# Richest 1% threaten US economy



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If Obama gets his way, rich folks will have their taxes go up, at least the part above $250,000.00. The top tax bracket in the 1940s and 1950s was three times higher than what Obama is requesting.
In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas. 
So, weâd better not raise taxes on them or theyâll ruin our economy.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Do you have a credible source or is this just the warped fantasy of leftists?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Do you have a credible source or is this just the warped fantasy of leftists?


Please be more specific. What part don't you believe? The second paragraph is real because it is as true today as it has been over the past decade. Research the tax rates of the 1940s and 1950s if that's hard for you to swallow.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

The tax rates are easy to find.

I do find it amusing to see how the 'conservatives", who will point out the 50's as a Golden Era of America, refuse to even contemplate the tax rates of that era.


Heck, they might even crap a brick if they saw what rates Reagan had...

but yep, can't raise taxes.....


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

joseph97297 said:


> The tax rates are easy to find.
> 
> I do find it amusing to see how the 'conservatives", who will point out the 50's as a Golden Era of America, refuse to even contemplate the tax rates of that era.
> 
> ...


You're leaving out the fact that NO ONE paid those high tax rates. There were a number of deductions and tax credits that were eliminated when the rates were lowered. That made the EFFECTIVE tax rate back then about the same as it is now. The republicans are proposing doing the same thing again. Eliminating more deductions and credits while lowering rates.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

haypoint said:


> If Obama gets his way, rich folks will have their taxes go up, at least the part above $250,000.00. The top tax bracket in the 1940s and 1950s was three times higher than what Obama is requesting.
> In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas.
> So, weâd better not raise taxes on them or theyâll ruin our economy.


Everything they are threatening to do, they are already doing! Good example is Romney. He was doing this before tax rate increases.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

You may be missing the point.

Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy didn't work. It just made the richest richer. 
The actions that made this country strong was re-investment in this country. That has stopped. When money flows to the richest, it flows out of this country.
Lower taxes, raise taxes, no matter, the money isn't going to build jobs here. 
If the richest continue to invest in 3rd world economies, even when shipping it to the Us eats up their labor savings, they can create a peasant class right here at home. They jst need to wait out the government. Soon the welefare that holds wages up, will be gone and people can return to the dust bowl economy that built the wealth of the top .1%.

The threats of the wealthy are meaningless. They have already done these things. They hold no threat over the 99.9%. I say tax them, make this country's economy stronger. I think we'll see that even with higher taxes, the rich will gladly pay them, in order to remain in the best place in the world for rich people.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> Everything they are threatening to do, they are already doing! Good example is Romney. He was doing this before tax rate increases.


BINGO! You understand!!!!!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

poppy said:


> You're leaving out the fact that NO ONE paid those high tax rates. There were a number of deductions and tax credits that were eliminated when the rates were lowered. That made the EFFECTIVE tax rate back then about the same as it is now. The republicans are proposing doing the same thing again. Eliminating more deductions and credits while lowering rates.


and you believe that deductions that benifit the rich haven't crept back into the tax laws? Really? When the richest .1% fund 47% of all Washington poitical campaigns, you believe that they don't have a big say in tax law? Really?:l33t:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I enjoy seeing and knowing others who are doing better than me. It inspires me that I too and others can apply ourselves and learn skills to improve our lot in life. It is personally rewarding for myself to see others sucess. In knowing some people doing quite well I have only found those people to be quite sharing with what they have and what they can teach. 

Unfortunately it is harder and harder for them to find "apprentices" so few people are willing to risk being independent.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> I enjoy seeing and knowing others who are doing better than me. It inspires me that I too and others can apply ourselves and learn skills to improve our lot in life. It is personally rewarding for myself to see others sucess. In knowing some people doing quite well I have only found those people to be quite sharing with what they have and what they can teach.
> 
> Unfortunately it is harder and harder for them to find "apprentices" so few people are willing to risk being independent.


Yep, and many are offered opportunities that may require some work and risk, but rather belly ache how the 'rich' have more and do less.

I'm to the point of saying, let the rich stop paying what they do, and let the whiners, and even the non-whiners find out reality.

Sorta like the wife that does nothing all day, but when she stops the family finds out what that 'nothing' really covers.

This is a pitiful thread by envious that are not rich and want more from those that produce the jobs and purchases the things that make the job.

And I'll agree with one point - this making it a sin to be successful and prosperous through their own inginutiy and smarts and work, is driving the brains and work ethic people out of the country, or making it where many say "why bother" as if I make it - some twit will come along and whine they want more that they did not work for.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> If Obama gets his way, rich folks will have their taxes go up, at least the part above $250,000.00. The top tax bracket in the 1940s and 1950s was three times higher than what Obama is requesting.
> In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas.
> So, weâd better not raise taxes on them or theyâll ruin our economy.


So start your own company/business and hire whom ever you want..
Send in as much in taxes as you want without taking any of the legal deductions..
Keep the jobs where you want and pay how much you want.

It really is that simple!

Oh wait, I forgot it's about class envy and nothing more..

Amazing that the so-called 99% (at least according to OWS) can do nothing but cry and whine about the 1%..

If you don't like the 1% don't buy their products or patronize the businesses they are invested in... 

In plain words put money where your mouth is..


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> I enjoy seeing and knowing others who are doing better than me. It inspires me that I too and others can apply ourselves and learn skills to improve our lot in life. It is personally rewarding for myself to see others sucess. In knowing some people doing quite well I have only found those people to be quite sharing with what they have and what they can teach.
> 
> Unfortunately it is harder and harder for them to find "apprentices" so few people are willing to risk being independent.


Hey, Iâm all for the person that works hard and is successful. We should promote that. Most of the richest 20% in this country have gotten there through hard work or the hard work of their parents.
But the vast majority of the super wealthy didnât get there by hard work. It is hard for many people to understand the wealth and ways it was created, when we never get close to anyone in that group.
All too often we think about the guy that developed a chain of muffler shops or grew a trucking business. They are the rich workers. They depend on poor workers to grow their business and Iâm fine with that. 
But we have focused on the poor takers, those that have come to rely on government assistance, while we ignore the rich takers, the ones that operate businesses that rely on the government infrastructure, while shielding their wealth from paying for what they take.
But you donât need to spend your life searching out the complexities of the economy of the rich. Just know that not so long ago, the rich paid several times more than they pay today and they continue to maximize their wealth without care about what their choices does to the strength of this country or the plight of the worldâs most efficient workers.

By the way, my great great great uncle took on a young clerk as an apprentice to help run his firm. Uncle George Peabody gave JP Morgan his start. That worked out pretty good.


----------



## motdaugrnds (Jul 3, 2002)

Well, it makes no sense to me for Americans who use the freedoms and advantages this country offers them to become rich to then turn around and NOT BE LOVINGLY WILLING TO GIVE BACK TO THE USA!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> So start your own company/business and hire whom ever you want..
> Send in as much in taxes as you want without taking any of the legal deductions..
> Keep the jobs where you want and pay how much you want.
> 
> ...



Does it seem reasonable that a person that earns a thousand times more money than you do, likely uses a thousand times more of the federally funded infrastructure than you do? Does it seem reasonable that a person that has factories all over the world and gets protection from the US CIA and various branches of the military, should pay more than you do? Does it seem that when the CEOs and top Banking executives got bailed out and retirees lost their retirement savings that the richest folks were better represented than the poor senior citizens? Should the rich, therefore, repay the government support they got?

You can call it class envy if you want. Easier to turn your back on the breakdown of what made this country great than it is to admit the rich havenât been playing fair for a long time and we must wake up and steer our financial ship away from the rocks, even if it means all passengers will have to row for awhile. 

When Carnegie sold the Worldâs steel industry to JP Morgan, for a sum greater than the GDP of many countries, he passed on a monopoly that no one could break. When Rockefeller crushed competition to his monopoly of oil, no one could compete. But Teddy Roosevelt worked to break this up.
Today a few people control the Banking industry and Wall Street. They want to rake in insane profits, but they donât want to pay for the privilege.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

If I was "rich", I'd move my money AND myself to the Cayman Islands.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well this would create jobs for a lot of tax attorneys, right??


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> You may be missing the point.
> 
> Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy didn't work. It just made the richest richer.


You need to do a bit more research. EVERY TIME the feds cut the tax rates the amount of income coming into the US treasury increased because the economy improved.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> When Carnegie sold the Worldâs steel industry to JP Morgan, for a sum greater than the GDP of many countries, he passed on a monopoly that no one could break. When Rockefeller crushed competition to his monopoly of oil, no one could compete. But Teddy Roosevelt worked to break this up.
> Today a few people control the Banking industry and Wall Street. They want to rake in insane profits, but they donât want to pay for the privilege.


You do realize its the GOVERNMENT which actually controls banking and stock trading don't you? Banking is one of, if not the, MOST government controlled businesses in the US. Only the insurance and health care industry are even close.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Does it seem reasonable that a person that earns a thousand times more money than you do, likely uses a thousand times more of the federally funded infrastructure than you do? Does it seem reasonable that a person that has factories all over the world and gets protection from the US CIA and various branches of the military, should pay more than you do? Does it seem that when the CEOs and top Banking executives got bailed out and retirees lost their retirement savings that the richest folks were better represented than the poor senior citizens? Should the rich, therefore, repay the government support they got?
> 
> You can call it class envy if you want. Easier to turn your back on the breakdown of what made this country great than it is to admit the rich havenât been playing fair for a long time and we must wake up and steer our financial ship away from the rocks, even if it means all passengers will have to row for awhile.
> 
> ...


Take that word"fair" and put it away. Sinse we have abolished Slavery, the word we need to use is EQUAL. Everyone should pay an equal % of their income in Taxes. "Fair" dosen't hack it anymore-because whose to say what Fair is, some Commie in the WH, some punk sitting in Mommiies basement? You aren't bufflowing anyone with this class envy nonsence.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

poppy said:


> You're leaving out the fact that NO ONE paid those high tax rates. There were a number of deductions and tax credits that were eliminated when the rates were lowered. That made the EFFECTIVE tax rate back then about the same as it is now. The republicans are proposing doing the same thing again. Eliminating more deductions and credits while lowering rates.


Thank you for pointing this out. Its the other half of the story that liberals always conveniently leave out.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Funny.....back in the frontier days, it was a common and accepted practice to circle the wagons, in the event of a raid, for the purpose of more effectively protecting life and provision.

Now the "rich" circle the wagons to protect their hard-earned and they're demonized for it.

Taxes are not a virtue. They are a tool held in reserve to destroy a thing.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy". John Marshall

By what insanity is any man expected to submit to the first step of his destruction ?


Circle those wagons. :thumb:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

haypoint said:


> You may be missing the point.
> 
> Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy didn't work. It just made the richest richer.
> The actions that made this country strong was re-investment in this country. That has stopped. When money flows to the richest, it flows out of this country.
> ...


Utter nonsense. You have no concept of when, where, or why rich people invest and yet you lump them all together in that HORRIBLE 1%. Tell you what. As someone else said, start you a business. Everyone needs a hammer. Go into business making hammers here in the USA and you will learn something. Who was the dem Congressman who left Congress and went into business? George Mitchell maybe? Anyway, after a few years in business he admitted when he was in Congress he had no idea how hard it was to run a successful business with all the rules and red tape. He was a liberal who helped put all those rules and red tape into place.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

seems to me all this gnashing of teeth is more about NAFTA and the way it's destroyed our economy and the little guy is not getting as big a piece of the pie; using the rules put in place by the administration of the time, and the rules afterwards, People fuss and fuss. 

And most of the fussing ones have never had to have the responsibility of keeping a company going so the 20 or 30 or more people would even have a job, or insurance or be able to buy a house or a car, or send someone to college. Everytime you take a pay check, your employer is being responsible enough to keep a job for you, so you can spend the income from it.

I see so many ignornant people on threads like this. Blame the owners of companies and the ones that run them, without ever knowing what it takes to keep it going so there is a job for someone to fuss about.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Instead of a higher tax rate, we should have a law that requires the richest to pay 90% of the total income tax collected.

Oh wait, they are already doing that!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

bignugly said:


> Everything they are threatening to do, they are already doing! Good example is Romney. He was doing this before tax rate increases.


So was Obama and Sorros, so what's your point?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

We should take the hint.
When a country trys to put the bill for running the country on 1% of the people you should know there is a problem.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Please be more specific. What part don't you believe? The second paragraph is real because it is as true today as it has been over the past decade. Research the tax rates of the 1940s and 1950s if that's hard for you to swallow Haypoint


Don't play dumb. A credible source for threats as you described them. Everything you described is legal. History (historical tax rates that invited taxpayers to actively seek legal tax avoidance) must be viewed in the whole and in this case the tax rates fostered an industry tasked with avoiding onerous taxation. Your statements are propaganda of the worst sort. I would expect to find these sorts of statements in the Pravda of the 60s.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Cabin Fever said:


> Instead of a higher tax rate, we should have a law that requires the richest to pay 90% of the total income tax collected.
> 
> Oh wait, they are already doing that!


Yup. Because they earn 97% of the country's income.
Do you see something wrong with a country that has 47% of the people earning so little that they don't meet minimum income tax levels, while .1% collect 76% of the country's income?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Does it seem reasonable that a person that earns a thousand times more money than you do, likely uses a thousand times more of the federally funded infrastructure than you do? Does it seem reasonable that a person that has factories all over the world and gets protection from the US CIA and various branches of the military, should pay more than you do? Does it seem that when the CEOs and top Banking executives got bailed out and retirees lost their retirement savings that the richest folks were better represented than the poor senior citizens? Should the rich, therefore, repay the government support they got?
> 
> You can call it class envy if you want. Easier to turn your back on the breakdown of what made this country great than it is to admit the rich havenât been playing fair for a long time and we must wake up and steer our financial ship away from the rocks, even if it means all passengers will have to row for awhile.
> 
> ...


1. Show where they are using they are using more "infrastructure" then I am..

You use the word "likely" meaning it's only your perception/dream

2. Please prove to me that they are using the US CIA, Military etc and they do already pay more in taxes then I do..

3. Well we agree they shouldn't have been bailed out, but guess what Bush and Obama both promoted the bail outs.. IIRC there was 80% of us who spoke out about this and tried to stop it, but your idols and heroes, the DEM/Socialist party helped bail them out.. Likely to keep from losing their own investments.. So where is your disgust against the "green" company bailouts? Oh wait it doesn't exist, because a Socialist/Marxist party did it...

They already pay more taxes then I do.. 

I will continue to believe that you're envious of them and only want to take what they work for from them..

So the question is why do you and others continue to vote in some of the Richest people in the country?

So tell me why does Obamacare take money from Medicare, since you claim the Government is for the poor and elderly.. Why do they continually spend more than they have?
What are you smoking, that makes you believe that giving the Government more money, that they will pay down the debt?
Seriously!
They have already proven that their goal is Socialism.. They take from everyone and dole it out to the people in order to control them..

Yet you want to blame the rich for this, who want to keep their money..Yet the Government has proven time and time again they can't be trusted with more money..

Who raided the SS money and replaced it with IOU's? Wasn't the rich business men/women.. 

Funny how rich liberals always seem to have a team of tax attorneys on hand to pay as little as legally possible in taxes.. Buffet is one, Oprah another and the list goes on..But yet these same clowns want the "rich" to pay more..

Then they give other liberals lip service and folks like you swallow the bait hook line and sinker.. Thus promoting class envy, unless you are a liberal..

Why is it rich folks like Rangel and Geithner both got caught trying to evade taxes? yet they want more taxes from other rich folks..

Why is it Pelosi and others moved jobs off shore to avoid higher costs and taxes? Yet you want them to raise taxes on the rich and then complain about these rich folks doing the same thing as Pelosi..

Funny how that works..


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

and why on earth aren't there belly aches going on about the appointed Czars the didn't pay their hundreds of thousand of dollars in taxes UNTIL they were tapped to be a Czar, not vetted or legally looked at, for this administration.

The cheaters are in charge of the money house ....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Don't play dumb. A credible source for threats as you described them. Everything you described is legal. History (historical tax rates that invited taxpayers to actively seek legal tax avoidance) must be viewed in the whole and in this case the tax rates fostered an industry tasked with avoiding onerous taxation. Your statements are propaganda of the worst sort. I would expect to find these sorts of statements in the Pravda of the 60s.


If I undestand you correctly, you want a source for the threats by the rich to hire teams of tax attournys to avoid taxes, proof that the richest fund the majority of political campaigns, proof that the wealthiest get tax loopholes that the rest of us can't, and proof that the rich are keeping their money sheltered off shore, proof that the richest are investing in factories in 3rd world countries and proof that they are sending jobs overseas. Right?

Well, the point is that these aren't threats. They are the harsh facts of today in the US. It is already being done. 

You compare this to the propaganda of the Socialists of the 1960s? If you see Socialism as bad, how can you be content in a society where 47% live off the government, while 47% hork to support them and 6% watch from their Castles.

As the middle class shrinks, wealth amoung the .1% is growing ever faster. Human history has recorded many more generations where a few rule the masses than times when there were opportunities for the masses. If you continue to sleep, that's where we'll end up.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> and why on earth aren't there belly aches going on about the appointed Czars the didn't pay their hundreds of thousand of dollars in taxes UNTIL they were tapped to be a Czar, not vetted or legally looked at, for this administration.
> 
> The cheaters are in charge of the money house ....


Just more proof that the wealthy do not have to play by the same rules we do. Heck, they write the rules.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

enjoy your victimhood. I prefer to work my way up (again) and be someone you can fuss about and put down.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Just more proof that the wealthy do not have to play by the same rules we do. Heck, they write the rules.


Yet you want them to write more rules?

Sorry that logic doesn't work for me...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> seems to me all this gnashing of teeth is more about NAFTA and the way it's destroyed our economy and the little guy is not getting as big a piece of the pie; using the rules put in place by the administration of the time, and the rules afterwards, People fuss and fuss.
> 
> And most of the fussing ones have never had to have the responsibility of keeping a company going so the 20 or 30 or more people would even have a job, or insurance or be able to buy a house or a car, or send someone to college. Everytime you take a pay check, your employer is being responsible enough to keep a job for you, so you can spend the income from it.
> 
> I see so many ignornant people on threads like this. Blame the owners of companies and the ones that run them, without ever knowing what it takes to keep it going so there is a job for someone to fuss about.


Do you know anyone that benifits from NAFTA? Nope, me either. NAFTA is a way for th richest to undermine the American worker, exploit the 3rd World workers and maximize their profits. Plus its legal.

Too many people get confused about the radical differences between a small business owner (under 1000 employees) and the super rich that fill that .1% upper percent.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

The thing is, there will be much weeping and knashing of teeth, then the Democrats and Republicans will "compromise" (when everyone already knows exactly what is going to happen) with a deal that puts more taxes on the "rich" (who will use all of the existing tax loopholes in the mammoth tax code to not pay them anyways) and then both parties can pretend that they won the battle and continue on to pretend to fight about something else. Don't feel too sorry for the wealthy- they really aren't going to pay anyways... It's all smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Yup. Because they earn 97% of the country's income.
> Do you see something wrong with a country that has 47% of the people earning so little that they don't meet minimum income tax levels, while .1% collect 76% of the country's income?


