Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 10:12 AM Reply   
I agree... but money does not get used up, it just exchanges hands. The only way it gets used up is through inflation or if it permanently leaves the global economy. In a keynesian theoretical model savings, that are not in bank to be loaned out, also "uses up" the money supply because it is no longer in circulation. In the Austrian model savings represent the next boom, which is sustainable versus a credit boom; so money taken out of the system for savings is not necessarily bad... It all comes down to human action, and the study there of, or "praxeology".

I completely understand your thought process; however, I would argue that the private sector can generate more activity or work in the economy than the Federal Government can by operating in a more efficient manner or producing more returns on the same investment.

I still think you need to look up the "praxeology" model or the "Austrian Business Cycle".
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 10:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I would argue that the private sector can generate more activity or work in the economy than the Federal Government can by operating in a more efficient manner or producing more returns on the same investment.
You could argue that, but it wouldn't be productive because that isn't relevant to anything I've been saying in this thread. The irony here is that my philosophy takes the ASoE to the next level. If the basic philosophy of the ASoE is to decide on a fundamental principle free of complicated and unprovable justifications and stick to it, then what I'm saying does just that even more so.

It's a fundamental principle that the money supply in the domestic economy must remain stable or grow, or the domestic economy will decline. Who can even argue that?

I'm not saying that saving hurts the economy by taking money out. Just the opposite as banks leverage saving and return a multiple. The consequences of how much a multiple banks create isn't relevant. That's a separate debate.

The reason why I'm saying the govt needs the tax revenue is not because it's more efficient. It's because we've dug our hole and must undo that. I'm all for withholding additional tax revenue until the correct course of fixing the problem is established. After we've done that I'm all for paying the taxes required to do the job.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-14-2011, 11:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
John - regarding taxing taxes, this was my poor attempt at a reply to your position that we should tax money leaving the economy.

Jeremy - I didn't imply anything, you made it mean whatever you wanted...

Jo Shmoe - First, it is commonly spelled Joe Shmoe... Second, Yes, I have multiple advanced degrees and was second in my class in Advanced Diff EQ, Calc III, and Linear Optimization...

If you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of Aesop's Fables you would know that the ant did indeed experience the desired outcome and that the grasshopper starved. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that the fable is a lesson for children regarding preparing for the future versus just having fun and not doing so.

Based on your last paragraph, you believe that a "rich" person is rich because of the common people... This may be partially the case, but the "rich" person is wealthy because they did something above and beyond what the "common" people did. Thanks for the lesson in the obvious... by its very definition being "rich" or wealthy separates one from the common people... could everyone be rich? In my opinion, no...

Is it any wonder why our kids are leaving schools without the basic skills they need to compete in the workplace? Please stop teaching...

Actually, most rich people are rich because of what they were born into. Wealth. Study's have proven over and over again that if your parents did well you will likely do well. It's a matter of opportunities. If presented with more opportunities you have a better chance of success. And just because someone is well educated does not mean they are well informed. Of course there are people who come from nothing and make something of themselves but by in large that's not the case.

The Meritocracy Myth
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 11:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
Actually, most rich people are rich because of what they were born into. Wealth. Study's have proven over and over again that if your parents did well you will likely do well. It's a matter of opportunities. If presented with more opportunities you have a better chance of success. And just because someone is well educated does not mean they are well informed. Of course there are people who come from nothing and make something of themselves but by in large that's not the case.

The Meritocracy Myth
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm
Jimmy,
Are you saying that the parents were born in to it too? Someone, somewhere, at sometime, did something to generate wealth that they were able to pass on... One of the basic tenants of the American Ideal is that you can keep the results of your efforts and can pass it on to your children if you so choose. This is the very basic idea of personal/private property. In a totally socialist country you can not pass your wealth on to your kids. If my father didn't teach me the basics of the economy, business, and right from wrong in addition to helping me start my business I would have had a much harder time becoming successful, but I still could. For example, he didn't know anything about the logging business, or how to syndicate real estate development, but we still figured those things out. We didn't have anyone giving us anything in those areas...

In the United States of American more people are able to climb the economic ladder than anywhere else. Have you ever talked to an immigrant regarding opportunity here? More immigrants own their own business in the US than in any other country.

Last edited by SamIngram; 07-14-2011 at 11:23 AM.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-14-2011, 12:01 PM Reply   
I am so sick of the "debt ceiling" doom and gloom. I have seen the numbers. We have enough revenue coming in to pay our debts(no we won't default), SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the active military, border patrol, etc... and have plenty left over. Let's stop paying the EPA, NEA, National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, IRS, etc... Spending cuts are coming whether Obama likes it or not.

Man, Obama truly is a one man economic wrecking ball!! I can't keep comparing him to Jimmy Carter... Jimmy Carter was much less incompetent than this guy. Wow.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 12:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
I am so sick of the "debt ceiling" doom and gloom. I have seen the numbers. We have enough revenue coming in to pay our debts(no we won't default), SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the active military, border patrol, etc... and have plenty left over. Let's stop paying the EPA, NEA, National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, IRS, etc... Spending cuts are coming whether Obama likes it or not.

Man, Obama truly is a one man economic wrecking ball!! I can't keep comparing him to Jimmy Carter... Jimmy Carter was much less incompetent than this guy. Wow.
Bravo!!! - I agree!

The Austrian School also has a solution... it is a little old, but it will still work!

"Do You Austrians Have a Better Idea?"

