The Watering Hole

Here is the President refusing to compromise on what he wants. Pretty much the same thing the pubs are doing. Can't blame it all on republicans when the President is doing the same damn thing. I'm not arguing the President is wrong in principle, just in attitude. The attitudes on both sides seem to be pretty damn stupid. The attitude, not the substance. Again, I kinda agree with Obama on this one as far as the substance of his argument. But its the attitude of both parties that fail us all.


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-wont-compromise-taxes-113822309--abc-news-politics.html

Right, they all say all kindza shit and stretch things out.... Let's see what they DO.  Something should be coming up soon...

I don;t think he should compromise on this. If there is one thing he clearly ran on, it is raising taxes on the rich. I am tired of watching the Pubs protect people who make millions every year.  Not a one of them is going to feel the tax increase the way you or I would, and I think the Pres was wrong to compromise with them last time, and to extend the Bush cuts in total.  Rates should never have been cut on the rich, and they should never have been extended.  I'd rather see us let the whole package disintegrate than extend them on the rich again. Those fuckers have been getting more than their fare share for far too long and fucking everyone else in the process and I couldn't give two shits about their tax rate going up... even much higher.  Fuck 'em. I hope Obama stands his ground and I hope the Pubs realize their rich-protecting stance is irrelevant and outmoded and they only increase the chance of violent revolution every time they stand up for their country club buddies.

I guess I disagree with you.

How so. You only addressed the the substance of the argument, which we agree on for different reasons, apparently. The attitude Obama and the republicans have is the point of the thread. You didn't address that.

You have a thing against successful people, I guess. So we should make success pay for failure and no attempt? If thats the case, we should let taxes pay for all higher education as well. I think it can be argued that most successful people are college educated and that these people paid some portion of their education. If they are going to be penalized through higher taxes on top of paying for their education, it should be payed for by the government so at least some portion of those tax hikes they pay later are to a small amount of their own success. Right now, we give higher education away to people who pay shit in taxes and reward them  with the ability and hope that they are successful so they pay high rates in taxes to help out the governments crazy spending sprees. Thats shit. Doesn't matter if someone can afford to pay for their education or not. It should be paid by the government if the government is gonna ass rape them later regardless.

The tax issue should be on those 40% plus who pay no taxes at all, not the ones who actually achieved the American dream. Why put the point of emphasis of who pays taxes on people who actually do pay taxes, a very large percent by the way, instead of people who pay no taxes at all? Just a thought dude. The news trains your thoughts to think one way without looking at the big picture. We are all in this together and your making people who pay more in taxes than you make in a lifetime the enemy. They are not the enemy. They have a huge tax burden already.

Right, like Romney.  He paid more than he "legally" had to even tho he had said that "only an idiot" would do that... That 15% he paid was "just right" for Goldy Pockets, especially since he invests so much back into 'Merican jobs n' such.

The Bush tax rates need to change, it's not about the low end of the 2% that they talk about, it's about the smallest group at the other end.  



Success takes many forms.

Hookbender — Dec 10, 2012How so. You only addressed the the substance of the argument, which we agree on for different reasons, apparently. The attitude Obama and the republicans have is the point of the thread. You didn't address that.

You have a thing against successful people, I guess. So we should make success pay for failure and no attempt? If thats the case, we should let taxes pay for all higher education as well. I think it can be argued that most successful people are college educated and that these people paid some portion of their education. If they are going to be penalized through higher taxes on top of paying for their education, it should be payed for by the government so at least some portion of those tax hikes they pay later are to a small amount of their own success. Right now, we give higher education away to people who pay shit in taxes and reward them  with the ability and hope that they are successful so they pay high rates in taxes to help out the governments crazy spending sprees. Thats shit. Doesn't matter if someone can afford to pay for their education or not. It should be paid by the government if the government is gonna ass rape them later regardless.

The tax issue should be on those 40% plus who pay no taxes at all, not the ones who actually achieved the American dream. Why put the point of emphasis of who pays taxes on people who actually do pay taxes, a very large percent by the way, instead of people who pay no taxes at all? Just a thought dude. The news trains your thoughts to think one way without looking at the big picture. We are all in this together and your making people who pay more in taxes than you make in a lifetime the enemy. They are not the enemy. They have a huge tax burden already.