Yes I see a problem. Everyone who earns something should pay something. Many in that 47% not only pay nothing, but they get a tax return! :shrug:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> Yet you want them to write more rules?
> 
> Sorry that logic doesn't work for me...


No. I want the government to work for the people, as it once did. Not more rules, most that just help the wealthy, but fewer rules. Hike up the tax rate on the top income bracket isn't too difficult to understand, is it? Eliminate some of the exemptions designed to protect jst the rich, isn't more rules, it is less rules.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries.


With or without raising taxes, I've always assumed that the wealthy would do all those things.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> enjoy your victimhood. I prefer to work my way up (again) and be someone you can fuss about and put down.


I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


Spoken by one that's never been there.....
And the door is not locked to those that wish to put in the effort and not whine while working their way up.
And are willing to know that there are leaches and malcontents that will always have envy of those that work their way to the top of the heap. And be willing to hurt them, to try to take from the workers. So sad...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I really would have thought that a person who was/or is interested in Homesteading would KNOW that hard work might take YEARS before a dime is made and maybe never a cent will be made but that a HOMESTEADER is one with a work ethic and the guts to go for it. A sucessful homesteader seems to be a person who is willing and ABLE to learn from someone who is doing things BETTER than what they are doing AND does not spite them out of bitterness. 

I may never get to where I was in the bank account again but I know that my DRIVE and willingness to learn that I had when I was in the business world and doing my investments transfered well into homesteading. Envy never transfers it stays with you.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas. Haypoint


Unless you supply credible evidence for the threats you describe above I will conclude that you agree your statements are disingenuous. Tax avoidance occurs in every country where there is taxation. Tax avoidance is not peculiar to the US a current example of tax avoidance are the wealthy fleeing France because of the onerous tax rates of the socialist administration. 
The only thing you are doing is trying to promote class envy and push Marx theory of class struggle. Interestingly enough those nations trying to practice socialism are failing or have failed. My family have progressed from abject poverty to financial success and none have found the locked door you describe.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Something I can't understand.
If the top 1% or even the top10% has the politicians in their pocket, why do the other 99% or 90% keep electing these politicians?
Something isn't right.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Yup. Because they earn 97% of the country's income.





haypoint said:


> ....1% collect 76% of the country's income?



*WRONG!* The top 1% earn *16%* of the income, and pay *33%* of the taxes. 

Try again.



haypoint said:


> Do you see something wrong with a country that has 47% of the people earning so little that they don't meet minimum income tax levels


I see a problem with tax laws that tell 47% of the people that they don't have to pay anything, and while we're at it, we'll take some from the ones making more than you, and give you some of theirs.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


Seems like we've been hearing statements like this for an awful long time. I remember the 60's when the "underprivaleged" was gonna "stick it to da man". They didn't know what they were talking about then, any more than you do today.

Who is keeping you down? Who is locking the doors? Who is throwing that party? They aren't working hard?

Somehow I think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs (yes, I know he's gone) would disagree. Then you have these guys:

5 Young Millionaires Instigating Innovation | Entrepreneur.com

I'm sorry, but I won't be able to attend your pity party. I also don't want to live on the backs of others. If you are promoting a flat tax rate, then I'm with you. If you think somehow those who are inspired to do more and make more should pay more, then leave me out.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


Wrong again.


http://www.fiscalisadvisory.com/assets/pdfs/how_the_wealthy_get_that_way.pdf

From the link:

_1. Wealthy people are made, not born. 80% of millionaires are the first generation of their family to become wealthy. Interestingly, most of the very wealthy families leave a major portion of their estates to charity._


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Lilliputian wars. 
1) The richest are the richest because they do have the money to buy leverage and the talent to avoid paying taxes. They are rich because they like their money and like to keep it while takng advantage of every perk, loophole or credit they can get. And they do use more of some government services than lesser mortals- they need their money, homes, yachts, protected. They use the civil courts to their advantage. 
2) Certainly a sizable percentage of the "47%" are not so much as earning so little they pay no tax as taking advantage of the deductions, credits and non-taxable income such as SocialSecurity or 401(k)s or even welfare, etc. They use a lion share of the police, fire, social services, medical subsidies, etc. They are a lion share of the criminals because they are a lion share of the population.
Bums everywhere you look
This is arguing about which is the better football team when you are not on the field to play. Time would be better spent figuring out how to make regular citizens a more effective participants before spending all the passion in support or opposition to those who do have power, never admitting that there are any irrationality in these positions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yup. Because they earn 97% of the country's income.
> Do you see something wrong with a country that has 47% of the people earning so little that they don't meet minimum income tax levels, while .1% *collect *76% of the country's income


They don't "collect" it
They EARN it, and you want to TAKE it

You want "fair"?
Let EVERYONE pay the same percentages


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I would much rather see the union movement be stronger so that those earning under 250,000 earned more money and paid more taxes.

If this would happen then they would also be able to afford health insurance and a decent retirement.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> I would much rather see the union movement be stronger so that those earning under 250,000 earned more money and paid more taxes.
> 
> If this would happen then they would also be able to afford health insurance and a decent retirement.


Utter nonsense.

My wife and I together earn considerably less than $250,000 and are NOT in unions, yet we pay taxes every year, own our own home and some other property, have health insurance, and retirement accounts.

It's easier to find an excuse or someone to blame than to take responsibility for choices made in life.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Nevada said:


> With or without raising taxes, I've always assumed that the wealthy would do all those things.


Ain't that the truth. Some seem to view the mega wealthy as benevolent folks trying to provide jobs for the peons. Maybe. Maybe some. Many, many, more will take everything they can get from the government--welfare on a bigger scale & buy themselves a lot bigger & better toys, etc. Being wealthy does not confer sainthood--in fact usually the reverse. Remember Ebenezer Scrooge??


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

wanda1950 said:


> Being wealthy does not confer sainthood--in fact usually the reverse. Remember Ebenezer Scrooge??


You mean the fictional character that was created by Charles Dickens to caricature the evils of a country in which there really were 'classes' of people that actually couldn't change their circumstances?

Has ZERO to do with the economics of this country.

And since Mitt Romney's name continues to come up, over the last two years he gave $6 million to charity and paid $7 million in taxes. Liberals would have rather he not given the money to charity, and paid it all into the government for them to pass out as they see fit. Charities are ALWAYS more efficient in the use of their funds than the government.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hollowdweller said:


> I would much rather see the union movement be stronger so that those earning under 250,000 earned more money and paid more taxes.
> 
> If this would happen then they would also be able to afford health insurance and a decent retirement.


Not really, the new pay would make the comodities cost more and the same amount of people could afford them.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> No. I want the government to work for the people, as it once did. Not more rules, most that just help the wealthy, but fewer rules. Hike up the tax rate on the top income bracket isn't too difficult to understand, is it? Eliminate some of the exemptions designed to protect jst the rich, isn't more rules, it is less rules.


So who is going to write those laws and add them to the already overburdened tax codes?

In case you haven't figured it out yet.. The rich folks that are in office. Thus protecting themselves and their rich friends.. Who voted them in? yup! you did.

So no need for Pelsoi, Reid, Bonhner(sp) etc to change anything.. Who keeps putting the same prostitutes back into office?

So please do tell me how you want to take from the rich and give to the poor..

The people spoke, they care nothing about the Constitution, they only care about being coddled by raping the rich and tossing a few pennies to the poor.. Also known as socialism...

Yet you claim taking more will help the poor and elderly or needy.. So why hasn't it work thus far? Why is there more now needing help then before?


When you figure out the answer to those questions you will see where you are wrong for wanting to steal from the rich..

Now I can agree that everyone should pay taxes, but lets make it, pick a number, 10% for ease of figuring of every dollar earned.. No deductions what so ever..

But that won't be good enough for liberals, because it's not about being true to yourself, it's about legally stealing from others to give to those who didn't earn it...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yeah, the rich simply live to stare at a pile of wealth. It is never do anything but stare at money unless they are out trying to rip off hard working people by --how--poor wages--well if they are employing people well then there has to be a business for which they are responcable for. They would only need employees if they had a product or service that was good enough for other people to want. --What is stopping those employees from stop being employees and become an employer. PEOPLE who have NOT earn, saved or have the the history, background to have the faith from FAMILY and FRIENDs (they know you best) that would be willing to invest in your plan.

Look, Rich people worked before they got there, while they got there and they are paying more than those ----ing them for being sucessesful. This Greed is destroying our nation --someone needs us to be divided but you are blinded by greed. I am far more concerned over what will happen after the people of America as a result of the HATEFULL envy of division has split this nation.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

tyusclan said:


> Utter nonsense.
> 
> My wife and I together earn considerably less than $250,000 and are NOT in unions, yet we pay taxes every year, own our own home and some other property, have health insurance, and retirement accounts.
> 
> It's easier to find an excuse or someone to blame than to take responsibility for choices made in life.


Wonderful idea, let's add some reality to this debate.

I've never made close to $250,000 per year, yet I own my home outright (paid in cash), helped my kids buy their first homes, own my cars, etc. I currently have a balance on a home equity loan, but that's my only debt. 

I was raised in a middle income family. My father was an electrician (non-union). I paid my way through college, didn't qualify for financial aid. I went to junion college, then transferred to four year school. I went to work for a company with a tuition reimbursement program & got my Masters Degree. I was a professional for over 20 years. I now manage internet sales for a hot tub manufacturer, and raise goats & garden on the side.

I submit that anyone out there could do exactly what I did, and quite possibly do even better. I don't choose to be one of the 1%, but I don't begrudge anyone who works to get there.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

This is why the income tax is an unBiblical tax. It creates so much chaos and deceit and only a certain percentage of people pay into it. God never intended people to be taxed on their income regardless of how much/how little they earned. (perhaps the founders understood this).

A much fairer form of taxation is a sales tax where everybody pays into it.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Wait didn't some one post a thread a few days ago on how the wealthy are willing to pay more?

Honestly no attempt at an increase should be made without a significant DECREASE in spending. Period. The decrease must be decided on and planned first. I don't care who the raise is planned to affect.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> If Obama gets his way, land owning folks will have their land taken away go up, at least the part above 25 acres. The top land taking bracket in the 1940s and 1950s was three times higher than what Obama is requesting.
> In retaliation, the top land owning 1% threatened to hire land attorneys to figure out ways to avoid land being taken away, they threaten to pay off (give land) toWashington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their land in the names of their children. They threaten to sell their US land and invest in land/farms in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas.
> So, we&#8217;d better not require them to give land to others on them or they&#8217;ll ruin our economy.


Just put in Land where taxes were since the most complaining here do have land and I don't and I think I'm entitled to some of their land. I think about 33% or so would be right. I'll even get me some Earned Land Credit on the Land form at the end of the year.

Why should they have it, I don't care if they worked it from nothing and now it's lush - it's obvious they inherited it and did not give any to their cousins, or neighbors or the widow lady down the hollow that has no land of her own.

Those wicked land owners are so selfish and will ruin this country!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


Really? Thats not the experiences I have had. I have known personally several "at the top" who have always been more than happy for others to join in the games. As to they didnt get there by working hard.... Most of them did indeed get there by working hard.... coupled with working smart. A fer example... J.R. Simplot (the wealthiest man in the state of Idaho) worked side by side with one of my neighbors.... scooping spuds onto trucks by hand! He worked, and saved his paychecks... until he had enough saved to buy a truckload of them taters for himself.... and he invited my neighbor to join him in the endeavor.. but neighbor was skeerd... and didnt want to risk his hard earned money. J. R. went ahead with his plan, and sold that truckload of taters himself, bought more, and sold them,,, wash rinse repeat until he was the tater king... Eat any Idaho spuds lately? Say thank you to J.R. one of those "fat cats" that never worked and earned anything.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I find it interesting that great-great-great Uncle Peabody amassed most of his fortune in London, as a banker, and later gave away most of his fortune *of his own free will, to the beneficiaries of his own choosing*, which is why he's known as a great *philanthropist*.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

tyusclan said:


> You mean the fictional character that was created by Charles Dickens to caricature the evils of a country in which there really were 'classes' of people that actually couldn't change their circumstances?
> 
> Has ZERO to do with the economics of this country.
> 
> And since Mitt Romney's name continues to come up, over the last two years he gave $6 million to charity and paid $7 million in taxes. Liberals would have rather he not given the money to charity, and paid it all into the government for them to pass out as they see fit. Charities are ALWAYS more efficient in the use of their funds than the government.


Just an example of a nasty natured rich person. Of course he's fictional.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

wanda1950 said:


> Just an example what _*I think of when I think*_ of a rich person. Of course he's fictional.



Fixed it for you.

I've had the pleasure of knowing quite a few wealthy people in my life, and while it's certainly not true in every case, the vast majority of wealthy people are down to earth and truly nice people. 

I knew a man once who owned a multi-thousand acre ranch in South Florida, and an entire city block in Naples. He wore khaki clothes and an old beat up hat most of the time. He bought most of his clothes at a goodwill store. Not because he was 'cheap', he was just completely unpretentious. Nicest guy you'd ever meet, and was a millionaire many times over.

I've never met one that even came close to the character of Scrooge.

That idea is borne out of the jealousy of the accomplishments of others. Sad that in the one country that still has the opportunity to be and do anything you want, so many have that attitude.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

tyusclan - same here. The millionaires usually have to be hunted for. The ones under them trying to impress are the ones to watch out for.

I've only had good dealings with the millionaire two that I've known.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> tyusclan - same here. The millionaires usually have to be hunted for. The ones under them trying to impress are the ones to watch out for.
> 
> I've only had good dealings with the millionaire two that I've known.


I worked for an older couple once. He was a double amputee, having lost both legs in WWII. He built and earned everything he had standing on two prostheses. He wore the same clothes I did, he drove a used S-15 GMC pickup, and his wife drove a small Buick. They lived in the same concrete block house they'd built 25 years earlier. You'd never know looking at them or talking to them that their net worth was WELL in excess of a million dollars. 

They were quiet and private about their giving, but I saw them MANY times give money, clothes, or shoes from the store to someone in need. 

Every time I see the rotten attitudes on here toward people like that, it burns me up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door. There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


The door's not locked. If you don't believe me ask Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and the great O. 

As for not working hard? Two of the three didn't.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Personally,whiny losers that are always envious of other peoples money and jobs bore me.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

tyusclan said:


> Utter nonsense.
> 
> My wife and I together earn considerably less than $250,000 and are NOT in unions, yet we pay taxes every year, own our own home and some other property, have health insurance, and retirement accounts.
> 
> It's easier to find an excuse or someone to blame than to take responsibility for choices made in life.


Pride comes before a fall my friend. We are where we are by grace and not works.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We are where we are by grace and *not works*.


Stop *working* and see where you end up


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Spiritually yes we are saved by Grace.
God however had his son come as a carpenter.
His apostles were all hard workers, fishermen and tent makers. 
He tells us if we are not willing to earn our bread we should go hungry. 

There is no place in the Bible for sluggards. Even the poor did things for others. The widow made a place for Elijah (or Elisha, I read their stories over and over and STILL get them confused!).


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> Pride comes before a fall my friend. We are where we are by grace and not works.


My sins are forgiven because Jesus shed His blood on the cross for me, and I have accepted the works that He did for me.

I have the material things because God has indeed blessed me with health and intelligence, but that health and intelligence wouldn't be worth a dime, if I sat on my duff and didn't WORK.

_'For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: if a man will not work, neither shall he eat.'_


2 Thess 3:10


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't "collect" it
> They EARN it, and you want to TAKE it
> 
> You want "fair"?
> Let EVERYONE pay the same percentages


Investment income ( collected mostly by the rich) is taxed at a lower rate than the blood, sweat and tears income we earn by working.

When the rich have teams of tax attournies working to get them out of paying the same percentages you and I pay, I think hiking up their tax rate would level the playing field. Perhaps, the rich will end up paying the percentage that Joe Paycheck pays.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

watcher said:


> You do realize its the GOVERNMENT which actually controls banking and stock trading don't you? Banking is one of, if not the, MOST government controlled businesses in the US. Only the insurance and health care industry are even close.


The banking industry is NOT controlled by the federal government. The federal reserve is NOT a federal agency but a corporation of banks from all over the world (check out who owns or has controlling interest of the banks in the federal reserve). The only US government involvement is board chairman which means nothing. The government's idea of controlling stock trading is to slap someone's wrist when caught. Insurance and health industries only regulation is what they create themselves. Insurance rates and coverages are dictated by the insurance companies not the government. I don't see much health care regulation with the drug companies giving false information to the FDA and allowed to stay in business.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I wish you well as you work your way up. *But be aware, that up there near the top, there's a locked door.* There's a party going on, but you aren't invited. By the way, those folks didn't get there by working hard.


I'm curious how you came to that conclusion. And what is your definition of 'the top'? Do you mean to say that there are no opportunities out there for someone who's willing to take the initiative to strive for the 'top'?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Investment income ( collected mostly by the rich) is taxed at a lower rate than the blood, sweat and tears income we earn by working.


And that investment income is earned from money that they DID earn by blood, sweat, and tears AND have already paid taxes on one time.

Get over your jealousy. Nobody likes a whiner.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Unless you supply credible evidence for the threats you describe above I will conclude that you agree your statements are disingenuous. Tax avoidance occurs in every country where there is taxation. Tax avoidance is not peculiar to the US a current example of tax avoidance are the wealthy fleeing France because of the onerous tax rates of the socialist administration.
> The only thing you are doing is trying to promote class envy and push Marx theory of class struggle. Interestingly enough those nations trying to practice socialism are failing or have failed. My family have progressed from abject poverty to financial success and none have found the locked door you describe.


While you were busy working for your pay, 47% of the population slipped into Socialism. Their numbers are growing by the thousands every day. 
But now the bill is coming due for this new Socialism. 

Do you want to foot the bill while slowly sliding into that group living below the poverty level? I don't want to pay it. Perhaps, if I continue to fund the government's care for the poor programs, we can ask those that benifitted most by this country's laws, infrastructure and bountiful resources, to pay a little more. Sounds reasonable to me.

Don't trick yourself into believing we can make enough cuts to get us out from under this financial boulder. You are planning on collecting your Social Security check aren't you. Just can't have it both ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Investment income ( collected mostly by the rich) is taxed at a lower rate than the blood, sweat and tears income we earn by working.


Where do you think they GOT the money they invested?

"Investment income" and "dividends" are collected by MILLIONS of "poor" people who have IRA's, Mutual Funds and Stocks.

It's also any* profit* you make if you sell real estate

You're just parroting BO without thinking it through



> Don't trick yourself into believing we can make enough cuts to get us out from under this* financial boulder*.


They increased SPENDING enough to get us under it.
Cutting spending is the *only* way to dig out


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

tyusclan said:


> My sins are forgiven because Jesus shed His blood on the cross for me, and I have accepted the works that He did for me.
> 
> I have the material things because God has indeed blessed me with health and intelligence, but that health and intelligence wouldn't be worth a dime, if I sat on my duff and didn't WORK.
> 
> ...


Mark 10:24-25, Luke 18:24-25, Matthew 19:23-24:shrug:


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Mark 10:24-25, Luke 18:24-25, Matthew 19:23-24:shrug:


Mark 10:27

Luke 18:27

Matthew 19:26

Next.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Post deleted...just walking away for now... too many spenders and wanters here.
I think YvonnesHubby had a good post that got sidetracked on this.