I like #2 the best..., "Note that in 2007, even without the personal and corporate income tax, the federal government still took in more than $1 trillion in receipts."
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 12:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I'm curious as to why they left the FDA out of their recommendations. The FDA is significantly responsible for excessive healthcare inflation. The existance of the FDA and what it does effectively makes the govt responsible for a "right to healthcare", which I'm sure this group opposes.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 12:39 PM Reply   
I notice that Rob apparently still favors taking on foreign countries as welfare states.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-14-2011, 12:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Jimmy,
Are you saying that the parents were born in to it too? Someone, somewhere, at sometime, did something to generate wealth that they were able to pass on... One of the basic tenants of the American Ideal is that you can keep the results of your efforts and can pass it on to your children if you so choose. This is the very basic idea of personal/private property. In a totally socialist country you can not pass your wealth on to your kids. If my father didn't teach me the basics of the economy, business, and right from wrong in addition to helping me start my business I would have had a much harder time becoming successful, but I still could. For example, he didn't know anything about the logging business, or how to syndicate real estate development, but we still figured those things out. We didn't have anyone giving us anything in those areas...

In the United States of American more people are able to climb the economic ladder than anywhere else. Have you ever talked to an immigrant regarding opportunity here? More immigrants own their own business in the US than in any other country.
I don't disagree with anything you've said above but the fact of the matter is most wealthy people got there by less than honest means. That is evident. Just because someone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth does not make him any more of a person. Just a luckier one. Even if every single person had a PhD there are not enough good jobs to make everyone wealthy.

I don't care what the circumstances, the top 1% should not own well over 70% of all assets. And this inequality gap continues to grow. Once the wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few people... good luck getting those tables to turn.

Also, someone above said, "50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. That's fair?" Yeah, that is fair. They don't pay taxes because they don't earn enough to pay. AKA they are POOR.

So again, people rarely become wealthy on their own merits. Furthermore, people don't get to pick what family they are born into. You could have just as easily been born into a poor family with a dead beat dad. Had you been, I can guarantee your chances of success would be far less.


.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 12:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I'm curious as to why they left the FDA out of their recommendations. The FDA is significantly responsible for excessive healthcare inflation. The existance of the FDA and what it does effectively makes the govt responsible for a "right to healthcare", which I'm sure this group opposes.
I'm sure it was just an honest mistake and accidental omission... If you do a search FDA on the mises.org website many results will come up including:

Abolish the FDA

Privatization of the FDA
If you think I'm A#$hole try reading the Mises.org forums....

and

Playing God at the FDA

Please note that they were proposing these ideas at the peak of the boom...
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
I don't disagree with anything you've said above but the fact of the matter is most wealthy people got there by less than honest means. That is evident. Just because someone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth does not make him any more of a person. Just a luckier one. Even if every single person had a PhD there are not enough good jobs to make everyone wealthy.

I don't care what the circumstances, the top 1% should not own well over 70% of all assets. And this inequality gap continues to grow. Once the wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few people... good luck getting those tables to turn.

Also, someone above said, "50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. That's fair?" Yeah, that is fair. They don't pay taxes because they don't earn enough to pay. AKA they are POOR.

So again, people rarely become wealthy on their own merits. Furthermore, people don't get to pick what family they are born into. You could have just as easily been born into a poor family with a dead beat dad. Had you been, I can guarantee your chances of success would be far less.


.
Hello Mr. Marx! I could give a wonderful rebuttal to your statement, but I won't waste my time....

A few key items though...

1. You can not build true wealth by working a job, you have to work for yourself... and education doesn't equal wealth, you have to take that education and put it to work...
2. My dad came from a family of 13 kids and was dirt poor, he literally ate spaghetti and ketchup at least three nights a week for dinner. To this day he will not eat any kind of pasta or any kind of sliced bread...
3. Less than honest means?? Really??
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-14-2011, 1:00 PM Reply   
according to Thomas J. Stanley's book "The Millionaire Next Door", most millionaires are self made. These people aren't necessarily the mega rich that you see in the media.

Also

yes, everyone should pay taxes. Even the "poor". I think that the solution is a flat tax percentage for everyone. i would be in flavor of the flat tax even if it got rid of write offs.....but it would need to apply to everyone.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 1:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I'm sure it was just an honest mistake and accidental omission... If you do a search FDA on the mises.org website many results will come up including:
Their rationale only remotely touches on the issue.

I do believe that a govt agency that ensures sanitary manufacturing of food products and truth of content labeling is necessary. I also believe that it's both reasonable and desireable for an agency to be an information resource. I.E provide the govt's official opinion on the effectiveness and safety of medicine and medical procedures. I do not believe it's authority or power should extend beyond labeling or sanitary manufacuring. The information is "take it or leave it" and your own discretion.

I'm not advocating abolishing the FDA. Just slashing it's budget and downsizing it's power and scope. Same with homeland security. Quite frankly I can't understand that the DEA does anything that the states can't handle on their own. Same with ATF.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:27 PM Reply   
Good video regarding debt ceiling..

Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-14-2011, 1:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Hello Mr. Marx! I could give a wonderful rebuttal to your statement, but I won't waste my time....

A few key items though...

1. You can not build true wealth by working a job, you have to work for yourself... and education doesn't equal wealth, you have to take that education and put it to work...
2. My dad came from a family of 13 kids and was dirt poor, he literally ate spaghetti and ketchup at least three nights a week for dinner. To this day he will not eat any kind of pasta or any kind of sliced bread...
3. Less than honest means?? Really??
Listen Kook,

1) Pretty poor response considering how well educated you are. The executives of well, just about any company on wall street including the company I work for and most other fortune 500 companies do not work for themselves nor did most of them start the companies but are all multi-millionaires. Is that working a job? I think so.
2)And I'm sure he walked up hill both ways to work. Good for your dad.
3) Yes, less than honest means. White-collar crime in the form of insider trading, embezzlement, tax fraud, insurance fraud and the like is hardly evidence of honesty and virtue in practice. Or where they all honorable doctors?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 1:31 PM Reply   
BTW, how do the ASoE'rs feel about professional licensing? For example, if you practice law or medicine without licensing you can go to jail. Obviously this means two things...

