Recession is only a word for the under or un-employed and those looking for a govt handout. Those who actually pay credit card balances in full every month and have good credit and live within their means usually dont feel recessions..

Good. The economy's pendulum has finally taken its natural and predictible swing to a downturn. Now maybe all the handwringers who have been crying the last few years, "Recession's coming! Recession's comiing" will finally be happy as they gleefully proclaim, "I told you so!"

"Recession's coming! Recession's comiing" will finally be happy as they gleefully proclaim, "I told you so!"

Don't be ridiculous Goat. I try to warn people that this will be much worse than they imagine so they can take steps to minimize the impact on their lives. I get no joy out of this. If anything it's frustrating and disheartening to know that so many will see their economic lives destroyed because they did nothing.

So pissing away trillions on the national credit card had nothing to do with it?

Welcome! We have been in the recession for 11th months now. The building industry already failed and is starting to come back along with spring.

We have been in the recession for 11th months now.

???

Economists define a recession as a downturn in the GNP for 2 consequetive quarters, not by the opinion of a blogger.

Economists define a recession as a downturn in the GNP for 2 consequetive quarters, not by the opinion of a blogger.

Those statistics are manipulated to make the economy look much better than it actually is. For example, private estimates have unemployment at 12%. The difference is twofold. First, the BLS doesn't count long term unemployed. Second, they use what is called the birth-death model where they estimate new jobs being created.

As far as the GDP goes, the nominal number looks positive, but for real growth, you have to subtract inflation. Ergo, the economy has been declining for a few months.

"Economists: Recession is Here"

Recession? What recession? I've been working overtime for the last three months. Our company is so busy that we need to hire additional employees to staff the projects that are on the way.

ar as the GDP goes, the nominal number looks positive, but for real growth, you have to subtract inflation. Ergo, the economy has been declining for a few months.

Yet economists are not saying we are in a recession yet. You'd think that with their fancy degrees they'd know to figure in inflation. Those silly putzs.

You are right -- my bad. It's GDP, not GNP that is the indicator for a recession.

Recession? What recession? I've been working overtime for the last three months. Our company is so busy that we need to hire additional employees to staff the projects that are on the way.

Yes I hear the prison business is booming.

Goat
Those economists are government apologists. They figure people like you are easily duped.

Those economists are government apologists.

C'mon Ray. Be real. Some are, I'm sure. But not all of them, especially those from the liberal bastions of education we call universities.

They all use the same classical definition of a recession and all use the same numbers. They are not yet saying we are in a recession.

I am being real Goat. Not all. I told you above that private estimates have unemployment at 12%. That's pretty serious.

You are too trusting. Gotta go.

Thanks, Ray, good discussion and points.

I several industries, they are in recession. But in manufacturing, hospitality, financial services (non-mortgage), industrial and commercial construction--no.

Horrible reading on the ISM number, though. Fed should've started cutting rates back in May of last year, then this fire sale on lower yields wouldn't be necessary now.

RiR

Thanks for the financial you gave me the other day re possible ways to invest $8-10 grand.
I printed it out. And don't send me a bill for your expertise either. hahahaha.

whoops -- left out a word: "financial info"

It's a little like on the Fifth of July. You have not only a hangover, but a sickish feeling something like "I spent HOW much on fireworks?"

We have just spent, or committed to spend, a cool trillion to blow up two countries so our president could wear a flight jacket. land on a carrier and proclaim an accomplished mission.

Never mind that we don't have a trillion, no way of getting one, even in grandpa's sock. We may devalue the buck so it takes about a million for a loaf of bread, but THAT won't fix it. YOU did it, folks. Enough of voted for the bastard to create a doubt, and not even a Democratic administration can repair THIS damage. herm

Recession? I'm already bald, thanks.
- Hans

Bush's Favourites Never See a Recession!

But there's still no recession anywhere in sight for either of Bush's two main right wing interests,that is:1.Big Oil and 2.The Right Wing Military Industrial Complex.
Also Bush's Wall St. pals will welcome this recession (which they helped engineer) because they're the only ones who will suck in lots of easy "loot" from their usual victims i.e. America's over charged,manipulated wage slaves!

Economists define a recession as a downturn in the GNP for 2 consequetive quarters, not by the opinion of a blogger.

LOL!!!

Please tell us when was the last time they actually used """"****GNP****""""

I several industries, they are in recession. But in manufacturing, hospitality, financial services (non-mortgage), industrial and commercial construction--no.

Huh!!!!

manufacturing has been in a recession for several years, but oh yes, you don't know what actual manufacturing is really.

Another bean counter trying to espouse the numbers of goodness even by making up stats of how it should be looked at to keep up the positive.

The "service" sector is falling apart now, too, according to a headline snippet on CNN yesterday. What's left?

BELLA

What's left?

A long line of dominos . . . falling faster and faster as we speak.

There is no recession, just like there is no global warming. All propaganda.

There is no recession, just like there is no global warming. All propaganda

Ah, the eternal sunshine of the happy mind.

As John Edwards repeated often, there are two Americas with two economies. One is the investment class who have made out very well under Bush with their low taxes and low interest rates. For them we may finally be nearing a recession.
The other is the middle class who have been royally screwed by the investment class. For us we have been in a recession since Bush was elected.
We can deal with this recession and some of the other effects of the Bush administration but....not by meekly accepting the crumbs that the wealthy are willing to leave for us. Not by fearing words like OMG! socialism. Not by letting blow hard shills for the investment class like Rush or the other liars who daily reinforce their message that we in the middle class benefit when the wealth get wealthier.
It is a fucking lie, always has been but many Americans were willing to tolerate their bull shit because they were doing fairly well themselve. Now that this economy is costing many of them their savings, even their homes they are beginning to wake up. Can't tell you how many former Republican, Rush listening, yuppies have told me lately that they are finally ready to listen to us on the left and vote Democrat. The worst thing the Rethugs could have done was to allow this recession to arive before the election, they are going to try to mask it with the disgusting rebate checks but I think it will be too little, too late. Changes are coming....like TAXES on wealthy, greedy, investment class Republicans. That is how we will get out of the recession. We will take from the rich and employ the working class in jobs that have real pay checks. Many won't be ready to hear this quite yet but very rapidly opinions are changing and radical concepts are becoming the accepted will of the majority.
We are entering an era when Robin Hood will once again be a hero.

"Recession is only a word for the under or un-employed and those looking for a govt handout. Those who actually pay credit card balances in full every month and have good credit and live within their means usually dont feel recessions.."
-Boez-

Not true, unless you call the small business owner underemployed. Recessions usually hit them the hardest while the big boys can wait it out. One upside for Manufacturing is the falling dollar. This should keep foreign markets at bay for a little longer.

"Recession is only a word for the under or un-employed and those looking for a govt handout. Those who actually pay credit card balances in full every month and have good credit and live within their means usually dont feel recessions.."

As if....there are not any unemployed people who were exactly as you describe...before they lost their jobs. It takes a pompous ass to make a statement like you did BOAZ. I can only hope that you get to experience what it is like for many people who, through no fault of their own, end up losing savings, homes, etc. Don't say it can't happen because you know about "famous last words."

That's funny. Everyone at my company and everyone I know in my industry is absolutely slammed with work, right now and well into the next 6 months.

Economists: Recession is Here"

Recession? What recession? I've been working overtime for the last three months. Our company is so busy that we need to hire additional employees to staff the projects that are on the way.

Posted by Republican4ever


Gee, and it was cold a couple of days last August ... guess that blows the global warming theory.

That logic explains your screen name, I guess.

Cyclical economies... can't stay growing forever.

The economy took at down turn at the end of Clintons term / beginning of Bush's but we rebounded quickly. This isn't going to be the next great depression... thankfully Libs wishing for that won't make it so.

""thankfully Libs wishing for that won't make it so. ""

Yeah Rob, that's why even conservative Republicans are voting for the economic stimulus. That's why even the Liar in Chief is talking about the problems with the economy.

CHICKENINOVEN I'm glad your company is doing well, some industries will do well in a recession but that doesn't indicate anything about whether or not there is a recession. The company I work for seems to be doing quite well right now but I know people in other industries not so fortunate.
I know quite a few people who used to make a pretty good living now forced to work for pretty low wages because it is the only job they can find. Oh...some might say....relocate....but they can't sell their homes. They are sort of stuck hoping the economy will turn around.

I love it when people anonymously report their industry is doing fine, but give no other details. Please, do tell what industry is that? And as far as Boaz and the troll rob are concerned if memeroy serves they are sucking off of the biggest teet ever, the government teet.

We can deal with this recession and some of the other effects of the Bush administration but....not by meekly accepting the crumbs that the wealthy are willing to leave for us.
Posted by danni

Why do you think they owe you something? You're like a candlemaker, still holding a grudge against Thomas Edison since 1879.

When your economy is based on a group of people serving a group of govt. employees that produce little else but aggravation it eventually reaches satruation level. (that's where we are now)

Rightisright, I've asked you this before. Please tell me what we manufacture in this country using American labor?

Where are the glass plants, the rubber(tire)plants, the appliance plants, the foundries, etc.etc.etc.

I think pharmacueticals (and death care, keeping people alive just because they can) are our largest domestic products manufactured and the largest domestic products consumed.

I see little else in the way of manufacturing.

Please don't use examples of assembly plants like Toyota blah blah blah. I hardly call those manufacturing.

A nation of consumers is quickly consumed..... 4 decades is quick.

And as far as Boaz and the troll rob are concerned if memeroy serves they are sucking off of the biggest teet ever, the government teet.

Posted by Salaryman


I love sockpuppet accounts...

Okay Slappyman, who were you before you created this account?

Yeah Rob, that's why even conservative Republicans are voting for the economic stimulus.

There is a problem with the economy now... that is why they are voting for stimulus...

But that doesn't mean its the next great depression...

Everyone at my company and everyone I know in my industry is absolutely slammed with work, right now and well into the next 6 months.


That is why economies are comprised of more than one company and industry.

Hey my businesses are busier than sin right now and will continue to be in the future, but that is just our industry.

I would have to say that if you are in the oil industry things are looking pretty good right now too.

But taking a myopic view of the economy is incorrect.

Oh Jesus, Rob the Account Policeman is back on the farce!

Next we can get Ride_On to start whining about being flagged.

Oh joy!

"Why do you think they owe you something?"

I never said they owed me a thing Wisgod, what I am saying is that when the vast majority hurts badly enough they will take what they need. The wealthy will be forced through taxes to redistribute wealth. Philosophical ideals don't matter when people get hungry. You can see the repitition of this fact throughout history. Hopefully, the US will never allow the wealthy to be so greedy for so long that we get to the point of a revolution but when and if millions of Americans lose homes, can't feed families, etc. the will do the same things that others have done in other countries. Right now this seems like a remote possibility but consider the fact that the government is getting ready to mail checks to people with money it doesn't have.
It indicates a far more desperate situation than most people are comfortable acknowledging, especially conservatives who are watching as the effects of their policies, which they bragged would bring prosperity, are shown to be nothing more than just schemes to enrich the few at the expense of the many. America is waking up, and we aren't so happy about the tiny trickle of wealth that the wealthy allow to flow down their legs.
Say it ain't so, I don't care. Anyone willing to look can see that things are changing dramatically.

