I don't want to steal from the rich. Just want them to pay a fair share of taxes. "Fair" being as how americans have generally agreed taxes should work, in prinicple. The rich are getting away with murder in the particulars of our tax system.


You're a fool Harlan. If you weren't so obsessed with "fair", you'd get them to pay more.

If your theories were so generally agreed upon, why do all these tax dodges exist? Why will my Roth income not be taxed?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan's tax policies will penalize achievement, and subsidize mediocrity.

Lets be clear what my vision of taxes would look like:

Everybody would pay a flat tax rate, after perhaps a 20K standard deduction to help those at the bottom.

Capital gains would be taxed just like wages.

Social Secuity would be paid for out of the treasury, rather than collected seperately in an inequitable manner.

That's it. I'm a wild-eyed crazy, eh!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Public education, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, these programs that you regular attack keep our country from unraveling.


1) I'm for public education.
2) Social Security is a complete mess, as you have already agreed.
3) Where have I commented on Unemployment insurance?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm pro-business, very pragmatic, am very concious of growing the economy.

No you're not. Your proposed policies make taking on the financial risk of starting a business look completely fool hardy.

I would end all corporate taxes and taxes on business profits.

I would provide basic health insurance so that small businesses and entrepreneurs have a fighting chance.

I would be generous in admitting Mexicans as guest workers and citizens so that businesses have adequate labor supply.

I am a strong advocate of free trade.

Guess what Scott, I am extremely pro-business.
My socialist side is that I want to generously help people who suffer from the policies that I advocate, help people educate themselves, retrain and remain productive.

There will be a substantial tax burden to pull this off, but mitigated by robust revenues from a healthy economy, as you supply siders are so fond of emphasising.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Public education, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, these programs that you regular attack keep our country from unraveling.


1) I'm for public education.
2) Social Security is a complete mess, as you have already agreed.
3) Where have I commented on Unemployment insurance?

your comments on the layed-off Ohio worker speak volumes.

SS - you are prepared to trash it rather than fix it.

Public Education - your comments on vouchers as fix are not encouraging. That is a big topic.

Your hostitilty to paying taxes, even simply at the same rate that working people pay them, show little commitment to the general welfare.

[Partial]

Partial, if you are going to hold such strong opinions, you really ought to look into the facts. People in the upper middle class, as you so tenderly describe your people, have many tax advantages beyond hiding money in the Cayman Islands.

Such as? These people are getting 35% of their money taken. There are people out there who don't pay any taxes and get money back. How unfair is that? Those people likely work 5 hours a week, where as somewhere earning 100k in Wisconsin is probably putting in 60+ hours a week.


People who earn 20K ->80K are really, really getting fucked. Every dollar they earn gets clobbered by the Social Security tax. (I won't repeat why the SS collection/accounting is a massive tax offset benefiting wealthier person, I doubt you are listening anyway.) And just as importantly, people earning > 80K are taking far greater advantage of the Capital Gains dodge.

Every dollar for everyone is taxed. SS is dumb but I say keep it around for awhile longer. People earning 20k don't get taxed. People earning 50k and up bear the burden for those earning less. That's BS. Perhaps they should work a little harder or choose a different career path. Capital gains are taxed as well. Only since the ROTH ira came out did they stop that, realizing these people are paying 5% of their money to SS and they will never see a dime of it.


You & Scott have expressed the view that taxes should be similar to other expenses, more-or-less fixed costs, rather than a percentage of income. I get the rational for your argument. You have to accept that you are at odds with the vast majority of Americans who do not view this approach as fair. Your views are extremist right wing, which doesn't in itself make them wrong.

Personally, I think the vast majority of American's are lazy idiots, so I would expect to disagree with them. With the bloated government we have, a hearty chunk of them are employees toting the company line hoping for a raise. I don't think my views are extreme at all, I think Fair Tax is a very fair and moderate idea. If people that make a lot of money spend a lot of money, then they pay the penalty. The people like my dad that live on less money than most people on welfare despite earning 100k+ won't be penalized and asked to foot the bill for society. In my opinion, its called fair tax because it truly is fair. It takes care of the really poor, it takes care of the upper middle class and warren buffet types who live extremely frugally, and most importantly it gets rid of the tax form and makes every person in America, not just citizens or those smart enough to fill out the form, to pay their fair share. The people that are too poor to pay their fair share should live within their means and they will have their expenses paid back in the form of a monthly rebate check.


Your views reflect no sense of shared social responsibility. We passed that threshold about 200 years ago.

