Reply With Quote
So, since I don't live 24/7 on the internet, my moving on to other activities means you shut me up?
That's idiotic.
Which is JUST what the people want RIGHT NOW. What a coincidence!
You want someone who might actually change things for the better, vote Ron Paul. He is attacking this ed up system with common sense.
Obama says people want to hear. Ron Paul says people NEED to hear.
So, since I don't live 24/7 on the internet, my moving on to other activities means you shut me up?
That's idiotic.
I'm not going to bother. We all know the dollar is dropping against other world currencies.
Now who cherry picked the charts?
We have various year charts here.
There are several explanations to consider for each. I won't give all possibilities I can think of, and I'm not going to try hard. Data can be construed to mean so many things.
First on:
Consider that the republicans were elected as a majority in congress in 1994. The 1995 budget is already set, and their first budget is 1996. That's when spending is somewhat under control until 2002 when we spend major money following 9/11, deployment, Katrina, and war.
Also not it is in constant 2000 dollars. We also have population growth tis graph doesn't consider.
2nd:
Same thing with the congress, but also note it says projected, without distinguishing where the facts end and projections begin.
3rd:
Notice how we have what looks like a natural cycle, like a sine wave at times. Increases from 1989 to 1992, drops to 2000, and increases again. The increase is starting in 2000. Before president Bush could have any effect. These economic cycles have a life of their own. The economy was booming until 2000, partially because of 2000... The Y2K scare.
Why does the chart end in 2004? We have 2006 data compiled now. Who's afraid to show us the newer data?
Also, we never had a negative deficit. It we did, the debt would go down. The last time the debt went down in 1968 I think. These numbers were compiled leaving out some important data. What did they leave out? How can such data be trusted?
Hitting nearly every bullet point along the way, then this.
Allow me to clarify. When I said the Obama Movement is not so much about issues, I meant that he's a brand, an emotion, and you can attach to him pretty much any meaning you want to him. Do I believe he is actually bringing anything new or different to the table? Not at all -- he's merely recycled foreign policy from the 30's, domestic policy from the 60's and 70's, and thrown in some racial politics and liberation theology that only exists in the university now. But he sure makes people *feel* good.
Second ... who's Ron Paul? Never heard of him. What primaries did he win again?
More assumption.
Would Gore have led us into Iraq/Afghanistan? I dont know, but neither do you.
And all these en lements that are such a large % of the spending in this country were there loooooong before Bush Jr/Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter.
But I do see the "War on Terror" actually rates on the pie chart.
Social spending should be dramatically decreased, no argument.
But lets not pretend that "other" expenses are completely out of our control. Especially those concerning preemptive war.
I wonder why the dollar is so weak now. You think Bush has something to do with that??
That would be the "constant" dollars that all good charts should be converted to.
The "value of the dollar" is a rather nebulous concept cooked up by gold-bug conspircay dorks.
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.
i can't believe you guys don't want a "holiday gas tax suspension" and don't want to send a guy to mars.
can't you see that this kind of vision could eventually lead to a big hoe down with free corndogs and a sack race?
You don't think CEO's of major corporations, doctors, lawyers, etc... work hard to make their money
Hitting nearly every bullet point along the way, then this.
Do you personally know any well-to-do people?
Because if you did, or had any idea how money starts to make itself, you wouldnt say such things.
Point is, the "rich" by definition, are no one you know. They inherit money. They spend very little time associating with the likes of you (or me for that matter).
A millionaire is NOT rich. A millionaire works hard (if he earned it and didnt inherit it that is). But all money reaches a critical mass, when you have enough of it, it makes itself through investment.
Rich people can absorb the loss of the stock market, losing hundreds of thousands a day, sometimes millions. Know how theyre affected?
They have another cup of coffee and call their accountant. I odnt think you know what "rich" really means, or that you have little experience with real rich people.
Yes I do know "well to do people" Quite a few actually. Whether it be athletes, doctors, ceo's, etc...they have all worked hard to get where they are at. Sounds like you are thinking of Paris Hilton here. Judging by your posts, you are a Democratic and dont hang out with high class people to often.