1) the govt decides who gets to practice these professions, which results in price escalation. and
2) if you don't have enough money to secure the services at that price level, you don't get them.

Again, this implies that the govt is responsible for providing these services to poor people, In a free market the decision will always be the individuals based on price and quality. There are many more professions. For example, in Florida you need a license to get a massage. And you need to spend about a minimum of $10K to get one. I'm pretty sure that a person can give a massage without going to school.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by strife View Post
Listen Kook,

1) Pretty poor response considering how well educated you are. The executives of well, just about any company on wall street including the company I work for and most other fortune 500 companies do not work for themselves nor did most of them start the companies but are all multi-millionaires. Is that working a job? I think so.
2)And I'm sure he walked up hill both ways to work. Good for your dad.
3) Yes, less than honest means. White-collar crime in the form of insider trading, embezzlement, tax fraud, insurance fraud and the like is hardly evidence of honesty and virtue in practice. Or where they all honorable doctors?
Will this "Kook" thinks you are nuts...

many of executives of the Fortune 500 companies do work for themselves and either founded the company or own a great deal of it themselves. Furthermore, those executives account for a very small percentage of the wealthy in this country...
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
BTW, how do the ASoE'rs feel about professional licensing? For example, if you practice law or medicine without licensing you can go to jail. Obviously this means two things...

1) the govt decides who gets to practice these professions, which results in price escalation. and
2) if you don't have enough money to secure the services at that price level, you don't get them.

Again, this implies that the govt is responsible for providing these services to poor people, In a free market the decision will always be the individuals based on price and quality. There are many more professions. For example, in Florida you need a license to get a massage. And you need to spend about a minimum of $10K to get one. I'm pretty sure that a person can give a massage without going to school.
Maybe you belong to the Austrian School after all... there are tons of articles on licensing on Mises.org. They basically believe in eliminating them..

From the Mises.org Wiki site:
Occupational licensing

There are tons of articles or blogs on the subject too...
Occupational Licensing = Protectionism, part 4552
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-14-2011, 1:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
according to Thomas J. Stanley's book "The Millionaire Next Door", most millionaires are self made. These people aren't necessarily the mega rich that you see in the media.

Also

yes, everyone should pay taxes. Even the "poor". I think that the solution is a flat tax percentage for everyone. i would be in flavor of the flat tax even if it got rid of write offs.....but it would need to apply to everyone.
That book was written during the greatest bull market in history.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 1:42 PM Reply   
Jimmy, you're beating your head against a brick wall. You and Sam have a difference of philosophy. There isn't enough rationale in the world to provide a definitive argument. Philosophies are build on a moral code. I agree with what you are saying and believe my moral code is more closely aligned with you.

People don't change their moral philosophies easily and it's virtually impossible to mount a logical argument. A moral code is deeply ingrained in the body of logic that represents an entire lifetime of learning.

I asked a question earlier. Does our creator endow us with an equal right to the world's resources or is it morally correct for someone to take something if they have the means. This question is a moral quagmire. Only the poorest of the poor could say that we all have an equal right *and* have a lifestyle that matches their belief.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 1:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Maybe you belong to the Austrian School after all... there are tons of articles on licensing on Mises.org. They basically believe in eliminating them..
I'm not fully on board but I do see an alignment. Quite frankly, a lot of this is common sense if one expends a bit of brain power.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Jimmy, you're beating your head against a brick wall. You and Sam have a difference of philosophy. There isn't enough rationale in the world to provide a definitive argument. Philosophies are build on a moral code. I agree with what you are saying and believe my moral code is more closely aligned with you.

People don't change their moral philosophies easily and it's virtually impossible to mount a logical argument. A moral code is deeply ingrained in the body of logic that represents an entire lifetime of learning.

I asked a question earlier. Does our creator endow us with an equal right to the world's resources or is it morally correct for someone to take something if they have the means. This question is a moral quagmire. Only the poorest of the poor could say that we all have an equal right *and* have a lifestyle that matches their belief.
The only problem with that discussion is that my position has been proven over and over again by history. Liberty, Freedom, and the Free Market is the only thing that works. Please name one place anywhere where socialism or Marxism, the root of Jimmy's philosophy, has stood the test of time. It doesn't work, you eventually run out both money and the ability to incentivise the people to work...

John,
I would argue that one's moral code also changes with their economic standing... Often, when you are poor you think everyone has an equal right, when you begin to generate wealth you begin to think you have more right to those resources because of your past work - you worked for your position versus having it given to you, when you are ultra wealthy you again say everyone has an equal right because it no longer matters..

In my opinion, everyone has an equal right to the world's resources; however, barriers to entry exist, as they do in any market, and it requires extra effort to gain the resources to participate in that market.

A right to do something is worthless without the means to exercise that right, and something must be done in order to gain the power to exercise the right, usually through intelligence and work. Some people only have the ability to do one or the other; exercise intelligence or do work, and they must partner with each other in order to exercise their rights.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 1:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I'm not fully on board but I do see an alignment. Quite frankly, a lot of this is common sense if one expends a bit of brain power.
In my short life, I have been to believe that common sense is anything but common.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 2:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Good video regarding debt ceiling..
Unfortunately these people are also oblivious to affect of negative cash flow from the economy ( @5:00). If you believe the only problem is govt spending then you're not heading in the right direction, and potentially advocating severe economic decline. It's not that I don't believe that govt spending can be reeled in. It's just I'm not getting the messages that make me feel confident that anyone knows what they are talking about.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 2:20 PM Reply   
Please help me understand, in addition to the spending problem, you think there is an income problem too?