It's kind of funny because I don't think yours do. You want the poor people and the illegals and tourists to get off without paying. You want to penalize those who work hard and make a lot of money, while lifting the burden from the poor. The tax system right now is set-up to almost have a socialist society where everyone is equal. I think thats bullshit because people who are smart and work hard should be rewarded. I think your way is 200 years old, not mine.

[Partial]

The IRS is spending 42 million to alert every american that their rebate check will be coming to them. Why bother?

That is like spending $42 to explain/promote a $160,000 program. That doesn't sound so unreasonable now, does it?

Actually, if the 42M is stupidly spent then it is wasted, of course. I don't know the justification, maybe you are right.

I suspect it is to let people know to look for the check so they don't accidentally throw it away thinking it's more advertising. It comes out to about 31 cents per check.

Waste of money. That's 42 million that I should never have foot the bill on.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If your theories were so generally agreed upon, why do all these tax dodges exist? Why will my Roth income not be taxed?

The tax dodges exist because they are popular. Everybody thinks they pay too much, even if they agree on a general standard of fairness. The system is hopelessy corrupted by power. "Power" being voters and moneyed interests.

Tax system needs to be drastically simplied. My mitigated flat tax idea isn't bad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Partial, if you are going to hold such strong opinions, you really ought to look into the facts. People in the upper middle class, as you so tenderly describe your people, have many tax advantages beyond hiding money in the Cayman Islands.

Such as? These people are getting 35% of their money taken.

Partial, listen to that radio show. It is interesting, includes different points of view. People with significant income are not actually paying 35%. The very wealthy are paying around 18%. Not sure what the figure is for your Pops.

[Partial]

Harlan is like the chess player that can only look one move ahead. Sure, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor sounds like a good deal on face value - if you're poor.

A rising economic tide will raise all ships - even Harlan's little dinghy.

I'm pro-business, very pragmatic, am very concious of growing the economy.

Hey, I don't want to steal from the rich. Just want them to pay a fair share of taxes. "Fair" being as how americans have generally agreed taxes should work, in prinicple. The rich are getting away with murder in the particulars of our tax system.

No you're not.

Then answer me this Harlan, if taxing of job providers and companies is smart and good for the economy and society, than why are many, many, many companies moving south to Texas, where they won't be taxed on their earnings by the state gov. I think to say that we're extreme right wingers on our view on taxes is foolish. It's also pulled out of your ass. I would say a good majority of the people who clear 6 figures feel the same way.

Wouldn't me paying 10% of taxes at 100k, or 10,000 more than my fair share when 20% of the population pays negative tax money (gets money back versus paying taxes) and when someone earning 50k pays 5,000?

Since thats twice what some people are paying, I'd say thats more than my fair share.

[Scott Campbell]

Capital gains are taxed as well.


Not all of them. Capital gains (under $500K) from the sale of your primary residence are excluded from any capital gains tax. And you can do it every two years. If you think the housing market is in a collapse now, wait until Harlan eliminates one of the most basic advantages of the American Dream - home ownership.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's kind of funny because I don't think yours do. You want the poor people and the illegals and tourists to get off without paying.

Actually, I'm not so hostile to the Fair Tax, such as Huckabee proposed. It would be better than what we have, if some offsets were made to help those at the bottom end.

Probably some hybrid of simplified income tax and national sales tax could work.

[Partial]

I won't repeat why the SS collection/accounting is a massive tax offset benefiting wealthier person.


Wealthy people don't need Social Security benefits, yet they are required by law to contribute a portion of their earned income to the program anyway. I'd argue that most people (outside of AARP members) in this country would be better off without Social Security. We've mortgaged the future of our younger generation in order to pay for the lack of planning of our older generations. That's what happens when you rely on the government to take care of you. But they, like Harlan, meant well.

Harlan's tax policies will penalize achievement, and subsidize mediocrity. And that is perfect if you're Chinese, Indian, or any of the other countries of the world hoping to compete with lazy Americans.

If I invested that 6.2% of my earnings every year from now until I retire at 75-80, I would have an assload of money and would have no need for the program. Harlan doesn't understand this though.

He also doesn't get that wealthy business owners are again fucked over because they are expected to pay twice as much in. A whopping 12.4%. What Harlan doesn't get is that extra 6.2% would be much better served in the form of pay increases to the lower end employees, but the business owner decides not to give anyone a raise since taxes cut his profits literally in half.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then answer me this Harlan, if taxing of job providers and companies is smart and good for the economy and society, than why are many, many, many companies moving south to Texas, where they won't be taxed on their earnings by the state gov.