Matt


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

haypoint said:


> While you were busy working for your pay, 47% of the population slipped into Socialism. Their numbers are growing by the thousands every day.
> But now the bill is coming due for this new Socialism.
> 
> Do you want to foot the bill while slowly sliding into that group living below the poverty level? I don't want to pay it. Perhaps, if I continue to fund the government's care for the poor programs, we can ask those that benifitted most by this country's laws, infrastructure and bountiful resources, to pay a little more. Sounds reasonable to me.
> ...


This non reply is no more or less than gobbldy guuk of the first order. Your reply is a prime example of "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em
with BS. Since you don't know what you are talking about I have little time or inclination to continue this decidedly one sided conversation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They increased SPENDING enough to get us under it.
> Cutting spending is the *only* way to dig out


The problem is not spending, it's the recession. Cutting spending will not cure the recession. On the contrary, it will result in even more unemployment.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> This non reply is no more or less than gobbldy guuk of the first order. Your reply is a prime example of "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em
> with BS. Since you don't know what you are talking about I have little time or inclination to continue this decidedly one sided conversation.


Next time I'll type slower.:shrug:


----------



## southerngurl (May 11, 2003)

> Does it seem reasonable that a person that earns a thousand times more money than you do, likely uses a thousand times more of the federally funded infrastructure than you do? Does it seem reasonable that a person that has factories all over the world and gets protection from the US CIA and various branches of the military, should pay more than you do?


They would pay far more even at the same tax rate. Having a higher tax rate has them paying more x more.


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

I cant believe I read through this whole thread.
Boy am I ever stupid.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

haypoint said:


> If Obama gets his way, rich folks will have their taxes go up, at least the part above $250,000.00. The top tax bracket in the 1940s and 1950s was three times higher than what Obama is requesting.
> In retaliation, the wealthiest 1% threatened to hire tax attorneys to figure out ways to avoid taxes, they threaten to pay off Washington politicians to create more loopholes. They threaten to put their money in off shore Banks. They threaten to pull their US investments and invest in factories in 3rd world countries. They threaten to reduce employment here and create jobs overseas.
> So, weâd better not raise taxes on them or theyâll ruin our economy.


You know all this time I thought that congress passed tax laws. Who would have thought that it is not congress but rich people?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not spending, it's the recession. Cutting spending will not cure the recession. On the contrary, it will result in even more unemployment.


Yeah, that's right. If we spend this one trillion dollars that we don't have, the unemployment rate won't go above 6%. 

Oh, wait, yes it did. 

Just as FDR's policies prolonged and deepened the Great Depression, Obama's have prolonged and deepened this recession.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> You know all this time I thought that congress passed tax laws. Who would have thought that it is not congress but rich people?


Make no mistake about it, corporate America owns congress. Congress doesn't do a lot without checking with the lobbyists first.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not spending, it's the recession. Cutting spending will not cure the recession. On the contrary, it will result in even more unemployment.


But in order to prevent being eaten alive by the interest on our borrowed money, we have to either curb spending, so we can pay down the borrowed money or raise taxes. Yes, that will likely drop the available cash, pushing us further into a ressession. But to keep solvent, we need more tax money. Can't tax the poor, they don't have any money. Tax the Middle Class more justs takes money away from the group most likely to spend what they have, stimulating the economy. If you believe that a good part of the reason we are in a recession is because so many jobs were sent overseas, by the wealthiest Americans, does it follow that they ( who profited most) should be the first ones to pay a bit more in taxes. We've seen that giving them tax breaks doesn't "trickle down", it just gives them more to shelter in off shore accounts.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> You know all this time I thought that congress passed tax laws. Who would have thought that it is not congress but rich people?


When the majority of every member of congress gets the majority of their campaign funds from the top 1%, I think you'll agree that Congress has been, for the most part, bought and paid for by the wealthy. That's not new nor is it news.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The problem is not spending, it's the recession. Cutting spending will not cure the recession. On the contrary, it will result in even more unemployment.


If the GOVT would mind IT'S business, the recession will take care of itself
Cutting SPENDING is to solve the DEFICIT, not the recession.

The Govt isn't worried about "unemployment" OR the economy

Obama Administration Kills Off 100 Year Old Oyster Farm | The Gateway Pundit



> The Drakes Bay Oyster Co. has been in business for 100 years.
> Then came Barack Obama.
> Yesterday, the Obama Administration shut down the oyster farm. They said it was for environmental reasons.
> 
> *The farm produced 40% of California oysters*.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Make no mistake about it, corporate America owns congress. Congress doesn't do a lot without checking with the lobbyists first.


Sad to say Congress is owned by Lobbyists from the Trial Lawyers, Unions, Corporations, environmentalists, gun control groups, anti gun control groups, and etc. ad nauseum. I suspect this list just scratches the surface. The brutal reality is Congress is owned and the best interest of voters brings up the rear when legislation is considered. Corporations do not have a monopoly on the ownership of Congress.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Sad to say Congress is owned by Lobbyists from the Trial Lawyers, Unions, Corporations, environmentalists, gun control groups, anti gun control groups, and etc. ad nauseum. I suspect this list just scratches the surface. The brutal reality is Congress is owned and the best interest of voters brings up the rear when legislation is considered. Corporations do not have a monopoly on the ownership of Congress.


They do if they have the deepest pockets.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> They do if they have the deepest pockets.


So tell me how long have the Congress critters in your State been in office?

I would bet that they have been there for a few terms.. Which tells me the people won't vote out these corrupt politicians..

Yet you want them to change the rules against themselves...

Maybe you haven't noticed, but in history, that has never worked to the peoples benefit in the long run...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

People goona have to get it thru their head. Obama has been spending like a drunk sailor,because he has planned this "fiscial cliff" long time ago. In 2008 we tryed to get people to read Cloward and Piven-maybe a few did. In Sept. 2008 there was a run on the Fed. Res. it was on purpose-it was a threat so Bush did his deals,Obama got in office, and Obama had hung the threat of another run over the heads of of the entire country. They had a choice-fast or slow crash. Now we've been thru the slow crash. It's here, Obama wants to raise everyones Tax rate, but he needs to blame the Republicans-and ofcourse the Dem. voters haven't seen what was going on, and voted O back in. Point is-takeing away every dime from "rich" people won't stop Obamas plan-he needs to jack up everyones Taxes to satisfy his plan-socialize/communize this country. And all of the Takers from our system have helped him,by putting their hand out for goodies and voteing him back in.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> When the majority of every member of congress gets the majority of their campaign funds from the top 1%, I think you'll agree that Congress has been, for the most part, bought and paid for by the wealthy. That's not new nor is it news.


Finally someone agrees with me.
Your vote is worthless, it doesn't count no matter who you choose to vote for.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The only thing wrong with our govt is they spend too much.
Higher taxes will not help. 
You can take 90% of every pay check in the U.S. and we won't pay down the debt a single cent.
The U.S. does not plan on paying back what we have borrowed, never planned on it.
What they have planned on is controlling the people. The easiest way is to control the money the people recieve.

Is there anyone who can stop their plans?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I'm afraid you're right pancho. In the meantime the politicians have us arguing about gay marriage, birth control etc.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

To add insult to injury, the government spends money where it will actually harm it's citizens while not spending where it will help. All the while making laws that hold back those with incentive to help themselves.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> I'm afraid you're right pancho. In the meantime the politicians have us arguing about gay marriage, birth control etc.


It seems to be very easy to get the people argueing about something when the much more important things are happening.
Much better for the politicians as they have a free hand to do whatever they want to do.

Anytime people start noticing what the politicians are really up to all they have to do is, Hey what is that shiny thing over there.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Cliffpocalypsemageddonacaust - Totally Solvable Budget Problem - Numbers on Paper - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/04/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> The banking industry is NOT controlled by the federal government. The federal reserve is NOT a federal agency but a corporation of banks from all over the world (check out who owns or has controlling interest of the banks in the federal reserve). The only US government involvement is board chairman which means nothing. The government's idea of controlling stock trading is to slap someone's wrist when caught. Insurance and health industries only regulation is what they create themselves. Insurance rates and coverages are dictated by the insurance companies not the government. I don't see much health care regulation with the drug companies giving false information to the FDA and allowed to stay in business.


Two things on banking. One I didn't say federally controlled. Second if you don't believe the feds are controlling them ask your banker about the new FEDERAL regulations on mortgage loans.

As for insurance. You need to do more research. Insurance companies are FORCED by the government to offer specific coverage. Also AFAIK in every state in the union they can not raise rates w/o government permission.

Now for the medical industry. Ever ask you doctor how many hours his staff puts in making sure his practice is following the government rules? Heaven help him if someone makes a mistake on the forms covering narcotic pain killer prescriptions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> While you were busy working for your pay, 47% of the population slipped into Socialism. Their numbers are growing by the thousands every day.
> But now the bill is coming due for this new Socialism.


You need to use the correct terms. The correct term is _Fascism_. The basic difference is in socialism the government owns the businesses, in fascism the government only CONTROLS them. This is the perfect system for a power hungry government. If the government controls make things better it can take credit. If the controls make things worse the government just blames the business and tells the dumb masses it needs more power to fix things.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I don't have my free land yet....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not spending, it's the recession. Cutting spending will not cure the recession. On the contrary, it will result in even more unemployment.


You are kidding right? You think the government borrowing 47 cents of every dollar it borrows isn't a problem?

How much of the federal government's outlays are going to people who are not providing a good or service?

As long as the government is sucking that much money out of the economy the failure is just a matter of time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> But in order to prevent being eaten alive by the interest on our borrowed money, we have to either curb spending, so we can pay down the borrowed money or raise taxes. Yes, that will likely drop the available cash, pushing us further into a ressession. But to keep solvent, we need more tax money. Can't tax the poor, they don't have any money. Tax the Middle Class more justs takes money away from the group most likely to spend what they have, stimulating the economy. If you believe that a good part of the reason we are in a recession is because so many jobs were sent overseas, by the wealthiest Americans, does it follow that they ( who profited most) should be the first ones to pay a bit more in taxes. We've seen that giving them tax breaks doesn't "trickle down", it just gives them more to shelter in off shore accounts.


You ever try reading a little history? Read about how that great conservative JFK's tax cuts failed to bring in more money to the feds. Read about how the fed's income dropped after RR cut the tax rates. Oh WAIT. You can't because that DIDN'T HAPPEN.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> I don't have my free land yet....


The wife won't even let me get an Obama phone.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The wife won't even let me get an Obama phone.


If I get my Obamacare in 2014, I'll be happy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If I get my Obamacare in 2014, I'll be happy.


Some how I doubt that...


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Facts don't mean much to those who already know everything and have their minds made up, but for anyone who would actually like to know the truth, here's a link to an article and chart with the latest information on taxes paid:



http://www.westernjournalism.com/soaking-the-rich-is-not-the-answer-its-a-large-part-of-the-problem/


And a couple of paragraphs from the article:

_The first thing that I would like to point out is that, contrary to what the Democrats and the legacy media would have us believe, the rich not only pay taxes, but they pay far more than their share, based on income. The top 1% earned *16.93%* of all US personal income in 2009, but they paid *36.73%* of all personal income taxes that were actually collected. Thatâs after all tax breaks, deductions, exclusions, and even any possible cheating. Itâs what was collected by the IRS. *Thatâs 2.2 times their share, based on income.*_

_The top 400 taxpayers have it only slightly better. Since there are roughly 400 billionaires in the USA, thatâs generally who these people are. They earned *1.31%* of all US personal income, but paid *1.9%* of all personal income tax collected. Thatâs about *1.5 times their share*, based on income. This also shows that far from being the rule, *it is the exception to the rule for billionaires to pay less tax than their secretaries.* Thatâs only the case if the secretary is in the top 5% of income earners, as is almost certainly the case with Warren Buffetâs secretary, based upon her stated tax rate._


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If I get my Obamacare in 2014, I'll be happy.


Until you get old enough they tell you to take a pain pill and go die.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Until you get old enough they tell you to take a pain pill and go die.


If all goes according to plan, I'll get free healthcare for about 1.5 years before I'm eligible for Medicare. Actually, Obamacare will be a better deal for me than Medicare because Medicare will cost me about $100/month.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If all goes according to plan, I'll get free healthcare for about 1.5 years before I'm eligible for Medicare. Actually, Obamacare will be a better deal for me than Medicare because Medicare will cost me about $100/month.


I'm firmly convinced that we now have enough people in this country with this attitude that we have passed the tipping point. The crash is inevitable, and it's gonna be ugly.

Who's gonna pay for all that 'free' healthcare when we're a third world country?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> Who's gonna pay for all that 'free' healthcare when we're a third world country?


You know what? I supported the system for 40 years, never having much say in how funds were spent. I supported wars & tax cuts I didn't like, yet paid anyway. I retired a few months back so I just stopped caring. I did my part. Now it's your turn to support the system.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You know what? I supported the system for 40 years, never having much say in how funds were spent. I supported wars & tax cuts I didn't like, yet paid anyway. I retired a few months back so I just stopped caring. I did my part. Now it's your turn to support the system.


You shoulda done the basic math.... there aint enough youngens to support all of the oldies, along with that, 53 percent of the youngens that voted fer Obama.  Somebody is going to get the short end one of these days. It just might be YOU!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You shoulda done the basic math.... there aint enough youngens to support all of the oldies, along with that, 53 percent of the youngens that voted fer Obama.  Somebody is going to get the short end one of these days. It just might be YOU!


I've got Ronald Reagan's "iron clad commitment" on it. You aren't suggesting that I was lied to by the high priest of conservatism, are you?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You know what? I supported the system for 40 years, never having much say in how funds were spent. I supported wars & tax cuts I didn't like, yet paid anyway. I retired a few months back so I just stopped caring. I did my part. Now it's your turn to support the system.


I'm paying now, and I'll continue to pay as long as I have a job, but when my job and everyone else's is gone because the house of cards came crashing down, nobody's gonna have anything to pay anybody.

You paid into SS and Medicare, so you have every right to expect to receive the benefits, but your 'free' Obamacare may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The cost estimates for it have already more than doubled, and it's not even implemented yet. I have yet to understand how the government requiring us to buy something we don't want is 'helping' us. 

'Splain that to me.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've got Ronald Reagan's "iron clad commitment" on it. You aren't suggesting that I was lied to by the high priest of conservatism, are you?


Later administrations changed the rules! Blame them and yourself that you need to depend on the government to live.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I've got Ronald Reagan's "iron clad commitment" on it. You aren't suggesting that I was lied to by the high priest of conservatism, are you?


There have been several presidents and a lot of congressmen and senators to royally screw up everything since he left office. 

The recession is still Bush's fault, even though he's been gone for four years, and now the fact that SS and Medicare have been robbed is Reagan's? Little bit of a stretch, doncha think?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I've got Ronald Reagan's "iron clad commitment" on it. You aren't suggesting that I was lied to by the high priest of conservatism, are you?


Naw... he most likely believed the nonsense himself... he too was not a math wizard by any stretch of the imagination.... seems to me like he was more in the artsy fartsy dreamworld, lala land set.... its only a lie if they know better... other than that.... its more like the blind leading the blind.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> I'm paying now, and I'll continue to pay as long as I have a job, but when my job and everyone else's is gone because the house of cards came crashing down, nobody's gonna have anything to pay anybody.


Evidently you didn't notice, but the house of cards came crashing down 5 years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you didn't notice, but the house of cards came crashing down 5 years ago.


You can believe that ifn ya wants to.... but just to be honest... we aint seen nuthin yet! That was just a pothole.... up around the corner the entire road has washed out!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You can believe that ifn ya wants to.... but just to be honest... we aint seen nuthin yet! That was just a pothole.... up around the corner the entire road has washed out!


I don't see a financial doomsday on the horizon. This is a recession of historical proportions. Surviving the recession without a humanitarian crisis should be our highest priority, even higher than debt management.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you didn't notice, but the house of cards came crashing down 5 years ago.


No, we had a few cards fall off the house, and everything Obama's done in the last four years has kept them trickling off. When it really comes down, the whole world's gonna know it. 

We CANNOT sustain the level of debt and deficit spending we are now at, and NO ONE in power is willing to do what is necessary to turn it around. Nor, apparently, are any of the American people, since they chose to reelect the Big Spender in Chief. Everyone (including you) thinks, "Let'em cut somewhere else. Ima get mine!" Fine. We'll all keep singing Kumbaya, till we're all grabbing for the ice bergs. The Titanic is cracking, and it's about to upend and go down. But you go ahead and keep singing the praises of your 'free' health care.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You can believe that ifn ya wants to.... but just to be honest... we aint seen nuthin yet! That was just a pothole.... up around the corner the entire road has washed out!


Ya but what most forget is the TIME factor that were written into the ARM's. They started out in 1999, and continued into 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003.
They are written for 3 years 4 years before they readjust into a HIGHER amount that most when 2005 and 2006 happened they had a hard time t keep up and had to let them go. And BAM we have the housing crises that was started under Clinton. THAT then was NOT bush's fault. Still some seem to not let it go because of the hatred that some have for the R's and especially Bush. And that goes back to even Reagan's time too.
Now most of those same people never ever mention that Bush tried on at least 3 different occasions to Put BACK controls on the banks but were turned down FLAT by the Dem's and on '06 the Dems' grabbed congress. 
ANd that left Bush out in limbo trying to ever get controls back on the banks and by this time it was too late as more and more foreclosures were happening.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't see a financial doomsday on the horizon. This is a recession of historical proportions. Surviving the recession without a humanitarian crisis should be our highest priority, even higher than debt management.


None are so blind as those who refuse to see. It is the lack of debt management that will bring on the collapse. When the world markets no longer have the money to lend, and our people demand more and more, the economy WILL fail... and when it does the 1930s will look like a garden party in comparison. Our good neighbors in europe are already seeing serious issues with their own economies, just like in 1930.... we are indeed headed for a major collapse. Here are some major differences you may wish to entertain.... Todays population is 95 percent city dwellers, with no access to the means of producing the goods they need for survival, and lack the knowledge required if they HAD the resources. During the thirties, our population was less than 50 percent city dwellers, with kinfolk in the country... living on small self sustainable farms. When the depression hit in the early part of the last century our entire nation was NOT deeply in debt... not the nation, and not the citizenry. Those few who were in debt lost big time... those who were not were able to get by. Today nearly everyone is heavily in debt, and so is the nation. We are working with extremely inflated dollars, created to stave off the inevitable, we have NOTHING to back up those dollars. Hyperinflation is lurking, and when the people wake up and realize their money is indeed worthless.... Yes, Virginia, there really is a catastrophe looming on the horizon, one that not even Santa Claus can make go away.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

In 1919 faced with huge reparations from WW! the Wiemar Republic chose to print its' way out of debt. In 1918 a loaf of bread cost 1 Mark in 1921 a loaf of bread cost 100 billion Marks. This is where printing our way out of debt will likely end. 
There are several examples of hyperinflation and its causes a recent example that is actually worse than the Wiemar Republic took place in Zimbabwe. 
Our so called "leaders" from both sides of the aisle have chosen to ignore the lessons of history to lead us down a path that in all likelyhood will devastate most of the citizens of this country for untold years to come.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> You know what? I supported the system for 40 years, never having much say in how funds were spent. I supported wars & tax cuts I didn't like, yet paid anyway. I retired a few months back so I just stopped caring. I did my part. Now it's your turn to support the system.


