How's that taxation and socialism werkin' out fer ya?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/15/2679568/europe-tax-model-delivers-much.html

Sweden is easily the least stressed country I've ever been in. Too bad the Muslims will eventually eat it alive.

[Snestorm]

The best child care system I've ever seen, anywhere, is where dad went to work so mom could stay home and raise her own children.

Sorry, I don't support socialism on either continent.

[daft]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

[Snestorm]

The statement I made is based on the article, not the written post.

Nothing negative about any land or people.
Just my negative view of socialism.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

Sarah Palin made a snarky and rather immature comment for someone who supposedly wants to be President: "How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?." a mild play on words of one of Obama's campaign slogans (she was clearly implying it was a disaster). The conservatives in the U.S. seem to hate socialism, which they ascribe to Obama. The article I linked implies socialism is better than the American right wing propaganda organs make it out to be, and my choice of words for the title was countersnarky.

And now here I am being snarky w/an image:

http://i26.tinypic.com/2cpanty.jpg

I'm sure you can figure out the unstated premises for yourself. I'm too tired to point out the painfully obvious right now :D

[Subnuts]

The South's gonna do it again...right after they buy, like, 20 million tons of frozen processed chicken, from the North after they get their food stamp check this May 1st.

Hey, I'm a supermarket service clerk. I can be a politically incorrect bastard with experience!

[SteamWake]

Sarah Palin made a snarky and rather immature comment for someone who supposedly wants to be President: "How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?

Just to set the record straight I dont remember Palin saying that. It was Rush Limbaugh.

I often ask the same 'immature' question.

[Oberon]

So, which side do we Brits sign up for in the Civil War take two? :hmmm: I'm confused.

[Tribesman]

Just to set the record straight I dont remember Palin saying that. It was Rush Limbaugh.

So to set the record straight, does that mean that Palin gets her talking points from a dumb junkie like Limbaugh?

[Diopos]

So, which side do we Brits sign up for in the Civil War take two? :hmmm: I'm confused.

Easy! You'll do the British thing!

Wait and see who wins ... As the rest of us ...:)!





.

[mookiemookie]

Just to set the record straight I dont remember Palin saying that. It was Rush Limbaugh.

I often ask the same 'immature' question.

Sarah Palin not only said it but encouraged people to pull over people with Obama bumper stickers on their cars: http://www.necn.com/03/27/10/Palin-to-Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Spending-spre/landing.html?blockID=205492&feedID=4215

And it's working out well, thank you. How's that listening to that dopey/Cheney for 8 years thing workin' out for ya?

[Oberon]

Easy! You'll do the British thing!

Wait and see who wins ... As the rest of us ...:)!





.

Good point that man! :yeah:

[tater]

NM wins entirely because of the weapons labs, and military bases compared to a tiny population. This is a rare case where discretionary spending will rule that table, most of the rest are almost certainly programatic (entitlement) spending. Note that NM (like many of the states listed) is very closely divided politically.

The most important factors in the tax vs spending table are obviously tax base (large population—cities), and poor people that get entitlements. The south has loads of poor demographic groups, but not enough of a tax base. Happily for NY, the scum in the inner city are offset by investment bankers, etc.

[CaptainHaplo]

Good points Tater.

The reality is that if you stopped the entitlements - or at least put some real work restrictions on most of them, you could solve alot of the issues facing poorer demographics. But when you "entitle" people to cash payments, food and in some places - transport - they have no reason to get off their arses and work.

[Sailor Steve]

I don't like Palin any more than I like Obama. Palin is goofy. The hard right wing is scary. The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

[Tribesman]

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.
But the picture given is Federal not State.

[tater]

Yes, it's federal money sent vs received.

Attaching value to the state being 50.1% democrat vs 50.1% republican in the last presidential election, of course, is absurd.

Since 2/3 of all that money is spent on "programatic" social programs, the spending is automatic. Clearly it would be in the best interest of the populous, affluent, "blue states" (wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue---probably because "red" is too close tot he truth, but I digress) to have their elected representatives disassemble the welfare state, since it clearly hurts them the most.

Of course in terms of dollars sent to dollars received, you really need to remember to look at thew TOTAL dollars here.

NM only have 1.5 million people, and most pay virtually no taxes (being in that bottom 50% of "tax payers"). There are probably more people in NY that make a million bucks a year than there are taxpayers in NM who pay even 1 per capita share per family member. So while NM gets $2 per $1 sent, the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

That's the real pattern, small population states vs large population states.

[Platapus]

wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue

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

[Stealth Hunter]

The Democrats, on the other hand, complained that Reagan ran up the biggest National Debt in history. Obama's is a lot bigger.