I guess you missed my comment that I would eliminate ALL corporate and business taxes.

You listen like I fly, as my Junior High School chemistry teacher used to say. Christ, I hated chemistry.

[Scott Campbell]

If your theories were so generally agreed upon, why do all these tax dodges exist? Why will my Roth income not be taxed?

The tax dodges exist because they are popular.


More Harlan bullshit. They don't make up tax rules like this just to win popularity contests. They're trying to create desired behavior. Roth tax rules create desired savings behavior.

Reagan's investment tax credits in the 80's created investment in business - creating more jobs and growing the tax base - at the expense of Harlan's brand of "fairness".

[Harlan Huckleby]

Capital gains are taxed as well.


Not all of them. Capital gains (under $500K) from the sale of your primary residence are excluded from any capital gains tax. And you can do it every two years. If you think the housing market is in a collapse now, wait until Harlan eliminates one of the most basic advantages of the American Dream - home ownership.

This is one area that would be tough to eliminate, people love all their housing tax breaks. Capital Gains, mortgage deduction, etc.

But all the shit has to go.

[Partial]

Partial, if you are going to hold such strong opinions, you really ought to look into the facts. People in the upper middle class, as you so tenderly describe your people, have many tax advantages beyond hiding money in the Cayman Islands.

Such as? These people are getting 35% of their money taken.

Partial, listen to that radio show. It is interesting, includes different points of view. People with significant income are not actually paying 35%. The very wealthy are paying around 18%. Not sure what the figure is for your Pops.

Right, the very, very wealthy. Not the 100-200k per year wealthy. I have a connection to the vice president of the southern region of one of America's largest companies. My friend is dating his daughter. In any case, the company is smart and operates out of texas so they don't pay state tax on their gains, and then he makes enough money that he pays a personal accountant a salary to invest his money in real estate as well as other entities to avoid having to pay taxes. In the end, instead of paying 35%, he is still paying like 15% or so. However, that 15% of say 500k is a hell of a lot more than average Joe's 20-25% of 40k. He is contributing far more than his fair share.

100-200k employees cannot afford to do this. They can't buy commercial property and higher an employee to manage it. They can't have their own accountant who they employ (another tax break).

Like I said HH, those people make too much money to get any sort of tax breaks or incentives, yet they don't make enough to hide money and get away with not paying as high of a percentage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If your theories were so generally agreed upon, why do all these tax dodges exist? Why will my Roth income not be taxed?

The tax dodges exist because they are popular.


More Harlan bullshit. They don't make up tax rules like this just to win popularity contests. They're trying to create desired behavior. Roth tax rules create desired savings behavior.

Reagan's investment tax credits in the 80's created investment in business - creating more jobs and growing the tax base - at the expense of Harlan's brand of "fairness".

I am against using tax policy to influence behavior. You end up with a mess like we have today.

And the theory that reducing taxes on investment income benefits the economy is a little twisted. It helps the economy, in its way, and leads to wealth concentrated at the top. You might just as well say you are going to lower taxes on people in the lower and middle classes, since they are likely to spend their money, and therefore stimulate the economy. Like our current stimulus package.

A fair, simple tax system will do JUST FINE.

[Partial]

Then answer me this Harlan, if taxing of job providers and companies is smart and good for the economy and society, than why are many, many, many companies moving south to Texas, where they won't be taxed on their earnings by the state gov.

I guess you missed my comment that I would eliminate ALL corporate and business taxes.

You listen like I fly, as my Junior High School chemistry teacher used to say. Christ, I hated chemistry.

I don't read threads in backwards order.

[Scott Campbell]

I am against using tax policy to influence behavior. .


Too late, you already have. I'm going to join your party and the ranks of the lower middle class. In your world, it's a lot more fun there.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If I invested that 6.2% of my earnings every year from now until I retire at 75-80, I would have an assload of money and would have no need for the program. Harlan doesn't understand this though.


Maybe you would be just fine. The SS system is supposed to be a buffer against bad luck and bad choices. People in 1920 also had the option to invest wisely, as you expect to do. Doesn't work out for all. SS was created for a reason.

[Scott Campbell]

This is one area that would be tough to eliminate, people love all their housing tax breaks. Capital Gains, mortgage deduction, etc.

But all the shit has to go.


Including the Roth?



Dude, people can buy and sell houses every 2 years (ahead of this current collapse), making up to $500K tax free on each transaction. That's potentially $5M in 10 years in loopholes that you'd leave in the system - just because people love their housing breaks.