This doesn't even make sense... you supported it how? By paying less taxes? So you decide to retire early without coverage of insurance and now it's a national tragedy?

And I think the point still stands... the system is designed to do to EVERYONE exactly what it has done to you... make them stop caring and to depend on it.

So that's the progressive's plan? Sounds awesome!


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Got this from a friend of mine. 

Should be required reading in every class in America. 



http://vinienco.com/2012/12/05/slaughtering-americas-golden-goose-nonie-darwish/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't see a financial doomsday on the horizon. This is a recession of historical proportions. Surviving the recession without a humanitarian crisis should be our highest priority, even higher than debt management.


When the Great Lakes Freighter, Edmund Fitzgerald, got caught in a terrific storm, the Captain and crew werenât too worried. A big wave would wash over the ship, but after a few moments, the ship would emerge from the water and prepare for the next wave. 
But on an October night, 30 years ago, the winds of November came early. The mighty ship went into a wave and never came out. As the crew waited to break out of the wave, they headed to their icy graves.
If this is a Recession/Depression that weâll soon break out of, then letâs not worry. But if we continue to spend like we are about to ride the wave of prosperity, while we are taking on water, we may not recover, ever.
We were having jobs problems back when Ford and Carter were Presidents, as other countries were gaining market share. The Free Trade agreements, done solely to benefit the rich at the peril of the American workers, have punched holes in our already leaky financial ship. Weâve allowed millions into this country who only want to take (some by working hard, others by selling drugs and committing crimes) as much money as they can and send it to their home country.
Contrary to Americaâs short historical past, the wealthiest have stopped reinvesting their wealth back into the country responsible for their wealth. In fact, many have devised ways to skim off corporate profits before it reaches those common folk that hold stocks in those companies.
So, instead of asking the rich to help bail out our sinking financial ship, we heed their orders to âFull Speed Aheadâ. Thatâs fine for them, they own the life boats, too.

So, should we serve the passengers dinner or bail water?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> When the Great Lakes Freighter, Edmund Fitzgerald, got caught in a terrific storm, the Captain and crew weren&#8217;t too worried. A big wave would wash over the ship, but after a few moments, the ship would emerge from the water and prepare for the next wave.
> But on an October night, 30 years ago, the winds of November came early. The mighty ship went into a wave and never came out. As the crew waited to break out of the wave, they headed to their icy graves.
> If this is a Recession/Depression that we&#8217;ll soon break out of, then let&#8217;s not worry. But if we continue to spend like we are about to ride the wave of prosperity, while we are taking on water, we may not recover, ever.
> We were having jobs problems back when Ford and Carter were Presidents, as other countries were gaining market share. The Free Trade agreements, done solely to benefit the rich at the peril of the American workers, have punched holes in our already leaky financial ship. We&#8217;ve allowed millions into this country who only want to take (some by working hard, others by selling drugs and committing crimes) as much money as they can and send it to their home country.
> ...


So cut the freaking spending!


But typical of liberals the only thing they want is more money to waste!

I'm so tired of the lies! 

Not a penny more in taxes until the Government cuts it's wasteful ways.. 

You want more taxes then pay them yourself..

You want to try and take more from me? Bring your Army..

I'm tired of the lies ad deceit from the liberal scum and the republican scum..

Just like this garbage;
http://news.yahoo.com/dhs-grant-spending-questioned-amid-budget-woes-203207130--politics.html 

Most wasteful spending for a unwanted/unneeded government agency..
This is just the tip of the iceberg..


But hey if you feel more taxes are needed send them your money, but keep your hands off what I earn....


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The problem in the U.S. began many years ago.
When a group of people decided they would rather borrow than live on what they had.
The economy in the U.S. boomed. The govt was able to do about anything they chose to and spend money on every wild idea anyone came up with.
The citizens of the U.S. followed in the footprints of their leaders.
If a person desired something they were able to borrow money to buy it right then.
Gone was the need to sacrifice and save for things. Why not get the things you want, everyone else is doing it. Don't have the money, borrow it. Tomorrow is always going to be better than today.

It was one big circle. The people could borrow money to buy things. Companies were selling more things so they borrowed money to build more things. Companies needed more people to build these things so they hired more people to build things. The people were able to demand more money to continue building things. No one cared as they passed the cost along. No one had any money as there was no need, they could always borrow. Taxes paid to the govt. snowballed. The govt collected more taxes than anyone thought possible.

The circle kept growing. Now the people didn't have to work for money. They could borrow. The companies didn't have to make money, they could borrow. The govt could give money away to everyone, they could always borrow more.

Some people noticed a problem. These party poopers were shouted down. No one would listen, they could always borrow money to pay for things.
Some people found out when they couldn't pay what they borrowed the govt would pay it. The govt. would also pay their bills, feed, clothe them, and raise their families.
The govt. wasn't worried, they could always borrow more money.

Now we are seeing the results of such thinking.
Does anyone really think everything is going to work out great?
How far do you think we will have to drop to make things right?


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Now most of those same people never ever mention that Bush tried on at least 3 different occasions to Put BACK controls on the banks but were turned down FLAT by the Dem's and on '06 the Dems' grabbed congress.
> .


So the 6 years before that, why didn't Bush do anything about it? You know, when it was all in Republicans hands and the Dems couldn't flat turn anyone down???

Funny how that never gets mentioned with all the finger pointing......


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

As for spending/revenue.

I am all for cutting the fat out. But in my opinion, before you cut one program designed to help Americans, you need to cut all programs that send money out of our nation. That includes medical aid to Pakistan, paying for Israel's Iron Dome rockets, this and that and all the other.

I know that it is a drop in the bucket, but it matters, at least to me. I would start by cutting those programs before I touched anything that was helping Americans. 

I know that the system is being abused by folks here. I understand that, but it is also being used and abused by the gov'ts of other nations, and that line should be severed primarily, then let's discuss the welfare/food stamps/etc cuts that need to be made.

All we ever hear about is how we need to cut cost on on our social programs, but yet, turn around and some of the same folks are saying how we should be standing with other nations....


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

pancho said:


> The problem in the U.S. began many years ago.
> When a group of people decided they would rather borrow than live on what they had.
> The economy in the U.S. boomed. The govt was able to do about anything they chose to and spend money on every wild idea anyone came up with.
> The citizens of the U.S. followed in the footprints of their leaders.
> ...


Not bad. Not bad at all.

Now if you can just take the next step and accept that it was _planned_ that way, for reasons beyond the initial collapse, and see the enormous nature of the impending consequences........ 

How far to drop, you ask.....

Let us hope, all the way to rock bottom.

If the PTB are able to manipulate the collapse, as they believe they are, the shelf on which the world lands will leave later historians writing about the virtuous nature and benevolent demeanor of Adolf Hitler, by comparison.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

joseph97297 said:


> So the 6 years before that, why didn't Bush do anything about it? You know, when it was all in Republicans hands and the Dems couldn't flat turn anyone down???
> 
> Funny how that never gets mentioned with all the finger pointing......


THAT 3 times WAS back in the EARLY 2000's~! 
They turned him down FLAT back then. R's never had the majority in congress and the Dem's said they would stop him if he ever tried to get a bill through to put more regs on banks.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> So the 6 years before that, why didn't Bush do anything about it? You know, when it was all in Republicans hands and the Dems couldn't flat turn anyone down???
> 
> Funny how that never gets mentioned with all the finger pointing......


For the same reason the democrats do not do much when they are in power.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> When the Great Lakes Freighter, Edmund Fitzgerald, got caught in a terrific storm, the Captain and crew werenât too worried. A big wave would wash over the ship, but after a few moments, the ship would emerge from the water and prepare for the next wave.
> But on an October night, 30 years ago, the winds of November came early. The mighty ship went into a wave and never came out. As the crew waited to break out of the wave, they headed to their icy graves.
> 
> If this is a Recession/Depression that weâll soon break out of, then letâs not worry. But if we continue to spend like we are about to ride the wave of prosperity, while we are taking on water, we may not recover, ever.


This, from the same people who didn't see the mortgage crisis coming, didn't know it was here after it happened, and didn't know what to do about it after they couldn't deny it any longer.



haypoint said:


> Contrary to Americaâs short historical past, the wealthiest have stopped reinvesting their wealth back into the country responsible for their wealth.


The wealthy have stopped investing because there's no demand for consumer products during a recession. You don't build new factories when workers are being laid off, because there's excess manufacturing capacity sitting idle. What we need is not investment in business, we need demand for consumer products. We aren't going to resolve this recession by manufacturing a bunch of stuff that nobody wants to buy.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> When the Great Lakes Freighter, Edmund Fitzgerald, got caught in a terrific storm, the Captain and crew werenât too worried. A big wave would wash over the ship, but after a few moments, the ship would emerge from the water and prepare for the next wave.
> But on an October night, 30 years ago, the winds of November came early. The mighty ship went into a wave and never came out. As the crew waited to break out of the wave, they headed to their icy graves.
> If this is a Recession/Depression that weâll soon break out of, then letâs not worry. But if we continue to spend like we are about to ride the wave of prosperity, while we are taking on water, we may not recover, ever.
> We were having jobs problems back when Ford and Carter were Presidents, as other countries were gaining market share. The Free Trade agreements, done solely to benefit the rich at the peril of the American workers, have punched holes in our already leaky financial ship. Weâve allowed millions into this country who only want to take (some by working hard, others by selling drugs and committing crimes) as much money as they can and send it to their home country.
> ...


 Agree.
And there are a lot of companies that have a lot of money on hand but are keeping it till they know EXSATLY How much Obamacare will cost them.
Companies HATE the unknown. They like to plan a year two years three years down the road and they just can't because of this cotton picken healthcare stuff now in front of them.
If that had been stopped, you would have been amazed at companies expanding and building new and adding new hires.
We can get out of this mess without ANY HELP form the foreign countries getting out of what they are in. Cause MOPST of them are in it because AMERICA is.
We do not have to wait for the other countries cause THEY are waiting for America to get out of our trouble, but our currant reigning president refuses to do things that could get this country back to work, he continues to do things just the opposite of what he should be doing. Heck History DOES repeat itself and it sure is from the 30's that lasted so long because they DID what Obama is doing now and continued the great depression even longer then it should have.
And many history giants will tell you the same thing. Those that are not persuaded by liberal ideas that is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And there are a lot of companies that have a lot of money on hand but are keeping it till they know EXSATLY How much Obamacare will cost them.


Companies are not going to invest in additional manufacturing capacity until consumer demand returns.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Companies are not going to invest in additional manufacturing capacity until consumer demand returns.


Consumer demand won't return until the people have faith in their government and have money in their pocket to spend. This much is clear, folks have no faith in this administration.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Make it EASIER for companies to build and hire and expand and they WILL HIRE, and THOSE people once getting BACK TO WORK will BUY THINGS. What is sooooo hard t understand about that? but this administration is making More Rules, more regulations, more CONTROLS on companies they are just NOT GOING TO Expand. Period.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Consumer demand won't return until the people have faith in their government and have money in their pocket to spend. This much is clear, folks have no faith in this administration.


Consumer demand will return when the economic problems we're suffering from work their way through the system. The problem is with a damaged banking system, not a democratic administration.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Make it EASIER for companies to build and hire and expand and they WILL HIRE, and THOSE people once getting BACK TO WORK will BUY THINGS. What is sooooo hard t understand about that? but this administration is making More Rules, more regulations, more CONTROLS on companies they are just NOT GOING TO Expand. Period.


You're putting the carriage in front of the horse. Consumer demand has to exist before manufacturing products can begin. No company is going to start making products that there is no demand for.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You know what? I supported the system for 40 years, never having much say in how funds were spent. I supported wars & tax cuts I didn't like, yet paid anyway. I retired a few months back so I just stopped caring. I did my part. Now it's your turn to support the system.


When you add three things together:

1) There are more on the system that others can support therefore the government must borrow 47% of the money it needs.

2) As some point no one is going to be stupid enough to loan the government money because they know there's no way they will ever get paid back.

3) There are many who have stopped caring and are no longer going to support the system.

I no longer care. I'm helping as many people as possible to cut back as so to pay as little tax, state and federal, as possible. 

I'm telling people if their personal morals will allow them they should apply for every possible "free" government program out there. The less taxes we pay and the more people sucking on the government teat the faster the system fails.

Think of it as economic guerrilla warfare.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've got Ronald Reagan's "iron clad commitment" on it. You aren't suggesting that I was lied to by the high priest of conservatism, are you?


I hate to point this out to you but RR is dead and any commitment he made died the day he left office.

The ponzi scheme of SS and the rest has to fail due to the fact THERE IS NO MONEY!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I hate to point this out to you but RR is dead and any commitment he made died the day he left office.
> 
> The ponzi scheme of SS and the rest has to fail due to the fact THERE IS NO MONEY!


Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's a retirement annuity. It won't fail. The baby boomers are working their way through the system right now. After they're dead and gone Social Security will become manageable again. We're not looking at an endless upward trajectory, we're looking at cyclic patterns.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't see a financial doomsday on the horizon. This is a recession of historical proportions. Surviving the recession without a humanitarian crisis should be our highest priority, even higher than debt management.


You are kidding right? Do you really think that the government can keep borrowing enough money to give all the goodies to the masses? 

At some point China is going to say "You want to borrow more money? You can BARELY make the interest payments on the money you already owe so we don't think there's any way you'll ever pay back the money we have already loaned you. So we aren't going to give you any more." 

What happens then? What happens when the federal government has to cut the budget by 50+% because it can get anyone to loan it money to cover it? 

Look at the numbers and you will realize the nation is screwed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> As for spending/revenue.
> 
> I am all for cutting the fat out. But in my opinion, before you cut one program designed to help Americans, you need to cut all programs that send money out of our nation. That includes medical aid to Pakistan, paying for Israel's Iron Dome rockets, this and that and all the other.
> 
> ...


I say we start by cutting any funds which are not constitutionally allowed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're putting the carriage in front of the horse. Consumer demand has to exist before manufacturing products can begin. No company is going to start making products that there is no demand for.


Really where was the demand for the iPod before it was made?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I say we start by cutting any funds which are not constitutionally allowed.


I take it that you will be in charge of interpreting the constitution.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> You are kidding right? Do you really think that the government can keep borrowing enough money to give all the goodies to the masses? Watcher


A bit of history that we should be aware of, the hyperinflation of the Wiemar Republic was mitigated by loans from American banks and financial recovery began until the financial collapse in 1929. By 1930 the Wiemar Republic finances were again in utter ruin. When the loans dried up the recovery collapsed.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

watcher said:


> I say we start by cutting any funds which are not constitutionally allowed.


I agree, cut off all foreign aid and then we can start within our own borders......


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

How come every proposal from the liberals or the slimy republicans raise taxes in the here and now, but not one cuts anything immediately? All the cuts are 10 years or more down the road.... We already know from history that the Dems/liberals/socialist won't honer the cuts if over time.. They have proven that more than once

So forget that! If you want to raise taxes now, cut spending now.. Otherwise go take a long walk off a short pier.. I'll provide the cement block for you...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

joseph97297 said:


> I agree, cut off all foreign aid and then we can start within our own borders......


Works for me, lets start now and then on Monday start within our borders...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I take it that you will be in charge of interpreting the constitution.


The Constitution is written in plain simple english... it doesnt need any interpretation.... just read it, then see if the spending in question qualifies. That would of course eliminate about two thirds of the budget automatically.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

7thswan said:


> If I was "rich", I'd move my money AND myself to the *Cayman* Islands.


I wonder where Bush Jr. was during the last election, and what was he doing there? Speaking of tax evasion among the ultra wealthy...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> I wonder where Bush Jr. was during the last election, and what was he doing there? Speaking of tax evasion among the ultra wealthy...


Bush got what he was after. He has no need for politics now.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Forerunner said:


> If the PTB are able to manipulate the collapse, as they believe they are, the shelf on which the world lands will leave later historians writing about the virtuous nature and benevolent demeanor of Adolf Hitler, by comparison.


The PTB have essentially turned this entire country into their own personal business investment. The tax payers are simply slaves, funding the PTB's fleecing and pillaging. They have already saturated us through the "news" media with enough propaganda to make Hitler look like a Care Bear.

Once you start following the money trail of our politicians..well, just follow it and draw your own conclusions...


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Bush got what he was after. He has no need for politics now.


He was in the Cayman Islands speaking at a very interesting closed-door conference. No media allowed.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Haven said:


> I wonder where Bush Jr. was during the last election, and what was he doing there? Speaking of tax evasion among the ultra wealthy...


Funny I don't see you going after Rangel who got caught evading taxes on his money/homes in the Dominican Republic and he is on the committee that writes tax law..

Or where is your outrage for Geitner(sp) on his tax fraud..

Oh that's right they are wealthy Liberals and thus above reproach and the law..


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> Funny I don't see you going after Rangel who got caught evading taxes on his money/homes in the Dominican Republic and he is on the committee that writes tax law..
> 
> Or where is your outrage for Geitner(sp) on his tax fraud..
> 
> Oh that's right they are wealthy Liberals and thus above reproach and the law..


The words "PTB" or Powers that Be, that I spoke of, are all-encompassing regardless of party...Read it as you will. /shrug.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> He was in the Cayman Islands speaking at a very interesting closed-door conference. No media allowed.


If the conference was closed-door, how do you know how interesting it might have been?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder where Bush Jr. was during the last election, and what was he doing there? Speaking of* tax evasion* among the ultra wealthy...


Are lame accusations the best you can do?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Haven said:


> The words "PTB" or Powers that Be, that I spoke of, are all-encompassing regardless of party...Read it as you will. /shrug.


Don't worry I will..

Now that the Reps have given Obama a compromise that included what he said he wanted 6 weeks ago or so, Obama has rejected it outright.. Simply because it didn't include the power for him to be able to increase the debt ceiling without Congress's approval..

Shade of Morsi?

Sounds like it to me..

Obama doesn't give a dang about the "fiscal cliff" he is just trying to acquire more power that the Constitution doesn't give him...

Yet all the liberals do is attack the rich and want to confiscate more from them.. While ignoring the tax laws themselves already in place.. 

Is that Freedom?

I think not!


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Why should a family, husband and wife both working, both with master's degrees, working very hard each day, making $250,000 or close. Why should they have to be taxed to pay for people who won't work? What is the point in getting an education and working yourself up the ladder if you are penalized for it?


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Nevada said:


> If the conference was closed-door, how do you know how interesting it might have been?


Because the topic of discussion was public and related to this thread. Forget it. Too much partisan grandstanding clouding people's rationality on here.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Excellent observation, GA...... that is EXACTLY the strategy the PTB have employed to equalize everyone.

Not only is ambition and personal responsibility punished; it is ever-increasingly destroyed.

I just wish mainstream America would have figured this out 75 years ago, or more, when statutory "law" was put in effect to facilitate that eventuality.

The beast has gone completely drunk with power, and soon that will not be enough to satisfy. Next, it's lust will be satisfied with nothing but blood.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> Excellent observation, GA...... that is EXACTLY the strategy the PTB have employed to equalize everyone.
> 
> Not only is ambition and personal responsibility punished; it is ever-increasingly destroyed.
> 
> ...