I could not disagree with you more. On a whole bunch of fronts.

1)... the poor 40% who pay no taxes.  You and the Pubs talk as if this is the magic group that by not paying taxes is killing America.  Dude, if you make $15,000 a year, you shouldn't pay federal income tax.  First of all, it would amount to jack shit.  It would probably cost more to pay the extra staff required to tax the very poor than we would get from them.  Second, those people are taxed.  They pay FICA tax for social security and medicare, and they pay sales tax.  Sales tax is by far the most painful to the poor and the least painful to the rich, because it's a tax on consumption.  If you are very poor, you have to spend all of your money on consumption.  You have no other choice. Everything you buy is taxed except groceries.

2) Since when do the poor pay nothing for their education?  Last time I checked it was incredibly expensive to go to college, and most poor people who do it take loans.  In case you missed the massive education loan crisis that is hitting the country, no, that money is not free.  Most do no get free money.  I think you are misinformed.  On your other point, yes, I agree, we should have public universities funded by the taxpayers.  I have absolutely no problem with that.

3) You think I don't like people to be successful?  No, I think that's great.  And I think they should pay more in taxes.  A lot more.  A rich person may pay more overall than me, but that's not really the right scale.  Someone making 10 mil a year who pays 15% is not sharing the burden the way that someone making 100k and paying 30% is.  You can call that fair because they pay more money, but that's just because you believe the bullshit they spin.  That 30% on 100k is likely to affect everything about the way that person spends money, from food, to transportation, to housing, to where that person works and whether they can take a vacation.  15% on 10 million is not likely to affect any decision that person makes in the same way.  There's not going to be a basic issue of whether they need to live close to their workplace to save on gas, or by a more economical car, or eat out less, or take the cheaper vacation.   In my opinion, upping the rate on the rich to 40%, 45%, is more than fair.  You either believe that we all work together to build america, and we all share in its fortunes and its downtimes together, or you don't.  If they end up hating it, they can move, and go make their money somewhere else.  It's really no loss--and I guarantee you most of them will stay.  I think it's great that they are able to be successful, and even better that they are willing to support their country and the people here who aren't able to be as successful, and I have no qualms about saying that if something doesn't change, we need a revolution.  It's ludicrous to have the average CEO make 450x what the average worker makes.  It's not in balance and it's not indicative of the actual work they do.  One can believe in success and also believe in fairness.

Point #1- I'm not talking like the people who pay no taxes are killing America. They should pay like the rest of us, some amount. Maybe a flat tax of $200 per year or something like that. If we did the suggestion, government funded colleges as you called it, the # of those poor people would slowly decline because people would be able to do higher paying jobs.  The question is though, when would the higher paying start to vanish because of all the qualified applicants that would be available.

Point #2- So you think someone living in free government housing, or pay little to nothing for housing, are gonna qualify for a $100k loan to go to school? Today???

Point #3- 40 or 45%. Damn. Thats ridiculous.  On top of that, they employ yard guys, maids, pay huge taxes on expensive shit. They also are taking the risk everyday of losing all they have if the business goes south, etc. Just crazy man. And by the way, life isn't fair. If the ceo makes that kind of money and he keeps your ass working and in a stable job, so be it. Get real dude.

And you still didn't address the point of the post. I'll assume you got the drift.

Romney employed some yard guys.  When it came out that they weren't legal, he said that he couldn't have that going on because he was running for president...not that he couldn't have them working there because the Pub position is that those people should be booted.  "Do as I say not as I do" should be a Pub mantra.

People who will spend 100's of millions of dollars on a candidate need to pay more in taxes.



What if the CEO makes that kind of money and he doesn't keep your ass working and stability is sacrificed for growth especially when it's only the CEO's salary that experiences growth even if he trashes the company?

What do you think the "American Dream" consists of?

I got the drift of your post, and disagree with it.  I believe the rich should pay more taxes.  A lot more.