Like I said, you're like the chess player that can't see beyond one move. How long did it take me to figure out how to work the MIT subsidy for poor folk? I can play your "fairness" game all day long, and beat it. Easily. There's always a way.

The answer is simple. lower rates, grow the economy, create jobs, collect more real tax dollars instead of less Harlan dollars.

Harlan, you and your divisionary politics will leave the country in shambles, but everyone can console each other at soup kitchens with the pride that at least it's "fair".

[Scott Campbell]

The SS system is supposed to be a buffer against bad luck and bad choices.


Again, no it was not. This is another Harlan lie. Social Security pays out to everyone whether they need it or not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The SS system is supposed to be a buffer against bad luck and bad choices.


Again, no it was not. This is another Harlan lie. Social Security pays out to everyone whether they need it or not.

You're a real piece of work. What you said is not in conflict with the patently true statement I made. Its supposed to be annuity, not paid out on basis of need, but the whole only point of the program was an insurance program for people who might otherwise be in trouble in their older years.

[Scott Campbell]

Harlan's agenda reminds me a lot of what happened at GM and in the American auto industry. I'm sure the bloated pension promises and higher than market wages looked like a great idea to union membership at the time. If they had looked two or three moves ahead, they may have realized that these Harlanesque efforts at "fairness" came at an incredible price. Granted, I'm sure they meant well. But now GM couldn't compete. Factories closed. Thriving communities were turned into ghost towns. People go without any jobs at all. GM now starts at a ~ $3000 pension fund liability disadvantage to Toyota on every vehicle they build. So how could they possibly thrive? And now Toyota is number 1.

If you want every city in America to look like Flint Michigan, then by all means follow Harlan's advice.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Including the Roth?

Dude, people can buy and sell houses every 2 years (ahead of this current collapse), making up to $500K tax free on each transaction. That's potentially $5M in 10 years in loopholes that you'd leave in the system - just because people love their housing breaks.

Don't follow what you are talking about. You've been crowing about how the Roth plan allows you to avoid paying taxes. Apparently you think the nation would be in peril if such tax shelters were removed. I don't believe it.

The tax code is a disaster because all the attempts at social & economic engineering. I believe the country would adjust and prosper under a simplified tax code.


Harlan, you and your divisionary politics will leave the country in shambles, but everyone can console each other at soup kitchens with the pride that at least it's "fair".

My politics are hardly divisive. You are the one who characterizes people as lazy or less worthy than yourself. I try to bridge the best ideas of different ideologies.

[Scott Campbell]

Capital gains would be taxed just like wages.



Have you done any math at all on this? Do you not recognize the time value of money?

Long term capital gains are in part taxed at a lower rate due to inflationary pressures that diminish the real gains.

(Example)

Income:
You typically get paid every two weeks for your work. There is virtually no inflationary effect on the spending power of the money you earn because you get paid right away.

Capital Gains:
You typically don't get paid until you sell your investment vehicle. Lets use 10 years in this example. I invest $100K for ten years, earning about 7% a year. At the end of the 10 years it's worth about $200K - about a $100K capital gain. The problem comes in because inflationary pressure has eaten away a huge portion of the purchasing power of both my initial investment, and the capital gain.

It's not taxed at the same rate as ordinary income because ordinary income is not punished by inflationary pressure the way investment income is.

But you continue to lead people to believe that its just because the wealthy are screwing the little guy - the politics of hate. Despicable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan's agenda reminds me a lot of what happened at GM and in the American auto industry. I'm sure the bloated pension promises and higher than market wages looked like a great idea to union membership at the time. If they had looked two or three moves ahead, they may have realized that these Harlanesque efforts at "fairness" came at an incredible price. Granted, I'm sure they meant well. But now GM couldn't compete. Factories closed. Thriving communities were turned into ghost towns. People go without any jobs at all. GM now starts at a ~ $3000 pension fund liability disadvantage to Toyota on every vehicle they build. So how could they possibly thrive? And now Toyota is number 1.

If you want every city in America to look like Flint Michigan, then by all means follow Harlan's advice.

I can make no connections, even indirect ones, between my opinions and your moral fable here. I have expressed no protectionist instincts. I'm for a dynamic free market, with a safety net to help the casualties.

[Scott Campbell]

Don't follow what you are talking about.


Agreed. You don't get it.

[Scott Campbell]

Don't follow what you are talking about. You've been crowing about how the Roth plan allows you to avoid paying taxes. Apparently you think the nation would be in peril if such tax shelters were removed. I don't believe it.