I fear that is the exact outcome the tptb desire!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Investment income ( collected mostly by the rich) is taxed at a lower rate than the blood, sweat and tears income we earn by working.
> 
> When the rich have teams of tax attournies working to get them out of paying the same percentages you and I pay, I think hiking up their tax rate would level the playing field. Perhaps, the rich will end up paying the percentage that Joe Paycheck pays.



And you would not have a job. Tax breaks on investment income are done so they put that money back into their business to hire more people. Most cities give tax breaks to get businesses to move to their town so they can get the tax revenue instead of the next town. Takes money to make money....James


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Originally Posted by haypoint View Post
Investment income ( collected mostly by the rich) is taxed at a lower rate than the blood, sweat and tears income we earn by working.

When the rich have teams of tax attournies working to get them out of paying the same percentages you and I pay, I think hiking up their tax rate would level the playing field. Perhaps, the rich will end up paying the percentage that Joe Paycheck pays.


Question -----------HOW many times does money earned via income have to be taxes. Investment money was earned and taxed and instead of burning it it was invested. It could have been lost and then the govenment would have gotten 100percent of the value of the sweat of someone.---Oh that's fine simply allow a deduction for the lose against wins cause the government NEEDS private people to do the investments.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> -----------HOW many times does money earned via income have to be taxes.


Since tax law is not natural law like gravity, it can be taxed as often as the people who make the rules say it can be.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And there is a natural law that people limit how often they are willing to contribute to repeatedly taxing earned money.---Stop investion Win Win?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I can understand the "double taxation" complaint about dividends comes from, but what about capital gains?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Why should a family, husband and wife both working, both with master's degrees, working very hard each day, making $250,000 or close. *Why should they have to be taxed to pay for people who won't work?* What is the point in getting an education and working yourself up the ladder if you are penalized for it?


Because they are the ones who any money.... the poor have none to take!


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

I am amazed that this sort of thinking has not been condemned roundly.
This is the worst kind of mob mentality, kill them because they have something I don't. I shudder to think, the people have come to this.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

bjba said:


> I am amazed that this sort of thinking has not been condemned roundly.
> This is the worst kind of mob mentality, kill them because they have something I don't. I shudder to think, the people have come to this.


Well that is the thinking of the Progressives as they think having a Democracy for Government (Mob Rule) is a good thing. But it is the absolutely the worst thing to happen in the USA


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

bjba said:


> I am amazed that this sort of thinking has not been condemned roundly.
> This is the worst kind of mob mentality, kill them because they have something I don't. I shudder to think, the people have come to this.


Sort of hard for me to understand how it is alright to take money away from a person who has worked for it then give it to another person who chooses not to work.
Theft is usually not looked on as an honorable thing.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

bjba said:


> I am amazed that this sort of thinking has not been condemned roundly.
> This is the worst kind of mob mentality, kill them because they have something I don't. I shudder to think, the people have come to this.


It made the difference between the US revolution and the French revolution... We're on the French Revolution path now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> It made the difference between the US revolution and the French revolution... We're on the French Revolution path now.


People will only tolerate being subjugated for so long before they put an end to it. Biblical history is full of examples.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> People will only tolerate being subjugated for so long before they put an end to it. Biblical history is full of examples.


Which has zero to do with what I just said.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> People will only tolerate being subjugated for so long before they put an end to it. Biblical history is full of examples.


Sorta makes one wonder why a society born into freedom would allow themselves to be ruled. Musta been a lot of free ice cream in the deal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Which has zero to do with what I just said.


Executing people for being wealthy in France during the revolution was extreme, but the people had been subjugated by the wealthy for as long as they could stand. It's easy to tell people that if they don't like being subjugated by the wealthy that they should simply work harder and become wealthy themselves, but that won't satisfy the masses forever.

I don't think people in America are frustrated to the point where they will be executing anyone, but they are certainly willing to use the ballot box to level the playing field.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Executing people for being wealthy in France during the revolution was extreme, but the people had been subjugated by the wealthy for as long as they could stand. It's easy to tell people that *if they don't like being subjugated by the wealthy that they should simply work harder and become wealthy themselves,* but that won't satisfy the masses forever.
> 
> I don't think people in America are frustrated to the point where they will be executing anyone, but they are certainly willing to use the ballot box to level the playing field.


Thats why I recommend they work hard and SMART so they can become wealthy. Working one fingers to the bone usually just results in boney fingers. 

Now... this part about voting themselves a level playing field... how exactly do you suppose that would work? This last election the people seemed to have voted to have themselves placed under even further restrictions, and reducing their chances of ever having any wealth. Are they really that stupid? or am I missing something?


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't think people in America are frustrated to the point where they will be executing anyone, but they are certainly willing to use the ballot box to *level the playing field.*


We already have a level playing field. What they are trying to vote themselves is level *results*, and that will *NEVER, EVER* happen. Every football game is played on a level playing field, but somebody always wins and somebody always loses.

Eighty percent of millionaires (which includes all the billionaires) earned their money themselves. It CAN be done, but the whiners and bedwetters want to be jealous of the success of others, and think they deserve part of what they've worked for just because they're taking up space and breathing air.

Equal opportunity *does not now, has not ever, and will not ever* mean equal results.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Executing people for being wealthy in France during the revolution was extreme, but the people had been subjugated by the wealthy for as long as they could stand. It's easy to tell people that if they don't like being subjugated by the wealthy that they should simply work harder and become wealthy themselves, but that won't satisfy the masses forever.
> 
> I don't think people in America are frustrated to the point where they will be executing anyone, but they are certainly willing to use the ballot box to level the playing field.


I think a lot of people say they want a level playing field.
In reality they want to be on the uphill side of that field.
They have found out they can vote their way into believing a steep cliff is an even playing field.
The other people are going to be the ones who go over that cliff.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> We already have a level playing field.


Not hardly. It's not a level playing field getting there, and it's not a level playing field once they are there. Never was, never will be.

Money is always the great equalizer. The fact is that people who have families who can afford to them to ivy league colleges will meet friends in college who can do them a lot of good. Going to an ivy league college is like joining a club, so to speak. People who can only afford state college won't get that advantage.

Laws are stacked against the little guy. We recently had a case here in Nevada where a developer offered home buyers a house price guarantee. The offers were made back in 2007-2008 when people stopped buying because housing prices were dropping. The guarantee said that if the value of the home dropped below the purchase price after 5 years that the developer would refund the difference. This year the developer asked a federal judge to cancel the contract because it would harm his company. The judge did it.

The moral is that when push comes to shove contracts only exist to benefit corporations, not individuals. We're seeing the same with union contracts. It's not a 2-way street, since the little guy always seems to get the short end of the stick.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> the little guy always seems to get the short end of the stick.


Perhaps you could tell us which "Ivy league" school J.D. Rockefeller attended? Or how much of his money Steve Jobs inherited? Seems like I heard somewhere that slick Willie was raised by a single mom on welfare... I doubt he had many rich relatives to send him through school. 
Most people who end up on the short end of the stick are there simply because thats the end they grabbed for. They went for instant gratification, short term goals, and did not do the work required to make their stick grow. Those who do... tend to prosper.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Not hardly. It's not a level playing field getting there, and it's not a level playing field once they are there. Never was, never will be.
> 
> Money is always the great equalizer...........
> 
> ...



Same song. Different verse.

*Eighty percent*. Read that again. *EIGHTY PERCENT* of those worth a million dollars or more, earned their money *THEMSELVES*. That means *TWENTY PERCENT* inherited it. 

If everything was as 'stacked against the little guy' as you say, that figure would be at least reversed.

It's nonsense, and you know it.

I don't know the details of the case you cited, but if the judge nullified a valid contract for no good reason, he should be impeached and disbarred.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not hardly. It's not a* level playing field* getting there, and it's not a* level playing field *once they are there. Never was, never will be.


Parroted *Buzzwords* seem to be all you've got


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> I don't know the details of the case you cited, but if the judge nullified a valid contract for no good reason, he should be impeached and disbarred.


It was huge news here. But corporate bankruptcy laws heavily favor companies. The idea is that saving corporations by most any means is good for America, since it preserves jobs. Here's a link to the story.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/homebuilder-gets-ok-to-wipe-out-price-commitments-146872355.html 

People are still talking about it around Las Vegas. Here is a link to a story about some people who got hooked into that deal, which was written before the case was ruled on.

http://www.lvrj.com/business/home-price-promise-eludes-valley-buyers-145325405.html

A contract with a corporation means nothing, unless it favors them of course.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not hardly. It's not a level playing field getting there, and it's not a level playing field once they are there. Never was, never will be.
> 
> Money is always the great equalizer. The fact is that people who have families who can afford to them to ivy league colleges will meet friends in college who can do them a lot of good. Going to an ivy league college is like joining a club, so to speak. People who can only afford state college won't get that advantage.
> 
> ...


I do remember reading about that.
Seems like I remember the developer was going bankrupt himself or making good on the contract would bankrupt him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I do remember reading about that.
> Seems like I remember the developer was going bankrupt himself or making good on the contract would bankrupt him.


Actually, the sole purpose of the bankruptcy was to get rid of the price guarantee promise. I've see no reason to believe that the developer was in danger of failing otherwise.

The entire premise of the bankruptcy was that if they had to make good on all of those promises that the company would have failed, which is probably true.

But even if the developer was going bankrupt, why should the homeowners have to absorb the lost property values. How many homeowners ended up in bankruptcy as a result of that promise not being kept? It's just another case of the little guy getting screwed while the big guy gets away smelling like a rose.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But even if the developer was going bankrupt, why should the homeowners have to absorb the lost property values. How many homeowners ended up in bankruptcy as a result of that promise not being kept? It's just another case of the little guy getting screwed while the big guy gets away smelling like a rose.


If it was a bankruptcy case, whether the developer was going bankrupt or went to court to avoid it, that's a whole other can of worms.

If they entered into a contract in good faith, and they wound up losing because of it, I do feel sorry for them. If the judge ruled according to the law, then he did his job. Again, I don't know all the details, and frankly I don't care to research it right now.

But for every one of these kinds of people, there were thousands that were simply buying more house than they could afford, at interest-only or ARM loans, counting on a big gain in value in a year or two to sell it and make big bucks. When the bottom fell out, they were caught with their pants down. They were stupid, and I don't feel sorry for them one bit.

It also doesn't change the fact that if everything were so 'stacked against the little guy', NO ONE would be able to grow rich, and people do it EVERY DAY.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The truth is if a person was buying a home they still have the home no matter what the value is today. If they were buying for an investment they should know there is always the possibility of loosing. Not every investment is a money maker.
Investors lost money, home owners didn't lose anything.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> The truth is if a person was buying a home they still have the home no matter what the value is today. If they were buying for an investment they should know there is always the possibility of loosing. Not every investment is a money maker.
> Investors lost money, home owners didn't lose anything.


The problem is that many homes have lost more than half their value. My home lost 80%. The previous homeowner wasn't going to make payments on a $160K mortgage when the house was only worth $30K. That would cost him an extra $1000+ each month in higher house payments. Not gonna happen...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The problem is that many homes have lost more than half their value. My home lost 80%. The previous homeowner wasn't going to make payments on a $160K mortgage when the house was only worth $30K. That would cost him an extra $1000+ each month in higher house payments. Not gonna happen...


Is it the banks fault the previous owner paid that amount for a house.
If he bought a car it would go down in value but he would still drive. If his home went down in value he could still live in it.

Sounds like the previous homeowner wasn't a very honest person.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Is it the banks fault the previous owner paid that amount for a house.


We could do an entire thread on that question.

But the bank, like the homeowner, made an investment in that property. The home buyer agreed to let the home be collateral for the loan, and the bank was okay with that. The bank got the house when the homeowner stopped making payments.

But bankers are professional investors. The home buyer has to believe what he's told, but bankers are supposed to be smarter. It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for the bank.

I deliberately stayed out of the fray back in 2003-2006. I was told here in GC how stupid I was for not buying a home. One member told me that if I didn't buy right then I would never own a home for the rest of my life. I was even offered a liars loan by a local realtor, yet I turned it down. I'm not going to believe that I saw through the hype but bankers were duped. They knew.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The problem is that many homes have lost more than half their value. My home lost 80%. The previous homeowner wasn't going to make payments on a $160K mortgage when the house was* only worth $30K.* That would cost him an extra $1000+ each month in higher house payments. Not gonna happen...


That's what it would be worth *IF they SOLD* it.
As long as they KEEP it , it's "worth" what *they agreed to PAY* for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what it would be worth *IF they SOLD* it.
> As long as they KEEP it , it's "worth" what *they agreed to PAY* for it.


No, they lose $1000+ per month if they stay in the house. People are walking away from their homes because they have to.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, they lose $1000+ per month if they stay in the house. People are walking away from their homes because they have to.


They entered into an agreement and failed to live up to the contract they signed. They bought the house at a price they felt was good at the time. they aren't loosing anything. It's still the same payment they agreed upon in the first place. The homeowner made a choice to walk away. They didn"t have to do anything! Entirely the homeowners fault!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

tyusclan said:


> Same song. Different verse.
> 
> *Eighty percent*. Read that again. *EIGHTY PERCENT* of those worth a million dollars or more, earned their money *THEMSELVES*. That means *TWENTY PERCENT* inherited it.
> 
> ...


Are you talking about people that have a million dollars in assets? are you talking about people that have a million in the bank? Are you talking about those that earned a million dollars this year?

What if we, for just a moment, shine the light on the top .1%. I think you'll find Steve Jobs type folks to be mostly absent from this group.

But when people try to defend the wealthiest .1%, they prefer to lump in the top 20 or 30% of the richest in this country. That way you'll include the folks that earned it on their own and that have created jobs.

Give a tax break to the top .1% and you'll not effect jobs or business growth in this country one bit. They aren't investing here and haven't for some time now.

Back in the day, if JD Rockefeller, Carnegie and JP Morgan stopped investing in this country, shipped their businesses to China and Mexico, hid all their money in Austrian Banks, would you vote them a tax break? Really?

If the rich acted like Ford in the past hundred years, paying a fair wage, re-investing in a wide number of communities, growing our economy, I wouldnât have a problem with continuing their hundreds of different tax loopholes. But they arenât a part of America. They are simply preying on Americans and have bought a government that lets them do it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If corporate taxes were not the highest in the world just maybe some of that money that the very top has would STAY in this country. And going even higher. and even adding more tax on Capital Gains.
WHY do you think Apple has lost so much in the last few months on stock value? Stock has Dropped from a HIgh of 710 to 533. Nearly a 200 dollar DROP, as investors Take MONEY OUT NOW before they are hit at a even higher rate.~!
Investors getting rid of money that if they cash in stock in 2013 they would be paying 5% MORE.
That is NOT the way to do things in this country. Take away even more from those that hav.
The way to have more move out is UP their share even more and they WILL find it better then ever to keep their money out of the USA.
And besides tax the rich will not do One Bit Of Good.
This will only supply the government enough money to operate 8 DAYS.
The Government MUST STOP SPENDING that is the problem not its revenue coming in.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> They entered into an agreement and failed to live up to the contract they signed. They bought the house at a price they felt was good at the time. they aren't loosing anything. It's still the same payment they agreed upon in the first place. The homeowner made a choice to walk away. They didn"t have to do anything! Entirely the homeowners fault!


You forgot âinterestâ? Banks charge interest to cover themselves if the loan goes sour. People with poor credit, higher risk, pay higher interest. 
Banks loan money and take the risk. They make money when the people pay their loans. Generally, their interest is high enough that when most people pay their loans, a few fail, they still make money.
Over the past 50 or so years, the economy has been stable enough for banks to amass great wealth. Look at the names of most skyscrapers and huge new office buildings in every major city in the country. Yup, Banks, Investment Firms and Insurance Companies. 
So, where does a Bank get their money? They borrow it from the Feds or they hold your savings for you. Right now they are paying .01% on amounts above $10,000 held at least a year. The cheapest interest they offer on a loan is around 4%. Thatâs about a four thousand percent markup.
So, if you are upside down on your mortgage, donât be a chump. Dump it and go looking for something you can afford. When Banks didnât have a heart when folks tried to get some help when they lost their jobs. So, now that you want to walk away from your contract, you have to be careful not to break the bankâs heart?

Its the homeowners fault for not looking correctly into the future 30 years? Well then maybe the Banks should have consulted their crystal ball, too, before they loaned the money.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> They entered into an agreement and failed to live up to the contract they signed. They bought the house at a price they felt was good at the time. they aren't loosing anything. It's still the same payment they agreed upon in the first place. The homeowner made a choice to walk away. They didn"t have to do anything! Entirely the homeowners fault!


The bank entered into the same agreement, contracting to accept that property as collateral. They got the property, so why should they gripe?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We could do an entire thread on that question.
> 
> But the bank, like the homeowner, made an investment in that property. The home buyer agreed to let the home be collateral for the loan, and the bank was okay with that. The bank got the house when the homeowner stopped making payments.
> 
> ...


I don't have any sympathy for banks but less for this type of business men. You can't call him a homeowner.
When he bought the house it was worth what he paid for it or he is a fool.
He chose to void the contract when the value of the house dropped. Where did he move? Will he do this every time he buys something that does not go up in price?

I have bought several homes. Got several x-wives. I wasn't buying for investments and could care less if the value went up or down. I was buying for a place to live. If he was buying for an investment he should know that you do not always make money on every investment.

Sounds like a bum to me.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, they lose $1000+ per month if they stay in the house. People are walking away from their homes because they have to.


I don't see how they would be loosing anything.
The house is still the same house they bought.
It is still as good of a home as it was before.
I might understand if they lost their jobs but that isn't what you said.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I don't have any sympathy for banks but less for this type of business men. You can't call him a homeowner.
> When he bought the house it was worth what he paid for it or he is a fool.
> He chose to void the contract when the value of the house dropped. Where did he move? Will he do this every time he buys something that does not go up in price?
> 
> ...


Evidently you have no idea what's happened to housing in Las Vegas.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you have no idea what's happened to housing in Las Vegas.


It doesn't matter what happened to housing in Las Vegas.
It has to do with people buying a house for an investment instead of a home.
An investment can go up or down.
A home does not matter as it is still the same home no matter what someone says what it is worth.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you have no idea what's happened to housing in Las Vegas.


or Detroit.
Ten years ago, median home value in Detroit was $100,000. now it is under $8,000. you going to stay and pay or are you going to walk?

For a hundred years banks have been making money both ways, collecting interest from those that pay and kicking folks out when they don't. Worked fine when property values were stable. They made a profit either way. Now people have lost their jobs and can't pay and for once the ban isn't going to be able to sell for over the amount owed (that's why they require down payments) and we are to feel sorry for them?


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Interestingly enough seems no one is willing to recognize that without a lender willing to risk the capital very few would own a home.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bjba said:


> Interestingly enough seems no one is willing to recognize that without a lender willing to risk the capital very few would own a home.


Oh, I see it quite clearly. Risk. 
Why should someone that suddenly, through no fault of his own, becomes seriously "upside down" on his morgage, cover the Bank's admitted Risk?

Some of the same folks that think it's wrong to walk on a morgage that got out of whack and feel sorry for the bank, yet when Grandma loses her retirement investment when Wall Street got caught marketing worthless derivities, they say, " Well, the stock market is a gamble, serves her right."