If that is the case, I think they recognize the income problem too, but believe it will be corrected in the long term with less spending.

Or is it your concern that not enough "work" is being done, or that the benefits of that work are not staying within our countries borders? I'm still confused...
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-14-2011, 2:31 PM Reply   
John, I truly find your thought process very odd and confusing. What exactly is our "problem" other than spending? Excessive regulation, Obamacare, etc... can all be eliminated with a reduction in spending.

Revenue isn't the problem. We are taxed far too much already.. well, the people with money are anyway. As many of us have pointed out, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay next to nothing (3%) whereas the top 10% pay 70% of all taxes.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 3:05 PM Reply   
The problem is money leaving the economy. I've said this numerous times. I'm not surprised that you aren't getting it because it's a concept that is literally non-existant in any discussion about the problem with our economy. The trade deficit is in the hundreds of billions. Govt spending that is sending money out of the country isn't as easy to say because it's not as figure tied up neatly with a bow like the trade deficit. But I can imagine that it's in the hundreds of billions as well with the two wars.

Our economy is a bucket with a hole, and the hole is leaking money. The economy cannot run without money. This isn't simply the govt spending too much. We are all killing the economy when we buy foreign made products.

Protectionism is a nasty word. And since the govt debt is first and foremost on our minds, we should focus on govt spending that is sending money out of the economy. That's why we should not be adopting welfare nations.

Rob, you're right. Let's reduce spending by a reduction in regulation. Better yet, let's start with regulation that's driving healthcare costs up and kill two birds with one stone. And if you look at my suggested cuts they focus on all of the above.

If, after all of that we can pay our obligations to bond holders and SS, plus reduce the debt, then we don't have to raise taxes.

BUT... We havent solved the problem with the hole in the bucket. And until we do the economy will decline.

Rob, your argument about who should be paying tax is a philosophical one. In reality, only the people with money can pay tax. In fantasy, everyone pays the same share. But don't worry, tax rates won't be an issue with you when you don't have a job.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       07-14-2011, 3:22 PM Reply   
"Liberty, Freedom, and the Free Market is the only thing that works"
yes, with Government INTERVENTION, This is what the Libertarians do not comprehend.
John, do not go over to the darkside, they are a bunch of kooks!
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 3:22 PM Reply   
I understand and believe in your position. During my first couple years in college I had to debate one of the profs for several hours on NAFTA by myself because the rest of the school thought it was a great idea. I argued the position of Ross Perot regarding the sucking of American jobs across the boarder and ended up getting a standing O from about 4,500 people. This was at Mesa State in Grand Junction, CO, a small public liberal arts college.

The problem that I see with the global economy is that basically equals, in my opinion, the equalization of wealth between the US and the rest of the world... i.e. the spreading of the wealth from the US to Zimbabwe, until we are just as poor as them.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 3:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeshmoe View Post
"Liberty, Freedom, and the Free Market is the only thing that works"
yes, with Government INTERVENTION, This is what the Libertarians do not comprehend.
John, do not go over to the darkside, they are a bunch of kooks!
Yes, "Government INTERVENTION" has done great things with our economy... picking winners and losers and regulating and borrowing us into Greece...
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       07-14-2011, 3:24 PM Reply   
I was always under the impression that wealth is acquired by taking risk. That makes 3 groups, those not willing to take the risk (average worker), those willing to risk it all (self made guy) and those which the risk does not make or break them (the previously rich). How can anyone say that the person who is rich from being a commission-only sales guy on Wall Street isnt working harder than an hourly brick layer? The sales guy is doing the job, plus enduring the mental stress of risking no income from an inconsistent revenue source. The brick layer just shows up does his work and gets paid. Trying to downplay the difference in effort (work) is part of communism.

I am not rich, but I think a flat tax is the "right" thing to do. That stems from my belief that the tax is the cost of being allowed to take advantage of the freedoms and protections these shores provide. I think that cost should be equal for all citizens. When you take advantage of the opportunity to take risk to better yourself and succeed at doing so, I do not think you should be penalized and force to pay more than those who didnt choose to take advantage of the opportunity.
Old    SamIngram            07-14-2011, 4:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
I was always under the impression that wealth is acquired by taking risk. That makes 3 groups, those not willing to take the risk (average worker), those willing to risk it all (self made guy) and those which the risk does not make or break them (the previously rich). How can anyone say that the person who is rich from being a commission-only sales guy on Wall Street isnt working harder than an hourly brick layer? The sales guy is doing the job, plus enduring the mental stress of risking no income from an inconsistent revenue source. The brick layer just shows up does his work and gets paid. Trying to downplay the difference in effort (work) is part of communism.

I am not rich, but I think a flat tax is the "right" thing to do. That stems from my belief that the tax is the cost of being allowed to take advantage of the freedoms and protections these shores provide. I think that cost should be equal for all citizens. When you take advantage of the opportunity to take risk to better yourself and succeed at doing so, I do not think you should be penalized and force to pay more than those who didnt choose to take advantage of the opportunity.
Excellent, I totally forgot the risk factor...
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-14-2011, 4:17 PM Reply   
well said Jason
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-14-2011, 8:19 PM Reply   
We can despense with the notion that we care how hard a person works vs how much he makes. And we can despense with the notion that we care how much reward you get for your risk. What's important is the correlation between tax rates, risk taking, and job creation. If the tax code is going to be changed to encourage risk there needs to be justification.

And quite frankly, there is none. We don't care how hard you work, and we don't care how much risk you take when it comes to determining your reward.