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008. As for Reagan, I don't know who's been saying that (I'd like to find out) nor do I know how they figured this up. While the debt did increase during the Regan-Bush era, and continued to do so throughout the Clinton era, the greatest increase came under George Jr.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/national-debt-passes-10-t_b_132732.html

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The numbers from the Treasury Department in September 2008 showed the national debt then stood at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9% increase on Mr. Bush's watch.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bushs_two_term_increase_in_the_national_debt

Right now, the debt stands at $12.759 trillion; not that much of an increase given all the s*** President Obama has had to sift through to try and sort this all out, let alone the national situation he faced when he took office.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/investheld.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

One of the biggest reasons why we can't recover from the current economic situation we find ourselves in is because we no longer are the industrial, self-sufficient nation that we were during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. The reason why we fully recovered from the Great Depression was because we had the manufacturing capabilities to do so and the motivation, following the outbreak of World War II. We had factories people could find jobs in, we manufactured almost all our own stuff (we didn't import things in as great of quantities as we do now), we had regulations on the markets that kept people from buying and taking our more than they could afford and pay back, and perhaps most importantly, there was no organized "global economy" crap going on in the world, with "service countries" and "manufacturing countries", etc.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/files/events/2009/0309_lessons/0309_lessons_romer.pdf (http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/files/events/2009/0309_lessons/0309_lessons_romer.pdf)

The stimulus package and the Recovery Act have been doing their jobs, that much is evident despite all the semantics that will try to convince you otherwise. The reason I have found in the years since this began that so many scrutinize these plans and indeed the government is because these plans didn't work and solve the problems they were addressing immediately. But simply put, you cannot have your country in this kind of shape and expect a quick, easy fix of any kind- let alone when you have hardly any industrial/manufacturing self-sufficiency anymore (as a service country in the global economy concept, it's not our job to worry about these things... it's left to countries like China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, etc.). Indeed, that's one of the most important lessons of the Great Depression. Twelve years on from Black Tuesday and we were still in the process of recovering; had we not have had the Second World War to finally get us out of it, who knows how long it would have taken. Perhaps another decade!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif

Based on data from: Dr. Louis D. Johnston and Prof. Samuel H. Williamson, "What Was the US' GDP: A Historical Report", p.8, 24 April 2006

I have one small quibble with that picture though: California is listed as giving more than they get? I though Cantafordya was bankrupt.

Nope.

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

The largest economy of any state in the United States, and is the eighth largest economy in the world.:up:

EDIT: And for the record, Thorvald, it's working out pretty good for me personally.

[Tribesman]

wonder why the dems get the "good guy" color of blue---probably because "red" is too close tot he truth, but I digress
OK you are drifting to the realms of the loony fringe there.
Keep it up and next thing is you will be posting about the secret concentration camps the evil government is setting up.


That's the real pattern, small population states vs large population states.
That doesn't work, you can take some states with small populations and they are at the top of the money to government pile not the money recieved one. Likewise you can take population density as a measure and you get some in each pile.

There are probably more people in NY that make a million bucks a year than there are taxpayers in NM who pay even 1 per capita share per family member
So that might work on a money made per capita basis as a measure...but one of the top earning states comes out near the top of money recieved from the government list....so nice try, but that don't work either

the total dollars is still a tiny fraction of the welfare dollars sent to NY.

Since the whole purpose of the graph is dollars sent in relation to dollars recieved the specific amount of dollars is of little relevance...unless of course you don't like what the graph shows:hmmm:

[tater]

I don't like what the graph shows. I'd cut spending massively if it was up to me.

BTW, stealth, so the US debt went up 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush, and 3 trillion in one fiscal year (and some change) of Obama. Gotcha.

As for the red/blue thing, why do YOU always go off the looney edge? Red and blue have preexisting meanings in the US. Reds are communists, and the democrats have always had a communist component. In the military, blue means the good guys.

I'd prefer to see the press alternate the use of red and blue.

If instead of colors they assigned "good guys" and "bad guys" I'd equally want the press to alternate. I suppose the current use might rehabilitate the color red, which is otherwise associated with mass murder, among other things (that being the principle business of the extreme left—like national socialist Germany and the CCCP).

[Tribesman]

I don't like what the graph shows.

Thought so.

I'd cut spending massively if it was up to me.

Firstly, how?
Secondly, how on earth would you get it passed?

[tater]

They should pass a balanced budget amendment that forces spending to be equal to some running average of tax receipts as a function of GDP (not just the previous year, maybe a 3-year running average).

The critical problem is entitlements. I'd keep SS for anyone above a certain age, then phase it out towards a privatized system as an option, and for those that opt in, keep it what it was supposed to be—insurance. Reset retirement age so that it actuarially matches what it was when first [passed. Meaning if the typical person only lived 2 years past 65 on SS, I'd make the retirement age 70 or something. Ditto medicare.

The goal should be that total government spending should not exceed around 20% of GDP under any circumstance save war.

War spending would be about the only thing I'd allow to go deficit, but with maybe a 3/4 vote of both houses.

The military could trim a bunch if they were allowed to close bases as they'd like. All the US bases are a function of having them porked into place. Everyone wants cuts, just not in their district.