Yes, if banks didn't loan money, few people would own homes, cars and a lot more. but do not fool yourself. They don't do it to provide a service. They do it to make money. Lots and lots of money. But nothing stays the same. If you are doing good, enjoy it, it won't last. If you are having a struggle, don't worry, its temporary. If the bank has been able to limit their risk and make a fortune, fine. The economy crashed. People lost their jobs. People lost their homes. Happened befor, will happen again. This time, the banks are having trouble reselling the homes they kicked families out of. But don't worry. Banks are borrowing at .1% and loaning at 4.99%. They'll be able to keep their 6 figure Christmas bonuses.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> Interestingly enough seems no one is willing to recognize that without a lender willing to risk the capital very few would own a home.


To be clear, banks haven't really operated that way since the 1970s. They operate more like a retail vendor, borrowing money wholesale from commercial banks (who borrow it from the Fed) then lending it out to the public at retail rates. Banks haven't lent their own money since the so-called "partner banks" got bought out by Wall Street corporations decades ago. Evidently Wall Street fleeced American banking while you weren't looking.

And what happens if something goes wrong and the banks can't repay? Well, it's only really happened once, and that was in 2008. The taxpayers bailed them out (at least the fair-haired banks), with the Fed lending the banks some $7 trillion that doesn't really exist to cover the lost value of virtually all of the residential real estate in America.

The fact is that with the way banks operate today, they take no realistic risk at all.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

It would be foolish to assume any lender would put its' capital at risk as a service. Profit is the motive that has driven the greatest economy in history. It seems to me those who would argue with success are engaging in foolishness of the first order. No matter how many ways one spins it if there were no lenders there would be few owners of most anything.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

But bankers are professional investors. *The home buyer has to believe what he's told,* but bankers are supposed to be smarter. It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for the bank.


The home buyer has to believer what he's told? WOW how about Home owners need to be responsible and educated before, during and after the purchase. If you really are out there signing papers with out understanding what is up YOU are potentially creating a problem. Unless someone has a gun to your head step up to the plate and face your own music. 

I have made tons of mistakes --and and am going to make more in the future. They are MY mistakes and because they are mine I learned from them. We are not talking just mistakes like missing the school bus I am talking about my blunder of failing to check out my home builder only to hire a great con man (currently in jail). I honestly ended up pretty down and out --I was Not happy but it will NEVER happen again. It has taken about 10 years but working smarter, learning NEW skills (many here on HT) revamping what were current opportunites and gleaning thur them to find new goals to change were we were at.

The ease in which people excuse the lack of personal responcablity is lowering the bar for self improvement. Real Estate is housing first and if people accepted this then rather than risk housing for wealth with out work they would sleep better in their own home. There can if the stars align and planning is used a time when a person truly has the resources to enter into risky investments as long as they EDUCATED themselves of the risks. 

Everyone should learn that they ---themself need to C their butt with knowledge note assumptions. In this day of internet and the avaidblity of computers there is little reason to live by the belief that The home buyer has to believe what he's told,


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> The home buyer has to believer what he's told? WOW how about Home owners need to be responsible and educated before, during and after the purchase.


Individual home buyers don't have the market resources that bankers have. Most get their real estate investment advice from their friendly realtor, who will always tell them _"there has never been a better time to buy than now"_, regardless of market conditions. Heck, the realtor just wants to make a sale, so you won't hear him say _"if I were you I'd wait another 6 months or a year to buy."_


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bjba said:


> It would be foolish to assume any lender would put its' capital at risk as a service. Profit is the motive that has driven the greatest economy in history. It seems to me those who would argue with success are engaging in foolishness of the first order. No matter how many ways one spins it if there were no lenders there would be few owners of most anything.


It all goes to motivation. You would be correct if banks were still owned by partners, but that ended decades ago. Today those banks are run by professional CEOs who are hired to maximize profits. They are offered huge bonus payments if they can do it, but higher profits means higher risk. It's not the CEO's money, and they are offering hundreds of millions to him to take risks, so why wouldn't he take risks?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Individual home buyers don't have the market resources that bankers have. Most get their real estate investment advice from their friendly realtor, who will always tell them _"there has never been a better time to buy than now"_, regardless of market conditions. Heck, the realtor just wants to make a sale, so you won't hear him say _"if I were you I'd wait another 6 months or a year to buy."_




Where did you learn that a realtor just wants to make a sale---Like what special education that you got that others were barred from. You are making excuses for people NOT doing due diligence.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Are you talking about people that have a million dollars in assets? are you talking about people that have a million in the bank? Are you talking about those that earned a million dollars this year?
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, blah.



If you have to ask this question, based on my post, you don't have enough of a grasp of the concepts of economics for me to discuss this with you.

And the rest of what you posted had nothing *at all* to do with what I was saying.

I'm not wasting any more of my time.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

tyusclan said:


> If you have to ask this question, based on my post, you don't have enough of a grasp of the concepts of economics for me to discuss this with you.
> 
> And the rest of what you posted had nothing *at all* to do with what I was saying.
> 
> I'm not wasting any more of my time.


If you refuse to see the huge difference between the top .1% and the top 20% then you'll not understand what I wrote. 

Save yourself from learning anything by avoiding my posts. From now on, I'll put my picture and name in the upper left corner, so you'll easily avoid my posts.:hysterical:
Don't put Blah, blah, blah into anyone's quote unless they really said that.:nono:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Individual home buyers don't have the market resources that bankers have. Most get their real estate investment advice from their friendly realtor, who will always tell them _"there has never been a better time to buy than now"_, regardless of market conditions. Heck, the realtor just wants to make a sale, so you won't hear him say _"if I were you I'd wait another 6 months or a year to buy."_


If your livelyhood depended on them buying a home today, what would you tell them?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

It really comes down to greed and trying to make a buck.
Both the banks and those who borrow money from them.
It isn't only the blame of the bank and it isn't only the blame of the borrower.

Much like scams and cons. They won't work unless all of those involved think they are going to come out ahead.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes, it is a risk for both sides. A risk to you that you'll pay three times what you borrowed, then lose your job and have to let the Bank take your home.
A risk to the Bank that they won't be able to recover their principal if you fail to pay and the market goes below what they loaned. Heaven forbid that they'd lose their interest, too.
For 60 years, the Banks have done great. Recently, a bunch of Banks got bailed out. So, you think someone should pay their morgage before all other expenses?

A few years ago, there was a story about a woman, 75 years old, living in a $180,000 home. Her husband died, the market crashed and she was left owing $80,000 on her home. She couldn't afford it and tried to sell. With the housing collaps, her home wouldn't sell at $60,000. What should she do? She walked away from it. The Bank threatened they'd ruin her credit rating. Haha. Do you think she should have sold it at $50,000 and continued to pay the Bank everything she had until the $30,000, plus interest was paid?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This is how Banks really work


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ever hear of the law of 72 when it comes to interest? Not one person is forced to buy a house -(you are to be forced to buy health care but many are on board for this so maybe down the line we will be forced to by a house)--

If you have graduated from High School and you lack the math skills to understand interest and pay off and principle might I lead you to AAAmath.com. When you finish learning this secret knowledge complain to the school district you went to in high school. I learn cal. interest in 6th grade. What is with this 3 times the princ. for a life time repay-- That is your choice of who you borrow from, your credit risk eval, the amount you put down, and the loan program you select and qual for. There are lots of stuff I would love to have--fencing--I could borrow it but it would cost me dearly because I did have a major lowering of income, where I live has limited potential for year round jobs, I faced health issues in the family so debt is high and in those issues put me in a siduation of late payments (but I contacted the lenders and showed a 6 month plan to catch up--but still I have lates in the record in the past 36 month) Have a goal, prep--That INCLUDES education, wait to make a move when the time is right --(sorta like you can't bag a moose by just firing a gun you better have the moose in your sites, a tag and a lic, and it sure better be in season)

There is always going to be smarter people out there to deal with so learn that your school days are not over and learn to find and use info that is out there. But stop crying victim.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Ever hear of the law of 72 when it comes to interest? Not one person is forced to buy a house -(you are to be forced to buy health care but many are on board for this so maybe down the line we will be forced to by a house)--
> 
> If you have graduated from High School and you lack the math skills to understand interest and pay off and principle might I lead you to AAAmath.com. When you finish learning this secret knowledge complain to the school district you went to in high school. I learn cal. interest in 6th grade. What is with this 3 times the princ. for a life time repay-- That is your choice of who you borrow from, your credit risk eval, the amount you put down, and the loan program you select and qual for. There are lots of stuff I would love to have--fencing--I could borrow it but it would cost me dearly because I did have a major lowering of income, where I live has limited potential for year round jobs, I faced health issues in the family so debt is high and in those issues put me in a siduation of late payments (but I contacted the lenders and showed a 6 month plan to catch up--but still I have lates in the record in the past 36 month) Have a goal, prep--That INCLUDES education, wait to make a move when the time is right --(sorta like you can't bag a moose by just firing a gun you better have the moose in your sites, a tag and a lic, and it sure better be in season)
> 
> There is always going to be smarter people out there to deal with so learn that your school days are not over and learn to find and use info that is out there. But stop crying victim.


No victims. The Banks do what they can and folks do what they can. Just I see no need to feel sorry for the banks when folks get upsidedown on their morgages and choose to walk away from it.
Yes, three times is a bit of a streach. But I see lots of foreclosed 30 year morgages that were collecting 9.5%. That is three times the principal.

http://www.amortization-calc.com/

Great that your Bank chose to work with you. Back when home values were going up, lots of banks were ready to takke your home when you got behind. If your Bank hadn't decided to work with you and simply took your house, would there be any victims in that story?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I didnt buy our home... I built it, with materials purchased a little at a time... out of my back pocket. I became very much more aware of the actual cost of a home this way.... and I dont have to worry quite so much about some banker repossessing it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I seem to remember a story about an elderly woman who was forced out of the home she was born in.
I think we even had a thread about it on here.
The story was she owed more for the home than it was worth. After reading the story she had inherited the home from her parents. Immediately got a home consolidation loan. She and her family continued to do the same thing every time the bank would accept a loan application. Again if I remember right the woman was over 60 years old. Because of the loans they got they were still making payments 50 years after she got the home for free.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I bought land only. Built deeds are for land only all but one building are moveable. If people talked to lenders (oh I did not have a bank in the mix--)local government only so I had to met with the mayor and Financial officer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tyusclan said:


> If you have to ask this question, based on my post, you don't have enough of a grasp of the concepts of economics for me to discuss this with you.
> 
> And the rest of what you posted had nothing *at all* to do with what I was saying.
> 
> I'm not wasting any more of my time.


I think his point was that millionaires are no so uncommon today. It's not unusual for the equity in a house and an IRA account to total $1 million for someone approaching retirement.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pancho said:


> I seem to remember a story about an elderly woman who was forced out of the home she was born in.
> I think we even had a thread about it on here.
> The story was she owed more for the home than it was worth. After reading the story she had inherited the home from her parents. Immediately got a home consolidation loan. She and her family continued to do the same thing every time the bank would accept a loan application. Again if I remember right the woman was over 60 years old. Because of the loans they got they were still making payments 50 years after she got the home for free.


Yeppers... there are foolish people everywhere. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would risk their home by borrowing money against it just for "walking money"?!?! I recall an elderly couple that bought a home I had listed... had good credit, and wanted to go shopping. They took out a loan on their home, then another for a new car, then another for the boat... within three years the bank had repopped their home and set them in the street because they couldnt make their payments. :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think his point was that millionaires are no so uncommon today. It's not unusual for the equity in a house and an IRA account to total $1 million for someone approaching retirement.


This is true. Millionaires today are much more common than many folks realize. I think median income is somewhere around 46k per year.... 46k x 30 years = 1.3 million bucks that the average Joe will earn by the time he's 50. Assuming he is half way intelligent his net worth by that time should be in the million dollar range. Me? I didnt do so well, kept giving my money to ex wives... so I ended up "short of the mark" by quite a bit.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is true. Millionaires today are much more common than many folks realize. I think median income is somewhere around 46k per year.... 46k x 30 years = 1.3 million bucks that the average Joe will earn by the time he's 50. Assuming he is half way intelligent his net worth by that time should be in the million dollar range. Me? I didnt do so well, kept giving my money to ex wives... so I ended up "short of the mark" by quite a bit.


I seem to have the same problem. A couple of the x-wives are doing pretty good. Me, not so much.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> I seem to have the same problem. A couple of the x-wives are doing pretty good. Me, not so much.


I married a woman that was a good housekeeper. When we split up, she kept the house.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I married a woman that was a good housekeeper. When we split up, she kept the house.....


I have had two of those!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The odd thing is.... they BOTH sold them within a few months of the ink drying on the divorce papers! Apparently they didnt really want them afterall.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have had two of those!


Lucky, I had 4.
I am beginning to think I might have something to do with it.


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think his point was that millionaires are no so uncommon today. It's not unusual for the equity in a house and an IRA account to total $1 million for someone approaching retirement.


Which is exactly what conservatives have been saying when opposing the tax increase to make 'millionaires and billionaires' (Obama's words) pay 'their fair share'. 

What he posted still had nothing to do with what I said in my post.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

There are plenty of folks that earn $500,000 a year and think they are Middle Class. There are plenty of people that think those that earn a million a year are in the top 1%.
Others throw millionaires into the same sentence with billionaires. I suspect some folk have no idea how many millions it takes to make a billion. Is it a hundred million or a thousand million?
If our economy suddenly improved to the unthinkable growth of 10% and continued to make that jump last for decades, we&#8217;ll never catch up to the current deficit. If we slash the budget, we&#8217;ll throw the country into a further recession. 
The Middle Class is going to have to foot much of the deficit. That pill will only be swallowed after the rich get their wings clipped a bit, too.
While most of the top .1% have their wealth hidden off shore, increasing the tax a bit on their million dollar petty cash reserves still on our shore, wouldn&#8217;t be too much to ask, IMHO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> While most of the top .1% have their wealth hidden off shore, *increasing the tax a bit on their million dollar petty cash reserves* still on our shore, wouldn&#8217;t be too much to ask, IMHO.


"Wealth" isn't taxed
"Income" is taxed


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The Middle Class is going to have to foot much of the deficit.


If the wealthy don't pay it then someone else is going to have to, and that undoubtedly means us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If the wealthy don't pay it then someone else is going to have to, and that undoubtedly means us.


The so called "wealthy" pay for most of everything now.
No one needs to pay more
They need to *SPEND LESS*


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

pancho said:


> lucky, i had 4.
> I am beginning to think i might have something to do with it.


lmao!


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

If we get the tax increases that Obama is pushing for, *AND* the revenue is as high as projected (it never is), it would fund the government for *11 days*.

Hitting the scratch on the record one more time, 'The deficit and debt are not a result of undertaxing, they're a result of overspending.'


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> But bankers are professional investors. *The home buyer has to believe what he's told,* but bankers are supposed to be smarter. It's difficult for me to have a lot of sympathy for the bank.
> 
> 
> The home buyer has to believer what he's told? WOW how about Home owners need to be responsible and educated before, during and after the purchase. If you really are out there signing papers with out understanding what is up YOU are potentially creating a problem. Unless someone has a gun to your head step up to the plate and face your own music.
> ...


The problem is that the banks were lending like there was no tomorrow and using shady tactics to get everyone approved. 

Personally responsibility is a must, but, soooo many people blindly signed on the dotted line because they were taught _nothing_ about this in school or by their parents. They had no idea what was contained in those 20 pages they signed when they bought that McMansion on a blue collar salary. The banks told them they could afford it, and they listened...Still there is no excuse for an adult to enter into something like this without doing their due diligence. I suppose people simply don't understand how banking and real estate works, and decided to trust their banker, Realtor and loan officer. Hopefully most people learned their lesson by now.

My mother retired after 35 years of teaching and became a Realtor 12 years ago. She is financially brilliant and has been "saving" her clients from shady loans during the peak of this problem. It is still going on...just in the last week alone she saved a client from investing in a shady VA loan, and uncovered another bogus loan officer who could not be traced back to company he supposedly worked for. 10 years ago, the banks were gung ho on ARM's, now they are pulling a few new tricks. Most Realtors simply want their commission check and do not look out for their clients; most also have no financial knowledge.

This real word stuff needs to be taught in schools and by parents. Instead we invest in high school football stars.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Haven said:


> *The problem is that the banks were lending like there was no tomorrow and using shady tactics to get everyone approved. *
> 
> Personally responsibility is a must, but, soooo many people blindly signed on the dotted line because they were taught _nothing_ about this in school or by their parents. They had no idea what was contained in those 20 pages they signed when they bought that McMansion on a blue collar salary. The banks told them they could afford it, and they listened...Still there is no excuse for an adult to enter into something like this without doing their due diligence. I suppose people simply don't understand how banking and real estate works, and decided to trust their banker, Realtor and loan officer. Hopefully most people learned their lesson by now.
> 
> ...



As they were forced to do by the Government programs and regs...

Banks wouldn't have lent that money if the Government hadn't made them do it or guaranteed that they would be repaid, either by the borrower or by the Government (ie taxpayers dollars).. This was pushed by the liberals/Dems.. Yet you and others seem to want to blame everyone but those that pushed/forced this issue..

Why is that?


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

No one made them do it. They were greedy and wanted a fatter paycheck; the buyers wanted a fatter house. Symbiotic relationship.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

beowoulf90 said:


> As they were forced to do by the Government programs and regs...
> 
> Banks wouldn't have lent that money if the Government hadn't made them do it or guaranteed that they would be repaid, either by the borrower or by the Government (ie taxpayers dollars).. This was pushed by the liberals/Dems.. Yet you and others seem to want to blame everyone but those that pushed/forced this issue..
> 
> Why is that?


 Yuppers with Clinton and that Everybody deserves to be ion a new house and this will help bill, made it look very attractive to so many, and they just took advantage of it not giving a thought to what 4 years down the road with that ARM adjusts are we going to be able to make that larger payment.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If the wealthy don't pay it then someone else is going to have to, and that undoubtedly means us.


Or we could just let everyone pay the same as the do now and adjust our spending to match our income.
No matter what many people say, it can be done, even I am able to do it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The so called "wealthy" pay for most of everything now.
> No one needs to pay more
> They need to *SPEND LESS*


Just how big of a cut to your Social Security check are you willing to take to help the government SPEND LESS?
Easy to say spend less, but when it is your program that gets cut, the crying begins. 
How about Medicaid? That's some fairly new thing the government thought up. Let's do away with that, too. Ready?
Be great to see some of those lazy old people back working in the factory, but this time for minimum wage, since no one wants Unions any more.
Lets all work harder for less than they do in China, so we can get our jobs back. Jst think of all the profits made by the rich by not having to ship America's raw products to China and then pay to ship the finished items back here. Maybe those growing their billions on the backs of the workers, will willingly pay off our national debt?

Spend Less is more of a bumper sticker than it is a plan. Where do you cut that doesn't hurt the people, the economy or the security of this country?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In his early activist days, Barack Obama the community organizer [ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=431_1314157066"]sued banks[/ame] to ease their lending practices. Now his administration is suing banks for issuing risky mortgages.