If I'm evaluating risk and placing a high importance on the current tax rate when I'm making a lot of money, then more likely to lose my shorts.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-15-2011, 5:56 AM Reply   
John, I hope you get a job soon man. That has got to be stressful.

One thing about this whole "debt ceiling" mess... how on earth can it be good to take on more debt? Seriously, compare this to a normal family that is maxed out on every damn credit card. How can it be be good to get your credit line increased so you can spend more and more? Like I said in the title of this post... Obama needs to stick to community organizing after he loses the election because he'd make an absolutely awful financial adviser.

I can hear him now "No, keep that lawn maintenance service. Charge on a credit card because the mowers need to keep working. We can figure out how to pay for it later."
Old    Will Rice (willrice)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-15-2011, 6:21 AM Reply   
@ John
I don't think that the tax code needs to be changed to encourage risk. Rather, the tax code needs to be changed to encourage people to take the risk. Wealthy people have no qualms with risk; in fact, they most likely got their money by taking risk (unlike the person who thinks that all wealthy people got there money because of their parent's economic standing). Wealthy people, and anyone who invests intelligently, evaluate risk by determining the likelihood of a good/bad return based on their initial investment. Taxes are involved because returns are subject to taxes. There is a point at which the tax code will cause the return to be too low, and therefore cause the person to not take the risk. This is why a tax code that encourages people to take risk is crucial to creating as much wealth as possible.

This is obviously very simplified, but this can generally be applied to anything from buying some shares of stock to starting a business. If the return is too low, then the risk won't be taken, and taxes effect returns.
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       07-15-2011, 8:06 AM Reply   
http://youtu.be/UUNIeOB0whI
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 8:19 AM Reply   
I like this one better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Tlt...feature=relmfu

Disregard the gold part. This is part of Paul's lunacy.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 8:56 AM Reply   
The down turn is not a result of the Bush tax cut's. The downturn is due to a housing bubble bursting coupled with the perfect storm of coming directly off the free money give away of the internet days then add in a war or two and you have it. Only reason Clinton had a surplus was a) they counted social surplus into the calculation b) everyone and their brother was investing hoping to get rich in the internet and the government reaping the reward of taxes on peoples stock gains. With that they also got a ton of foreign investment. Then Bush came into office and we were actually positioned to be near even when the wars happened and we of course riding the beginning of the housing bubble to keep it stable. Then near the end of Bush's term the democrats froze the budget by passing continuing resolutions so Bush never go to veto a budget since he never got a bill and the housing market finally fell thus less tax revenue.

We are a bubble economy period. There are too many people in this country wanting to make a living selling services and services don't sell unless there is a ballon in some other sector. The problem is not about risk but it is about rarity. If you have a rare skill, you will be valuable as long as that skill is needed. The country only needs so many real estate salesmen, hair dressers and dog walkers. If you are selling a service and everyone is doing it, you will be low paid and under employed. Only reason many things are so costly because they artificially create rarity.

One thing people don't seem to want to mention regarding the Bush tax cuts which are also now the Obama tax cuts, Bush actually limited the amount of taxes the middle and lower class pay considerably. He also shifted the burden of taxes up the tax scale to the more wealthy. Actually wealth is not really taxed. It is taxing the higher income earners. People always confuse wealth with taxes.

The other lie I keep hearing from people that sounds like children stamping their feet is this business that there is a greater gap between the richest of the rich and the middle class. I have to ask, SO WHAT!!??? The middle class is more well off that any period in history. Your jobs are easier, your comfort level is greater. You have nicer things. The kicker in all this is that you have the greatest potential to get your share of the pie now than in any time in history. Just because the rich are richer does not mean you can not get rich too. That is what I don't get. There is nothing keeping your from getting rich. You only complain that someone has much more money that you. There is nothing that says you have to stay in your income class. At the end of the day, no one gets a job from a poor man and rich people are always looking to increase their wealth and take some chances on new ideas. Thus the internet bubble. Rich people investing in a market looking to make some money. Some made a ton and some lost. Point is their is venture capital out there for people with good ideas. The government involvement should be limited to not allowing the rich from creating an atmosphere where regular folks can not get access. Unfortunately, the government has not done well by allowing all these professional certifications. Like the one they passed for home inspections. You can only become an inspector if you do an apprenticeship with an inspector now. Well, that market is going to be locked up unless you are a family member and that brings us back to the big factor. That is rarity.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-15-2011, 8:58 AM Reply   
John, you completely misread me man, I was being 100% sincere. I respect your wakeboarding too much to be a jerk like that... Damn, see what I get for trying to be nice on a Friday!!!!

I feel for anyone without a job that wants one and think it would be a very, very stressful situation.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 9:16 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skull View Post
John, you completely misread me man, I was being 100% sincere. I respect your wakeboarding too much to be a jerk like that... Damn, see what I get for trying to be nice on a Friday!!!!

I feel for anyone without a job that wants one and think it would be a very, very stressful situation.
Sorry Rob, I didn't mean to be disrespectful to someone showing real concern I guess some of my posts might have suggested I don't have a job. After rereading your statement I should have realized your honest mistake. Please accept my apology. And I mean that.

I'm actually in the good position of having a job, relevant skills, and being able to find another should I lose it. I'm a pretty frugal person, with low debt, good health, adequate savings, and could afford to live on half what I make. But I'm really concerned about where we are headed with this economy.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 9:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
The other lie I keep hearing from people that sounds like children stamping their feet is this business that there is a greater gap between the richest of the rich and the middle class. I have to ask, SO WHAT!!??? The middle class is more well off that any period in history. Your jobs are easier, your comfort level is greater. You have nicer things. The kicker in all this is that you have the greatest potential to get your share of the pie now than in any time in history. Just because the rich are richer does not mean you can not get rich too..
If it's a lie, then why did you repeat it?