[August]

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008.

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

[Snestorm]

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

Well said, sir.

[August]

Well said, sir.

Thanks but it goes both ways. Obama really can't be blamed for spending those trillions today either.

[Stealth Hunter]

Civics 101.

Congress controls the nations purse strings. Debt is created by them, not the administration.

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.:roll:

[Platapus]

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.:roll:

The President can't spend dime one without approval from congress. That is one of the balances of power.

The President asks (and you better believe that he asks, Presidents don't tell congress crap.) congress for appropriations. Congress controls the purse strings. :yep:

People are misdirecting their ire. It is congress we need to be bitchin about. :yep:

[August]

So debt is in no way influenced by the actions of the administration in office... they can do absolutely nothing that will completely screw up the "purse strings" of the nation, nevermind the "purse"... right lol.:roll:

I didn't say that at all. Congress has many influences, certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration, but ultimately it is Congress who spends the money. So if you're going to play the blame-game then it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress, not which party controls the White House.

[Stealth Hunter]

so the US debt went up 4 trillion in 8 years of Bush

$4 trillion? You haven't been paying attention. That was in September 2008. In ONE MONTH, by October 7, 2008, it had reached past the $5 trillion mark. When he left office in January, the total was $10.627 trillion.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bushs_two_term_increase_in_the_national_debt

and 3 trillion in one fiscal year (and some change) of Obama.

$10.627 trillion to $12.759 trillion. That's not $3 trillion, that's $2.132 trillion... which, even when rounding to the hundred millions, still doesn't come anywhere close to $3 trillion.

Gotcha.

:03:

Red and blue have preexisting meanings in the US.

Not really. At least, not as far as the sane ones amongst us are concerned.

Reds are communists,

If you live in the 1950s Cold War United States, which ended nearly 20 years ago. It's time to stop being so paranoid and insulted about being called a "Red". Republicans always have been represented by the color red, Democrats by blue... is this really news to you? If so, that's... disturbing to say the least.

and the democrats have always had a communist component.

I thought they were Socialists. Obama's supposed to be a Socialist anyway.:06:

In the military, blue means the good guys.

Though we don't use blue military combat uniforms anymore... and we haven't since the final quarter of the 1800s...

I'd prefer to see the press alternate the use of red and blue.

That's too bad, because nobody is going to change it just because you or I want it to be changed. And, for the record, I don't. Because I don't really care. They're COLORS FFS. Are you really going to argue over something so petty as color representation? Seriously?

If instead of colors they assigned "good guys" and "bad guys" I'd equally want the press to alternate.

How about just "Democrat" and "Republican"?

I suppose the current use might rehabilitate the color red, which is otherwise associated with mass murder,

Huh. Might as well remove it from the flag then since it represents mass murder... not the blood of patriots... oh wait- that's right. That's EXACTLY what's it's always represented in American politics: the blood of patriots.

among other things (that being the principle business of the extreme left—like national socialist Germany and the CCCP).

Actually, National Socialist Germany was very right wing. Indeed, the entire concept of National Socialism is center-right.

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

The reason why Hitler attached the term "Socialism" to his ideology was because it appealed to the Germans of the time, because they were convinced it would change their country for the better and make them prosperous (that's what they were promised by the heads preaching it). They were in horrible conditions. It could easily cost 500,000 marks to buy a loaf of bread in the market. The wheelbarrows weren't big enough to carry the money in. People burned it for heat, threw it out in the streets, and even ate it. It was no different for the Russians after they rebelled against the Tsarist Absolutist Monarchy (why Lenin's version of Marxism appealed to the majority, I mean; the Whites were against it, but we're not talking about them right now). Didn't you study this in school?

When Hitler came into the scene of politics, he preached Socialism to attract followers. As I said, a lot of people really believed it could change Germany for the better. And many believed the same about Communism. Following his arrest and rise to power, he endorsed Nationalism officially into the party, pulling away from his Socialist roots. Some members believed that he had lost the way and had to be removed, particularly Ernst Rohm and the SA (Rohm headed them, by the way; he was also a homosexual). Hence, this is why Hitler had Rohm murdered and the entire SA disbanded (the homosexuality Hitler knew of before he appointed Rohm head of the brownshirts; it wasn't that which concerned him the most; I just threw that in there because it is relevant to the man).

You do know the Germans executed Socialists and Communists as political enemies during the Second World War, right? The Dolchstosslegende (Stab-In-The-Back Legend) taught that Imperial Germany had been sabotaged in World War I by the Jews, Socialists, and Bolsheviks, and people ate it up (especially Socialists, which were said to have sabotaged the previous government, Ebert's Weimar Republic). These groups were just scapegoats; they had done nothing of the sort. The Germans lost the war because of they decided to dig in for the winter of 1914, hence setting on a deadlock between the Entente, her allies, and the Central Powers. They had lost the tactical advantage and ability of rapid movement. A quick war was totally out of the question, hence why they resorted to naval and aerial tactics.