State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest in Chicago in January 2000. (*NBC 5* Week of January 3, 2000)


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/08/the-most-absurd-loophole-in-the-tax-code

Warning if you are a land owner PUT DOWN THE COFFEE CUP--Merry Christmas


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Just how big of a cut to your Social Security check are you willing to take to help the government SPEND LESS?
> Easy to say spend less, but when it is your program that gets cut, the crying begins.
> How about Medicaid? That's some fairly new thing the government thought up. Let's do away with that, too. Ready?
> Be great to see some of those lazy old people back working in the factory, but this time for minimum wage, since no one wants Unions any more.
> ...


People just can't seem to understand. We will have to cut expences, across the board.

Imagine our govt. as a barrel. Now imagine our taxes are water. Now imagine govt. benefits as the water coming out of the barrel.

Our taxes, water, is going into the barrel.
Benefits, water, is coming out of the barrel.
Even if we would have started out with a full barrel how low do you think the level would be by now?
What do you think will happen when that barrel runs dry?

Do you think restricting the outflow might make the water last longer?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> People just can't seem to understand. We will have to cut expences, across the board.
> 
> Imagine our govt. as a barrel. Now imagine our taxes are water. Now imagine govt. benefits as the water coming out of the barrel.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Just no one wants their hole plugged and we've let those with a lot of water, put theirs in an off shore account instead of adding to the barrel.

When we borrow, in this case use someone else's water to keep our barrel full, the Country that loans the "water" expects to be allowed to drill another hole in our barrel so they can get their money, err water back, plus extra water as interest. We are to the point where most of the water we are borrowing is just to cover the hole the lender driled to draw their interest.

We can't stop the hole that interest flows out of. To do that the Countries that are loaning us more and more every day will stop and then we really run out of water fast.
We can't cut back on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. The seniors and the poor wouldn't allow it.
Stopping government waste is chump change, if it can be found.
Cutting back on the military after we've made the American hating oil rich countries wealthy beyond belief, seems a sure way to return the Ottoman Empire to a World Leader.
We have billions that is earned in this country, but no tax is paid on it because it is held in off shore accounts by the wealthiest.
In order to increase their wealth, the rich have exported American natural resorces and American jobs overseas. So the poor and middleclass cannot pay income taxes, no job, while the rich pay no income taxes, tax loopholes.
To compound it further, we have 18,000,000 workers that are here illegally. Most pay no taxes. Nearly all of them, plus the millions here legally send their earnings to another country. Their incomes are not able to circulate in America.

So, it isn't just that we have too many holes in our barrel, there isn't enough being added to the barrel.

Seems easy, until you are asked to take a cut in your Social Security or what ever benifit you get.

You refuse to see how the top .1% shelter their incomes and don't want their taxes raised. Well, it is likely your taxes are going up. Are you willing to accept a bigger tax bite so the wealthiest can continue to compound their incomes, safely sheltered from IRS?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So spending less hurts people--what does enabling people do to people. --It hurts them. Look at Haven's post and others where people no longer are responsible for understanding doc's for buying a house? That it is unfair that bankers do. Already rather than point out that the buyer truly had the burden of understanding that is dismissed as his obligation. 

Look parents need to have the RIGHT and POWER to educate a child. Parents have the right to DEMAND better factual and useful subjects taught. Once a child is not a child --18 that person has all the burdens of being a grownup. Ignorance of the law is no excuses --Ignorance of doc's has no excuses. Removing responcablity from citizens due to the failure of people not wishing to face the music for action and choices they make is one of the leading reason we are volunteering ourselves to slavery of the Nanny state. 

One of the reasons I homeschooled my son (many here at HT are doing the same) is to provide for the future a person able to stand on his own two feet and clean up his own messes.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Exactly! Just no one wants their hole plugged and we've let those with a lot of water, put theirs in an off shore account instead of adding to the barrel.
> 
> When we borrow, in this case use someone else's water to keep our barrel full, the Country that loans the "water" expects to be allowed to drill another hole in our barrel so they can get their money, err water back, plus extra water as interest. We are to the point where most of the water we are borrowing is just to cover the hole the lender driled to draw their interest.
> 
> ...


Wrong. We can stop letting more flow out that runs in.
We really don't have a choice. When the barrel finally goes dry there won't be anything flowing out of it. We are already at the point where the water is becoming muddy. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel now.

Do you think slowing down the flow is better or worse than running dry?


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Look parents need to have the RIGHT and POWER to educate a child. Parents have the right to DEMAND better factual and useful subjects taught. Once a child is not a child --18 that person has all the burdens of being a grownup. Ignorance of the law is no excuses --Ignorance of doc's has no excuses.


 I agree. The parents aren't teaching it at home, nor are the schools. There are volunteer programs like Junior Achievement in the schools. Local business leaders can teach classes to high school kids about finance, banking and business ownership. This is one program my mother has been volunteering for since she retired. I don't know why they cannot add these important classes to normal curriculum.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Haven said:


> I agree. The parents aren't teaching it at home, nor are the schools.
> AND YOUR SOLUTION --is to turn to nannydom verses the "natural result" of poor choices--hardship till you get you stuff together --LEARN
> 
> There are volunteer programs like Junior Achievement in the schools. Local business leaders can teach classes to high school kids about finance, banking and business ownership. This is one program my mother has been volunteering for since she retired. I don't know why they cannot add these important classes to normal curriculum.


You failed to address the fact that we are PAYING teachers to teach and your plan is not to correct the fact that children in this day are less educated than they were when the school was a one room school house, a walk from home, and discipline applied quickly. Teacher UNION limitation as to the work load and the Federal Dept of Ed adjusting the acceptable standards they wish the students to have. Unions prevent the firing of teachers who are failures, Coworking teachers see a slacker slack and yet continue on in teaching so why should they bust hump. Parents hands tied by government as to how a child can be raises. And everyone want to create and new group or expand and existing one to shift responcablity. 

All this removes a NEED to learn.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> Wrong. We can stop letting more flow out that runs in.
> We really don't have a choice. When the barrel finally goes dry there won't be anything flowing out of it. We are already at the point where the water is becoming muddy. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel now.
> 
> Do you think slowing down the flow is better or worse than running dry?


In the past few years, we've added 17 trillion to the national deficit. To just stay even, without increasing taxes, we'd have to cut out 17 trillion that is flowing out of the bucket. Where do you see 17 trillion in cuts? We couldn't do it by cutting everything in half. You rady to see SS cut in half? Military cut in half? Welfare cut in half? Really? Do you know what would happen then? 
What are we paying in interest on the debt? We can't cut that. 
Clearly we can't "save" our way out of this crisis. 

If you don't want to pay more taxes, the government can just print more money. Making our money worth less (worthless). Your savings and everything you own will be worth less. Those with their money invested in other currencies will be fine (the Rich).
It has happened. The cost of oil has remained about the same for other countries. But it takes nearly double US dollars to buy the same oil of a few years ago. Because out US dollar is only valued at half what it once was.
It will continue.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hay,

Check out http://http://saveuschuckwoolery.com/ It would be a start


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> You failed to address the fact that we are PAYING teachers to teach and your plan is not to correct the fact that children in this day are less educated than they were when the school was a one room school house, a walk from home, and discipline applied quickly. Teacher UNION limitation as to the work load and the Federal Dept of Ed adjusting the acceptable standards they wish the students to have. Unions prevent the firing of teachers who are failures, Coworking teachers see a slacker slack and yet continue on in teaching so why should they bust hump. Parents hands tied by government as to how a child can be raises. And everyone want to create and new group or expand and existing one to shift responcablity.
> 
> All this removes a NEED to learn.


While a whole lot off topic, many parents gave up teaching their children decades ago. The children are expected to learn everything from school. Children are always right and a failing child is the fault of a bad teacher, always. When a teacher gives a bad grade, the parents put the teacher as the cause. Slacker teachers are uncommon in most school districts. Blaming the teachers union is a popular sport, anyone can play.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Just how big of a cut to your Social Security check are you willing to take to help the government SPEND LESS?


There are PLENTY of things that can be cut before cutting programs people have PAID INTO.



> You refuse to see how *the top .1%* shelter their incomes and don't want their taxes raised.


They already pay most of the bills

You're just* parroting* BO's rhetorical scare tactics


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> In the past few years, we've added 17 trillion to the national deficit. To just stay even, without increasing taxes, we'd have to cut out 17 trillion that is flowing out of the bucket. *Where do you see 17 trillion in cuts?*


It doesn't all have to be cut at one time, but we can't keep ADDING to it, and raising taxes is NOT going to make anything better


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> In the past few years, we've added 17 trillion to the national deficit. To just stay even, without increasing taxes, we'd have to cut out 17 trillion that is flowing out of the bucket. Where do you see 17 trillion in cuts? We couldn't do it by cutting everything in half. You rady to see SS cut in half? Military cut in half? Welfare cut in half? Really? Do you know what would happen then?
> What are we paying in interest on the debt? We can't cut that.
> Clearly we can't "save" our way out of this crisis.
> 
> ...


Again, we don't have a choice.
You say we can't cut 17 trillion out that is flowing out of the barrel.
We won't have any other choice when the barrel runs dry.

It took us quite a while to spend 17 trillion more than we made. If we would cut the spending at the same rate that we increased spending we might stop the barrel from going dry.
If we choose not to cut the spending it doesn't matter how much we borrow to put in the barrel.
Believe me, it will stop some day. It is impossible for it not to stop.

We have the choice.
We can cut the spending or the barrel will run dry and it wll hit us in the face. I started to say with no warning but we have had plenty of warning.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Delete. My laptop is acting crazy double posting with a bouncing screen.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

haypoint said:


> While a whole lot off topic, many parents gave up teaching their children decades ago. The children are expected to learn everything from school. Children are always right and a failing child is the fault of a bad teacher, always. When a teacher gives a bad grade, the parents put the teacher as the cause. Slacker teachers are uncommon in most school districts. Blaming the teachers union is a popular sport, anyone can play.


As someone who grew up completely immersed within the public education system, I can say that very little has changed in the core fundamentals of public education in the last 30 years, other than more rules and regulations to hold teachers accountable, standardization and stricter rules avoid legal action, etc. What HAS changed a lot is single mom families, kids running wild being raised by meth head and pill popping parents, and wild 15 year old kids having kids. A teacher can only work with what is handed to them by the absentee Child-Parents.

But anyways, it's going off topic...Some people will always blame the teachers.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

haypoint said:


> While a whole lot off topic,
> 
> No, educated people with a spirit to compete and excel with self disciplined are achievers in many asspects of live which inclueds but not limited to increase in financial sucess and minium need to depend on others. Education is one ingrediant of character as is having the mind set that they can make a difference.---The increase of sucessful people can help the future in all areas --debt and budgeting too.
> 
> ...


That is a sweet bumper sticker


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Haven said:


> I can say that very little has changed in the core fundamentals of public education in the last 30 years,[/COLOR]


What does B.C. today and what did it mean 30 years ago?

30 years ago I was being taught that the Earth was cooling down and that we were heading towards the next ice age.

30 years ago the schools did not teach that a "Gay lifestyle" was fine. The school nurse handed out asprins, tums, and peperment tea--not condoms.

30 years ago I carried what ever meds my mom provided for me as needed to take all by myself.

30 years ago teachers disaplined on site and on time. 

30 years ago peanut butter sandwiches ruled.

30 years ago we were taught the horrors of communisum and celebrated with pride the individual freedom provided by God and respected by the government.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> As someone who grew up completely immersed within the public education system, I can say that very little has changed in the core fundamentals of public education in the last 30 years, other than more rules and regulations to hold teachers accountable, standardization and stricter rules avoid legal action, etc. What HAS changed a lot is single mom families, kids running wild being raised by meth head and pill popping parents, and wild 15 year old kids having kids. A teacher can only work with what is handed to them by the absentee Child-Parents.
> 
> But anyways, it's going off topic...Some people will always blame the teachers.


That's one thing that's actually improved since I was in elementary school during the 1950s. The shortage of college educated teachers during WWII allowed a lot of people (mostly women) to become "certificate teachers." These were people with limited education, yet could read & write, and & subtract, and knew who George Washington was. Once in the school system it was virtually impossible to get them out. They were not an impressive bunch of people, and they got away with most anything they wanted to get away with.

I saw the tide changing in the 1960s. Classrooms became a lot more democratic towards students, and teachers came to accept that there was a limit to the discipline they could hand out. As the certificate teachers worked their way out of the system through attrition, the quality of teachers improved considerably.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I know that my mother was a college grad teacher in 1941. She graduated with 78 girls with teaching degrees. There were 79 teachers in the class. College educated teachers were not rare in the 50's.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I know that my mother was a college grad teacher in 1941. She graduated with 78 girls with teaching degrees. There were 79 teachers in the class. College educated teachers were not rare in the 50's.


Many teachers and potential teachers went to war. Certificate teachers dominated primary schools where I lived in the 1950s.

They were terrible teachers. It was all about hard work, repetition, and discipline. School wasn't supposed to be fun or interesting. Primary school under those witches was among the worst experiences of my life.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nev--were women serving in war at that time--

School wasn't supposed to be fun or interesting. Primary school under those witches was among the worst experiences of my life. per Nev

So, school is for fun? I went to learn --I send my son to learn --interesting --so learning new skills --improving skills is not interesting --

So, now we have fun schools that are interesting little disapline unless it seem by the police and we are ranking lower and lower against other nations were we once were leaders. Please we are lowering our standards for the fun and interest of a generation that seem confused when it comes to work. Now, envy of those who haves sucess is answered by Let's share--or I take.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Nev--were women serving in war at that time--
> 
> School wasn't supposed to be fun or interesting. Primary school under those witches was among the worst experiences of my life. per Nev
> 
> ...


School doesn't have to be a miserable experience for people to learn.

The biggest problem with that system was that it held back people who could learn faster. The point wasn't to learn, the point was to do work that pleased the teacher. I remember the teacher grumbling to us that we were wasting time with the Iowa Test. She didn't care what we learned, and testing us for it took us away from the drudgery she enjoyed watching so much.

I recall a meeting with the teacher and my parents about skipping a grade. The teacher said "I'm always against a student skipping a grade, because he hasn't done the work." I replied, "But I don't work for you." She didn't like my attitude after that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, I know via the hours of story telling from my mom about the old days and teaching. In her point of view children did get retained and children did skip grades and that it was the norm of the period. She expressed that parent were not happen when Johnny stayed behind and often times some parents want a child to skip and that a polite way to tell a parent no had to be found. Mom often said that the child may be bright in many areas but behind in social skills that would stand out even more if they moved a bright child up. 

My son had both poor educational skill --he was developmentaly delayed and immature against his peers yet even with a medical dr. and us begging they kept moving him up till we pulled him. Now at 18 he is ready and doing well as a freshman. Nothing is perfect. I was brought up that school was a job and a job was work so work and then you can play and have fun. If I did not there would be no interesting fun events till I got it done. I had a great childhood that prepared me to rise up and to stand up when I fell down and the courage to try again.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> As the certificate teachers worked their way out of the system through attrition, the quality of teachers improved considerably.


Ooooookay.... but wasnt this about the time that our students educational scores started falling off? If you will note illiteracy rates of our high school graduates has become much more common since the sixties. I recall graduating in 69... and there were only one or two kids in my class that hadnt learned to read, write, and comprehend basic material at an average sixth grade level... when our boy graduated last spring there were dozens in his graduating class that would not be able to read a comic book! I aint sayin...... just sayin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> She didn't like my attitude after that.


Imagine that! :hysterical:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ooooookay.... but wasnt this about the time that our students educational scores started falling off? If you will note illiteracy rates of our high school graduates has become much more common since the sixties. I recall graduating in 69... and there were only one or two kids in my class that hadnt learned to read, write, and comprehend basic material at an average sixth grade level... when our boy graduated last spring there were dozens in his graduating class that would not be able to read a comic book! I aint sayin...... just sayin.


That was about the time I went to college and studied to be an engineer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That was about the time I went to college and studied to be an engineer.


Yep, I thought we must be about the same age, and we both would have gotten our readin writin and cyphers taught by that old breed of teachers. I for one and glad I had those "certificate teachers... they TAUGHT all of us, and there were no excuses! It was in the early 70s that I noticed the beginning of the "new improved" education system... had a feeling it wasnt going to have good results, and by golly their new ways of doing things hasnt let me down. Little things like grading on the curve, no child held back (might give the lil pup a complex doncha know), no more spankins, etc etc ad nauseam.... and here we are today, something like 27th from the top when our graduates are compared with other countries!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> no more spankins


I have no idea where an educated person might have gotten the impression that he had the legal authority to strike a student. The explanations I've heard from teachers astound me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is / was called behavior modification. The rules for the school and class were clearly known, followed and culturally the norm. Swatting a kid or a school personal applying the board of education was normally the final stage of discipline. 

As I remember it well, there was a poster board explaining the stages.

1. spoken to
2. stand in the back
3. stay in the room with the teacher during lunch hour writing 
(may include writting the note to your own parent copied from the board for which you would hand deliver and return to the class signed the next day.
4. a visit to the princapal (may lead to a call to parent or if you did not have a phone the prinicpal drove to you parents home and explained the events.
5. Board of education applies
NO one every was required suspension till I reached 9th grade and I went to a k -12 school ---

It really was a big deal when a student 12th grader threatened a teacher. the chatter was --Does he go to jail????? Wow. Now by the time I got to 12th grade smoking was the norm and it meant a week at home----(mom got a slave I did not get to join the fun and interesting ski club and I never smoked again on school prop--something I had been doing for YEARS)

No one died from a swat, there were no shootings at school and teachers were not scared, police were only there on career day, and we had better grades. 

Oh who remember the washing of the mouth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Swatting a kid or a school personal applying the board of education was normally the final stage of discipline.


That's still not legal justification for doing it.

The typical justification from an educator was that since they've always done it that it must be legal. If course that's a logical fallacy.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Kasilofhome.......

I have enjoyed your contribution to this thread.

We have had similar experiences, and share a common perspective in re public education.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's still not legal justification for doing it.
> 
> The typical justification from an educator was that since they've always done it that it must be legal. If course that's a logical fallacy.


That was the beauty of the old school system.... since there were no laws against corporal punishment... it was indeed legal! It was not only legal in the state and school I went to, parents were notified of any disciplinary actions.... and dear ol dad would repeat the procedure when I got home!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Sometimes, even I was impressed with how expertly and thoroughly dear ol dad could expound and elaborate upon what had been only briefly introduced by the school disciplinarian. :grit:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> No one died from a swat, there were no shootings at school and teachers were not scared, police were only there on career day, and we had better grades.
> 
> Oh who remember the washing of the mouth.


I dont recall any of my teachers washing my mouth out with soap.... but I had a great aunt that dearly loved that one! LOL 

As to guns in school, The high school parking lot was filled with older pickups, and there were all sorts of rifles and shotguns hanging in the racks across the back windows every day. It just wasnt a big thing. I do recall being scolded once for firing off my old twelve gauge in the boys locker room...(blanks of course) the locker room was in the basement right under the science room. As I made my exit from the basement the science teacher hollered out the window that if I fired that thing again he was going to take it away from me. Wonder how that would play out today? :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That was the beauty of the old school system.... since there were no laws against corporal punishment... it was indeed legal! It was not only legal in the state and school I went to, parents were notified of any disciplinary actions.... and dear ol dad would repeat the procedure when I got home!


Your state didn't have assault & battery laws?