I've looked into this and the only info I can find is that the concentration of wealth has shifted toward the wealthy, but only by what appears to a be a few percent. Unless there is better info out there it only appears to be a normal flucutaion rather than a significant trend.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-15-2011, 9:53 AM Reply   
John, apology accepted man. I truly thought you were unemployed. Glad to hear otherwise. I definitely wouldn't ever try to be cute or insensitive when someone's family and livelihood is involved.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-15-2011, 10:19 AM Reply   
"One thing about this whole "debt ceiling" mess... how on earth can it be good to take on more debt? Seriously, compare this to a normal family that is maxed out on every damn credit card. How can it be be good to get your credit line increased so you can spend more and more?"

Rob, it is not the same thing. I am amazed that many people don't really understand what is going on here. A fair comparison would be a family maxed out on every credit card and then choosing not to repay the debt with the knowing that their nonpayment is going to have dire consequences to many others. The money is already spent.

"Man, Obama truly is a one man economic wrecking ball!!"

When Obama took office, was the US debt free? If that was the case, then you might have a good argument. I mean honestly, other than devoted ignorance towards a particular political party, how can you attempt to blame the US's financial difficulties on one man? You sound like you are rooting for your favorite football team and claiming the rival team's QB is a bum.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 10:23 AM Reply   
Thanks, I feel like a douch and deleted the post.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 10:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Rob, it is not the same thing. I am amazed that many people don't really understand what is going on here. A fair comparison would be a family maxed out on every credit card and then choosing not to repay the debt with the knowing that their nonpayment is going to have dire consequences to many others. The money is already spent.
It's even more complex than that. It's like you own part of the credit card company and every company associated with them. So you get a payment from them when they are successful. When you don't pay the dominos start dropping and your income disappears. Now your card is still maxed out but you have no income.

Fortunately you own the press that prints the money. QE3 anyone?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-15-2011, 10:46 AM Reply   
Rob, this is what Reagan had to say Sept. 26, 1987 concerning the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling.

"This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility - two things that set us apart from much of the world."
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-15-2011, 10:52 AM Reply   
It is a fallacy that our debts won't be paid. I believe we collect approx. 200 Billion per month in tax revenue. That can easily pay ALL (100%) of debt payments, SS, Medicare, Defense, Border Patrol, etc... It is simply a fallacy that we will default. We choose what we pay and don't pay.

It would be like if I hired a hot 22 year old maid for $100K per year and they discovered I couldn't afford it after 3 months. I wouldn't "default" on her salary, I would just let her go.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-15-2011, 11:03 AM Reply   
^So we just tell the persons holding US Treasury Bonds we are not going to pay? You can't "let them go", you have to either pay or default.

Just out of curiosity Rob, I notice you have been on this forum since 2002, did you ever start a thread prior to this one concerning the US raising the debt ceiling?
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-15-2011, 11:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Rob, this is what Reagan had to say Sept. 26, 1987 concerning the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling.

"This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility - two things that set us apart from much of the world."

Reagan? Isn't he a liberal by today's standards?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 11:12 AM Reply   
John, it is worth repeating and debunking because it is the whole basis for a political party and it has even been repeated as an argument for change in this discussion.

I like the credit card analogy. Now let's throw in while your credit card is maxed you decide that your require new windows on your house because you want to to good for the environment and reduce waste. You can't pay for it and it adds to your debt, but it sure sounds like a great idea. That is what the EPA is doing for us even today.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

New EPA Rules Put Onus on Energy Plants to Protect Downwind States
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 11:15 AM Reply   
Reagan was a life long democrat who changed party because he recognized the democrat party was weak on defense issues. He was actually head of the Screen Actors Union during the fight against McCarthyism.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       07-15-2011, 11:20 AM Reply   
This goes back a few posts to Jimmy's about the poor not paying taxes: flat tax!!! Why should we support the purported poor? You find me a poor person that is able bodied, hard working and remotely educated and then we'll talk. I know there are places where getting a good education may be difficult, but as far as I know we still pay for kids to go to school. Around here the other word for poor is LAZY. There are a ton of people on wellfare that could work, but choose not to. Most people are born with the same faculties. That includes the ability to change your social position. My grand parents came here on a boat. My grandmother left Poland in a suitcase. They had nothing, but made something of themselves. Heck, they didn't even speak english when they came here. I'm sorry for my rant, but this country is made up of far too many lazy people. I, for one, work my ass off. I delivered papers when I was 10, got a real job at 13 and commuted 40 miles each way to work when I was in high school. I have little tolerance for people that feel sorry for themselves.

End rant.

Cliff, I agree that tax writeoff's should go away with a flat tax. If everyone pays the same tax on income, then there is no need.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       07-15-2011, 11:22 AM Reply   
^I don't think Fox News would appreciate you watching their channel if you choose to insult Ronnie.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       07-15-2011, 11:29 AM Reply   
Jeremy, I believe we are legally obligated to pay treasury bonds without raising the debt ceiling and can do so easily. Do you see what I wrote? We take in 200B per month- interest, SS, Medicare, Military, etc... takes up less than half of that. We don't need to fund grants, provide various types of aid, have people sitting around in various government jobs, etc...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 11:31 AM Reply   
So that's why he's heralded as one of the greatest Republicans.

Delta, I don't know if the EPA is making a mistake or if this is needed. I do know this..