Now Russia under Lenin and Stalin, it was far left. But it was also Authoritarian, not Libertarian like we are. Socialism and Communism are supposed to be Libertarian. It's assclowns like Lenin and Stalin, however, that made it anti-Libertarian. Leninism and Stalinism are the most radical forms of Communism, not at all true to the original Marxist theory envisioned by Old Karl.

I didn't say that at all.

Though you never bothered putting it in.

Congress has many influences,

Thank you for finally stating it to be so.

certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration,

Quite.

but ultimately it is Congress who spends the money.

They spend it, but more often than not it's the Executive Branch that decides what they're going to be spending on. They're the ones who make the most proposals. Like devoting more resources to the wars in the Middle East, stimulus packages, military expenditures, etc. It's not like they're powerless when it comes to funds. Far from it.

So if you're going to play the blame-game then it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress, not which party controls the White House.

But you just said that the administration in the White House has a big hand in controlling the finances of the country...

"certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration"

...and now "it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress"... shouldn't they both be to blame if they both have a lot of power in it? Which is it: Congress, the White House, or both?

[August]

But you just said that the administration in the White House has a big hand in controlling the finances of the country...

"certainly not the least of which is the sitting administration"

...and now "it rests squarely with the party that controls Congress"... shouldn't they both be to blame if they both have a lot of power in it? Which is it: Congress, the White House, or both?

Quit yanking my chain. You know that controlling is NOT at all the same thing as being an influence. A guy who posts all those long messages with the fancy charts and diagrams can not be that obtuse.

Congress controls the money. Congress votes in new laws. Congress is the one responsible for the nations debt. End of story.

[Stealth Hunter]

Quit yanking my chain. You know that controlling is NOT at all the same thing as being an influence.

Even if half the process is dictated by their influence? Give me a break. The decisions and actions of the president and the Executive Branch affect the country just as much as the decisions and actions of Congress/the Legislative Branch do.

A guy who posts all those long messages with the fancy charts and diagrams can not be that obtuse.

"Fancy" charts, eh? "Long" messages? Like it or not, you're going to have to read these "fancy" charts and "long" messages when you're dealing with debates. That's how the process works. Evidence. It's all about the evidence and facts.

Congress controls the money.

And it has nothing to do with the actions the president/Executive Branch make... lol.

Congress votes in new laws.

Votes in? Only when there's a veto by the president that sends it straight back to Congress. The president otherwise has the power to sign it into law... or do a pocket veto, but that falls under the aforementioned category.

Congress is the one responsible for the nations debt. End of story.

Hate to burst your bubble (well- ok not really "hate"), but you have a lot more to blame than just Congress for the economic meltdown. The appropriate citations/sources are attached to the guilty parties listed.

The Federal Reserve (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

109th Congress (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf), supported a mortgage tax deduction that gave consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses (the .pdf is of the bill Congress and the president agreed to in September 2005).

Home buyers (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Mortgage brokers (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040223/), in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, he encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

Real estate agents (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824), most of whom worked for the sellers rather than the buyers and earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

Wall Street firms (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/econtrouble_08-20.html), paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

The Bush administration (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/20/business/prexy.php), failed to provide much-needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market due to clamors to deregulate them more to eliminate government influence.

An obscure accounting rule (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/mark_to_market.html) called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

Collective delusion (http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf), a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up; a parallel of the thoughts held about the stock market just before the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hit (Black Tuesday, that I mentioned earlier).

[tater]

YOU said:
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The numbers from the Treasury Department in September 2008 showed the national debt then stood at more than $9.849 trillion.

I subtracted the two. You didn't provide other data.

Since you said "on bush's watch" I toook your ending number, above, and subtracted from the obama number YOU posted.

Right now, the debt stands at $12.759

12.759-9.849=2.91

Yeah, I rounded it up to 3.

Sorry, I didn't look the numbers up, just used what YOU posted.

[Stealth Hunter]

I subtracted the two. You didn't provide other data.

Yeah I did. You just didn't investigate any of my sources.

http://agonist.org/amc/20090123/bushs_two_term_increase_in_the_national_debt

When "W" left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

Since you said "on bush's watch" I toook your ending number, above, and subtracted from the obama number YOU posted.

But you didn't figure up the total increase; you didn't check any of my sources to see what they said or not. While that's a peeve, if you would have, you would have seen the final figure when he left office. I simply rounded it to $10.627 trillion (the $887,048,913.08 up).


12.759-9.849=2.91

Yeah, I rounded it up to 3.

Sorry, I didn't look the numbers up, just used what YOU posted.

What's with the "YOU"? I haven't done anything wrong. YOU just didn't read any of my sources to find out the information they had in them. I was simply showing the change from when he took office to September 2008, two months before the election.