You are truly demented. The government created draw to the Roth savings plan was the tax benefits. That's how they got people to invest in them. They can't play bait and switch and take them away after they've already collected the money.

Now you're advocating fraud.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not taxed at the same rate as ordinary income because ordinary income is not punished by inflationary pressure the way investment income is.

But you continue to lead people to believe that its just because the wealthy are screwing the little guy - the politics of hate. Despicable.

Ridiculous. We are supposed to cover an investor's inflationary losses? Why? And "long term" kicks in after a single year, if I remember correctly.
Lame.

As far as politics of hate, that certainly does not describe me. You'll never hear me talking about the fat cats, I don't begrudge people their wealth. Good for them is my atittude. I simply want a more fair and transparent tax system.

[Scott Campbell]

I simply want a more fair and transparent tax system.


I don't believe it. You've been treated unjustly, and now you just want your sugar daddy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don't follow what you are talking about. You've been crowing about how the Roth plan allows you to avoid paying taxes. Apparently you think the nation would be in peril if such tax shelters were removed. I don't believe it.


You are truly demented. The government created draw to the Roth savings plan was the tax benefits. That's how they got people to invest in them. They can't play bait and switch and take them away after they've already collected the money.

Now you're advocating fraud.

Heee heee heee. I am no financial wizard, perhaps you've picked up on that. :lol:

Accomplishing my vision would require a long phase-in period. Major changes in the tax code can't be turned on a dime.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I simply want a more fair and transparent tax system.


I don't believe it. You've been treated unjustly, and now you just want your sugar daddy.

:lol: :lol: You keep trying to project your own tendencies into me. OK, that's a little harsh, I don't know why you think I am so ill-motivated.

I am not a vindictive person. I am not rapacious. I am not envious.

And most of all, as tricky dicky would say, I AM NOT A CROOK!

And I harbor no grievances.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't know why you think I am so ill-motivated.



Trust me, I don't believe you're motivated at all.

[The Leaper]

SS was created for a reason.

Yep...to be a blank check for Congress.

[LL2]

Debates like these can go in circles for hours. They are actually fun to watch and listen to. I tend to agree with Cambell, and Partial. Partial may be young and not always right, but he's on the right path.

[LL2]

If I invested that 6.2% of my earnings every year from now until I retire at 75-80, I would have an assload of money and would have no need for the program. Harlan doesn't understand this though.


Maybe you would be just fine. The SS system is supposed to be a buffer against bad luck and bad choices. People in 1920 also had the option to invest wisely, as you expect to do. Doesn't work out for all. SS was created for a reason.

SS was created because most people are too foolish to know how to invest that 6.2%, and create themselves a nice retirement nest egg. Like Partial I'd rather have that 6.2% to invest on my own, and not collect a SS check. My parents do pretty well financially, and about 7-8 years ago my father got a letter from the SS administration saying that he has fully paid into his SS. So, in essence what he has paid into SS for the last 8 years he will never see a dime of. His SS check will be the same no matter what. He's basically paying SS taxes so others can collect a check - I guess this is Harlanesque.

[Partial]

If I invested that 6.2% of my earnings every year from now until I retire at 75-80, I would have an assload of money and would have no need for the program. Harlan doesn't understand this though.


Maybe you would be just fine. The SS system is supposed to be a buffer against bad luck and bad choices. People in 1920 also had the option to invest wisely, as you expect to do. Doesn't work out for all. SS was created for a reason.

SS was created because most people are too foolish to know how to invest that 6.2%, and create themselves a nice retirement nest egg. Like Partial I'd rather have that 6.2% to invest on my own, and not collect a SS check. My parents do pretty well financially, and about 7-8 years ago my father got a letter from the SS administration saying that he has fully paid into his SS. So, in essence what he has paid into SS for the last 8 years he will never see a dime of. His SS check will be the same no matter what. He's basically paying SS taxes so others can collect a check - I guess this is Harlanesque.

See, this is where the subject gets hairy. While you're dad is older and probably planned on getting SS and as such he should get his check every month. However, since I was a youngen I knew that I would never see a time of this, so I think they should start to phase it out so it ends right about the time my generation would start collecting them.

Yes, I'd take one for the team.

[hoosier]

SS was created because most people are too foolish to know how to invest that 6.2%, and create themselves a nice retirement nest egg.

You must have been sleeping during HS history class. SS was created as result of the great depression, as an effort to create an economic safety net in times of economic crisis. It was seen as a way of creating a kinder, gentler form of capitalism that would in turn make socialism less appealing to the middle and lower classes.