"But that doesn't mean its the next great depression..."

you hope. we all hope. maybe we should pray.

Oh Jesus, Rob the Account Policeman is back on the farce!

When I see an obvious sockpuppet I point it out.

Do you get on everyone's case when they point out the new niceville account?

I have a good job and don't owe any money to anyone so why should I care?

It seems that now days a recession is when we can't afford another supersized TV for out on the deck and can't afford to eat out 3 nights a week. Times are tough when we only have 2 satalite receivers for out wide screen. Hell, we can't all watch the same program together.

We arn't in a recession, we have lost our way!

you hope.

I know.

we all hope.

Somehow I doubt you are in that category (and a lot of other Liberals)

maybe we should pray.

Posted by danni


See? Hoping its going to be a depression... Run away now Chicken Little.

"We arn't in a recession, we have lost our way!"

Here's yer sign.

Rob you ignorant slut!

Longtime lurker on this site, sorry to burst your bubble.

Been reading long enough to know that you are without a doubt a waste of skin. You are sucking on the government teet, no? Or are you just leeching off your wife?

Longtime lurker on this site, sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah... sure pumpkin...

You are sucking on the government teet, no? Or are you just leeching off your wife?


Okay... LMAO... seriously who are you? Nobody reads that many threads and never posts...

Dude, you're caught, just come out and say who you are.

"Somehow I doubt you are in that category (and a lot of other Liberals)"

Somehow I think you are full of crap.
Do you honestly believe I want to lose my job, have any of my kids or friends lose their jobs???
You're nuts.

Do you honestly believe I want to lose my job

No, but I think you want a massive recession, or even a depression, just like you want failure/death/chaos in Iraq so that you can rail against the pres

Rob you really are an idiot.

Danni, there's true poverty, sure. But there are also alot of idiots who ran up cradit cards to the max, or took out Home Equity loan after Home equity loan, or choose a shitty mortgage plan. It's bullshit to make bad choices in life, and then call for redistribution of wealth from the people who had the sense to make good choices.

Danni, I agree with most of your post up to the point where you blanket conservatives.

I'm a conservative and there hasn't been a conservative in the political arena for decades.

That's why I am now a man without a party.

Conservatives would never use govt. to prop up markets, those that do are socialist/communist, not conservative. You're to hung up on labels. Me, I know them by their fruit. You can wrap up a turd but it still stinks when you get close. We're close.

The only difference now for decades between republicans and democrats is the dollar amount.
All programs get funding just not as much as some people would like. Had they gotten the funding those individuals would have liked we would have arrived where we are faster than we did.

Both parties are socialistic not capitalistic.

I'm done voting for the lesser of evils it never stops it, it only prolongs the inevitable.

I say let it collapse and we'll get back to loving thy neighbor without paying a bunch of govt. bureaucrats (false prophets) to act like they can do it.

Rob you really are an idiot.

Posted by Salaryman


How stupid are you then that in just one post I figured out you used to post here under a different name...

Now come clean and tell us all who you were or still are...

Spud? JustSomeGuy? Is that you?

Rob, you can think whatever the hell you want but when you make statements like that I just think you believe everyone is as shallow as you apparently are.

I just think you believe everyone is as shallow as you apparently are.

Posted by danni


I'm not the one wishing for death and poverty (on others of course) Danni...

I have a good job and don't owe any money to anyone so why should I care?

It seems that now days a recession is when we can't afford another supersized TV for out on the deck and can't afford to eat out 3 nights a week. Times are tough when we only have 2 satalite receivers for out wide screen. Hell, we can't all watch the same program together.

We arn't in a recession, we have lost our way!

Posted by Sniper at 2008-02-07 09:54 AM | R

Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders. How much home, car, electricty, gas, insurance, food, and good times can a 23 old welder buy on that?

By the way, they no longer have any retirement and no benefits, sometimes up to 3 years.

"I'm a conservative and there hasn't been a conservative in the political arena for decades."

That is a fair point. We probably need a new word.

"I say let it collapse and we'll get back to loving thy neighbor without paying a bunch of govt. bureaucrats (false prophets) to act like they can do it."

Not me, I don't want anarchy.

Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders. How much home, car, electricty, gas, insurance, food, and good times can a 23 old welder buy on that?

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon

I've seen alot of kids making less who spend plenty of time in the bars. Why should someone else pickup the tab for the choices these kids are making?

Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders. How much home, car, electricty, gas, insurance, food, and good times can a 23 old welder buy on that?

That equates to around 27K or so per year...

Depends on where you live I guess... here in Philly, that's going to be tough but you wouldn't be in poverty. Somewhere out in the burbs you could do okay... not going to buy a home on that but you'd be okay.

If that's not enough, then that 23 year old should find another source of income to go along with it, or change careers...

Last I checked a high salary and benefits is not in the Bill of Rights.

I've seen alot of kids making less who spend plenty of time in the bars.

In the first months of 2001 I was 21 and making $0.00 a year with some of the worst benefits ever, and the retirement plan really sucked...

Still found a way to get trashed every weekend with friends...

How much home, car, electricty, gas, insurance, food, and good times can a 23 old welder buy on that?


Maybe $22,000 worth tops.

Hey Rob, there's more than a million people out here that can do your job and many would do it better.

Are there a million jobs like yours?

"Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders. How much home, car, electricty, gas, insurance, food, and good times can a 23 old welder buy on that?"

My son's best friend is a welder. When the company he works for has enough work he does ok, the problem with welding though (especially in Florida) is that it is so hard on your body. The guy I know is only around 25 and already has severe back problems. He isn't making nearly what he did a year ago because there just isn't enough work lately.

KPB, how long does a person stay at an enery level job? I don't know about you but I had much more ambition than that and worked my way up the ladder.

Econ 101 says that if you have too much of something the price drops on that thing. With 20 million illegals in the US, we have way too much cheep, unskilled labor.

I made a post on another thread about wadges in the construction industry in the last 20 some years. Wadges in that industry have taken a nose dive because there are too many people willing to work for $6 per hour.

Not only do we have way too many unskilled workers in the US but many of the young workers have a real bad work ethic. Many comming right out of school want to start out as mid level managers at $120k per year and they would like to work at home and only about 20 hours a week.

The power industry is crying for maintanence people and the pay is good. The biggest problem is........ people would have to move to take the jobs. Most power plants out west are out in the middle of no-where and that realy cuts into their social life. Ain't that a bitch!

In the first months of 2001 I was 21 and making $0.00 a year with some of the worst benefits ever, and the retirement plan really sucked...

Still found a way to get trashed every weekend with friends...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Same here Rob (longer ago). Maybe the difference is that when your realistic, and figure the Goverment isn't going to support you the rest of your life, you tend to figure out a way to make your life as successfull as you can on your own. Of course, that would mean you're a Republican.

"Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders."

BTW, $13.43 isn't shit for the amount of training you need to be a welder, and it's crap money for a job that hard. CAterpillar is obviously part of the wage problem in this country. As long as workers are not making fair pay we will endure recessions because we don't have money to spend.

Hey Rob, there's more than a million people out here that can do your job and many would do it better.

Software Developers are a dime a dozen. Thanks to the late 90s IT explosion and then the subsequent crash, I don't have to look hard when I need a contractor to come in and help out to get some work done, or when we need an FTE.

Data analysis specific to our contract is where I earn my money... and in that area, no, there aren't many who can do it better.

Maybe the difference is that when your realistic, and figure the Goverment isn't going to support you the rest of your life, you tend to figure out a way to make your life as successfull as you can on your own. Of course, that would mean you're a Republican.

Posted by wisgod


Some people move out of their parent's basements at 21 and think they can just move right into their rich Uncle Sam's.

BTW, $13.43 isn't shit for the amount of training you need to be a welder, and it's crap money for a job that hard.

Then don't be a freaking welder!!!!!

Rob....the guy I know who welds makes about $20/hour. Trust me, he earns every penny.

Rob....the guy I know who welds makes about $20/hour. Trust me, he earns every penny.

Posted by danni

And he'll cry like a baby about losing a "job that hard" when the robotic welders are ordered and installed.

Maybe people such as this would do well to keep an eye on technology. Or is that the goverments role too?

Or is that the goverments role too?

I accidently paid my verizon bill a day late last month... fucking government.

"Maybe people such as this would do well to keep an eye on technology. Or is that the goverments role too?"

You know absolutely nothing about this guy yet make cracks about him not being up on technology. In fact he has worked in extremely high teck industries doing precise types of welding which will not be replaced by robots due to the custom nature of the work he does. So tell me Wisgod, do you think you would make that comment about this fellow depending on the government to his face considering he has always worked and paid his own way since his mom died when he was 18. BTW, after years of being a welder he is as strong as an ox and could kill you with one hand. I think if you encountered him you would mind your manners.

BTW, after years of being a welder he is as strong as an ox and could kill you with one hand. I think if you encountered him you would mind your manners.

Posted by danni

I'd go after his bad back. I may not be stronger, just smarter.

Dude seriously, you are deranged I am just a dude that has read this site for a long time. In fact this site opened my eyes to a lot of the bullshit. Well to be fair the Great Idiot GWB began my awakening. And reading the differing opinions here and to some extent the psychotic rantings of the wingnuts really made me look at things with a broader perspective.

I love it when people anonymously report their industry is doing fine, but give no other details.

Advertising for TV. Oh, and that includes small business advertising. I should also note that fellow graphic designers, family members who are engineers, and pretty much everyone I know are getting raises, bonuses, etc.

Not bragging, as we all are indeed fortunate. But if there IS a recession going on, I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Bush Has Been Yapping "The Economy Is Great, The Economy Is Booming," Well The Fucking Ass Clown Is A Damn Idiot, Ray Charles Could See This Recession Coming !!!

I Really Do Not Know Where Some Of You NEOCONS Get The Definition Of What A Recession Is But Here It Is :

recession

noun
1. the state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year

An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product.

"The material prosperity of the United States is too firmly based, in our opinion, for a revival in industrial activity -- even if we have to face an immediate recession of some magnitude -- to be long delayed." ["Economist," Nov. 2, 1929]

It Is A Failing Economy Brought On By GWB Piss Poor Handling Of The Country !!!

-Sarge

Dude seriously, you are deranged I am just a dude that has read this site for a long time.

Yeah... you've been lurking in the shadows reading thread after thread, enough to learn what Boaz and I do, along with my wife and I'm deranged...

But of course that's not what's going on here... you have multiple logins... this being one of them.

"I'd go after his bad back. I may not be stronger, just smarter."

You actually may know his "Achilles heel" and it's all my fault. Honestly though, he may actually need to learn a new skill soon because of his back. It's a shame, he's a really nice kid who has had a pretty difficult life though no fault of his own.

"Not bragging, as we all are indeed fortunate. But if there IS a recession going on, I'm having a hard time seeing it." Chickeninoven

You do realize that nothing happens in a vacuum? You may be doing fine right now, but if thing take a real bad turn you may start to feel it. Saying everything is fine right here so everything must be fine everywhere is somewhat shortsighted.