I don't think someone making $15k a year should pay "some amount" of taxes.  Why?  Just to show them that they "belong?"  These people do not belong.  They can't buy the things they see on TV.  They can't make a choice between the cheaper car and the more expensive car... their choice is "no car".  They can't choose where they live.  They live where they can afford to live.  And they don't have $200 extra to spend on taxes, or anything else.  

I think if you are lucky enough to be fantastically rich, you should pay a much higher tax rate than people who are not.  It's not fair or equitable to pay 13% on income when everyone else pays 25, or 30%.  You can spin it any way you want and sing me a pretty song about job creators and all that bullshit.  The fact is it is so far out of whack right now I don't think you even understand it.  I think you think rich people are in some way like you.  They aren't.  They aren't even close.  These are people for whom "problems" consist of whether to buy a bigger yacht, or whether they need to move so they can have more garage space for their car collection.  These are people whose jobs mostly consist of moving their money around.  These are not people who live like you or me.  You can try to equate them to us but there is no equivalence.  The scale of the ultra rich, the 1-2%, vs the rest of us is so astronomically different it's like we don't even speak the same language.  There's practically no similarity between their life and yours are mine that you would recognize.  

There is also no other first-world country where the scale of the rich vs. the poor is so out of hand as America.  And that's why I feel ultimately confident that we can tax them a shitload more and they won't run to another country.  A CEO who leaves here because he's not making enough money would be shocked to learn that CEOs in Europe make many times less than what they make here... the Average CEO of a large company in Europe makes about 30x what his workers make.  In the US, that number is 300x.  Read this paper... it's actually fascinating and will surprise you... it surprised the crap out of me.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

That is pretty shocking.

I also think the rich should pay more taxes, but 40 to 45%? Think thats a little high. They shouldn't pay more than I do, for example.

Why not? They make a lot more than you.

I don't think its fair for them to pay 45% and we pay 20 or 30%. If a guy is making a million dollars and I make a hundred thousand working for him, I don't see the logic there. He takes all the risk, works way harder getting the business going than I'll work in a lifetime for him, I just don't get it.

Consider this. Romney may have paid 15% in federal taxes, for example. Thats less than you and I. But when you consider all the other taxes he's paid, all of them, has he paid an unfair amount? Probably not. And that % may go way up then.

I think 20 or 25%, is plenty. Maybe put a clause in there that you have to employ a # of people to get that rate or something like that. I don't know.

The closer you get to 50%, the more it seems communist to me.

Romney paid less than 15%.  There were no special hidden taxes in there.  He paid a lower rate than me or you.  As for taking risks, the guy's money is in a blind trust.  What he does is NOTHING.  AT ALL.  He sits there and runs around the country spending money.  Meanwhile, some money managers invest his money for him.  They pay themselves out of the money.  And he makes a pretty tidy sum this way, more than 10 mill a year, just watching his money grow, doing nothing but trying to figure out ways to spend it.  Did he take all the risk?  Hell no he didn't.  He made his money in leveraged buyouts, where he put up less than 1% of the money, and the rest was borrowed. If any of his deals had failed, he'd be out 1%... not 100%.  So where you see financial risk takers and heroes, I see guys taking, and taking, and lying, and cheating, and then blaming all of our troubles on poor people.  Fuck 'em.  And yes, I think we should tax them 40 or 50%.  See if they run.  Would you miss them if all the millionaires fled?  Would America suffer if we had less rich people and more middle class and poor people?  I don't think so. Of course we'll never no, money will always be concentrated with the wealthy, and they will always shit on the poor.  But we've had an awful lot of prosperity in this country when the rich were higher taxed, and letting them get away with BS like 15% on capital gains, well, that hasn't really worked, has it.

Progressive taxation = strong middle class.
Strong middle class = strong economy.
Strong economy = plenty of "replacement wealth" for the "job creators" to pay those extra taxes.

Taxing those who make a lot more than those who don't is simply good economic policy - it fucking works and is proven. It does not really hurt the economy no matter how much they choose to lie about it to protect their interests.

It's not like the Obama administration is asking for a lot here...they're proposing that wages over $250,000 are taxed at the slightly higher rate - up to that point, it's the same as everyone else bracket by bracket. This does not hurt anyone that is very well-off...and it might help fix the wealth inequity and deficit/debt problems our society faces.