[August]

Even if half the process is dictated by their influence? Give me a break. The decisions and actions of the president and the Executive Branch affect the country just as much as the decisions and actions of Congress/the Legislative Branch do.


Look, generalizing your argument to include any and all affects upon the country does not at all support your statement that Obama inherited the national debt from Bush. As Platapus points out the President asks Congress for appropriations. Congress can refuse and has done so many times in the past.

[CaptainHaplo]

Throw all da bums out!

[Platapus]

When in doubt
Vote them out

[Stealth Hunter]

Look, generalizing your argument to include any and all affects upon the country does not at all support your statement that Obama inherited the national debt from Bush.

As far as the position of presidents are concerned, it does. This isn't hard to understand. When Bush left office, the debt was at $10.627 trillion, raised half of what it had originally been. When Obama came in, the debt level was at $10.627 trillion and had been raised half of what it had originally been. Again, this isn't hard to understand. It really isn't.

As Platapus points out the President asks Congress for appropriations. Congress can refuse and has done so many times in the past.

Just like the 109th Congress could have rejected the idea of mortgage tax deductions. But, they didn't. Read the proposal that was approved by the House, Senate, and president:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051009sp.pdf

Furthermore, the Executive Branch does have the power to provide government watch over the markets... which it did not do when the first bank crashed in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010

The reason why we are where we are at now and who's watch it happened on are two different things. Do not think I'm trying to mesh them together here. There are multiple parties at fault for the reason why it failed; who's watch it began and happened on, however... well, you already know.

[Tribesman]

What's with the "YOU"?
Its the Theodore Kaczynski method, when you feel you have a really big thing to say write it in big letters

[Catfish]

Texas ! But Taxes ?

Yeah go Texas, and the rest of the USA !

You cannot tax big companies, they are the job makers !
You cannot tax the middle class since they are doing the job !

Tonight, Jon Stewart (http://tv.gawker.com/tag/jonstewart/) overviewed the media's reaction to a report that many poor households don't pay federal income tax before comparing it to the non-reaction over the fact that Exxon Mobil (http://tv.gawker.com/tag/exxonmobil/) also doesn't pay. Inside, video of Stewart's magnificent juxtaposition

http://tv.gawker.com/5516642/jon-stewart-exposes-the-medias-laughably-dishonest-tax+related-reporting

So tax the poor !
What, they do not earn enough in a 40-hours week to pay taxes ? Kill them all !
:rotfl2:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Sailor Steve]

Actually, the debt Obama has now was inherited from Bush in October 2008.
As was said by the Republicans when Bush's debts started climbing in 2001. I don't know the reality, but that's what they always say.

As for Reagan, I don't know who's been saying that (I'd like to find out) nor do I know how they figured this up. While the debt did increase during the Regan-Bush era, and continued to do so throughout the Clinton era, the greatest increase came under George Jr.
Sorry. I wasn't talking about now, but then. That was the Democrats' biggest shouting point while Reagan was in office.

Didn't mean to confuse.

[Fr8monkey]

You ar all forgetting the budget Obama had in his first year was proposed... and passed... by Bush and the Republican controlled Senate in the fall of '08. The huge debt isn't his fault.

You cannot tax big companies, they are the job makers !


So the Big Corporations can send them jobs to China and collect their billion dollar bonuses.

[Catfish]

Microsoft Supplier Uses Child Workers And Pays Them $0.65 Per Hour :
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slammed-over-child-labor-accusations-2010-4
:stare:
But it is not only Microsoft, just think about it when you buy your next product.

The thing is, some oil companies do not pay taxes at all in the US, that is what the link i posted in the earlier post was about, if in a highly ironic way. The press just repeats what the latest rumours are about, not anything like the truth, no time for research - news is a fast market.

As soon as a big company is being urged to pay taxes, i guess this equals communism, in the US. Only losers like average men pay taxes. :O:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Tribesman]

Microsoft Supplier Uses Child Workers And Pays Them $0.65 Per Hour :

Thats what we get with free markets and no pesky government regulations hindering business.

[tater]

Thats what we get with free markets and no pesky government regulations hindering business.

No one is forced to buy from M$.

It was public outcry that has changed the way products have changed such practices in the past—remember all the PR crap Nike got, then they altered what they were doing?

[August]

Republican controlled Senate in the fall of '08.

Dude the Dems have controlled both houses of Congress since 2006...

[Tribesman]

It was public outcry that has changed the way products have changed such practices in the past—remember all the PR crap Nike got, then they altered what they were doing?
Bad example, how many decades have Nike been getting bad PR for over that issue?
How many times have they been exposed and said they will change their ways and then got caught doing the same again?

OK maybe it wasn't a bad example, as clearly you was trying to make my point for me .:up:

[tater]

Bad example, how many decades have Nike been getting bad PR for over that issue?
How many times have they been exposed and said they will change their ways and then got caught doing the same again?