"Caterpillar is paing 13.43 an hour for welders."

Explains why they can't afford a y or a $.
Also explains why their welds suck.

YIPEE, YIPEE, YIPEE a recession is coming and it's Bush's fault.

Signed,

THE DR LEFT

P.S. Even though it is part of the forever natural cycle of the economy....we still are so very happy to yell and scream YIPEE, YIPEE, YIPEE

BTW, after years of being a welder he is as strong as an ox and could kill you with one hand. I think if you encountered him you would mind your manners.

Posted by danni

I'd go after his bad back. I may not be stronger, just smarter.

Posted by wisgod at 2008-02-07 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

My welder friend is also my secret weapon to satisfy my rage when I wish and HOPE so many people dead....he provides the pain that I exhort to occur so often on the DR. I LOVE MY WELDER.

Thoughfully so,

DanniDrivel(tm)

Do you ever have anything intelligent to say, ride_on?

Ride, they'd be clapping too, but don't want to do anything that would be interrupted as not having a free hand out.

a free hand out.

As opposed to a paid hand out. You're an idiot, too. I simply amazed that both of you can dress yourselves,(presumably) or work a keyboard.(such as it is)

Please stop voting.

...clap....isn't there a thread posted about how that gets started....

I bet there is some of that dirty smelly stuff around here. At least the DEAD smelly rotten potato is too ashamed to rear it's ugly eyes.

...and guess what Alex....your amazement will be unending.........

your amazement will be unending.........

Posted by ride_on at 2008-02-07 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

No doubt. Somehow you have defied earning yourself a darwin award for a long time.

But the night is young, as they say.

As opposed to a paid hand out. You're an idiot, too. I simply amazed that both of you can dress yourselves,(presumably) or work a keyboard.(such as it is)

Please stop voting.

Posted by Alexandrite

LOL! I do very well in life without the Goveremnts help. Actually, it should be "in spite of the goverment".

You do realize that nothing happens in a vacuum? You may be doing fine right now, but if thing take a real bad turn you may start to feel it. Saying everything is fine right here so everything must be fine everywhere is somewhat shortsighted.

Yeah. Well, I didn't say everything must be fine everywhere. I just said it's funny that we are evidently in a recession, yet I see those around me spending tons of cash, companies increasing their advertising budgets, and positions opening up all the time to accomodate the growth. Is it wrong of me to assume that this is a sign of economic health?

Sorry if your particular line of work isn't doing so well.

I simply amazed...

That's not surprising Alex... you seem like the type of tard that could be entertained for hours by simply jingling a set of keys in your face...

Or balls.

My cousin is a welder with the pipe fitters and anytime they go into a nuke plant he's there. Most of the time Eddie does all the welding for both the power plants and Anheuser Busch. Little by little his eyes are burning out, even with the best of goggles.

He took a fall and his back is not good. But 60 or so and he works every day. Union man.

It was a mistake for America not to embrace robotics like the Japs did in the 80s. But we will always need craftsmen to assure good quality. They deserve respect.

Weak eyes must run in the family.

Alex is the gift that we can always count on to keep on giving....swallows hook, line and sinker everytime it is around. Thanks for playin Alexis....again.

So much drama over nothing. There IS a recession. And it is primarily being felt by those who made bad decisions (either intentionally or unintentionally). Those who do not want to subsidize these bad decisions argue that it is not the role of government to get involved and to let the sheep get fleeced...they just need to understand that they too will eventually feel at least some of that impact (if not financially, then through the shakeup of communities. Those who stand to gain from government intervention in the long or short term, and especially those who are desperate for help at the moment have their hands out and ready for the free money. In fact, now they threaten to scream if they don't get it. They need to realize that this sort of precedent has negative consequences in the long-run, and is almost certain to do nothing to solve the larger problem. Its a band-aid being applied to wet skin.

There are no winners here, either way. So I say it is better for government to be fair and predictable, and let the chips fall where they may. Forcing people to subsidize others for doing inadvisable things with their own money is the opposite of that approach. Only shoot the birds who wander off-course rather than assume to know more than the flock.

From that link-

Exxon Mobil pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people.

27 billion is the taxpayers pay in taxes.
30 billion is what Exxon pays in taxes for 2007.

Exxon Mobil pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people.

Posted by JOE


Look, I'm not the kind of guy who thinks profits are bad, but it really kind of annoys me when I hear about their record profits (All Oil Companies not just Exxon). Since they really aren't doing anything different it just makes me feel that they are gouging us at the pumps knowing we can't do shit about it but pay. So sometimes yeah, I would like to see them pay even more then they already do in taxes because I think they're being scumbags in getting their profits.

"Exxon Mobil pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people."

Thank you for making my argument against the "Fair Tax."

God in Heaven, I find myself in total agreement with rob.

God in Heaven, I find myself in total agreement with rob.

Posted by Alexandrite


About the balls thing from earlier?

Danni-

Flush out your argument for me. Because I'm prone to think you don't know what you are talking about. Is it the whole generic argument of "the rich should pay their fair share" crap again? Do you understand how the economy works? Exxon pays a huge tax bill, but carefully moves as much activity offshore as possible to shelter it taking advantage of loopholes they lobby for. At the same time, the executives and directors pay less in taxes than you and I do. So you are saying that is a GOOD thing? Are you being retarded? Do you not realize that Exxon is a creator of jobs and wealth for individuals while the people who run it are the greedy money hoarding tax evaders?

Rob- you have to admit Ride_on's stalking of danni is not only creepy, but unfunny and stupid.

To be fair, even that moron bill bag o' shit reilly thinks the gas companies are fleecing us. So it's not that remarkable that you could understand it too.

Rob just when I think that you are worthless in every way. you go and say something that makes sense. But admit it the oil profits only bother you because it's cutting into your money. If you were not feeling it you would be right in step with the charge what the market will bear crowd.

$10 trillion parked off shore that has left this country because corporations have found they can't be competitive in a global market place when their capital here is subject to the level of taxation. I'm sure the won't make up for it. Especially with the increase in spending. And that Exxon tax number would go down due to lower cost of operating expenses across the board.

When I see stupid shit (imho) posted on the DR I do not hesitate to comment. Capice? You don't like it Alexis....just go ahead and whine some more. ROFLMAO.

Rob-

Nobody's forcing you to buy gas. Many people live without it. It is because so many people around the world depend on it that they are able to make such large profits. I don't think that's bad, or mean of them to charge what people are willing to pay for gas. You'd do the same thing if you were in charge of the company, and you'd be fired if you didn't.

I'm not whining at all. Just pointing out how utterly useless you are, ride_on.

"Do you understand how the economy works? Exxon pays a huge tax bill, but carefully moves as much activity offshore as possible to shelter it taking advantage of loopholes they lobby for. At the same time, the executives and directors pay less in taxes than you and I do."

Of course I realize that but are you going to argue that those loop holes can't be closed? That many of those loop holes exist because lobbyists got Congress to create them.
Let me also ask you where the percentage of the overall tax that Exxon pays is going to come from if you enacted the "Fair Tax."
And yes, I am making the same old tired argument that the wealthy need to pay a large share of the taxes....notice I don't bother with that silly word "fair." Life ain't fair, those who have can pay. Those of us who aren't rich simply do not have the resources with which to make up the difference if they didn't.

"Nobody's forcing you to buy gas. Many people live without it"

That's right, Rob. Why don't you use public transit (paid for by taxpayer dollars) that runs past your front door?

...and that's what the DR is all about Alexi...say what's on your mind...salright...

"Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Under the FairTax Plan, money retained in the business and reinvested to create jobs, build factories, or develop new technologies, pays no tax. This is the most honest, fair, productive tax system possible. Free market competition will do the rest."

Danni-

Loopholes are never going away with a bloated tax code no one but tax attorneys can understand and a congress for sale. THAT is the crutch of the problem. It is fundamentally unsound. Go to the fair-tax and you've got a solid and FAIR foundation. Then go about your preaching for curing of social ills through government funding from there. At least you'll be standing on firm ground, not being a hypocrite due to exploitation.

And I love that you admit your argument is wholly based on your desire to see rich people pay more. Guess what? They never will, they'll either hide it, or leave altogether for greener pastures. It's a global world, and being protectionist at the expense of your bread and butter will backfire.

"Guess what? They never will,"

No, guess what....they already do.

""The least wealthy 60 percent of Americans have less than 5 percent of the wealth in the U.S. but pay more than 14 percent of federal taxes.""

So that means the wealthier 40% pay the remaining 86% of the income taxes.

Personally, I don't want to have to make up that on my salary.

""It's a global world, and being protectionist at the expense of your bread and butter will backfire.""

Well since globalism is backfiring anyway seems like we ought to try something else....before we are in a depression.

lapuscalami, so you think that if we just got rid of corporate taxes; prices would magically drop and wages would miraculously rise? Isn't that similar to the argument for outsourcing? Lower prices? Funny I don't see these lower prices just record salaries for execs. Maybe I just need to put my magic hat on that make trickle down economics work.

"Go to the fair-tax and you've got a solid and FAIR foundation."

What makes you think the fair tax is fair? Look at what segments of America spend 100% of their paycheck, or close to it. They are the poor and middle class. Those people would see 100% of their income subjected to tax, while the wealthy who save most of their money would see close to none of their income subjected to tax. How is that fair?

Danni-

At least you are honest. You don't think we can compete in the global economy. I disagree. All we need to do is encourage innovation by NOT taxing our life-blood into oblivion, or into China.

Predictability in taxation is what its all about. Currently, the rich can predict. We cannot. That is unfair and causes uncertainty...exactly what government should strive to avoid. Go to a fair-tax, then decide what to exempt to make it easier on lower income people. How is that unfair? Just because it drops the illusion of progressiveness? You'll get over it, trust me. And you'll have more money to spend from your paycheck, and more CHOICE over taxation. No uncertainty.

Joe-

Rich people would not put all their tax-free money in the bank at 0.2% interest. They lose money with inflation. Rich people are not as stupid as that. They INVEST IT. You could apply a tax to investments. Problem solved. Any more brain-busters?

Only problem Kevin is that it doesn't generate enough tax revenue, especially not at 30%. Estimates of 50% are more realistic. It will just allow further concentration of wealth at the top.
Income taxes do redistribute wealth which, I know is heresy for conservatives but a necessary evil.
Without it we end up....well.....right where we are now....recession that if not fixed will eventually lead to depression. Money has to be in the people's hand so that it will circulate and keep economy running.

"You don't think we can compete in the global economy."

Sure we can. All we have to do is reduce Americans' wages and standard of living to that of China's.

"They INVEST IT."

In the US??? INto job creating investments??

If they get deductions for investing in businesses that employ Americans the it is another argument which I have made before about the benefit of income tax.

"You could apply a tax to investments. Problem solved."

What percentage would the tax be? Would it be just enough to make it worth investing? What about when the market takes a downturn? Do we have the same high tax on investments, thereby preventing the market from recovering? Do we make up for it somewhere else?