I want to see all the tax cuts expire, myself. They didn't fucking work, and they're a MAJOR contributor to our debt/deficit problems.

Tripper

The proof is in the pudding.  Even with the lowest tax rates since the great depression, and more cash in corporate reserves than ever, and the gap between the rich and poor the largest it's ever been, we still have 7.7% unemployment.  They haven't used that money to hire, and they're not going to.  So what dire circumstance are we protecting them from by refusing to tax them more?  

I'm not going to cry for the rich's tax rate.  I don't see why you, or the Republicans, do.  I think they have incredibly misplaced priorities.  It would be nice to see them fight for the rights of any other minority they way they fight for the rights of the ultra-rich.

I see your point Charger. I just think it's a extreme to say they pay 45%. People who are rich and not involved in politics, ( ;D) are not the enemy.

Do you think this guy needs to give away 45% of what he's earned? Been homeless 2 times, served his country in the navy, etc? Is this guy your enemy?


http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/off-the-cuff/homeless-hair-care-billionaire-204543304.html


http://www.salontoday.com/news/beauty-news/John-Paul-DeJoria-Receives-US-Navy--Lone-Sailor-Award--171389891.html

Yes, he deserves to pay a high tax rate!  Who cares about the back story, he's worth $4 billion!  

Flip that story around.  Say there's a really great humanitarian who founds a society for poor children, trains them to get good jobs, and donates free medical care to the blind.
If he turns out to rape a bunch of children, would you say "look at his back story, he shouldn't go to prison?"

Hell no.  So this guy was once poor and now is rich, and he should get treated differently from someone born rich?  Money is money, my man.  You look at this 180 degrees backwards.  Most people would be far more sympathetic to those who are born poor and never get rich.  But you have that tea-party-republican priority reversal that says the poor are worth less than the successful.  Your ideas lost in this election, and will always lose as long as there are so many more poor people than rich people.  You think people feel like the rich deserve special treatment.  That's how congressmen feel.  But most of us feel like they've got enough breaks already.

Dude. This guy bought an Airplane. He pays his pilot way more than I make. He pays taxes on the fuel. He pays maintenance people. You will never contribute anywhere near what he pays in taxes not including federal taxes.  ;D ;D Now what about all the families he takes care of through jobs. His contribution to society is enormous. In this case, your argument is ridiculous.

I don't think so.  I don't think being successful means you get special privileges.  That's un-American.  Your argument is bizarre.  Yeah, he's paid more in taxes than me.  Sure.  He's also earned more money than the budget of most cities in the US.  And that makes him a hero in your eyes?  

Better go catch some of those dwindling tea party rallies quick, it looks like they're becoming irrelevant, but you can go become irrelevant with them while you still have time.

You know who's contributed far more to society than this guy? Employed more people?  Built more stuff?  Saved more lives?  Helped more people in hundreds of ways than this guy did, or any millionaire you will ever find?  

The US government.  

But you don't have the same level of respect for them, do you?

charger — Dec 13, 2012You know who's contributed far more to society than this guy? Employed more people?  Built more stuff?  Saved more lives?  Helped more people in hundreds of ways than this guy did, or any millionaire you will ever find?  

The US government.  

But you don't have the same level of respect for them, do you?

Absolutely not. Not one bit.

I thought you were gonna say God. How disappointing.

charger — Dec 13, 2012I don't think so.  I don't think being successful means you get special privileges.  That's un-American.  Your argument is bizarre.  Yeah, he's paid more in taxes than me.  Sure.  He's also earned more money than the budget of most cities in the US.  And that makes him a hero in your eyes?  

Better go catch some of those dwindling tea party rallies quick, it looks like they're becoming irrelevant, but you can go become irrelevant with them while you still have time.

He doesn't get special privileges. This guy has people that make a living off his effort. Take half what this guy makes a year and you'll see the government taking care of more unemployed folks.