In the absence of any really existing threat to capitalism, it's understandable that an increasing number of otherwise thoughtful people no longer understand the concept of a safety net, or perhaps just don't see the need for one. The big bad wolf has gone away, and there's no longer any tangible alternative to capitalism that could put the fear into the upper strata of American society.

[The Leaper]

I understand the option of a safety net...but like all tightrope walkers, I prefer to have the CHOICE of whether or not to use one.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I understand the option of a safety net...but like all tightrope walkers, I prefer to have the CHOICE of whether or not to use one.

Social Security wouldn't work if people could opt out, it would crumble. And many opt-outers would inevitably be left vulnerable (for a variety of reasons, including poor investing, bad health, economic downturns), and they would just become wards of the state anyway.

BTW, Social Security is not just for old people, it also pays out to the disabled.

It's NOT a private option where everyone has a choice, its socialism. We are not a pure capitalist economy, we have a balance of socialism mixed in. There are pluses and minuses to capitalism, pluses and minuses to socialism. Every successful country in the world has a balance of the two.

[Harlan Huckleby]

SS was created because most people are too foolish to know how to invest that 6.2%, and create themselves a nice retirement nest egg. Like Partial I'd rather have that 6.2% to invest on my own, and not collect a SS check. My parents do pretty well financially, and about 7-8 years ago my father got a letter from the SS administration saying that he has fully paid into his SS. So, in essence what he has paid into SS for the last 8 years he will never see a dime of. His SS check will be the same no matter what. He's basically paying SS taxes so others can collect a check - I guess this is Harlanesque.

it sounds like your dad did well financially, and has subsidized others.
And you're right, I don't have any problem with that.

I think what needs to be done is to remove the fiction that social security is a private policy for each person. Social Security should just be funded out of the general treasury, and the social security deduction abolished.

I get where you & Partial are coming from. You think everyone should be responsible for themselves, and it will all turn out better for you. IT undoubtably will be better for you, at least in a narrow sense. But there was experience and wisdom that went into the idea of pooling resources to take care of everyone. There are consequences to letting everyone fend for themselves that you aren't seeing.

[The Leaper]

Social Security wouldn't work if people could opt out, it would crumble.

It is also crumbling when everyone is opted in...so what is your point? So, I'm now paying into a system I will never see a dime from, and taxpayers are still going to have to save a bunch of people who did nothing for retirement but rely on SS.

Socialism is a failure...because greed and power corrupts.

[Freak Out]

SS is not crumbling. The rest of our economy is for a number of different reasons.....but SS is not. Granted it could be in better shape if the Executive branch and Congress would stop trying to destroy the country with wild over spending.....especially with regards to "the war" and the military budget.

...and the dollar just continues to get hammered into worthless garbage.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Socialism is a failure...because greed and power corrupts.

You're right, socialism is a failure. But so is capitalism in its purist form. That's why we temper our capitalist system with pieces of socialism that work.

I think Yakov Smirnoff explained the difference between socialism and capitalism very well. "Capitalism is a system where man exploits man. Under socialism, it's just the opposite."

[The Leaper]

You're right, socialism is a failure. But so is capitalism in its purist form. That's why we temper our capitalist system with pieces of socialism that work.

I guess 2 wrongs make a right.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Socialism is a failure, so we should use it to prop up capitalism? What kind of messed up logic is that?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're right, socialism is a failure. But so is capitalism in its purist form. That's why we temper our capitalist system with pieces of socialism that work.

I guess 2 wrongs make a right.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Socialism is a failure, so we should use it to prop up capitalism? What kind of messed up logic is that?

Socialism and capitalism are both failures when applied in a pure, ideological manner. Monopolies have been broken up because they reeked havoc. Without labor laws market forces would send us back to child labor and 80 hour work weeks. We have many social programs that have been shining successes, and that hold us together.

You want to get rid of public education? Should we let disabled people beg on the streets?

[Zool]

Should we let disabled people beg on the streets?

Only in the poor neighborhoods where people choose to not get a higher education.

[The Leaper]

You want to get rid of public education? Should we let disabled people beg on the streets?

Well, our education system SUCKS...so why not get rid of it?

Disabled people will beg on the street in just about any system...unfortunately, governments rarely look out for those who can't help themselves. That is true under any form of government.

The problem with socialism is that is removes any hope altogether...the government controls every aspect of your life and you are bound within a class structure. We see that in education...where standards are plummeting and most parents have no way to get their kids a strong education because we've allowed the government to monopolize it rather than a corporation. I don't see how anyone can claim that either choice is better.