There are plenty of banks that pay well over 0.2% interest. I'm sorry you have to exaggerate to get your point across instead of dealing with facts.

So not only do we have an issue with taxing investments, but you also started talking about how we would exempt certain items from tax to help the lower class. Sounds like you're just getting closer and closer to the system we have now. Eventually our legislature would put just as many provisions in the "fair tax" code as there are in the current code.

Why do all you people insist on holding onto a tax system that is more corrupt than George Bush and Hillary Clinton combined X 100? (covering all bases there).

The FairTax "is considered the most researched and documented piece of tax legislation ever sponsored in the U.S. Congress. Over $25 million has been spent on research, market studies and feasibility of passing the law."

Joe-

You aren't criticizing, you are nay-saying. Investments can be taxed at whatever rate you want. They are sales like any other. Keep the current rate if it works. I don't profess to be the expert...it is fluid anyway...no need to know. Not a problem at all.

And you really want to argue the point that rich people would rather save money than invest it? That banks will simply give away high interest rates forever? Do you understand what you are saying? Investment is how rich people stay rich, and how economies grow. Fair tax doesn't change that one iota.

What is it you FAIR taxers think is so great about the fair tax? Do you really think the manufacturing will come back? Do you think they left because of taxes? Wake up, they went to get cheap labor, slave labor by some accounts. They left to go places where they had no regulation where they could destroy the environment. They went back to the freekin 1900's where the worker was worth nothing.

Anyone naive enough to think a regressive sales tax will turn it all around is very foolish indeed.

FACT: Under Fair Tax rich people pay less tax.

QUESTION: If they pay less tax who makes up difference?

ANSWER: Middle class America

QUESTION: Do any of y'all in the middle class want to pay more tax???

Nut said.

"Investments can be taxed at whatever rate you want. They are sales like any other."

If I'm not mistaken, the "fair" tax rate is somewhere between 23-30%. Do you understand the disincentive there would be to invest if we taxed investments at that rate at the time they were sold? Do you know how long it takes most investments to make up that kind of ground?

What company would you invest in right now if you had to pay 23% tax just to buy a share of their stock?

Salaryman-

Read a few posts. It is about control. People can dictate their own tax rate through choice. Freedom. You know, what America is supposed to be all about?

But you say the word "regressive" and everyone is supposed to run for the hills? How about telling me how it will doom out society to have a simple, easily understood, and not easily manipulated tax system? Because it won't have the illusion of playing Robin hood?

"If I'm not mistaken, the "fair" tax rate is somewhere between 23-30%."

Many experts who have looked at it say those numbers are nonsense, more realistically 50%.

Kevin

"FACT: Under Fair Tax rich people pay less tax."

True or False?

"If I'm not mistaken, the "fair" tax rate is somewhere between 23-30%. Do you understand the disincentive there would be to invest if we taxed investments at that rate at the time they were sold? Do you know how long it takes most investments to make up that kind of ground?"

Joe, its an easy fix. Change the rate. Or use the current a share v. c share system. What's the problem there? The old capital gains rate used to be 20%. Were you screaming back then?

And paying an extra 23% (for argument's sake) up front on an investment is perfectly reasonable if the investment will net you gains in excess of that over the years. That is the question, not whether it would force people to not invest. People will always invest because NO bank pays more than 5-6% interest on liquid money. I've got a series 7, worked as a financial planner for years. I think I'm familiar with people's investment criteria.

"Under Fair Tax rich people pay less tax"

Totally depends. What are we comparing it to? A perfect progressive model? If so, then we're not talking reality. So who cares?

"Many experts who have looked at it say those numbers are nonsense, more realistically 50%"

Spin Spin Spin. Read the numerous posts above which talk about this discrepancy.

"paying an extra 23% (for argument's sake) up front on an investment is perfectly reasonable if the investment will net you gains in excess of that over the years"

I think the possibility that you won't make your money back in the first place is about all the disincentive our market can handle. Put another 23% on top of it, I think that's a joke.

"The old capital gains rate used to be 20%. Were you screaming back then?"

No. But at that point, you're taxing people when they sell their investments rather than when they buy them.

"People will always invest because NO bank pays more than 5-6% interest on liquid money."

So let's say a bank offers you a guaranteed 6%, and a private company offers you a prospective 10% return on their stock. On top of that you have to pay 23% just to get in the game. At that point you're looking at just making up the taxes you paid for years before you see a return on your investment. Sounds great. Let me know when you hope for this tax to be implemented so I can leave the US before the economy crumbles.

Many experts who look at my asshole says it stinks 98% of the time. the other 2% are just weird.

"Put another 23% on top of it, I think that's a joke."

You think? An appeal to your own authority requires that authority to be stated or otherwise known.

And no one is saying 23% except you. If the experts say it creates a disincentive, lower it. Simple. And much more effective than the fed f'ing with interest rates every week. And actual sales of securities would be THE indicator. Not 600 lagging and leading indicators that never match.

"But at that point, you're taxing people when they sell their investments rather than when they buy them"

Correct.

"Totally depends. What are we comparing it to? A perfect progressive model? If so, then we're not talking reality. So who cares?"

Translation: you won't answer the question.

Who cares???
You're kidding, right?

Joe-

Forgive me for not responding to your hypothetical. It is bogus. Pulling numbers that work for you out of nowhere might be good fun, but it doesn't advance any real debate.

"An appeal to your own authority requires that authority to be stated or otherwise known."

Oh, like touting my credentials to strangers on a website the way you do? Please.

"If the experts say it creates a disincentive, lower it. Simple"

To what? Let's say it was 10%. It still takes you a year just to break even if the stock earns 10%. You're still creating a huge problem for any short-term investor.

"Pulling numbers that work for you out of nowhere might be good fun, but it doesn't advance any real debate."

Those are real numbers. 23% is the proposed fair tax rate. 10% is a reasonable hypothetical number to be used. If you don't like mine, use your own and tell me how it would work out.

Danni-

You still haven't answered any of MY questions which deal with the REALITY of this debate.

You want a policy debate, then lets have one. You want a hypothetical ideological debate about a magical land where our tax code is not pro-rich, I'll have to pass. Waste of time.

Joe, I don't need to give you a rate. That is for experts to do depending on the realities of the market. Can't you understand that? Your grasping at straws. Lets get back to the SYSTEM. That is what matters.

"Oh, like touting my credentials to strangers on a website the way you do? Please."

Take it how you like. Truth is truth. Since I wasn't bragging or putting you down, maybe you shouldn't be so offended. You are avoiding the issues now though, so I might be almost done here unless you have something substantive.

Got a meeting, Joe. Think about it for a while. Seriously. I'm not even being facetious. It is a better baseline system in every way to the crap tax code we've got now. All your problems are easily solves by not adopting a number out of a hat.

The SYSTEM is based on a 23% tax rate. This is how we determine if the system will work. Create realistic hypotheticals and make educated decisions about how they would pan out. With your fancy securities certification, this shouldn't be a problem. Show me how it would work.

"Waste of time."

No Kevin, I want an admission of the truth...that the "Fair Tax" is a scheme by which the wealthy will pay far less tax. It is like Reaganomics on steroids. It would bankrupt the middle class and lead to a depression. Quite simply, you can't allow the wealthy to pay far less and not require the middle class to pay more. Convoluted arguments and misleading percentage estimates aside, it comes down to WHO pays what percentage of the taxes necessary to run our government. Not surprising that this scheme is being touted by a REpublican, we are now in an economic crisis brought about by the policies of.....you guessed it....REpublicans.
Our nation is in dire economic straights while the wealthiest have earned huge amounts because of an unfair tax code that taxes labor double what investment income is taxed. I don't consider ideas from Republicans, I immediately begin looking beneath them to see how they are intended to fuck the middle class, invariably, it isn't hard to find.

Investments wouldn't be taxed. Only if you payed someone for a service for doing your investing. That payment for the service would be taxed.

Nobody's forcing you to buy gas.

What?!?! What does your car run on?

"What?!?! What does your car run on?"

Pixie dust.

That's right, Rob. Why don't you use public transit (paid for by taxpayer dollars) that runs past your front door?

Posted by Bill_OReilly


I'm sorry I don't want to live in the heart of a city... I'm sorry my family lives 300 miles away and I enjoy seeing them. I'm sorry I don't sleep on a hammock at my desk.

Fact of the matter is, yes, you need a car to live/succeed/participate in this society. Last I checked you need gas to operate one.

"Investments wouldn't be taxed."

At least we get a fair taxer who tells the truth. Which brings back the fundamental unfairness of the tax itself. Those who can afford to invest have less of their income subjected to taxes, and those who spend their entire paycheck have 100% of their income subjected to taxes.

"Fact of the matter is, yes, you need a car to live/succeed/participate in this society."

No. You're just too addicted to your lifestyle to live without one. Sorry.

The cost of gas isn't breaking me either... We're doing just fine in the A_Hole house. I just don't like to be taken advantage of. Its the same with prescription drugs... Its not like I can say "I'm not buying that Advair because your costs are too high!" I'm stuck, I have to buy it, so they charge what they want. Same with gas... They know I need it and therefore can charge damn near whatever they want... hence ridiculously stupid profits...

Profits are a good thing, but come on... let's be honest... they're fucking us... didn't even lube up either.

Scholarly research tells us that . . .

* The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces. [1]
* The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan. [2]
* Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case. [3]
* Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10. [4]
* The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be. [4]
* Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place. [4]
* The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted. [4]
* By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent. [4]
* Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system. [5]
* Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively. [6]
* Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax. [7]
* Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20. [8]
* On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base. [9]
* The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent. [10]

No. You're just too addicted to your lifestyle to live without one. Sorry.

Posted by JOE


You're right... I'm addicted to getting to work, seeing family, being able to get to places that I need to (like hospitals, grocery stores, dentist)...

There are very few millionaires still riding the bus... John Madden comes to mind... that's about it

"We're doing just fine in the A_Hole house."

Rob, don't you mean your wife is doing just fine? Lets be honest here.

"I'm addicted to getting to work"

Live and work near a train or bus stop.

" being able to get to places that I need to (like hospitals, grocery stores, dentist)..."

These things are all accessible via public transit.

Fact is, you just don't want to disrupt your lifestyle, move somewhere else, and not have the freedom of driving a car. And for that reason, you will pay whatever someone charges you for gas. Then you'll complain about the cost of gas and how you think you're being overcharged.

Rob, don't you mean your wife is doing just fine? Lets be honest here.

Posted by Salaryman


Do you have any idea what a surgical resident makes?

I more then double her salary...

""Fact of the matter is, yes, you need a car to live/succeed/participate in this society."

Yes. It's pretty difficult to get by without a car, unless you live in a big city with excellent transit systems. (What percentage of the population fits that criteria?) Try living without a car in the suburbs.

Essentially you choose to live a lifestyle that requires gasoline. Not everyone does that. You do. You therefore have no right to complain about the cost of a lifestyle that you have chosen to live.

Sort of like the smoking whiners complaining about smoking in bars. Nobody is forcing them to go to a bar. But while they're there, they will complain anyway.

