|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
easy solution...create the max/re-max level...and increase payouts to those at the re-max level...adjust for inflation each year so instead of earnings after say 95K not being taxeable, make all earnings up to $95K eligible for the SS tax and then all earnings b/w $500K and $1M (earnings between $95K and $500K would not be eligible for SS Tax) Although, I, myself would be better off with being able to manage a personal savings account, I don't think 85% of the people in the U.S. would be that way and thus I think some form of SS needs to be around... If I'm ever at the point where I made over $500K, I would be OK paying that money in 
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Our awful ecnonmy is all summed up in just a few things. All have been mentioned.
1. Business's outsourcing labor...wages are cheaper, all money leaves the country and goes to the manufacturing country. As more people lose their jobs there is less money to be spent. So that affects everything, if people can;t have oney to spend it causes a ripple affect through everthing, more people lose jobs because companies outsource even more jobs to cut cost. NAFTA was the worst thing to happen to this country since the depression, its affects are just now being felt.
2. People and Government spending more money than they make for the last 50 odd years leaves us nearly 6 trillion in debt, mainly to ourselves..if that doesnt make sense..I mean each other..to banks. Last year the average person spentsomewhere bewtween 120 and 135% of what they earned.Add this with most people getting jobs and income cut, they will ultimately go into debt further rather than cut back spending. Witheveryone in debt and no jobs our dollar continues to fall and fall. Our government is in almost an equally bad state essentially doing what the average person seems to do, get loans on everything, and then put the rest on a giant credit card. Banks loan more money than they have, this was being done in the 1920's for stocks.
3. Oil - Major oil companies have their hands around our throats, they will squeeze as hard as they can. If somehow(and I dont know how) the government doesnt get oil prices down we are headed into a full blown depression. Almost literally everything has some petroleum product in it, and everything has to be shipped which takes Oil. If gas hits $5 and diesel $6, with our job and debt problems,what happens?
When the dollar hits the .25 cent mark versus the euro and yhen, what happens? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
this will probably irk some people on here....
But I don't think the war has helped our economy situation....
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
LOL...........screw 'em if they don't like it.  Considering we are borrowing billions of dollars from China and Japan to finance the war, I would say you are justified in saying what you did. *L*
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
Thanks for getting back to me.  I wasn't angry at all. I have an edge and tone, but we all do. Just didn't understand the points you were trying to get across. IMO, my comprehension was only part of the communication challenges. What I meant about boot camp for life was; you learn how to read kids and adults. Trust, honesty, likes, dislikes, liars, politicians, teachers, parents... You learn social skills. You learn to tell and be on time and how to get along with others, sharing...You learn about your city, state, county, country and the world. You learn about boys and girls... You actually go to camp to learn about camp and the outdoors... I could go on and on... There must be a sufficient amount of education done @ home. I think the problem is that we are holding teachers accountable for material, curriculum and communication skills that parents should teach. "Things" that parents can and should know and teach. I believe that the parents should be held accountable for their share, what’s agreed upon. Hygiene, basic communication skills, manners; ethics, morals, politeness ,respect, responsibility, accountability, initiative... But maybe that is too much to ask of parents in today’s day and age...  I just don't think any parent should be able to drop off their uneducated, irresponsible, uncouth, booger eating, TV watching, video game playing, home bound, mini mushroomed maroons off at any school and expect teaching professionals & the school system to parent their children...  The sad thing is "it's" not usually the kids fault... In Idaho, one of the few AAA credit rated states in the USA, . Economics is taught in high school and is not an elective. They teach budgeting check book management, what interest is and how it works, some money management and talk about savings options. I wonder what would happen to schools if we took the govt. & bureaucrats out of the picture and ran them like business, or like colleges. Not a new idea, but hum...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
Way to tell it like it is...  Get ready for the war is good for the economy folks... What gets me is how short some of the memories are here... Wasn't the budget balanced and wasn't there a surplus available 7 or 8 years ago... Please don't start banging the partisan drum either... This is not about that...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Way to tell it like it is...
Get ready for the war is good for the economy folks...