Did these CEOs and others attend the same elementary school as you? Grammar, friend.
Yes, I am a Democratic, if by that you mean a person who wants, thrives and believes in a democracy.
No, if you meant a Democrat, you'd be sorely mistaken. I may have been in my youth (that is, before I was 18 and my personal views made no difference in local, state and federal elections), but I am no longer anything you'd identify with.
I realize this is the internet and we can be anything we want by just typing it, but your definition of rich varies greatly from mine. Which means one of two things:
a) You dont know what "rich" really is
b) My definition of "rich" is so beyond yours in terms of what amount of money cons utes the term "rich", we will never agree
Either way, I dont give a . The rich pay some unGodly amount of tax% in this country...and for good reason. Because theyre rich. How much did you pay the government for 2007 earnings? Do you really know what rich is?
BTW, those questions of your income are rhetorical, I have no interest in your personal status. This forum to me, is not a comparison of size. But I can assure you, when I say "rich" I know what I speak of.
When a person earns $2-3 million a year, and has to cut a check to the government for ~$300k in taxes at years end, that poor, poor soul only has $2-2.7 million left to themselves only to reinvest it and earn exponentially more the next year.
Those poor, poor bas s, I tell ya. Looks like the house in the Florida Keys will have to wait on its rennovations....oh wait...looks like the kids Ivy league college fund is going to take a hit...oh wait....looks like they'll be just fine, seeing as not only does their business earn them income, but their investments in 5 years time will outpace any salasry they earn, and since any company can be incorporated, the failure of said company cannot be directly pinned to any one person, especially those companies large enough to have seperate investors.
The whole point of this mess, is to say that money reaches a critical mass (something you seem to neglect). If youre below that threshold (85-90% of the country is), yeah, youre working hard.
But if youre above it, the only thing you should care about is your investments and by proxy, the stock market. Because unless youre the CEO of a mega-large company that pays $10 million dollar salaries, there isnt a job in the world that will net you the amount of money in a year that your investments wont make double in the same time.
So, in effect, the self-made uber-rich are working hard...not because they have to, but because they have a personal motivation. The type of people that even if they won the lotto for a $100 million wouldnt quit their jobs.
I know people like that and have that exact conversation. I personally know a few families that are multi-millionaires and pay more taxes in a year than 10 families make in the same timeframe. They worked very hard to be where they are....those older individuals who earned it...but the point is, we are mortal. That money changes hands after death, and people die every day.
Their kids had nothing to do with their parents, yet they always cry the loudest when tax day comes because they dont have the same value attached to the means as they do the ends.
Thus, we call them snobs.
I would add only one thing. Just because someone is rich it doesn't mean they took it away
from someone else. Or someone lost out to the
rich guy. It just means, in most cases, like you
said, worked their butt off to make it. And in many cases are still working. More hours than the
guy working 40 hours a week.
I agree and I dont have numbers or stats to back my assertion that money is becoming old in this country.
That is, by my definition of rich, the amount of people in that bracket who earned it themselves are dead or dying. Seriously.
The rise of the auto-industry in the 40s and 50s where a mom-and-pop shop could grow so exponentially over a 15 year period, your typical rags to riches story, are over.
The dotcom blowout of the early to mid-nineties can be seen as a very similar, albeit much quicker rags-to-riches.
In my time running a business, I have learned many things. Most important though is how damn easy it was then in comparison to now (in reference to the auto industry, cant speak for anything else).
The owner of my company still has friendships with guys hes known for 30 years in the business. They sold out a looooong time ago for sweet, sweet millions. These guys were immigrants from Italy/Germany/Poland/etc. They came to this country with NOTHING except a suitcase and tradeskills. No education, no paperwork, they didnt even speak English.
But they had a work ethic unseen in today's world and a booming industry to supply. By proxy, they became very very successful. As long as they were in business, they were making money hand over fist.