Fact is, you just don't want to disrupt your lifestyle, move somewhere else, and not have the freedom of driving a car. And for that reason, you will pay whatever someone charges you for gas. Then you'll complain about the cost of gas and how you think you're being overcharged.

Posted by JOE


300,000,000 people cannot all live and work within a few hundred yards of a train or bus stop. our mass transit system cannot support 300,000,000 people.

Cars are essential to this country and its economy...

"Try living without a car in the suburbs."

I didn't say everyone could do it everywhere. But nobody forces you to live in the suburbs either.

In all seriousness Rob, how does it feel to realize that you are getting fucked? Almost all corporations are fucking you just like "Big Oil" it's just that most don't have the perfect product that you can't really live without so they can't stick the whale dick in you.

Sort of like the smoking whiners complaining about smoking in bars.

That's the most ridiculous comparison ever...

If I don't have a car, I will be fired from my job, go into bankruptcy and ruin my life.

last I checked smoking wasn't a requirement of any job in America.

"These things are all accessible via public transit."

Don't project your own situation (living next door to a subway in a big city) to the rest of the country.

"our mass transit system cannot support 300,000,000 people."

Yawn. As people gradually move toward cities, the cities will have more tax revenue from them and be able to expand their systems to support those new people.

But you're right. If the entire country moved to a city today, that wouldn't work. Any more realistic hypotheticals?

"If I don't have a car, I will be fired from my job, go into bankruptcy and ruin my life."

The point is, you could look for a new job in an area accessible by public transit. It is your choice not to do that. Just like it is a smoking whiner's choice to go to a bar that allows smoking. You have chosen the lifestyle that requires gas. Nobody forced you to. But while you're here, you're going to complain about it.

lmost all corporations are fucking you just like "Big Oil"

No they aren't...

My cable company was fucking me with their prices, so I switched everything (TV, Internet, Phone) to Verizon FiOS... now we are making sweet, sweet love.

The problem with oil is that competition isn't driving down prices... why is that? Every gas company in my town are damn near the exact same price... except Shell for some odd reason. They are right across the street from a US Gas, which is charging 2.78 (roughly) and Shell is charging 2.89... I don't see how they are out of business.

Exxon, Shell, BP, Lukoil, etc, etc, etc... All that competition, but never a price break...

And taxes are fucking us big time... if those dropped a little things would be fine too.

I moved into the city (Ft. Lauderdale a city?? well sort of) a long time ago. Now I always wonder why anyone wants to live way out in the burbs, put up with long commute, have to spend so much on gas, etc. I can be downtown in two minutes, to work in about 10 and never need more than about $10 worth of gas per week. Plus it keeps the mileage low on my Mini. there is also more things to do at night and on weekends and my property values aren't falling nearly as fast as those way out in the burbs.

If the entire country moved to a city today, that wouldn't work

So then you admit a car is a necessary item in America today...

I don't get why you can't admit Oil companies are screwing over Americans... They know most people need cars, and can't live without them, so they charge more then its worth...

"But nobody forces you to live in the suburbs either."

Suburbia was built on cheap oil. It is doomed. But in the short term, people are not going to sell their homes, move away from their schools, etc., just to be close to good public transit systems.

The problem with oil is that competition isn't driving down prices... why is that?

Wi. has a minimum mark-up law. It was originally intended to protect the Mom and Pop stations, but now it just rips everyone off equally. 9% mark-up per Gallon which just means they make more as the price/gallon goes up. .

"So then you admit a car is a necessary item in America today..."

Only under your hypothetical that would never occur. The fact is that if people gradually moved to cities, which is what would happen in the real world, the cities would have time to expand and support them.

"I don't get why you can't admit Oil companies are screwing over Americans."

Because you are willing to pay them whatever they charge. It is not their duty as a corporation to help you. That is what a non-profit corporation does. It is any other corporation's duty to earn profits for themselves and their investors. If you led an oil company and charged less because you felt bad, you would be replaced immediately.

"in the short term, people are not going to sell their homes, move away from their schools, etc., just to be close to good public transit systems."

And that is their choice, which is my only point.

Nobody forced you to. But while you're here, you're going to complain about it.


Just because I've chosen to live here, doesn't mean I can't speak up when I notice someone is screwing me over. It was the same thing with Cable companies until I was given an alternative. Does anyone need telivision? No, but it is very nice to have and most people nowadays would say they can't live without TV or the Net... Since there's usually only one company in town (and DirecTV sucks old man balls) they know they can charge what they want. Hopefully FiOS will provide the necessary compettion.

It is the same with drugs as well...

Oil companies see the writing on the wall... they know Americans are demanding alternative energy sources... hybrid cars are getting more and more popular... they're trying to get every last dime out before there is a real alternative.

Do I choose to have a car yes... doesn't mean I can't notice when someone is taking advantage of me.

I can almost guarantee if you knew what it actually cost Verizon to provide you with service you would be like WTF? You didn't even buy me dinner first Verizon. Ow ow not so hard. Corporation are probably the biggest evil in this world today.

"doesn't mean I can't notice when someone is taking advantage of me."

It's one thing to notice, and another to complain. Ultimately you are only being taken advantage of because of your own choices. Make different choices and avoid the oil companies, or don't.

Because you are willing to pay them whatever they charge.

Because getting rid of cars, packing up my family and moving them into the city is not a reasonable solution. So the only option I have left is to pay... I'm forced to.

Joe do you really want to make everyone give up their vehicles? Or could we maybe come up with some middle ground?

"getting rid of cars, packing up my family and moving them into the city is not a reasonable solution."

Why not? Because you don't feel like dealing with the hassle.

"do you really want to make everyone give up their vehicles?"

No. I don't want to make anyone do anything. But if you have a car, that is your choice, and everyone knows how much gas costs.

It's one thing to notice, and another to complain.

What's the point of noticing something bad is going on if you aren't going to speak up about it and try to change it?

Ultimately you are only being taken advantage of because of your own choices

Where do the majority of people live in this country, cities or suburban? Suburban right?

Individually, yes you can look at where I've chosen to live and say I can choose another life. Take it as the whole group, and no there is no other alternative. Like you said, you can't expect all of suburbia to move into cities... its a process that would take decades, so they are just fucked.

You can't fault people for complaining when there only options are get screwed over, or pack up everything you have and your family and move to a smaller home, in an area with higher crime, more pollution, and much higher cost of living.

Ever live in North Jersey Joe?

Hmmm... I could live in Wycoff and have a car, or I can live in Newark.

Yeah that's a really great alternative.

Rob, I'm the liberal here but you are the one playing victim. You aren't forced to buy gas, you made decisions that you knew would require the purchase of gas. You could have and still can make choices which would allow you not to. I don't like the profits of the oil companies any more than you but I don't blame them if I choose to drive a long distance to work etc. and tell my own family the same thing, choose an economy car, live close to work, don't drive unnecessarily. I've even been considering switching to a bike to get to work but that is more for health reasons though. I do live close enough for it to be practical during the cooler months but not in the Florida heat of summer.

"It is any other corporation's duty to earn profits for themselves and their investors."

This is true. Capitalist firms have no other duty than to maximize profits. If you don't like this, maybe you should question your support of capitalism, or, at least, capitalism in its current form.

Why not? Because you don't feel like dealing with the hassle.

Posted by JOE


Would have to settle for an apartment over a house. Would have to pay more for general cost of living. Pollution is higher. Crime is exponentially higher. people are poorer. Schools are shittier. and so on and so forth...

"its a process that would take decades, so they are just fucked."

Only because they are too lazy to change their lifestyle.

You aren't forced to buy gas

Yes I am. I own two cars. In order to operate them, I have to buy gas.

you made decisions that you knew would require the purchase of gas.

Yeah... I'm the a hole for wanting to succeed in life.

I don't like the profits of the oil companies any more than you but I don't blame them if I choose to drive a long distance to work etc

My job is 12 miles away and I worked out a deal with my boss to work from home two days a week. I fill up at most every other week. Both my car and my wifes car get great gas mileage.

But when we have to fill up, we are being taken advantage of.

"Like you said, you can't expect all of suburbia to move into cities... its a process that would take decades, so they are just fucked."

People aren't going to move back into the cities in any significant numbers until gas prices at least double or triple. There's far too much invested in roads, highways, bridges, suburban infrastructure, etc.

Only because they are too lazy to change their lifestyle.

Posted by JOE


You obviously have no family.

And like you said, if everyone woke up tomorrow and was suddenly motivated (since we're all just lazy) it wouldn't be possible for us all to move to the cities... the infrastructure, housing, job market doesn't exist to support such a move.

"Yes I am. I own two cars. In order to operate them, I have to buy gas."

Sell them.

"Yeah... I'm the a hole for wanting to succeed in life."

You don't need a car to succeed. We've already established that.

"My job blah blah blah blah"

Get a new job.

"Would have to settle for an apartment over a house. Would have to pay more for general cost of living. Pollution is higher. Crime is exponentially higher. people are poorer. Schools are shittier. and so on and so forth..."

More whining. There are plenty of low-crime areas in large cities. Pollution is higher in part because you use a car. There are plenty of great private schools within these low-crime neighborhoods.

Bottom line, there are solutions to the problems you whine about. You simply aren't motivated enough by the high price of gas to go out and look for them. Just motivated enough to complain.

"Only because they are too lazy to change their lifestyle."

That is so arrogant. Doesn't have anything to do with "laziness". People have lives, friends, family, houses in the suburbs. People cannot just rip up their lives to live next to a public transit stop. Cheap oil furnished by the "free market" is what got us into this mess, and a century of suburban development can't be reversed overnight.

"And like you said, if everyone woke up tomorrow and was suddenly motivated (since we're all just lazy) it wouldn't be possible for us all to move to the cities... the infrastructure, housing, job market doesn't exist to support such a move."

Which was only an indication that your hypothetical was bogus. The realistic example of what I suggest is very plausible.

Perhaps the use the term "lazy" was taking it a little too far. What I should have said is that peoples' lifestyles are more important to them than the price of gas.

I've got to take off. Later guys.

If gas prices have your panties in a bunch and the few bucks more a week is breaking you, well then you have other things to worry about.

Joe, you think the fair-tax is "based on a 23% rate"? No, over-simplified, it's based on a consumption tax rather than a payroll tax. I mean, let's be serious, or lets just let it be. In my view anyhow.

Danni, I have no idea what you are thinking when you claim that all our problems are based on a "republican" mind-set. Do you know what you really mean?

First off, We don't have our economic problems because we have a fair consumption tax system, so I don't see what my views have to do with anything you rant about. Second, we are not in our mess because republicans took over banking and regulation either. We are in this mess because BOTH PARTIES overplayed our hand and OVER COMMITTED our resources. Health care is a cost problem, pure and simple. They need to CUT COSTS! One way or another. Neither party has yet even talked about that. Who are you blaming? Me? Bush? Crazy woman, get real.