The answer isn't to give the government more money in any form from anyone. The government has no one to answer too. They will not spend money that isn't theirs wisely. Period. If the government needs more money, they should quit spending money, and make cuts on top of that. The government makes 0 effort to cut spending, we have no say in the matter...  and we are suppose to pay more, work longer, make cuts in our spending ourselves, so they can spend more that that even because they don't even have a budget? They have no checks and balances. But they don't mind telling us that we should do all those things. Why? So they don't have to take care of us.

Woohoo! Tea Party! Yeehaw!

Think what you want.

If I were making 2B a year and had 6 billion in the bank and the government decided they were gonna tax me at 45 or 50%.... I'm closing down all businesses and fucking retiring myself.

Yeah, damn...getting a billion take home would just be downright unsuccessful...

Hookbender — Dec 15, 2012Think what you want.

If I were making 2B a year and had 6 billion in the bank and the government decided they were gonna tax me at 45 or 50%.... I'm closing down all businesses and fucking retiring myself.

And that attitude is why you aren't making money like that.  People who have the drive and the attitude and the work ethic to make money like that, who live to make money, never stop wanting to make money, no matter what happens.  These people weren't closing shop and retiring when Clinton was president, or when Reagan was president, and the tax rates were higher.  

I mean, we get it, Hook.  You hate the government and resent them taking your money.  There are lots of people who don't.  Prime examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  Bill Gates, who has given more money to charity than anyone ever in history, fully $28 billion of his own money... said this:

... the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.... I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/?mobile=nc

I think the important question here is, when we fall of the financial cliff, will I still be able to buy a new Metal Zone every 2-3 months?  

And will I be able to buy a new set of headphones once a year?  ;D

charger — Dec 17, 2012I mean, we get it, Hook.  You hate the government and resent them taking your money.  There are lots of people who don't.  Prime examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  Bill Gates, who has given more money to charity than anyone ever in history, fully $28 billion of his own money... said this:


... the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.... I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/?mobile=nc

He's taken advantage of out tax system for years. Now he's a billionaire with so much money he'll never be able to spend it so he's giving it away.  ;D ;D Hell man, if people want to give a few extra bucks to the government, theirs nothing stopping them dude.

I just happen to believe the government should cut spending, then deal with the tax rate. I don't feel like we should give them more money, and just hope they do the right thing, anymore. Look at the debt we have. There way ain't working.

DreamTheaterRules — Dec 17, 2012I think the important question here is, when we fall of the financial cliff, will I still be able to buy a new Metal Zone every 2-3 months?  

Yes, because even with staggering inflation, they will never go above $10 on the second-hand market.

Hookbender — Dec 17, 2012[quote author=charger link=1355009433/25#27 date=1355777592]I mean, we get it, Hook.  You hate the government and resent them taking your money.  There are lots of people who don't.  Prime examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  Bill Gates, who has given more money to charity than anyone ever in history, fully $28 billion of his own money... said this:


... the United States has a huge budget deficit, so taxes are going to have to go up. And I certainly agree that they should go up more on the rich than everyone else. That’s just justice.... I hope we can solve that deficit problem with a sense of shared sacrifice — where everybody would feel like they’re doing their part. And right now, I don’t feel like people like myself are paying as much as we should.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/25/411283/bill-gates-taxes-justice/?mobile=nc

He's taken advantage of out tax system for years. Now he's a billionaire with so much money he'll never be able to spend it so he's giving it away.  ;D ;D Hell man, if people want to give a few extra bucks to the government, theirs nothing stopping them dude.

I just happen to believe the government should cut spending, then deal with the tax rate. I don't feel like we should give them more money, and just hope they do the right thing, anymore. Look at the debt we have. There way ain't working.


Here. Do some reading, then get back to me.

http://nontrivialpursuits.org/Tax_Policy.htm

You want the republican view now?

Hookbender — Dec 18, 2012You want the republican view now?

I think we should stick to those based on facts and history, don't you?

I mean, since you're an independent like me (despite our policy differences), you should be more swayed by reality and facts than partisan propaganda, right?

The current Republican attitudes on tax policy have no foundation in fact-based economics, math, or science. NONE.