What gets me is how short some of the memories are here... Wasn't the budget balanced and wasn't there a surplus available 7 or 8 years ago...
Please don't start banging the partisan drum either... This is not about that...
There was no surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus for future years - and we all know how gov't. projections are......no surplus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
There wasn't? Show us how what you wrote is true.
Why no responses to the economy being far worse now than over the previous 7 or 8 years? What are the actual deficit, budget & economy numbers and figures now in 2008 compared to 2000 and 2001?
Prove the statements made here about the economy being far worse now than they have been wrong and show some facts to back what you’re saying. Let’s go back 3 or 4 presidential terms or 12 to 16 years if you wish. Nobody gets to pop off with subjective conjecture and then ignore or blow off the facts.
I’m calling BS… BS…
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
There was no surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus for future years - and we all know how gov't. projections are......no surplus.
If there was no surplus, why did your man Bush go ahead and spend it anyway? he didn't have a problem with massive tax cuts to give that "projected surplus" back to the people. He has ruined this economy - he and the cowards in Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
There was no surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus for future years - and we all know how gov't. projections are......no surplus.
If there was no surplus, why did your man Bush go ahead and spend it anyway? he didn't have a problem with massive tax cuts to give that "projected surplus" back to the people. He has ruined this economy - he and the cowards in Congress.
I thought we were talking about clinton's "surplus" (there never was a surplus, by the way - he projected there would be one. Them's 2 totally different things, though.)
Now, as for Bush - yes, our debt has gone up. That doesn't change the fact that Clinton never had a surplus - unless you consider taking s.s. money away from s.s., writing an i.o.u. and calling it revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
There wasn't? Show us how what you wrote is true.
Why no responses to the economy being far worse now than over the previous 7 or 8 years? What are the actual deficit, budget & economy numbers and figures now in 2008 compared to 2000 and 2001?
Prove the statements made here about the economy being far worse now than they have been wrong and show some facts to back what you’re saying. Let’s go back 3 or 4 presidential terms or 12 to 16 years if you wish. Nobody gets to pop off with subjective conjecture and then ignore or blow off the facts.
I’m calling BS… BS…
I never said anything about the economy - so you might want to chill a bit. I DID say clinton never had a surplus.
Fiscal
Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
That doesn't look like B.S. to me. 
Read the first link I provided in a prior post. It's all there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
But, I would guess you'll say something along the lines of "yeah, but....." "Yeah, but the debt didn't go up as fast as it is now". Or, "yeah, but the economy is worse now", or some such other yeah but.
However, keep in mind - you stated clinton had surplusses. As you can plainly see - he did not. (granted - the way the federal budget works he could legally SAY there was a surplus, but in fact, that was not the case.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
I'm always amused by the majority of Republicans on this board. Bill Clinton could save a boat load of kids from drowning and you guys would bitch because he let them get wet and didn't save the boat, too. LMAO
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
I'm always amused by the majority of Republicans on this board. Bill Clinton could save a boat load of kids from drowning and you guys would bitch because he let them get wet and didn't save the boat, too. LMAO
How so?
Someone stated Clinton had a surplus. That is, in fact, wrong. I showed that it was wrong, but somehow you want to twist that into what you posted? 
Let's try this. Let's say clinton saved 1 kid out of the 5 that were on the boat. Then, 8 years later people said "yeah, clinton, that hero, he saved all 5 kids in that boat". If I pointed out that he really, in fact, saved only 1, would that mean I was a republican that hated clinton? Or would that mean I was right?
You see, clinton did NOT have a surplus - ever. That is fact. To bash me because I pointed out someone else's mistake seems a little fickle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm always amused by the majority of Republicans on this board. Bill Clinton could save a boat load of kids from drowning and you guys would bitch because he let them get wet and didn't save the boat, too. LMAO
How so?
Someone stated Clinton had a surplus. That is, in fact, wrong. I showed that it was wrong, but somehow you want to twist that into what you posted?
Let's try this. Let's say clinton saved 1 kid out of the 5 that were on the boat. Then, 8 years later people said "yeah, clinton, that hero, he saved all 5 kids in that boat". If I pointed out that he really, in fact, saved only 1, would that mean I was a republican that hated clinton? Or would that mean I was right?