Also, Iraq was a BIPARTISAN affair. Neither one has cut funding yet. BOTH are to blame for their posturing. We're in debt up to our ass as individuals because there was NO OVERSIGHT. BOTH parties installed industry cronies to write and enforce the rules. If they'd just get the lobbyists' hands out of their asses, simplify the rules to mean something, and enforce the damn rules on the books without delay, we'd actually know what is what. As it stands, you're blowing hot air getting partisan on me for wanting to eliminate special interests and simplify to the point everyone understands it. And equal is fair, whether you like it or not.

This affirmative action for the economically disadvantaged BS is old news. Thank god we repubs cut that fat in 1994 paving the way for the late 90's. We're in America for God's sake. You can preach discrimination all day long, but where else can people have a house, car, cell phone, Nike's, and a HUGE diamond in your ear and be considered "disadvantaged"? Not all of them, but some. We know America rewards those who work hard and get educated. Why slap them in the face by telling them once they reach certain income levels, they have to support someone's laziness and Nike habit? THAT is a bad system for everyone.

It's not just gas prices. It's everything all and I mean ALL prices are affected by fuel costs. If you don't understand that then... well you're just plain fuckin' stupid. The middle class is getting screwed bad and there are a lot of dishonest motherfuckers colluding to do it. Break your chains and open your eyes to the real fucking deal: the "free market" only works for those that already have money or those that get lucky.

Kevin, I was just saying where the "Fair Tax" philosophy comes from. It is part of the agenda to reduce tax on wealthy people which is represented by the REpublican party. I don't disagree with you about much of what you say but I do definitely disagree with a regressive tax system that will shift the burden more onto the backs of the middle class. The Fair Tax will do just that. Shifting tax burden has always been part of the REpublican agenda.

"Shifting tax burden has always been part of the REpublican agenda."

Pardon for saying, but what choice do they have since the Democrats refuse to help LOWER the tax burden?

Danni-

"Shifting tax burden has always been part of the REpublican agenda"

Maybe. Democrats too though. They're both guilty of tinkering for the worst and obstructing meaningful overhaul. But shifting the tax burden to those who make the money, equally, is a good starting point for anyone I'd think. If not, I question YOUR motives.

Danni, would you oppose a gasoline tax, too, simply because it dis-proportionally affects the poor and middle class? Even if it went to secure our energy independence?

"Danni, would you oppose a gasoline tax, too, simply because it dis-proportionally affects the poor and middle class? Even if it went to secure our energy independence?""

We already have gas taxes but yes, I think I would oppose any tax that increases the tax burden on the middle class which is already struggling. I want the Bush tax cuts repealed or let them expire and then see where we are. With the same taxes that we paid under Bill Clinton we had prosperity and we were beginning to balance the budget. I won't make the claim that there was a real surplus because that is debatable. I would also use the money we now spend in Iraq to develop energy independence.
It's going to energy anyway, just now new alternative source and not for independence, it's going to insure the long term profit of oil companies. I think the idea that this war was discussed in Cheney's secret energy meetings tells us everything we need to know about it.

""But shifting the tax burden to those who make the money, equally, is a good starting point for anyone I'd think."

If, by that you mean to eliminate the "progressive" nature of our present income tax system then no I would not agree. As I said in an earlier post (on this thread I think?) wealth redistribution though an ugly concept to conservatives, is a necessary component of our tax policy. Without it the concentration of wealth becomes to great at the top. I think most politicians are afraid to express this concept and instead use other excuses for progressivity in tax rates but the bottom line is that is what it does. I am not a politician so I don't have to be afraid of calling it what it is.
As I have said many times, words demonized by years of condemnation has the effect of making people fear or hate concepts that are actually necessary and so are disguised as other concepts. WEalth redistribution is such a concept, it goes against the very idea of property ownership but without it even the rich would eventually suffer in a society where all the wealth is too concentrated. South America existed that way for centuries and though some are rich their lives are still less enjoyable than less wealthy people can enjoy here in the US. That is because we have not allowed such terrible concentration of wealth and for the most part it is safe to go outside. In many South American and Caribbean nations that is not the case. When people are hungry and angry they are dangerous.

"With the same taxes that we paid under Bill Clinton we had prosperity and we were beginning to balance the budget."

It had nothing to do with republicans cutting entitlements in the '94 movement? It had nothing to do with innovation? ...a little series of tubes called the internet? It had nothing to do with the fact that Clinton cut the military budget (peace dividend)? You say it was the economic brilliance of the Clintons that gave you the expansion AND bubbles of the 90's?

"I would also use the money we now spend in Iraq to develop energy independence."

Way too round about. Companies are already investing heavily and being far more effective than government ever could be. We should help THEM...not make it political. But what is wrong with having the people who consume the old stuff that needs replacing due to over-use actually pay for the new breaks based solely upon how much of it they use? ie consumption tax. How is it rich people's fault in NYC that people in Alabama drive too big of trucks? Your system makes zero sense except from a welfare standpoint.

""You say it was the economic brilliance of the Clintons that gave you the expansion AND bubbles of the 90's?""

I don't care who gets the credit for it. Clinton did propose the budgets that the Congress approved though.
Reforming welfare, etc. is part of the normal operation of the government and should be ongoing all the time.

"How is it rich people's fault in NYC that people in Alabama drive too big of trucks?"

Fair point, probably you are right about that, to discourage waste we probably would have to make gas more expensive through a tax, similar to Europe. It would be a good idea to use that money to develop a replacement energy source. I think I actually do agree with you on that. No pain, no gain.

I think where people are mistaken is that the correlation between quality of life and wealth is not linear. I think perhaps you can see this when you look at parties given by the wealthy for their children. Even at the "confiscatory" tax rate we have many still manage to spend more on a sweet 16 party than many people make in say 3 years. Now clearly they are not hurting by any means. I don't know if I wholly agree with the progressive tax system but I think it is clear that the wealthy are far from hurting. It may be that when you take the yolk off the backs of the lower and middle class it lifts the whole up. That would be an interesting study.

"I don't care who gets the credit for it. Clinton did propose the budgets that the Congress approved though.
Reforming welfare, etc. is part of the normal operation of the government and should be ongoing all the time. "

But Danni, that WAS your whole point...that correlation meant causation, therefore you believed that democratic positions on the economy were more effective. I'll give Clinton credit for not using the veto. But inaction is not the same as affiliation.

"Fair point, probably you are right about that..."

Thank you. So why is it that financing the federal government's budget (defense, social security, medicare, education, etc.) is not as important as funding energy independence? Seems peculiar to me. Every person who benefits from our economy (ie owns/consumes something) they pay their fair share for the common welfare and defense. Why is it more the responsibility of the rich than the others? Rich will pay more, because they own and consume more. But why more than their benefit? By the way, I agree with the estate tax...rich people should not be allowed to hoard money over the generations. Non-rich people should still be exempted because we want them to work hard for their children. Obviously there is a threshold of what is necessary for motivation.

"Fair point, probably you are right about that, to discourage waste we probably would have to make gas more expensive through a tax, similar to Europe"

We can tax ourselves, and keep more money in this country, or we can send it to OPEC.

"But Danni, that WAS your whole point...that correlation meant causation, therefore you believed that democratic positions on the economy were more effective."

Nonsense, higher taxes caused greater revenue with which they could pay the government's bills. Lower taxes for the wealthy left the government with too little revenue on the dream that the wealthy would use those dollars saved in the old "trickle down" scheme which supposedly will create jobs but never really does....even after the third or fourth attempt under virtually every REpublican President.
The only honest (at least about that one thing) REpublican President rightly called it Voodoo economics. Now John McCain who used to be honest about it has sold his sold and is singing the praises of this disastrous gift to the wealthy.

Following the logic of the Cons here, the ideal government is one that does not collect any taxes. In such a country we'd all be wealthy. Somalia, Afghanistan, Bolivia come to mind. How many millionaires do they have there? Are people leaving Beverly Hills for Slovakia because the tax rate is lower?
Basically, corporations want no taxes but they need a country with a social infrastructure or they would not have any consumers for their products. They'd be trying to sell to beggers. So they want taxes collected--just not on them.
Know this: Since 1960 the taxes on corporations have been cut in half, while those on individuals have doubeled. And we still have more millionaires than anywhere else. So, save those crocodile tears for the poor overtaxed corporations.

Danni-

You really think that increasing tax rates equals increasing revenue? Run that by ANY economist and they'll all tell you its only true up to a point, then it is counterproductive to revenue. Everyone in America with a high school diploma really should know that. I realize they don't. Sigh.

Well - here comes what you guys have all been wanting....Higher taxes on gas did not change the use of cars in Europe - only forced them to drive more diesels - and the result is a nice layer of black goo on the streets of all the major cities.

As for "Tax the Rich" - where is the America that wanted everyone to become rich...that was the American dream..and can is still for people who sacrifice, save, invest and work. The "Rich" currently pay 90% of the taxes paid in the US...how much more do you want them to pay? (by the way per the Democratic Tax inititives - to make the numbers work it is anyone making more than $48K....I do not call that "Rich"

This idea of "redistribution of wealth" is nothing more than legalised stealing.

Why should you (or I) get money from the government (which is just taken from another citizen) just because we failed to save or invest or live within our means? Why should someone who did not get off their ass and go to work get money from the people who did? Where in world did a GOVERNMENT create wealth or prosperity?

Why should you take money from a guy who worked hard to make a better life for his children ...only to have you steal it from him just because he died?

Just because he did the right things and other did not is no excuse...you are just using the government as a front for your own lack of effort or incompetence.

This info comes from the US government:

Between 1985 and 1989, the worldwide average highest marginal tax rate fell from 55.5 percent to 46.7 percent, reflecting a desire of governments to increase revenue and reduce the harmful effects of high tax rates. Yet the highest marginal tax rate in most countries is still twice as high as the rate that would maximize government revenue. It appears that almost every country could increase tax collections by continuing to lower the highest tax rate.

Tax rates affect not only government revenues, but also economic efficiency and economic growth. Some government spending (for example, on infrastructure) may actually improve a country's economic efficiency and stimulate economic growth. But beyond that level, higher tax rates divert resources from the private sector, encourage the waste of resources through tax avoidance and channel resources into the less productive underground (or informal) economy.

So if Europe had such a great system, why did they all follow Reagon's footsteps and lower their marginal rates?

"Well - here comes what you guys have all been wanting....Higher taxes on gas did not change the use of cars in Europe - only forced them to drive more diesels - and the result is a nice layer of black goo on the streets of all the major cities. "

They couldn't just tax diesel, too?

"Higher taxes on gas did not change the use of cars in Europe"

Rubbish. Decades of higher gasoline taxes have caused Europeans to drive more efficient cars, develop superior public transit systems, and consequently, use energy at a much lower rate per capita. And, not develop energy intensive housing patterns, i.e., suburbia.

"The "Rich" currently pay 90% of the taxes paid in the US...how much more do you want them to pay?"

That's total bullshit. Obviously you are only talking about federal income taxes. When you include ALL taxes, we have basically a flat tax structure.

"When you include ALL taxes, we have basically a flat tax structure."

I'd LOVE to see how that breaks down. Please show me.

I live in CA and NYC (relatively high sales taxes) and it is below 8%. A state gas tax will cost an SUV owner a few bucks per fill-up. That's nothing comparatively. Compare that to the AMT.