Find a Republican argument that does, and then maybe we can all have a sensible discussion about it, but based on what Boehner's presenting to try an avoid the "cliff", they're still actually mired in the low-tax myth-making of Grover Norquist. If they were economically serious, they'd be proposing huge cuts to all wasteful aspects of the federal government, including defense and big business subsidies, but they're not. Once again, they want to cut what they call "entitlement programs", which really means, "stuff that benefits the middle class and poorer people" (not that they'd give any specifics), and make no real sacrifices on taxes, even when President Obama's asking for SO LITTLE with raising the tax rate on $250,000 and up by just a few percentage points on income earned over that number (not all the income that a person who earns that much makes).

Neither side is being really sensible here, but the Democrats are closer. It seems to be the story of this country since 2009...

Tripper

Hookbender — Dec 18, 2012You want the republican view now?

Oh, I've seen more than enough of that.  We saw (and saw enacted) the Republican view from 1/2001-1/2009, and from 7/2009 to today.  Has it worked to reduce the deficit, or to make the economy better?

Well. I hate to even get this started again. But cutting taxes and the other things Bush did had the economy rocking. All areas of it. Problem is, spending went way the fuck out of control and he started 2 wars. Also, the hurricane and 9-11.

Now I agree that taxes could be higher on the rich. So, lets bench that part of it. My problem is that we have a NEED to raise taxes on the rich because our government can't handle money. Not even a budget. Its the reason we are having this debate that makes me mad, not the point of who pays higher taxes. We shouldn't have to make anyone pay higher taxes. We should be debating how to force the government to spend our money wisely. I would think we all could agree on that, right?

The problem with the deficit is that we spend more than we have coming in. Everything points at government spending to damn much money. I prove everyday I'm no economic expert, but you spend more money than you have long enough, certainly bad things will eventually happen.

We just went through all this healthcare debate thing. Government steps in and thinks it can fix it and does Obama care. You think that fixes anything with healthcare? No, not the real problem. It really just creates another cost by insuring everyone. The problem is the cost of healthcare.

We have a storm and gas is limited. A gas station that charges $3 a gal normally decides to charge $6 a gal and take advantage of his limited supply. We are all over that guy. Want to put his ass in jail and shit. Now, go to a hospital and get 2 aspirin and they charge you $10 bucks everyday and we don't say shit. Thats just fine. Come on man.

Putting the cart before the horse. Our governments motto.

charger — Dec 18, 2012[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1355009433/25#28 date=1355785267]I think the important question here is, when we fall of the financial cliff, will I still be able to buy a new Metal Zone every 2-3 months?  

Yes, because even with staggering inflation, they will never go above $10 on the second-hand market.

Sounds like no more PRS's though.   :'(

Almost every scenario you point to is a consequence of the free market.  If you are in favor of socialism, just say it.  

I agree that we spend more than we take in.  But I don't agree that the Bush tax cuts had the economy rocking.  The economy was already rocking.  The Clinton economy was sound, rocking, AND we had three years of budget SURPLUS.  So what does Bush do?  He cuts taxes. Not because we needed it, but because it was his political philosophy to cut taxes.  There was no science behind those tax cuts.  Only ideology.  The problem is, we were spending about as little as we could.  We can't cut everything the government spends.  That money needs to be spent.  So when we cut taxes, and took in less money, there was no adequate way to also cut the spending, thus we started running bigger and bigger deficits.

We should have never had those tax cuts.  We should roll them all back now.  Those tax cuts were effectively the domino that set in action a whole chain of shit.  So while you might think it's spending that's the problem, you're going to have a tough time finding spending to cut out of our budget that will make a meaningful difference.

Perhaps you should refresh your history.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/


" By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in."

Bush didn't just cut taxes for the fun of it or because it was the republican way. No, we were in a recession, a fact that liberals often love to, well, omit for whatever reason.

Remember the 90's...

"Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive."

People finally started buying/using PC's big tyme.  The rise of the common man trading/getting into the markets kicks in along with exponential internet use.  Bubble gets blown up.  If you were already in computerz/tech/web, you looked and laughed at the shit going down (not in a happy way).  Lotza smiling liars ready to take noobz bread and run.