You see, clinton did NOT have a surplus - ever. That is fact. To bash me because I pointed out someone else's mistake seems a little fickle.
No, he just instituted policies that would have produced one. So what's the point? There was never a surplus. He still did a million times better than Bush did with the economy. You at least agree with that, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
I guess we shouldn't be expecting you to answer any current state of the budget or economy questions when asked... Thats cool, cause if I were you I wouldn't either... Are these non-biased links? It doesn't seem so... I didn't at any point go partisum on this issue... Nor did I specifically mention Clinton or Bush. Thats your bag and you can carry it... The economy and the budget is in far worse shape over the past several years than it was 7 or 8 years ago. There are very specific reasons for this. I wonder what is being reported by the same sources you sourced here in regards to the current budget and deficit situation...? Care to have a look? The fact that there was at least a proclaimed surplus and the fact that our current leadership spent or gave the surplus back depending on how you view the situaion and is in keeping with the buget management that has been taking place over the past several years... So all this is BS to me... More $$$'s were spent than should have been and it seems the current admin. thought there was a surplus or felt it wasn't needed to balance the budget. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Feeling guilty?.....At no time did I "bash" you. Unless, of course, you consider being called a Republican "bashing" you. Wait, I guess you're right.....I did bash you....... 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Boise and Job
Let's get this straightened out right now: The economy today, and for the last several years, is definitely worse - no if's and's or buts. I don't believe any one is arguing other wise.
I think where you 2 are missing the point is, my citing references about clintons lack of a surplus has nothing to do with today's economy. Not sure which one of you it was, but one of you made a statement to the effect of "....clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus". And, I merely pointed out that that assumption was wrong.
I gave links. Boise, you choose to believe they are biased links. Believe it or not, I spent all of 10 minutes searching for links. There were some biased FOR clinton, and some biased against clinton. I did not cite those.
The numbers don't lie - look at the chart. Those are verifiable numbers. Don't believe them? Find out for yourself.
Clinton, Bush, Bush, Reagan etc etc, have/had benefitted from "new" accounting rules which allow the gov't. to report only part of the whole picture. When the whole picture IS looked at, clinton didn't have a surplus.
On this issue I am not biased. Not pro republican (as I have never even mentioned today's economy until this post), not anti democrat.
You 2 both have conveniently ignored the fact that clinton did not have a surplus - and that's what we were discussing. And further, you have tried to steer the conversation away from that now. Instead of saying "oh, I didn't realize that" you both jump on the "but the economy is bad now" bandwagon. Talk about partisanship.
If you want to move this discussion into what Bush is doing/doing wrong, say so, but please don't ignore the facts that I have linked to concerning clinton and surplus.
We can discuss many things, but let's not convolute things by first making a false statement, then ignoring the real facts, and then changing the subject to suit you. Then, attempting to discredit the sources in an attempt to cling to your false beliefs.
Clinton. No surplus. That's not a republican talking, that's the facts. (unless, like I said, you choose to only look at part of the budget)
Can we call this the end?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
I guess we shouldn't be expecting you to answer any current state of the budget or economy questions when asked... Thats cool, cause if I were you I wouldn't either...
Please read my above post. Someone, (you?) said clinton had a surplus, and I said he didn't. I was not discussing today's economy. For you (or whoever it was) to make a false claim about clinton, then take umbrage when shown the facts, and then start in on a different topic......and to question the sources......well, that's an old tactic. When a person can't respond to the topic at hand and feels the need to change the topic in order to make them feel "right", that's just too bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc..
Personally I don't care if the numbers show a surplus or not.
But how in the heck can you propose a budget that is in the red. And on top of this, the officials in charge still sneak pork into bills, even though they know damn well this country is in a world of hurt financially.
It's time we start "cleaning" the government, and to start we need a 50% turnover rate on officials to start, then flip the other over the next 2 elections.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
But how in the heck can you propose a budget that is in the red. And on top of this, the officials in charge still sneak pork into bills, even though they know damn well this country is in a world of hurt financially.