OK maybe it wasn't a bad example, as clearly you was trying to make my point for me .:up:

Well it's clearly a continuing concern for consumers, then. Do YOU buy Nikes, or do you not buy them because of this? Or are you merely waiting for it to be illegal for them to make them with child labor, and until then who cares?

I remember reading about it, and hearing that they said they'd do something about it. Most all my news comes from when I listen to NPR every morning, BTW.

Having travelled quite a lot in Asia (spent the better part of a year backpacking around central and SE Asia a long time ago), I'd suggest that kids not employed making sneakers, etc, would likely be doing something worse, or starving.

Before suggesting radical changes, I'd ned to see a cost-benefit analysis telling us what might become of these newly unemployed workers. Better to work 15 hour shifts in a factory than be forced into prostitution, for example.

[DarkFish]

Better to work 15 hour shifts in a factory than be forced into prostitution, for example.Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.

[August]

Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.

You're pretty free with other peoples money aintcha?

[Sailor Steve]

Or better to, if there's only inhumane work like that available, let the rich people provide for them. They can miss a 2nd limousine or another villa. And many of them do nothing for it compared to the poor.

If a family can live a good life with, for example, €20.000 a year, and the CEO of some fancy company makes €20.000.000, that means he can miss €19.980.000 and still live a happy life.
Yep, and if he gives up eighty thou he'll still have twenty to live on, just like everybody else. But the only way to make that happen is to use the wonderful benign government to force it to be that way. But then the CEO won't want to do that job anymore, so you'll have to use the wonderful benign government to force him to. Welcome to Utopia!

Another problem. Several years ago I pulled out my little pocket calculator and figured something out. At that time Bill Gates was listed as being worth $60,000,000,000.00. Yep, sixty billion dollars. What my calculator told me was this: if we took it all away and made him just like the rest of us, every man, woman and child in the US of A would receive a whopping $200. I think I said that before but it bears repeating - we would all be two hundred dollars richer. Microsoft has it's own separate worth, so the 93,000 people employed there would probably not be out of work, but then they wouldn't have a chairman anymore, so who knows what would happen.

[DarkFish]

You're pretty free with other peoples money aintcha?If that's how you want to call it, do so, I won't mind.
I'm from a middle-class family, studying at a university now, and have never in my life had any money problems. At the present I only receive money from the government, but when I've finished my study I'll earn MUCH more then the average John Doe, and thus will pay above average taxes. That's how it works, you receive when you need money, and pay when you don't.
With my job/salary prospects you can hardly point any accusing fingers to me for being "free with other peoples money". Yes I am, but I count myself to the "other people" too. Once my study is finished, I'll be glad to pay my taxes 'cause I can miss them then.


I don't see how it can possibly be fair that, in general, the rich guys don't have to do crap for their money, while the poor have to do hard work 24/7.
Just because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a millionaire family. Grew up in a bad neighbourhood. Were born in the wrong country. Or simply didn't have the brains to learn for a better job.

Yeah sure, there are people abusing the system. But blaming that on social security, would be like blaming your local supermarket for its high prices cause there are thieves stealing their goods and thus get it for free.

[tater]

Explains so much... when you have lived on handouts your whole life, you don't have any sense of the responsibility the people doing the handing out have.

Darkfish, since a FAMILY can easily live well on €20,000/year, I assume that you'll be donating ALL of your take home pay above that to 3d world charity. We'll all look forward to seeing the report from your accountant to prove it.

Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government?

You live in a dream world. Wait til you have kids, and not handouts from the government or mommy and daddy.

"Honey, don't buy those new shoes, they look like all your other black shoes—we should send that money to India, instead." That'll go over well.
:haha:

[DarkFish]

[...] But then the CEO won't want to do that job anymore, so you'll have to use the wonderful benign government to force him to. Welcome to Utopia!well of course it has to come with *some* advantages. But does that mean they should make a tremendous amount more than other people who work just as hard, or physically seen usually even harder? Personally I'd say 2-3x the 'normal' wages should be the max.

At that time Bill Gates was listed as being worth $60,000,000,000.00. [...] if we took it all away and made him just like the rest of us, every man, woman and child in the US of A would receive a whopping $200.If you devide it equally, yeah. But not everyone should get as much as another, what would be the point of taking the money away from Gates then if you give it to other rich people?
If you'd spend it on the bottom 20%, they'd get $1000 a man. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States), the personal income for the bottom 19,71% is around $5000 average. That makes a whopping 20% increase in income for 42.000.000 people!

[DarkFish]

Darkfish, since a FAMILY can easily live well on €20,000/year, I assume that you'll be donating ALL of your take home pay above that to 3d world charity. We'll all look forward to seeing the report from your accountant to prove it.1st - I don't believe in 3rd world charity. But that's another topic, if you want me to elaborate on my personal reasons for that just start another thread.
Besides, the Dutch government already pays for some degree of development aid to 3rd world countries from our taxes. So whether I like it or not, I will be spending a part of my salary to charity.