When the bubble burst, the next funzone, for those that got out at "the right time", seemed to be real estate... Mo bubble, mo bubble.  Busheez "kick ass economy" at werx.  Super fun on the backend for the derivatives boys!!! This causes the werst recession since blah blah blah...  Did wonderz fer people's pensions/retirement.  Fix that market and the banks, quick!!!!!  Boehner cried for those banks, ya no...

Then when that shit crashed, the worker dump off went into full effect.  Large companies pruned the herd to increase productivity and their own standings.  Many small businesses had been on the way out due to the rise of online shopping.  Less workers, less spending, less small businesses able to survive.  No building going on where it had been rocking during the bubble.  Remember the news then?  It was all about how you could try to keep your job by working overtime for free and so on...  Panicky 'casters telling workers they were on the way out.



"Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade."

Manufacturing continued to be outsourced.  It had been going on for a while tho, my whole lifetime... NAFTA helped speed it up, I believe. No one really gave a shit, who would want those jobs, right?  Buy American?  HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Decreased mil spending.  This didn't happen under Bush jr., obviously.  Reasons for that, sure.  Our mil spending on the wars is only part of that budget sector.  Homeland Security, Pentagon, FBI, CIA, TSA, and on and on and on, all have had expanded budgets.  The talk now about cutting spending only seems to be about Medicare, Medicaid, Soc Sec.  WTF?  A small group of the scary Al Kaydaz balloons the fuck out of spending and deficit/debt.  Where does this money go?  Who gets it?  What is it used for?  Much can't be audited...by law.

Medicare is a problem because the boomers are coming online.  This is another balloon in spending of money that's gone.  There should have been a balloon of payments made by the boomers throughout their working years that were held apart from other spending.  The claim is that we are living longer and medical advances cost more and more, but that we can't try to control those costs because a for-profit company needs to middle man the payments to a for-profit medical system and would be socialism/communism.  This is a temporary "boom" in retirement benefits in that birth rates went down after the baby boom, yet I only hear about how things should change for post-boomers.  Actually the first Ryan budget had, I believe, a voucher system for current beneficiaries but they dropped in the second version where it was for those 55 and under.  Or was it that in the later ver you could choose to have medicare or a voucher for a set amount...  Hungh?   I hear, "People are living longer and it costs more and more because of the increased lifetime as well as the medical advances that keep them living longer."  Never mind that all people aren't living longer, it depends on your job and many other factors, the idea isn't that the free market doesn't really work that well where it comes to medicine "for all" for a bunch of reasons, among them: it's just kinda disgusting, it's that they know they spent the money and the only way to cover it is to change the rules of access.  If you have the bread/access, our system prolly werx pretty ok for you, especially if you haven't tested it (some found out the hard way that they didn't have what they thought they had)  It may even work somewhat ok for the poor, not sure if it's my view of what medicine should be.  I don't see it as the same as anything else we deal with spending-wise.

Social Security is another one where they "keep robbing the chest", it should be in an even better state than it is.  I only hear scaremongers saying it's in real trouble right now.

So they keep saying that we have large debt/deficits but they also don't really say that they have spent all extra moneys that were taken in during boomer time and what they say is that they need to change things permanently for the post-boomers because  "we are selling our children/grandchildren's future"...they already did that.

We'll see what they end up doing next.


"Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced."

Here's yer oil/gas question.  What's it at now?  What else was goin on with oil back then?  NAFTA?



We haven't even gotten into corporate welfare and hugely profitable businesses paying no taxes or getting back from the taxman, +huge tax cuts for what 11 years or so, as well as the tax revenue loss from the workers who were dropped and the businesses that went under...  

That's taking in less while spending more, Bush Jr. was alllllll over that...  Didn't he say that he was cutting taxes because he had "political capital" and didn't he and Cheney both say that "deficits don't matter"?

DreamTheaterRules — Dec 19, 2012[quote author=charger link=1355009433/25#31 date=1355791464][quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1355009433/25#28 date=1355785267]I think the important question here is, when we fall of the financial cliff, will I still be able to buy a new Metal Zone every 2-3 months?  

Yes, because even with staggering inflation, they will never go above $10 on the second-hand market.

Sounds like no more PRS's though.   :'(

You could get an SE.   ;D

I need a BJ, guess that's out of the equation.  ;D