The problem with America is not capitalism or democracy...it is that people really don't give a damn until something affects them, then they scream bloody murder. In that kind of scenario, nothing works well. Our populace is self-centered and fame-obsessed...we care not about the troubles or concerns of others, unless doing so does something good for us.

No form of government can help that.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You want to get rid of public education? Should we let disabled people beg on the streets?

Well, our education system SUCKS...so why not get rid of it?

Disabled people will beg on the street in just about any system...unfortunately, governments rarely look out for those who can't help themselves. That is true under any form of government.

The problem with socialism is that is removes any hope altogether...the government controls every aspect of your life and you are bound within a class structure. We see that in education...where standards are plummeting and most parents have no way to get their kids a strong education because we've allowed the government to monopolize it rather than a corporation. I don't see how anyone can claim that either choice is better.

The problem with America is not capitalism or democracy...it is that people really don't give a damn until something affects them, then they scream bloody murder. In that kind of scenario, nothing works well. Our populace is self-centered and fame-obsessed...we care not about the troubles or concerns of others, unless doing so does something good for us.

No form of government can help that.

I'd listen to what you have to say..but, honestly, you aren't a celeb so what validity do you have?

Get back to me when you are famous.

[gex]

Keep fighting the good fight Harlan, we, as a society, need to take care of each other. Anybody who doesn't think so, may karma bite 'em in the ass. :shock:

[GrnBay007]

BTW, Social Security is not just for old people, it also pays out to the disabled.


This is a pet peve of mine. The truly disabled people should be receiving benefits............but OMG, there are SO many people playing this system. I see it everyday and it makes me sick!! I've seen so many people apply for disability for their kids. It will get rejected the first and second time. If they are persistent they will get the benefits on the 3rd try. Once they are qualified, look out. I've seen adults who are collecting disability benefits since they were kids and when you ask them why, they can't even tell you the reason. Believe me all, this is where your fight should be....not the 70 year olds collecting SS benefits.

[digitaldean]

Pure capitalism or pure socialism does not work, period. Capitalism unchecked festers greed and the trusts Teddy Roosevelt broke up. Socialism supports a nanny state type of theology. Take a look at France, why do you think Sarkozy is trying to break some of it up???

The key ingredient that is missing is ....COMMON SENSE. We should means test Social Security. If you have a bunch of money stashed away, you shouldn't be getting any SS money. If you have no funds at all, you deserve a full gov't pension.

The gov't part of the public education system is 1 leg of the 3 legged stool. There are a ton of problems with the public system. Too much social engineering like handing out condoms at the pre-high school level. Preaching "tolerance" to alternative lifestyles, but NO tolerance towards those who are Christians. That's why I send my kids to a parochial grade school and high school.

The other 2 legs are the kids and the parents. Unfortunately, there are too many parents that do not pick up their load.

In my school district and neighboring districts, public education has too much middle management types and too few teachers. There is too much waste in that aspect. Hopefully that would cut some of the instances of teachers having to buy their own supplies.

I am all for holding teachers to a higher standard and grading their advancement off how their students do. BUT the parents should share a TON in this as well.

[Scott Campbell]

Keep fighting the good fight Harlan, we, as a society, need to take care of each other. Anybody who doesn't think so, may karma bite 'em in the ass. :shock:


It takes a village. Or does it take the Village People?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The key ingredient that is missing is ....COMMON SENSE. We should means test Social Security. If you have a bunch of money stashed away, you shouldn't be getting any SS money. If you have no funds at all, you deserve a full gov't pension.

I think this is a tricky issue. If you means test, than SS becomes like welfare, and people resent it as a government handout.

I assume SS is taxable income, so at least people of means are paying a portion of it back.

I agree with you in principle, I just wonder how you get it done politically.

[Partial]

Dean, what is to stop me from blowing all my money on material goods before 65 so I get a full pension, then?

[The Leaper]

The key ingredient that is missing is ....COMMON SENSE. We should means test Social Security. If you have a bunch of money stashed away, you shouldn't be getting any SS money. If you have no funds at all, you deserve a full gov't pension.

So we should reward people for not having the common sense you describe and saving money for retirement by letting the taxpayers save for them?

I have no problem helping those who are unable to help themselves due to physical or mental condition...or who have been dealt a bad situation but are willing to work at overcoming it.

I have a huge problem helping those who have every ability to do exactly what I have to do for my family, but choose to live on a handout instead because they are lazy.