2nd - of course I'd keep as much as I can. I would be a huge hypocrite to say otherwise. Mankind likes money.
I'm just saying that it'd be fair if I had to pay lots of tax money. I'm not saying I'd like it.

You live in a dream world. Wait til you have kids, and not handouts from the government or mommy and daddy.With the Dutch social welfare system, if you really need money you get it. Besides, parents get an income-dependent tax reduction.
Sure, with kids you won't be as wealthy as before. But I've yet to hear any stories about families here in the Netherlands who became poor because they got kids. Either they weren't poor before, and weren't poor after, or were poor both before and after.

[Catfish]

" ... Explains so much... when you have lived on handouts your whole life, you don't have any sense of the responsibility the people doing the handing out have. ..."

LOL
Handouts, well - when i studied, i also got some money from the government, not much but enough to finish the studies together with the money i earned. I worked almost every holiday to earn the money for the studies, and expensive excursions, let alone books, bus, train, and a room to sleep. It is a nice time because you are young, not because you have much money -
you just have enough to live, and that is what Darkfish meant.


" ... Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government? ..."

So you prefer to give the money to companies, and people who run it, already have billions, and give a damn ? Exxon Mobil does not pay taxes in the US, does it ? Did ENRON ? Who changed the books, and who then did rescue Bush, and the other oil companies ?
Who paid the bankers, Leman Brothers, Goldman Sachs ? The government had to help the companies out because they are incompetent , greedy, feel no responsability and give a damn about the country they produce or sell their stuff in. I would have let them go bankrupt, and give the responsible managers a kick in the face. At least.

Living in a state with a goverment usually means that people help each other, othewise you can shoot anyone who is past 50 to 60, and cannot work as hard anymore as it is expected.
And i mean states with any kind of democracy, not Idi Amin's Uganda, or China.
It is a contract that collected taxes are spent for the better of the whole community, and common sense. I trust the ****tiest government more, than any of those company egoists.
If you do not like this kind of civilization and caring for other pepole go become Tarzan. Or live in an anarchy, or move to Texas, or even better, to China. I hear it's the morning of capitalism there, without health care insurance and loans of 65 cent per hour.

And when the hands of the children become too big for electronics or carpets, they can be used as prostitutes, before working in the coal mines. Golden times over there.
Don't think market economy in the US would be any other than that, without a government.

Don't you think something's wrong with the western perception, when buying shoes for 300 Dollars are preferred to feed someone and give him an education and a chance somewhere else in the world, with this amount of money ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[Sailor Steve]

well of course it has to come with *some* advantages. But does that mean they should make a tremendous amount more than other people who work just as hard, or physically seen usually even harder? Personally I'd say 2-3x the 'normal' wages should be the max.
But again, what you think they 'should' make, or what I think, or what Nancy Pelosi thinks, is irrelevant. It's what the people who pay him the money think. Limit it arbitrarily by government and he'll go somewhere that will pay him what he thinks he's worth, the company will get what they're forced to pay for and go down the tubes, and all the employees will now be out of work. Good job.

If you devide it equally, yeah. But not everyone should get as much as another, what would be the point of taking the money away from Gates then if you give it to other rich people?
Because if you take it away from all the rich people...hell, let's take it away from everybody and distribute it evenly. The estimated net worth of the whole country is about $60,000,000,000, sixty trillion.
http://alphavictim.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-is-americas-total-net-worth.html

Divide that by 300,000 people (we're not going to subtract the National Debt) and everybody gets $200,000. That's a one-time deal, so everybody is stuck with it. What becomes of it is determined by personal habits. We've all read about people who have won this-or-that lottery and then blown it all, being poor again in two or three years (or less). So a lot of folks are going to spend it quickly and then be in big trouble. Some more are going to put it to good use and manage to survive on it. A few are going to know what to do and create something with it, and make more.

And then what? The folks who can actually accomplish something are going to become rich and the folks who can't are going to become poor, and have to work for the rich ones all over again.

Like the old Blue Oyster Cult song said, "Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'til there are no rich no more."

If you'd spend it on the bottom 20%, they'd get $1000 a man. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States), the personal income for the bottom 19,71% is around $5000 average. That makes a whopping 20% increase in income for 42.000.000 people!
The problem there is that $5000 number. It's an average. The minimum wage in this country is $7.25 per hour. If you work full time that comes to about $13,000 per year. So you have folks who work for minimum wage and folks who don't work at all, or work when the feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street. Nobody working even part time makes $5000, so those numbers are not real, just averages.

Actually I only made around $5000 last year. I worked for two months full time until I was laid off, and I worked some through a temp agency and I collected some unemployment. I would give my eye-teeth just to have a full-time job making minimum wage.

I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn about life that they don't teach in school.