Unlike many FDA regulations where there are no public outcrys calling for them to enact them, public environmental groups are calling for these EPA actions. And I know that if we pulled our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and cut payments to foreign govts we could probably use that same money for pay for these environmental protections while creating jobs, which ultimately sends tax revenue back to the coffers. American jobs are like a credit card with cash back rewards.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 11:34 AM Reply   
It is not a insult to Ronnie. Ronnie was who he was. The democrat party is not the same as it was during the 50's and 60's. I just don't think you guys figured it out yet. You keep hearing democrats repeat over and over that you have to be rich to be a republican. That is not true anymore. I see the middle class becoming more and more republican with the ultra rich and the poor being democrats. I think it goes back to what someone posted earlier. Once you get rich enough you don't care anymore and think the everyone should have the same and of course the poor always think that everyone should have the same. It is the poor saps in the middle left holding the bag. Those poor saps in the middle are becoming more and more republican. Even Indiana which is not a rich state and locally are old school democrats (access to markets for business types) but vote republican in national elections. California is so off the farm it is not even funny anymore. They are driving business out of here left and right. There is very little manufacturing left in this state. That is the middle classes bread and butter. The state mostly about banking now and the state regulators figure they can continue to tap off that money but they are driving the middle class out.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 11:40 AM Reply   
Except, the EPA is creating policy that makes it more expensive to do business and at the end of the day, the middle class and poor pay the price. Profits have to be made and at the bottom of that heap is the customer. That is less money to the people and that means less money to support small business. At the end of the day, the new equipment will be installed and that job ends. The power company will still have the same people employed but the customers will pay more month in and month out and businesses will move to where they can stay in business. That is a fact. Look no further than California manufacturing.

I have no faith in environmental groups calling for anything. At this point I believe these people to be idealist beyond a reasonable position anymore. They now only look for issues because they would need to disband and they would not be able to collect a check anymore.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 12:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Except, the EPA is creating policy that makes it more expensive to do business and at the end of the day.
That's exactly what the FDA is doing. Except with no real benefit while oppressing the rights of the public.
Old    jimmy z (strife)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-15-2011, 1:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
John, it is worth repeating and debunking because it is the whole basis for a political party and it has even been repeated as an argument for change in this discussion.

I like the credit card analogy. Now let's throw in while your credit card is maxed you decide that your require new windows on your house because you want to to good for the environment and reduce waste. You can't pay for it and it adds to your debt, but it sure sounds like a great idea. That is what the EPA is doing for us even today.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews

New EPA Rules Put Onus on Energy Plants to Protect Downwind States
FoxNews. The most bias name in news.

I take it you don't live downwind from a power plant? I don't see the problem here. It seems ironic that boaters have no regard for the EPA. But again, I'm sure you don't believe in global warming either and you value your money over your health.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 2:09 PM Reply   
Just because you believe something to be biased does not mean it is not true.

I lived by power plants in the mid west. There are plants right on the delta 20 minutes away as well. I don't advocate nasty air but I have seen these environazis at work in California and they are are not happy with status quo. What they do is get someone who wants a new widget to be pimped so they make up a problem for it and the government to pass it as a environmental regulation so they can corner a market. They are as bad as the businesses they say they are protecting us from. Obama has proposed and has used the EPA as a political weapon for so called social change. It has nothing to do with the environment any more. It is all a big business and power. Hate to tell you though. WIth such power grabs comes consequences. Those consequences are higher costs. Pure and simple. If you want to see where these groups are taking us, just look at California.

Wonder what happened to all the environmental groups that were screaming during Bush's term about us not signing kyoto and treaties like that? Carbon Credits? Have not heard a word. That tells me it is all politics.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       07-15-2011, 2:14 PM Reply   
I agree about the FDA John. I have bitched about them for years. Between them and lawyers, I am surprised anyone can afford healthcare anymore. Reason being the minimum cost of doing business.

Anyone notice healthcare going up big time after they passed domestic partner laws regarding healthcare a few years ago. I think it adds to my clam that more people with healthcare the high the costs go. Means more people with money (health insurance) with same amount of doctors equals high costs. Doctors are going to maximize profits while keeping the office full.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-15-2011, 2:26 PM Reply   
After seeing what the govt has done with the FDA I can certainly see the same potential for similar problems with the EPA. Cap and Trade is an obvious one. I don't care how you spin it... If you're selling the right to pollute that is corruption in the making.
Old    SamIngram            07-19-2011, 3:29 PM Reply   
Watch the video... IMO the old man is right!
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       07-25-2011, 7:34 PM Reply   
I think there is plenty of blame to go around. You can spin things anyway you want with available data.....whatever party you are loyal to, you certainly cannot place all of the blame on the current administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ef=NetworkNews
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-25-2011, 7:37 PM Reply   
Kat, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you...........
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       07-26-2011, 5:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
Kat, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you...........
No thanks, I just got rid of some earlier this year. If you are insinuating I am the naive one.....keep thinking our economy was in great shape as President Bush left office.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-26-2011, 5:38 AM Reply   
wasn't thinking that. but it was in good shape before the democrats took control of the house 2 years before Bush left office. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but if you think things will look better in 6 years if Obama gets re-elected, you are the one drinking the cool-aid.
Old    Kat Laird (wakekat15)      Join Date: Jul 2005       07-26-2011, 6:27 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
wasn't thinking that. but it was in good shape before the democrats took control of the house 2 years before Bush left office. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but if you think things will look better in 6 years if Obama gets re-elected, you are the one drinking the cool-aid.
Didn't say I was a fan of Obama....just saying it's both major parties contributing to our current situation and my outlook is no more optimistic than yours unless we find some folks to represent us that have some personal integrity to go do what's right. See, we do have something in common!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-26-2011, 8:16 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
wasn't thinking that. but it was in good shape before the democrats took control of the house 2 years before Bush left office. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but if you think things will look better in 6 years if Obama gets re-elected, you are the one drinking the cool-aid.
If you think that someone else getting elected will make things look better in 6 years, you are the one drinking the kool-aid. Neither party is capable of doing the job. And I'll bet money that one of the two will be in the WH in the next term.
Old    SamIngram            07-26-2011, 8:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Rob, this is what Reagan had to say Sept. 26, 1987 concerning the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling.