Property taxes only affect the top half who own property. So I'm not seeing the balance, here.

I have been an Executive Recruiter for over a decade now. The industries our firm serves is the foodservice and consumer products industry. In our foodservice division we source candidates for large manufacturers (primarily food companies) that sell their products to the restaurants. We source both mid level and executive level management in both sales and marketing.

WE HAVE SO MUCH BUSINESS WE CANNOT KEEP UP WITH IT.

In 2001 after 9/11 and the following recession in a good part of 2002, we were very quiet. This is totally different. If people were in dire financial straights, they would not being dining out. When they are not dining out, our business slows. We are booming. I just don't see this as a recession.

I just don't see this as a recession.

Economic myopia is pandemic.

Bill O-

Calculate over a lifetime and the results magically change. This discrepancy is pointed out right in Adler's (a very liberal guy, BTW) own paper.

ALTMAN: For a couple who earn the minimum wage, Professor Kotlikoff calculated a lifetime negative tax rate, or subsidy, of 32 percent. The rate becomes positive quickly, though, rising to a tax of 30 percent for couples earning just three times the minimum wage. For the families with the highest incomes, the tax rate reaches about 50 percent.

The industries our firm serves is the foodservice and consumer products industry.

Swanson foods or tyson foods is what? Now in our public schools.

In our foodservice division we source candidates for large manufacturers (primarily food companies) that sell their products to the restaurants. We source both mid level and executive level management in both sales and marketing.

Food service mainly restaurants and "large manufacturing"............LOL!

Source midlevel and executive level management in sales and marketing........LOL! Having a difficult time finding people to accept executive positions for 14.00 bucks an hour at the meat packing plant.

LOL Kevin,

I have to laugh at your ignorance and how niave you seem to be.

Even Warren Buffet has pointed out that he pays less taxes than the normal people.

You are nothing but a self serving anti-American with the fortunate luck to earn enough money and want the government to protect your ass without you having to support such protection.

Any educated individual knows that the tax structure is favoring the rich and all other suggestions like "fair tax" favors the rich even more.

Wake up and educate yourself to the structure of our tax system and the effects it is causing across our country. And I can clearly tell you, the rich are NOT close to contributing their share of the burden.

Moneywar-

You have no idea what you are talking about. My support for a consumption tax has nothing to do with me thinking rich people pay more in FEDERAL INCOME TAX. In fact, I'm the one constantly mentioning that comment by Warren Buffett every time Corky pops off. Next time you think you should intervene in a conversation, get it right.

Bill O gave me evidence for a claim that ALL TAXES COMBINES were flat that contradicted itself. If you want to address that, feel free. But pretending I have a diff. position so you can attack it is juvenile and unproductive. Think before you post.

The real economy is in grave danger and will continue to struggle for years until more money is put into the hands of the majority of Americans.

The rich need little in gaining more money, that's the problem in the first place.

People working at walmart can't afford to consumer spend anymore, hell, they can't even afford to shop at walmart anymore.

the rich are NOT close to contributing their share of the burden.

Crony capitalism aside, but they are way ahead in contributing more than their fair share of the nation's wealth. Money has an envy streak in him.

The real economy is in grave danger and will continue to struggle for years until more money is put into the hands of the majority of Americans.

Talk about brain dead economics. Money is not wealth. It's a medium of exchange and a store of value. This economy is headed for a fall because of too much money. That's the root cause of inflation and what kills the value of money.

Ray-

"Money is not wealth. It's a medium of exchange and a store of value. This economy is headed for a fall because of too much money. That's the root cause of inflation and what kills the value of money."

Thanks for injecting some common sense. Everyone screaming that the FED didn't flood the market with currency fast enough will sing a whole different tune when inflation rears its ugly head.

Consumption Tax.....LOL! The only worthless individual who is suggesting we should propagate more poverty than the 2.5 million increase every year since 2000 is you Kevin.

Ray,

Not interested in you neo-classical austrian economic bull shit. It does nothing but create what we have now, rich in few and poor in the masses.

Too bad you can't seem to think about the posterity of our country, instead just looking out to save all your deductions to keep what the majority don't have.

Envy Ray,

I know I make more than you yet I can see the problems with this nation, why can't you. You go on and on about buying gold and silver but never ever address what we as a nation needs to do to make the economy work for the people, instead you suggest the people should work for the economy.

Well, your buyer beware style of economics is right in league with Bush and Hillary so you should be on cloud nine.

"Bill O gave me evidence for a claim that ALL TAXES COMBINES were flat that contradicted itself."

What are you talking about? Nobody earns minimum wage for their entire life, so your example was irrelevant.

Moneywar is an idiot. No info, just blind liberal propaganda and flame-throwing. Your posts are what is "worthless".

"Not interested in you neo-classical austrian economic bull shit. It does nothing but create what we have now, rich in few and poor in the masses."

It's total bullshit, Money. Austrian economics is just trickle-down economics.

"Nobody earns minimum wage for their entire life, so your example was irrelevant."

That wasn't the point at all Bill. Did I lose you with all them fancy two syllable words, or will you go back and read what you linked and explain (the author could not when directly questioned about it later) why the numbers dramatically change as you average tax liability over a lifetime?

Talk about brain dead economics. Money is not wealth. It's a medium of exchange and a store of value. This economy is headed for a fall because of too much money. That's the root cause of inflation and what kills the value of money.

Pull your engineering linear head out of your arse it is confusing you to no end.

Money is not wealth, I am sure you would be willing to give it all up.

What do you work for? Fish? Peanuts?? See how that gets you trade in shoes.

Ray I figured you knew enough about me and our years of conversation to know I was talking about WAGES.

I know all about inflation and the only people who are increasing their wage above inflation is the top 10% but that doesn't matter right?!!!

I know I make more than you yet I can see the problems with this nation, why can't you.
Posted by moneywar

I love it when old farts like you claim you make more. In the next breath, you're looking to suckle on the Goverment tit. Why are you being a puss? Did you just find out that Hillay had a seat on the Walmart Board years ago?

"Money is not wealth"

Tell it to somebody who doesn't have any money.

"Nobody earns minimum wage for their entire life, so your example was irrelevant."


Anything under 14.00 dollars an hour is minimum wage and I see you don't seem to know what the average family of 4 earn in a year.

Like I said, go educate yourself before you make our country worse than what it is already.

Bill-

Yes, I read it. Did you? My example was copied directly FROM that link. Why don't you have an answer?

Well if you read it you must've missed this:

Altman points out that the universal tax-distribution picture does change somewhat when we shift from a current-day snapshot to a more longitudinal analysis. Citing a study by Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist, Altman writes that over a lifetime, couples whose annual income averages out to the minimum wage receive 32 cents in government benefits for every dollar they earn, while households whose annual income averages out to $1 million pay 51 cents on every dollar earned. (All calculations are in constant, present-day dollars.) This analysis shows the tax system to be more progressive than Altman's chart does because a person's tax bite relative to income tends to rise precipitously during retirement. (You stop earning a salary but keep paying taxes.) Also, these two examples are pretty extreme...

"I know all about inflation and the only people who are increasing their wage above inflation is the top 10% but that doesn't matter right?!!!"

Average wages were around $3K per year in 1951. Today? Almost $40K. Inflation only averages between 2-3.5% per year. You got anything substantive?

And what about in the ACTUAL TEXT and NOT the SUMMARY, where he freely admits:

"For a couple who earn the minimum wage, Professor Kotlikoff calculated a lifetime negative tax rate, or subsidy, of 32 percent. The rate becomes positive quickly, though, rising to a tax of 30 percent for couples earning just three times the minimum wage. For the families with the highest incomes, the tax rate reaches about 50 percent."

Did you only read the good parts as summarized by the liberal Times writer who later couldn't answer this very question?

Maybe I'd respect your "facts" more if you could answer question number one about them, Bill O.

That question has already been answered. Sorry if you don't like the results.

I'll give you all night to think about it Bill O. Reading the actual text linked to the summary is a good start albeit time consuming. Lets see if you actually care about the topic, or if you'll just take an easy way out by avoiding it.

Home I go!

I do live close enough for it to be practical during the cooler months but not in the Florida heat of summer.


I have been in Orlando in late July. Nothing like sweating profusely after 10 seconds walking.

"over a lifetime, couples whose annual income averages out to the minimum wage receive 32 cents in government benefits for every dollar they earn, while households whose annual income averages out to $1 million pay 51 cents on every dollar earned. "

Who in the fuck has a lifetime earnings average to the minimum wage? 1 percent of the population? 5 percent?

"Doesn't appear to be FLAT at all....but maybe BillyO has more data,, or taxes..."

Did you read my link, Andrea?

Oh, and Andrea, does your link talk about ALL taxes, are just income taxes?

Moneywar is an idiot. No info, just blind liberal propaganda and flame-throwing. Your posts are what is "worthless".

LOL!!!!

" Reading the actual text linked to the summary is a good start albeit time consuming."

I read the text, dipshit. But you go run away now, Kevin.

Tell it to somebody who doesn't have any money.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2008-02-07 07:43 PM |

Imagine you were stranded on a deserted island and a box washed ashore. Would you rather it be money or tools? I'll bet you would rather have the tools.

You create wealth by creating things people value. There is no other way. Creating money only devalues the value of money. It works in the inverse.

Paper money is like religion, dependent on faith. It's value is dependent on faith. Commodities and precious metals have intrinsic value. A Roman coin is still worth its weight in gold. See what you get for a Continental?

I know I make more than you yet I can see the problems with this nation, why can't you. You go on and on about buying gold and silver but never ever address what we as a nation needs to do to make the economy work for the people, instead you suggest the people should work for the economy.

This nation needs honest money and I'm doing my part to lead the way. It needs honest politicians which is why I don't vote. I constantly make suggestions and I'm ignored. So go ahead and suffer. I'm not.

"Money is not wealth"

Tell it to somebody who doesn't have any money.

I said it is a medium of exchange and a store of value. If you have nothing of value you have nothing to exchange.

"Imagine you were stranded on a deserted island and a box washed ashore. Would you rather it be money or tools?"

I'd rather it be tools, rather than gold.

"Would you rather it be money or tools?"

I'd take a portable ham radio station and a GPS so I can tell someone where the fuck I am.

Zat - that's a tool.

If money was wealth, all we need to be wealthy is the Federal Reserve. Print lots of money and spread the wealth. Look up Weimer Republic.

I'd rather it be tools, rather than gold.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2008-02-07 08:33

And you would be correct.

I said it is a medium of exchange and a store of value. If you have nothing of value you have nothing to exchange.

Let me get this straight, money is a store of value but in the same breath you say it has nothing of value.

And what is wealth, a store of value? Does this mean the wealthy are storing money or and exchange of value to money.

Like I said, your engineering linear thinking has put a strangle hold on your ability to grasp the problems facing America.

"Why do you think they are doing this, they want money in the hands of the majority of the people so they will spend it, consume."

Drop in the bucket. It'll help a few stock prices. That's about it. Putting people to work building something that'll in turn continue to spur the economy is better. Instead they throw out a cookie and people swoon. lol.