They hired accountants and lawyers to move their earnings into sound investments and deferred accounts. They incorporated, hiring their family members as board members, they setup charities with their business partners and families as members of the board and donated "X" amount of their earnings to said charity, where the board members made "Y" amount of salary with only the minimum actually donated.
By incorporating their successful business, they prepared their family for their own death. In the event of the business originator dying, the only inheritance tax incurred by relatives was that of his own personal wealth (which if he had died before incorporation would have ruined them). Some properties here and there, his personal investments (not those investments held by his Holdings LLC which owned all his business properties and various stocks and bonds) and the like.
All in all, most of these men were worth 10s of millions, and the families (rightfully) ed about having to pay the ~40% inheritance tax on a small fraction of the deceased's total worth (roughly, in one instance, they paid something to the tune of $2-3 million).
Boy, did they cry. I cant blame them, why the government can tax death is beyond me, but thats the way it is (for now). Those people, under the current system, should be happy the law allows the savvy to "hide" or "mask" their real wealth via corporations, holdings companies, deferred investments and the plethora of other means.
No matter, the point is, none of these beneficiaries had anything to do with the company, the man or his accomplishments (unless his wife was still alive at the time, but I dont think she was). They were nothing but what he made them.
The company brass (of which were a few family members and a boatload of businessmen) decided to sell the company their father started for millions upon millions in the late 80s. The fall of the auto-industry was right around the corner. Out just in time.
I see one or two of those people at personal events every blue moon. Nice people. Seriously.
But not one of them works. Nor will their children if they dont want to. But the luxury of not having to work is not what money provides, IMO. It provides an environment for improvement. The immigrant's grandchildren are all in the best colleges money can buy, they will graduate as doctors and lawyers and so on. Theyll earn their own way in this world while the money in the family just passes along the pipeline for generations to come. They dont have to work, but most will.
So hearing people who arent rich about how the rich pay for everything makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit. First, your definition of rich needs revising. Second, if under that revision you still find a tear in your eye for the rich, huddled masses, youre a knob.
Sorry about the typo. I went to a prestigious high school that my "rich" parents payed very good money for me to attend. There are actually a good amount of ceo's, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, etc... that all attended this prestigious hgh school as well. I know a professional athlete that makes roughly $4 million a year and pays more than that $300,000 figure you threw out. That is only 10% of their earnings for a person making $3,000,000. Isn't the highest tax bracket around 38%?
It sounds as if you do not have a problem with people working hard and making their money. The ceo's I know of major construction companies that are making big big bucks have all worked very hard to do so. If they are investing their money, good for them. There is nothing wrong with that. If more people invested rather than spent what they got right away, we wouldn't be dealing with the current mortgage crisis.
As far as I go, no I am not rich yet, but I plan to work hard so I can enjoy all the luxuries my parents and their parents have. I really don't reach a point in your whole discussion. Do you have a problem with people working hard and making a large amount of money? Do you feel the rich should be taxed more than they are? I see a lot of words but no point.
Please answer those questions for me, before I go to my parents new condo on the Florida panhandle this weekend.
I'm rich in character and to me is much more important than being financially rich.
I'm supporting Barack Obama and I've approved this post. But I do like his stance on the gas tax issue.
I don't use money as a measuring stick for success either.
And I'd have NO problem paying more taxes if I were richer. It goes with the territory and I wouldn't mind at all.
Rich people do pay more taxes. Their tax percentage is a lot higher than the rest. Democrats want to raise it even higher.
Like I said, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
Easy for you to say when you dont have it
Then I will assume you are either one of the 47% who pay no taxes, or you make so much money, it doesn't change your quality of life.
I make just enough money, that I'm not 'rich' but I pay out bigtime in taxes. Everytime the demonrats want to get the rich, they get me too. I am sick and tired of paying about $20,000 in taxes every year and being told I don't pay enough.
Go yourself.
thats also another great point. People act like the only ones paying huge taxes are the multi millionaires. Thats not true. The upper middle class if you will pays out tons of taxes, and they get screwed. Obama and other democrats want to raise taxes for the upper middle class to benefit the lower middle class. Every time they mention the "rich" they are referring to the upper middle class as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