"This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility - two things that set us apart from much of the world."
LOL - What about the rest of the speech?
Why don't you quote the part about taxes?
Or the part about out of control government spending?
Old    SamIngram            07-26-2011, 8:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
If you think that someone else getting elected will make things look better in 6 years, you are the one drinking the kool-aid. Neither party is capable of doing the job. And I'll bet money that one of the two will be in the WH in the next term.
LOL, yes it is impossible to turn the country around; except when Reagan did it after Carter...

For starters, the new president could appoint a new United States Secretary of the Treasury, you know someone who actually understand monetary policy..
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-26-2011, 8:44 AM Reply   
There are so many things that could be done. That they are so easy to come up with combined with the fact that neither party is doing or saying the right things that's revealing. As in revealing that they have no intention of changing anything.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       07-26-2011, 9:20 AM Reply   
reversing the flow of the mississippi river is easy too... all you have to do is dig it deeper up north and shallower down south... but could you ever actually do that? probably not. I have been struggling lately not to be too pessimistic, because we tend to look at our current situation as the perminent situation. who knows what's around the corner for us... but, the political division is so deep; the mechanisim of persuasion/corruption so entrenched; the evolution of globalization so advanced... that i just don't see it getting any better for a LONG time. and by better, i mean back to what we've been used to. the only solution is that we go thru a real hard time (not that 9+% unemployment is easy, but the "poor" in this country have more "stuff" than the average middle class American did in the '70's). Jobs won't come back. The "paper money" economy that was created by financial engineering of complex trading schemes is the only true reason for any GDP growth for the last decade or so. and every dollar produced on wall street has a far smaller multiplier of GDP growth than creating and selling something tangible does. I just don't know where we go from here.
I saw a report on the silicon valley boom 2.0 where new web-based start-ups are starting to generate some buzz again as a rebound of that economy... indicating that homes in that area are selling for more than asking price again because some companies are making million/billionairs from their "worth" and they are throwing their new found riches around again. The thinking is that the new wealth created by these businesses would start to generate an organic recovery (buy a house/boat/car and that employs someone else, who spends his money on stuff, which employs someone else...etc)... but um, haven't we already been thru a dot com bubble? facebook is worth how many billions? but for what? if tomorrow someone created the new hot social media tool, facebook would be worthless overnight (anyone remember myspace?). then what? that billions of "value" is now evaporated....
sorry, i just felt like a wet blanket lately. needed to sorta vent.
Old    SamIngram            07-26-2011, 9:31 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
There are so many things that could be done. That they are so easy to come up with combined with the fact that neither party is doing or saying the right things that's revealing. As in revealing that they have no intention of changing anything.
Would you vote for Ron Paul? Did you vote for Ross Perot? Both of those guys would have "done something"...
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       07-26-2011, 12:38 PM Reply   
John, I don't want any of them re elected. I would like to see a complete dismantling until we get a government that isn't run with lobbyists, has term limits, can balance the trade deficit, and actually works within a balanced budget. There are many more hit points (like smaller federal government), but you get the point.

having said that.....anybody, and yes I mean anybody, would be better than obama
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       07-26-2011, 1:53 PM Reply   
Cliff, I want that too. But no I don't believe anybody would be better than Obama. I would never give the current field of realistic potentials that much credit. They are a sorry lot.

No, I didn't vote for Ron Paul. Even though I think he's a bit of a kook, I would consider it. But I really doubt that he will make it as the GOP nominee. But who knows in these times.
Old    SamIngram            07-26-2011, 2:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Rob, this is what Reagan had to say Sept. 26, 1987 concerning the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling.

"This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility - two things that set us apart from much of the world."
Jeremy,
Since you like discussing Reagan's record and what he had to say I thought I would post this for you...

EDITORIAL: Hijacking Reagan - Obama misappropriates the Gipper to justify tax hikes
Old    SamIngram            07-26-2011, 2:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Cliff, I want that too. But no I don't believe anybody would be better than Obama. I would never give the current field of realistic potentials that much credit. They are a sorry lot.

No, I didn't vote for Ron Paul. Even though I think he's a bit of a kook, I would consider it. But I really doubt that he will make it as the GOP nominee. But who knows in these times.
Palin will be the GOP nominee unless things change drastically... Perry has a chance too, but I doubt he will be able to withstand the heat like Palin can, and will fold his hand. The 2012 Presidential Election will the dirtiest, meanest, and most inflammatory in US history. Few candidates will be able to handle it, namely IMO Obama and Palin.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       07-26-2011, 2:56 PM Reply   
I dont hold out much hope for the near future. Thing is, these political posts are a job. Its how these people feed their families. There is no incentive for anyone capable to take these jobs. Its a thankless job, for a modest capped salary in a critically damaged system. So, what are we left with? We are left with those who have good pedigrees but dont have the stomach for the fight. The people who truly understand our economy and what stimulates our virtual money into transaction and growth arent wasting their time with politics. They are out growing their own personal corner of the economy. Why? Because when you have enough money, it doesnt really matter if the govt is run by dems, or reps, or socialists, or communists. You could argue that they are affected by the value of the dollar, but they really dont need to be concerned with its global value, they only need to be concerned with their volume compared to the next guy.

Which of Barak's jobs do you think adds greater financials for the Obama household?

1. President of the United States and leader of the free world
2. mediocre autobiographer

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:32 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us