It's time we start "cleaning" the government, and to start we need a 50% turnover rate on officials to start, then flip the other over the next 2 elections.
I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
You need to read what I wrote... And not read into what I wrote what you want to understand...  I picked a time frame in years for my comment. Period. (I) didn't write anyones name or party. You and others did. I wrote that there was a surplus. We were all told there was a surplus. Just like we were told there were WMD's. There was a surplus, "claimed". It was claimed by some and used by others. No matter how anyone wants to view what has actually happened. The links you provided were valid, but biased. We all interpret & perceive how we see fit. Your tactic of no response to a specific comment that was made and pointed out initially is my issue with you. We know why you aren't answering... Because the answer is ugly and the current leadership/administration is responsible for most of the ugly. Aren't we all getting another tax check soon?   Or is calling it an economic stimulus package just another debit to put us further in debit? I asked that we not go partisan on this and you did... So here we are... And this is why we are were we are you and I and as a nation. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
You need to read what I wrote... And not read into what I wrote what you want to understand...
I picked a time frame in years for my comment. Period. (I) didn't write anyones name or party. You and others did.
So, it's my fault you went back 8 years? Got it.
Quote:
I wrote that there was a surplus. We were all told there was a surplus.
So, you believe everything you are told, huh? Here's my issue with you - the FACTS say their was no surplus.
Quote:
Just like we were told there were WMD's. There was a surplus, "claimed". It was claimed by some and used by others. No matter how anyone wants to view what has actually happened.
I don't understand what you're saying here. It was claimed by some, but used by others, no matter how anyone wants to view it.....
Quote:
The links you provided were valid, but biased. We all interpret & perceive how we see fit.
Your tactic of no response to a specific comment that was made and pointed out initially is my issue with you. We know why you aren't answering... Because the answer is ugly and the current leadership/administration is responsible for most of the ugly.
Reading comprehension, my friend. It's a great thing. I've answered your question, you just seem to worked up to read it, or perhaps to understand it. I won't hold that against you. However, read carefully, and you will see my answer.
Quote:
Aren't we all getting another tax check soon? Or is calling it an economic stimulus package just another debit to put us further in debit?
Yes, we are getting that. And as I'm sure you know, it won't do anything. Quote:
I asked that we not go partisan on this and you did... So here we are... And this is why we are were we are you and I and as a nation.
So I went partisan first, eh? You didn't at all, right? Sorry, just cause you didn't use a name doesn't mean you weren't partisan in your approach. Most people can see that, but I guess you think you pulled the wool over people's eyes by not using a name. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
What does the time frame I chose have to do with any fault?
Is there no difference between believing that that there was a surplus and believing everything you’re told, hear and read? A little over dramatic don’t you think? There sure were a myriad of sources “claiming” there was a surplus…
So you don't understand? Hum...
Worked up about what?
I read the links you provided. I clearly wrote what I think about them.
Yes you did. I didn't use names or even insinuate any party. I wrote about the current state of the economy and referenced a comparison of a specific time frame. Most people can see that the economy is much worse off now than it was 7 or 8 years ago. And they know why. Considering the current state of our nation’s economy and budget right now what time frame in the history was worse? The depression and...?
Why don't you post the current state of the budget from the non-partisan, non bias sources you used and we'll compare 2000-2008 to1992-1999 and we'll all see what the comparison shows. This will answer the question you won’t and will provide you with an easy way out.
If you are not willing to do that or simply answer; is the economy in worse shape now than in the time frame referenced then we have nothing else to discuss.
Again, so here we are... And this is why we are were we are you and I and as a nation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I've already ANSWERED YOUR FREAKING QUESTION dude. Do a little reading.
Your just ticked cause their wasn't a surplus when you said there was.
Your question was asked, it was answered. You can't be this simple, can you?
I'm half tempted to answer it again - but I won't because I have answered it, just as you wanted me to. It is NOT my fault you can't comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc... who cares anymore, surplus or no surplus, they did advertise it as a surplus, even though it wasn't. Who cares anymore, tell me what we can do about it now. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
Not ticked at all... Until next time...
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Our Sputtering Economy
|
|