[digitaldean]

Social Security is not what I'd call a lottery payment. If a person throws their money away and wants to live like a pauper on SS that's up to them. I think most people will want to live on more than SS.

There should be a way where means testing will work. I mean it for those who are extremely well off, they don't need it.

Back in the 80's, Sen. Warren Rudman formed the Concord Coalition to help whittle down the national debt. One if his main points is to means test SS. So it's not really hairbrained idea I just came up with.

Politically feasible in today's entitlement mentality? Maybe,maybe not.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Social Security is not what I'd call a lottery payment. If a person throws their money away and wants to live like a pauper on SS that's up to them. I think most people will want to live on more than SS.

This is important to note. SS doesn't even cover basic living expenses anymore. Partial's scam of spending all his money on candy and stereos at 64 to be eligible for SS at 65 is not so attractive. Probably there is some way to do means testing that people will accept.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, Social Security is not just for old people, it also pays out to the disabled.


This is a pet peve of mine. The truly disabled people should be receiving benefits............but OMG, there are SO many people playing this system. I see it everyday and it makes me sick!! I've seen so many people apply for disability for their kids. It will get rejected the first and second time. If they are persistent they will get the benefits on the 3rd try. Once they are qualified, look out. I've seen adults who are collecting disability benefits since they were kids and when you ask them why, they can't even tell you the reason. Believe me all, this is where your fight should be....not the 70 year olds collecting SS benefits.

I think your perspective is misleading. I've talked to people who know what they are talking about (non-profit lawyers for medicaid, medicare, social security, ....) and they suggest that SS disability is rather hard to get, and not so hard to lose. (I know one guy who needs it, very schizophrenic, and he loses it periodically.) You're right, it often takes three tries, but that is to build a stronger case, create documentation from doctors over a period of time.

If people are scamming SS for disability benefits, it is in collusion with doctor(s). Maybe it happens. Perhaps there is a need to detect criminal activity better. I have a hard time believing it is widespread.

[GrnBay007]

BTW, Social Security is not just for old people, it also pays out to the disabled.


This is a pet peve of mine. The truly disabled people should be receiving benefits............but OMG, there are SO many people playing this system. I see it everyday and it makes me sick!! I've seen so many people apply for disability for their kids. It will get rejected the first and second time. If they are persistent they will get the benefits on the 3rd try. Once they are qualified, look out. I've seen adults who are collecting disability benefits since they were kids and when you ask them why, they can't even tell you the reason. Believe me all, this is where your fight should be....not the 70 year olds collecting SS benefits.

I think your perspective is misleading. I've talked to people who know what they are talking about (non-profit lawyers for medicaid, medicare, social security, ....) and they suggest that SS disability is rather hard to get, and not so hard to lose. (I know one guy who needs it, very schizophrenic, and he loses it periodically.) You're right, it often takes three tries, but that is to build a stronger case, create documentation from doctors over a period of time.

If people are scamming SS for disability benefits, it is in collusion with doctor(s). Maybe it happens. Perhaps there is a need to detect criminal activity better. I have a hard time believing it is widespread.

I have no idea if it's widespread but I've seen it... a lot. Maybe it is a few select doctors "helping" them out, I don't know. And you are right, there are many people out there that should be eligible and can't get it. I have a friend who's wife is mentally ill and they were told no way. He earns a decent wage but nothing fantastic and they have 4 children. My perspective on this may seem misleading to you but believe me, I've been frustrated over this type of thing for years. I've seen people that should receive it get turned down and others that can work receive it....along with housing and food stamps....and WIC. Maybe they need more people to investigate those robbing the system.

[Freak Out]

The FED is a freaking joke and Bernanke should hit the road with Spitzer. With this kind of shit going on you know a Bush is involved.

[Freak Out]

Socialism for the rich, 200 billion worth.

[Freak Out]

Tora Tora Tora!

[Freak Out]

Taxes anyone?

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10835581

Damn.

[The Leaper]

This is important to note. SS doesn't even cover basic living expenses anymore. Partial's scam of spending all his money on candy and stereos at 64 to be eligible for SS at 65 is not so attractive. Probably there is some way to do means testing that people will accept.

That is also the problem. A system that barely amounts to a impoverished existance costs American workers how much? It is a joke.

It is the kind of inefficiency that can only be produced by Washington...and why I am scared shitless over letting the government control health care, or really anything else for that matter.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Freak Out is freaking out.

[Freak Out]

Freak Out is freaking out.

I was.. :lol:

I get pissed when I hear our president make jokes during a news conference about problems with the dollar and the economy when the situation is dire for many of his fellow citizens.