[OneToughHerring]

What works fine in Europe will never work in the States. Failed states have ingrained problems that can't be solved from the outside. And also, the rest of the planet shouldn't suffer because of the US alone.

[Sailor Steve]

" ... Or do you only think that that is "right" when forced by the government? ..."

So you prefer to give the money to companies, and people who run it, already have billions, and give a damn ? Exxon Mobil does not pay taxes in the US, does it ? Did ENRON ? Who changed the books, and who then did rescue Bush, and the other oil companies ?
The big word here is "give". If people make money it is either theirs to keep or someone else's to take. Taking without asking is stealing, whether it's done by a crook with a gun or the government. We allow the government to take some of ours to pay for roads, education, and everything else that needs to be handled publically, but Exxon making money is not "giving", it is "earning". If they don't pay taxes to the US, then they pay them to somebody else. Who? I don't know, and don't care enough to look it up. Why? Because whoever it is charges less. If the US got smart and lowered those taxes they would come back here. "Whatever the market can bear".

Who paid the bankers, Leman Brothers, Goldman Sachs ? The government had to help the companies out because they are incompetent , greedy, feel no responsability and give a damn about the country they produce or sell their stuff in. I would have let them go bankrupt, and give the responsible managers a kick in the face. At least.
So would I. If they screw people intentionally, they deserve the fullest punishment the law allows. If they do it accidentally, they deserve to go out of business. Government doesn't earn any income, they take it from the people. Bailing out some big company that screwed up is throwing away money they took from us. Better they give it back to us, or don't take it in the first place.

But what about the $170,000 per year each and every congressman "earns", and what about the extra $194,000 each one gets for "expenses", for what is supposed to be a public service?

Living in a state with a goverment usually means that people help each other, othewise you can shoot anyone who is past 50 to 60, and cannot work as hard anymore as it is expected.
Oops, that's me, thank you very much.

It is a contract that collected taxes are spent for the better of the whole community, and common sense. I trust the ****tiest government more, than any of those company egoists.
Unfortunately governments are made up of exactly the same "egoists", only they don't do anything to actually generate revenues. They just take whatever they think is appropriate and tell you it's for your own good.

Don't you think something's wrong with the western perception, when buying shoes for 300 Dollars are preferred to feed someone and give him an education and a chance somewhere else in the world, with this amount of money ?
Yes I do, but I also think something's wrong with the idea that you can take anything you deem proper and use it for what you think is a good cause. What keeps the next guy from taking what he deems proper and using for a bad cause?

People who run governments are just like any other people - good, bad, and everything in between. The difference is that they are much harder to control, because once they are there they can take whatever they want and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it if it gets out of hand.

Two quotes to end with:

"It is the natural tendency of things for Government to gain ground and Liberty to loose."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
-Gerald R. Ford

[DarkFish]

So you have folks who work for minimum wage and folks who don't work at all, or work when the feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street. Nobody working even part time makes $5000, so those numbers are not real, just averages.

[...]

Actually I only made around $5000 last year. I worked for two months full time until I was laid off, and I worked some through a temp agency and I collected some unemployment. I would give my eye-teeth just to have a full-time job making minimum wage.But does the fact that you made only $5000 make you someone who "works when you feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street?" I certainly hope that's not so. (and, knowing you as the subsim member you are, I don't think so:))

There are people who do "work when they feel like it for beer money", sure. But that's not a problem caused by the system. There'll always be thieves, whether they steal a TV, or steal government money by abusing the system.

It's an argument I hear quite often, that because of those people social welfare expenses should be cut. But there are lots of people like you too, who want to work but for some reason or another can't find employment. Or people that do have a job, but very hard work for only minimum wages.

[Sailor Steve]

But does the fact that you made only $5000 make you someone who "works when you feel like it for beer money and sleep in the street?" I certainly hope that's not so. (and, knowing you as the subsim member you are, I don't think so:))
I like to think not, since I can't drink beer anyway. I've been in warehousing my whole life, and can't do that kind of work anymore, but never progressed enough to move into management.

There are people who do "work when they feel like it for beer money", sure. But that's not a problem caused by the system. There'll always be thieves, whether they steal a TV, or steal government money by abusing the system.
Absolutely true. Personally I think the biggest problem with any welfare system is that most of the money goes to the people required to make it work. I don't mean top-level operators eating it all up in perks (though you get that sometimes, just like any other CEO), but all the mid-level people who are required just to keep the system running. A lot more goes to operational costs than to the poor it's designed to help; and that goes for private and church-run organizations as much as it does for government-run ones.

It's an argument I hear quite often, that because of those people social welfare expenses should be cut. But there are lots of people like you too, who want to work but for some reason or another can't find employment. Or people that do have a job, but very hard work for only minimum wages.
Well, people who oppose things always come up with arguments why those things should be opposed - some of them good, some of them lame.

I have lots of arguments why this or that is problematic. Unfortunately I don't have any real answers either.