Bill O-

Great, you read it. Now answer the question. Its that simple. Did you not understand the question? Or are you too stupid to understand that was what I was asking for?

Or avoid it. Whatever.

And what does the island with one person have to do with a nation with millions.

Your rational thought is just like the idiot austrian neo-classical thinker, thinking the economy runs on prudent rational thinking.

People do unrational things everyday of the week, particularly when it comes to consumption. The only time it begins to get more and more rational is when the consumer doesn't have money for spending.

Look out at the economy, it is getting more rational by the day.

"Did you not understand the question?"

Did you ask an intelligent question for a change?

Let me get this straight, money is a store of value but in the same breath you say it has nothing of value.

I said no such thing. In the deserted island scenario there is no one to trade with, so money has no value.

Does this mean the wealthy are storing money or and exchange of value to money.

I'm not sure I understand you. It means that if you save cash or bonds, they will lose value over time. Hence they are a poor store of value by the very fact that they will buy less in the future.

Like I said, your engineering linear thinking has put a strangle hold on your ability to grasp the problems facing America.

I know this topic too well, Money. You'll just have to learn the hard way.

And what does the island with one person have to do with a nation with millions.

I gave what I thought was a vivid example to distinguish the difference between money and wealth. Is this too complicated for you to grasp, Money?

Your rational thought is just like the idiot austrian neo-classical thinker, thinking the economy runs on prudent rational thinking.

I never made that claim, nor would I. I explained in many different ways why money is not wealth. The common confusion is one source of our economic troubles. You seem to have a block about it.

Do you have some kind of point here, Ray? Ok, money (in your extreme scenario) is not necessarily wealth. I get it. So what?

""Doesn't appear to be FLAT at all....but maybe BillyO has more data,, or taxes..."

The drive by blogger strikes again. Then runs away without answering any questions. As usual.

Only in my extreme scenario Reilly? You still don't get it, but never mind.

"but never mind"

Ok. If you can't answer my question as to the relevance of your scenario to the real world...

I answered your questions in my posts above. If you don't get it, I'm not going to repeat myself. This economy is cooked for the many reasons I've explained to you on innumerable occasions and you deny. There is no practical way out.

"This economy is cooked "

Well, that's capitalism for you. Boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust.

This is what you get when you take the free out of capitalism. Socialism and fascism destroy what free market capitalism creates. A hundred years of inflation are coming to a crashing end. All because people confused money for wealth.

"This is what you get when you take the free out of capitalism. "

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

A hundred years of inflation are coming to a crashing end. All because people confused money for wealth.

A hundered? Try "thousands". Inflation has been a fact since the dawn of mercantilism. Like unemployment, it is a part of a healthy economy.

It is impossible to walk the hair line breadth of no inflation, no unemployment, no downturn in an economy. It has never happened and never will. Why people cry that there is never zero inflation, zero unemployment I don't know. I guess they never took economics 101.

Well, that's capitalism for you. Boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust.

100%. Another constant in the capitalistic economic formula.

Not booms that were juiced up on cheap credit. Cycles are part of capitalism, yes. But overconsumption and catastrophic busts are a product of government intervention.

Goat
I'm counting the date of the origin of the Federal Reserve as the beginning of this inflationary cycle.

They start off with a strong currency and no noticeable price increase, and end with a collapse of the currency.

"Cycles are part of capitalism, yes."

Agreed.

"But overconsumption and catastrophic busts are a product of government intervention."

Disagree. There were depressions in the 19th century when government was vastly smaller than today.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2008-02-07 09:47 PM |

For as long as you believe ideology trumps reality.

"100%. Another constant in the capitalistic economic formula."

You're absolutely correct, Goatman. The cyclical nature of capitalism was observed in the 18th century. This fiction that only government is responsible is, well, a fiction.

"For as long as you believe ideology trumps reality."


Actually I believe reality trumps free market ideology.

Those depressions had quick recoveries. There was government intervention there too, but not to the degree it is today. We don't have time to go into each one.

The problem with a central bank is that it synchronizes the whole economy. In a free market, cycles are unsynchronized and confined to the affected sector. Just think, every central bank is trying to synchronize itself with the world economy. This is going to be one mother of a worldwide depression.

It will be interesting to see how the anti-capitalists blame free market capitalism when it doesn't exist.

The stock market shows it.

Now is the time to buy!

You confuse science for ideology.

"It will be interesting to see how the anti-capitalists blame free market capitalism when it doesn't exist."

True, free market capitalism doesn't exist, and never will. Regulated markets are the norm, because people will not tolerate the pain inflicted by unregulated capitalism.

"You confuse science for ideology."

You confuse Austrian economics with science?

The cyclical nature of capitalism was observed in the 18th century. This fiction that only government is responsible is, well, a fiction.

Mises explained cycles, the different stages and why government intervention makes them worse than they would otherwise be. There is always a correction phase in cycles. When government prevents the correction phase, the imbalances continue to build.

But why am I wasting my time on a Marxist? It always gets into a your-word-against-mine argument. Time to go.

There's nothing "scientific" about neo-classical economics or Austrian economics or any school of economics.

True, free market capitalism doesn't exist, and never will.

In physics there is no such thing as perpetual machine either, but the concept is used as a standard by which to measure friction.

Regulated markets are the norm, because people will not tolerate the pain inflicted by unregulated capitalism.

You can't begin to imagine they pain they will be compelled to suffer because of over-regulated capitalism. Too much of anything is lethal.

"You can't begin to imagine they pain they will be compelled to suffer because of over-regulated capitalism. "

Actually, the pain they will feel, and are feeling now, is a result of under-regulated capitalism.

Austrian theory is predictive and well as descriptive. That what makes it science and why I see the future and you don't.

Under regulated???!!! Time to leave.

"Austrian theory is predictive and well as descriptive. That what makes it science and why I see the future and you don't."

Thanks, Miss Cleo, but there is nothing scientific about Austrian economics. It's an ideology, nothing more.

Without the War on Terror (TM), the economy would be over. The financial benefit of the War on Terror (TM) goes all through the national economy. Another great contributor to the national economy is the endless desire for inexpensive consumer products from other countries.

For now, most people who still have enough money to participate in this economy will keep the machine running. As more people wise up, the national economy based on stupidity will grind to a halt.

How to stay ahead? Rent your shelter. Real estate is a sucker bet for poor people. Buy used transportation. Let someone else smoke the depreciation. Cut back on your demands for utilities. Be a little bit uncomfortable and wear a sweater or sit in front of a fan, depending on the season. Cut your own grass. Prepare your own food.

Finally, stop watching television, or at least cut way back. Much of the cognitive dissonance we experience can be attributed to the false reality presented to us by television broadcasters. You may have to trust me on this, but not everyone lives in a 2500 sq ft home, drives a new car, and earns $300,000 as a high-powered lawyer. Striving to live this neverland life style will only make you crazy.

The Hog Farm hippies from 1970 were right. sadly, the hippie movement was turned into a franchise.

"Property taxes only affect the top half who own property. So I'm not seeing the balance, here."

Huh???? You mean that where you live owners or rental properties don't have to pay property tax on it??? Er....where do they get the funds to pay their property tax??? Rent???? Thus property tax is a portion of rent. In fact, here in Florida, renters pay higher property tax than homeowners because rental property doesn't qualify for homestead exemption(s).

Danni-

Property taxes can only be passed on if the rental market will bear it. And since roughly only half of Americans own property, the other half merely pay the fair market rental value. They are two VERY different things. Your analysis is lacking.

I see Bill O refused to answer the question. I figured as much. Thanks for all the proof I needed that you don't even read the crap you link.

"Property taxes can only be passed on if the rental market will bear it."

"Your analysis is lacking."

Baloney. You look at the amount which would be paid in mortgage and taxes to purchase a place and then look at the amount of rent collected on a similar place (based on Fort Lauderdale) and the renter is getting screwed. Plus here in FL, homestead exemption includes a limitation on tax assessment value to 3% which means that many homeowners who have live in their homes for a few years pay thousands less than new home owners in similar homes. This doesn't apply to rental property so taxes are much higher and the owners reflect that in the rents they charge. If people who own rental properties pay taxes then the people who rent those properties are indirectly paying those taxes.
That is why I do not support the whole concept of homestead exemption, every property should be assessed on its appraised value regardless if the owner lives in it or not and regardless of how long the owner has owned it. This issue is currently in court and I think it will probably result in the overturning of the recent amendment passed which grants another advantage to homesteaded properties called portability.

Danni-

You give one example from FLORIDA of all places and suddenly you think you're on to some universal truth? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

The rental market is based on two things and two things only: supply and demand. Don't forget that.

No one pays more than market value unless they are stupid or desperate...it doesn't matter what the landlord's tax bill is. Why do you insist otherwise?

And you really don't know people who are paying more in costs than their rental properties are bringing in? Come to CA some time and I'll show you places that don't even bring in half their costs.

Where do you live? Wisconsin has Homestead Credit for renters. Except for a few Rethuglican asswipes and their anti-abortion nonsense, Wisconsin is a great, progessive state in which to live. Russ Feingold is one of my US Senators, and Herb Kohl is the other one. What do your representatives do for you?

"Wisconsin has Homestead Credit for renters."

Here in Florida the legislature just works against the interests of low income folks and renters. they just changed the law regarding leases, it used to be that if you broke a lease you could be sued for teh amount of loss that the property owner had, now they can sue you for the balance of the lease EVEN if they were able to re-rent the place immediately upon you leaving. The Florida Legislature disgusts me.

"...now they can sue you for the balance of the lease EVEN if they were able to re-rent the place immediately upon you leaving."

Danni-

Every state in the union has a law stating there is a duty for the landlord to mitigate damages. Are you really saying they revoked it? Sounds like a very serious accusation to me. If true, I'd be pissed. But I really do doubt it.

Kevin, I'm pretty sure about that change to the law here in Florida. I'll try to find a link about it.

"The rental market is based on two things and two things only: supply and demand. Don't forget that."

I understand your point but I still think if all landlords have to pay more taxes than homeowners who live on premises then it does reflect in the rent. You do have a point though because here in Fort Lauderdale there has been some decline in rent amounts due to overbuilding.

RAY THE ALMIGHTY

Is there a reason that you seem to disbelieve anyone that states that their current business is doing extremely well?

The Executive Search business is greatly effected by the economy. We are very busy. We were not busy after 9/11 and for a good part of 2002.

So RAY THE ALIMIGHY...if this is recession, why is business so strong?

Seems that you really want a recession or the better guess is that you want something else to pin on the Bush Administration.

Myopia...Maybe your right, I can't see past my large commission check

Exactly my point Chito. Recessions don't spread uniformly. There are signs elsewhere. Retail sales down, home sales down, gas sales down and more.

Ron Paul predicted the problems of the Iraq War, voted no.

Ron Paul predicted the recession, always votes to limit government spending.

Ron Paul predicted a depression... which clearly *won't* come true, not with liberals McCain, Clinton and Obama getting the network exposure for their nomination. They will fix the economy for sure!

Oh no! I mentioned Ron Paul! I'm a nutjob!