It's one thing for a parent to do it, but quite another for a teacher to do it. The fact that beating kids might make a classroom a better place to learn doesn't justify anything. The same might be true for a factory, but if a foreman beat an employee with a board for misbehaving he would be taken away in handcuffs -- and rightfully so. The fact that teachers do it to children instead of adults certainly doesn't justify it, in fact it makes it all the worse.

I've heard all the arguments teachers make and none hold an ounce of water. Those arguments accomplish little beyond displaying the ignorance, arrogance, and narrow-mindedness if the teachers themselves.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

If nothing else, seeing the liberal mindset and moral position on this board does explain an awful lot.

No wonder it's all about the short game with them. :shrug:


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

I remember getting paddled in the hall with a wooden board with holes drilled through it many times. Later on in Catholic school a 70 year old nun bench pressed a kid in my class and threw him over a desk like Hulk Hogan.

If a teacher hit a kid today, that kid is likely to enter into a full-out brawl and beat the daylights out of that teacher...Kids today are nothing like 40 years ago...because of lack of parenting.

BTW, wasn't this thread about the economy???


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I have no idea where an educated person might have gotten the impression that he had the legal authority to strike a student. The explanations I've heard from teachers astound me.


I am the same age also.
Don't know where an educated person got the impression they had the legal authority to strike a student but either my teachers were not educated or they didn't need any legal authority. I was struck on the butt usually once a week or so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> BTW, wasn't this thread about the economy???


I've heard enough about the economy for one thread. I get it already; conservatives want tax & spending cuts.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Your state didn't have assault & battery laws?
> 
> It's one thing for a parent to do it, but quite another for a teacher to do it. The fact that beating kids might make a classroom a better place to learn doesn't justify anything. The same might be true for a factory, but if a foreman beat an employee with a board for misbehaving he would be taken away in handcuffs -- and rightfully so. The fact that teachers do it to children instead of adults certainly doesn't justify it, in fact it makes it all the worse.
> 
> I've heard all the arguments teachers make and none hold an ounce of water. Those arguments accomplish little beyond displaying the ignorance, arrogance, and narrow-mindedness if the teachers themselves.


I don't know if whipping a kid made a classroom a better place to learn or not.
In my 8th grade graduating class we were expected to behave and knew what to expect if we did not.
75% of the class went on to college. 25% were killed before they had a chance to go to college. There were 4 of us in my class. One got killed in a car wreck, the rest went to college.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> I am the same age also.
> Don't know where an educated person got the impression they had the legal authority to strike a student but either my teachers were not educated or they didn't need any legal authority. I was struck on the butt usually once a week or so.


No doubt. But I wonder how they got away with it for so long?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> In my 8th grade graduating class we were expected to behave and knew what to expect if we did not.


Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


Sounds like the Obama administration !


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Many teachers and potential teachers went to war. Certificate teachers dominated primary schools where I lived in the 1950s.
> 
> They were terrible teachers. It was all about hard work, repetition, and discipline. School wasn't supposed to be fun or interesting. Primary school under those witches was among the worst experiences of my life.


... and yet you overcame the "hardship" and excelled in the Engineering field. Imagine that. You must have been special!


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


Are you serious?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


We weren't really scared.
Just sort of liked to be able to set down during class.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

With out the skill of learning, work ethic, diligence and social acceptable positive behavior one can not count on much in the line of sucess. Failure to sucessed increase the odds of failing to economically thrive let alone rise to the top. The greater the pool of --shall we call them non swimmers vs swimmers the more challenging the society will face in financial arena and the great the deviation will appear between the swimmers and non swimmers. The swimmers can only save so many drowning non swimmers before they a unable continue. The best thing would be to teach non swimmers to swim. It really will never aid for the non swimmers to complain that the swimmers can swim. 

Teaching children that everyone gets the same reward encourages a future country drowning in debt. --Where are we as a Nation NOW.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Your state didn't have assault & battery laws?


Yep, but the cops still carry nightsticks... and gasp.... guns. Havent heard of many of them getting arrested or accused of a crime when their use is deemed necessary to evoke cooperation from a full grown citizen... much less an arrogant kid. Its about authority... and in the fifties (and prior) teachers had that authority! (so did aunts, uncles, and grandparents) Thanks to folks of your mindset, that authority has since been revoked, even a parent is now guilty of a crime in most states if they spank their own brats.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No doubt. But I wonder how they got away with it for so long?


It wasnt a matter of getting away with it. Parents demanded it of them if their kid was getting out of line. They had placed their kids in the custody of the teachers/school and expected teachers to maintain a certain level of control over them. I heard my dad tell several of my teachers over the years not to tolerate any of my misdeeds, and to wail the tar out of me as needed. He expected a teacher to be a teacher... and they should be teaching manners, and respect for authority, as well as how to read, write, and do our numbers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


Whatever works!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, but the cops still carry nightsticks... and gasp.... guns. Havent heard of many of them getting arrested or accused of a crime when their use is deemed necessary to evoke cooperation from a full grown citizen... much less an arrogant kid. Its about authority... and in the fifties (and prior) teachers had that authority! (so did aunts, uncles, and grandparents) Thanks to folks of your mindset, that authority has since been revoked, even a parent is now guilty of a crime in most states if they spank their own brats.


Police are granted certain authority to use force, but teachers have never had that authority.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Police are granted certain authority to use force, but teachers have never had that authority.


Of course they did. I cannot imagine where you are finding anything on the books to the contrary. Free country, you can do anything ya want to... as long as nobody cares. Since nobody bellyached, and most actually encouraged the practice, discipline was administered by teachers, just as it had always been done. For heavens sake Plato himself had no problem with disciplining his students.... whats YOUR objection?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nev, did you know that there really was a time when a person was not taxed extra for not having health care insurance?

Nev, did you know that there once was a time when smokes were advertised on tv.?--White owl was my fav

Nev, did you know there once was a time when there was no one paid income tax? --and the IRS did not reach out to touch them.

Just as all the above are true it *was* the NORM for educator to swat --not to be interpreted as BEAT a student and all that happened was a class room of student witnessed it together and in sync gasp when the paddle or yard stick crack on impact. This memory is sorta a way of carbon dating of humans. If they hold the memory of that educational period they most likely do not have a lot of trophies from childhood.

I know that you certainly were alive during this phase in history given info you have provided in regards to O care so it is odd that you seem shocked that there really was a time when teachers did not need metal deterors and police in the hall to teach. That one person could teach 30 plus kids and it worked. Just maybe it was this way back then because the the board of ed hung on a hook by the chalk board yet in reach of a teacher sitting at a desk --always avalidable to wear down the rough edges of the next generation before the rough edges became permanent.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Put yourself in a teacher's shoes in todays society. One one side you have parents screaming about how spanking and paddling should be allowed again. On the other side, you have parent's lining up with you in their sights, waiting to sue you the second you look at a student cross-eyed. And no, Dem or Rep has nothing to do with these people.

I have a cousin working in an inner city school who gets to be yelled at by parents playing the race card every time a kid is bad and needs discipline. In the parent's eyes, the kid did nothing wrong, but the teacher is a racist. Teachers can't win with today's parents. I would love people here to teach for a few months and experience it all 1st hand.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Police are granted certain authority to use force, but teachers have never had that authority.


People have the authority that a society grants them.


----------



## Lazy J (Jan 2, 2008)

One could turn the argument around to "The poorest 47% threaten the US". Afterall the bottom 47% do not pay income tax and are thus supported by the remaining 53%.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

This was on the local news last night and I thought I would share.
It will show people what has happened to school kids and their parents.

One mother in Jackson, Ms. is complaining about the school bus and how terrible the driver treated her kids.
The school bus driver let two kids off the bus at the wrong stop. One kid got back on the bus and went back to school and stayed there until her parents came to get her, and the other kid got off the bus and was lost for several hours. The parents finally found him in another part of town.

Sounds pretty bad so far.

The kids were 12 and 13 years old and they were let out of the bus on their street one block from the home they had lived in all of their life.
They failed to find their way home.
Think about that for a minute. They had lived in their house all of their life. They were let off one block down the very same street they lived on.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> People have the authority that a society grants them.


And a lot of that authority has been "taken away" by the "Oh Don't Hurt Me" Liberal society that has been ruining this country now for some time.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

You guys still arguing? Anybody win yet?

And where's my land?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The kids were* 12 and 13 years old* and they were let out of the bus on their street *one block* from the home they had lived in all of their life.
> They failed to find their way home.
> Think about that for a minute. They had lived in their house all of their life. They were let off one block down the very *same street* they lived on.


They were *11 and 12*, only one got off the bus, it was *NOT the same street* they live on , and it was *1/2 mile* from their home.

You got the town right though

http://www.wbtv.com/story/20321568/child-gets-lost-when-jackson-bus-driver-misses-stop


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Oh, I see it quite clearly. Risk.
> Why should someone that suddenly, through no fault of his own, becomes seriously "upside down" on his morgage, cover the Bank's admitted Risk?


Say you sell me your used car for $10,000 and I agree to pay you $500 a month until its paid off but after 3 months its discovered to have a manufacture's defect which means the value of the car in now $1,000. Are you saying you'd have no problem with me just parking the car in your yard and telling you I'm not going to pay you any more? After all you took the risk to sell me the car for payments and I'm seriously upside down on my loan.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Individual home buyers don't have the market resources that bankers have. Most get their real estate investment advice from their friendly realtor, who will always tell them _"there has never been a better time to buy than now"_, regardless of market conditions. Heck, the realtor just wants to make a sale, so you won't hear him say _"if I were you I'd wait another 6 months or a year to buy."_


Ok I get it. No one is responsible for his own actions, its always someone else's fault.

A person goes deep into debt so he needs every dollar he makes JUST to make it each month, doesn't put a dime away for retirement, doesn't buy health insurance and takes no other responsibility for himself. Then when something goes wrong he should expect *someone else* to pay to get him out of the hole. 

Is that your view of life?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It all goes to motivation. You would be correct if banks were still owned by partners, but that ended decades ago. Today those banks are run by professional CEOs who are hired to maximize profits. They are offered huge bonus payments if they can do it, but higher profits means higher risk. It's not the CEO's money, and they are offering hundreds of millions to him to take risks, so why wouldn't he take risks?


Especially when he knows the government is going to cover the bank if things go wrong. If banks knew they would fail if they rolled snake eyes they might just be a little more cautious. If the people knew the bank could fail they might just be a little more cautious which bank they use. But as long as everyone knows if something happens the great wizard of DC will make everything all better there's no need to worry.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Wealth" isn't taxed
> "Income" is taxed


It is in my state. You are taxed on THINGS you have bought and owned for years.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> It is in my state. You are taxed on THINGS you have bought and owned for years.


Yeppers, thats how it is in my state too. I am taxed every year on every vehicle I own, on my real estate too.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were *11 and 12*, only one got off the bus, it was *NOT the same street* they live on , and it was *1/2 mile* from their home.
> 
> You got the town right though
> 
> http://www.wbtv.com/story/20321568/child-gets-lost-when-jackson-bus-driver-misses-stop


It has happened multiple times.
School buses now have to stop at each house.
They used to stop at the street corners.
Sure makes it hard when following a bus. Sometimes they will not move forward a bus length before they have to stop again.
Also makes for more kids getting run over when getting off the bus.
Recently one bus ran over a kid when it passed another bus that was letting kids off.
Another time recently a man passed a stopped bus and ran over a kid killing him.

Lots of unbelievable things happen in Jackson.
Of course the bus will stop to let on some older kids or mad parents to beat up on other kids riding the bus.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Just how big of a cut to your Social Security check are you willing to take to help the government SPEND LESS?
> Easy to say spend less, but when it is your program that gets cut, the crying begins.
> How about Medicaid? That's some fairly new thing the government thought up. Let's do away with that, too. Ready?
> Be great to see some of those lazy old people back working in the factory, but this time for minimum wage, since no one wants Unions any more.
> ...


You sound like a union member in a failing company. You can whine about how cuts can't be allowed because of the pain they will cause while not realizing how much MORE pain will come when the company shuts its doors.

Don't worry. We have already reached the point the US government will fail. The current spending rates and debt are too much to keep up and there are too many leaches who will keep voting for Santa Claus to make the changes to fix the problem.

Think about it. At some point even the most stupid out there will come to realize that the US won't even be able to pay the interest on the money it has borrowed much less paying back the money it already owes. At that point they will refuse to loan any more money. Then what? As of right now the government is borrowing 46% of *EACH AND EVERY *dollar it is spending with more and more 'free' stuff being given each day. What do you think is going to happen when there is no more money?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> You guys still arguing? Anybody win yet?
> 
> And where's my land?


of course we are still at it, and nope, its a no win game.

As to your land, I can get you a couple thousand acres (ocean frontage if you prefer) for the price of making a deed. One big advantage is there are NO PROPERTY TAXES to be paid! EVER! Other advantages include no zoning, no planning commissions, no building restrictions, very low crime rates, (virtually no crime at all), no income tax, lots of privacy and the scenery is outta this world.... the list goes on and on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is in my state. You are taxed on THINGS you have bought and owned for years.


*This context* is about INCOME taxes and the FEDERAL Govt
It's not about PROPERTY taxes and your LOCAL Govt


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Your state didn't have assault & battery laws?
> 
> It's one thing for a parent to do it, but quite another for a teacher to do it. The fact that beating kids might make a classroom a better place to learn doesn't justify anything. The same might be true for a factory, but if a foreman beat an employee with a board for misbehaving he would be taken away in handcuffs -- and rightfully so. The fact that teachers do it to children instead of adults certainly doesn't justify it, in fact it makes it all the worse.
> 
> I've heard all the arguments teachers make and none hold an ounce of water. Those arguments accomplish little beyond displaying the ignorance, arrogance, and narrow-mindedness if the teachers themselves.


Hockey pucks. I know there were several things which DIDN'T happen in my grade school because it was known the result would be three swats on the rump. There are things having to copy pages out of the text book during recess would be worth but not worth having you pants warmed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Now there's professional educators for you; holding young people's attention through fear and intimidation.


I hate to bust your bubble but pain and fear are VERY good motivators. If people today were afraid if they didn't work they'd suffer hunger pains you'd see a lot more people working and fewer of them sitting on their butts watching others work.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I remember Mr Johnston....... 4th grade....KNOWN for lifting unruly students slightly off their feet with the paddle when necessary.

I never felt fear, nor intimidation. I _liked_ the man, and enjoyed his approach to teaching, as did just about everyone on the class. He did have our _respect_.

But everyone knew where the line was, and those who chose to cross it got a lift.

:shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Police are granted certain authority to use force, but teachers have never had that authority.


I think you are incorrect. 

First off if you were correct teachers and school systems all over the nation would have faced law suits. 

Second, teachers become in effect the parent of the child (there's a legal term for it) once they have the kids in their custody. This means they have almost the same rights as the child's real parents.

Third, the actual parent knows the rules he is placing his child under and if he disagrees with those rules he has the right to request a separate set of rules for his child or to not place his child into government ran schools.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> What do you think is going to happen when there is no more money?


I used to wonder about this, myself, but the US paper-based economy is built on trust...... blind and foolhardy trust, but trust, nonetheless.

So long as there is faith in the charade, it can perpetuate itself, so it clearly seems.

What will it take to break the trust of those simply taking the handouts ? They rule the show, now. :shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Haven said:


> Put yourself in a teacher's shoes in todays society. One one side you have parents screaming about how spanking and paddling should be allowed again. On the other side, you have parent's lining up with you in their sights, waiting to sue you the second you look at a student cross-eyed. And no, Dem or Rep has nothing to do with these people.
> 
> I have a cousin working in an inner city school who gets to be yelled at by parents playing the race card every time a kid is bad and needs discipline. In the parent's eyes, the kid did nothing wrong, but the teacher is a racist. Teachers can't win with today's parents. I would love people here to teach for a few months and experience it all 1st hand.


Standard liberal think. ITS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

The kid failed the test. Its not his fault he didn't study. Its not the liberal parent's fault for not making sure their kid studied (after all they can't be held responsible for anything). Therefore it must be the fault of the school system, or the teacher. That is unless the child is *****/colored/black/African American then its racism built into the system specifically to keep him from achieving.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *This context* is about INCOME taxes and the FEDERAL Govt
> It's not about PROPERTY taxes and your LOCAL Govt


IIRC, didn't the USC just say that we are now going to be taxed for living via Obamacare? How is that income?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

watcher said:


> Ok I get it. *No one is responsible for his own actions, its always someone else's fault.*
> 
> A person goes deep into debt so he needs every dollar he makes JUST to make it each month, doesn't put a dime away for retirement, doesn't buy health insurance and takes no other responsibility for himself. Then when something goes wrong he should expect *someone else* to pay to get him out of the hole.
> 
> Is that your view of life?


That has always been the liberal mantra!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Say you sell me your used car for $10,000 and I agree to pay you $500 a month until its paid off but after 3 months its discovered to have a manufacture's defect which means the value of the car in now $1,000. Are you saying you'd have no problem with me just parking the car in your yard and telling you I'm not going to pay you any more? After all you took the risk to sell me the car for payments and I'm seriously upside down on my loan.


Yup. That's what I'm saying. That's the way it has always been. You stop paying and I take back my car. If I'm in the business of carrying the paper on cars I sell, that's the risk I take. There is a whole network of businesses set up to insure this happens. There is even a TV show about it. I think it is called Repo Man.

For most of the past hundred years banks thought that setup was just dandy. After you put down down payment, the banks were fairly sure you wouldn't risk losing your down paayment, plus homes were increasing in value. Many Banks made money by repossesing homes. So, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I accept that the rules still apply. It frosts the cake when I hear of Banks that are unwilling to restructure a loan that has been kept current. The borrower sees trouble ahead and tries to avoid getting behind, yet the banks won't listen.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> You sound like a union member in a failing company. You can whine about how cuts can't be allowed because of the pain they will cause while not realizing how much MORE pain will come when the company shuts its doors.
> 
> Don't worry. We have already reached the point the US government will fail. The current spending rates and debt are too much to keep up and there are too many leaches who will keep voting for Santa Claus to make the changes to fix the problem.
> 
> Think about it. At some point even the most stupid out there will come to realize that the US won't even be able to pay the interest on the money it has borrowed much less paying back the money it already owes. At that point they will refuse to loan any more money. Then what? As of right now the government is borrowing 46% of *EACH AND EVERY *dollar it is spending with more and more 'free' stuff being given each day. What do you think is going to happen when there is no more money?


So, to prevent running out of money, are you willing to tell "Santa" that you'll take a cut in your Social Security? Got to start somewhere. We can't afford to fund SS the way we have. Medicare costs too much. Cut that benifit in half? You aren't one of those leaches that expect the highway system to be maintained or keep a standing army?

All the while you won't consider raising the top income tax bracket to pre Reagan levels?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were *11 and 12*, only one got off the bus, it was *NOT the same street* they live on , and it was *1/2 mile* from their home.
> 
> You got the town right though
> 
> http://www.wbtv.com/story/20321568/child-gets-lost-when-jackson-bus-driver-misses-stop


Are these students unable to notice there is a Sub driver and tell the driver, " Hey, Bus Driver, that's my stop up there."? They wait until she's past their stop and then get lost a 1/2 mile from home? Does anyone realize the dangers of backing up a school bus? We ask a lot from bus drivers. We want them to drive safely, yet not keep our children on the bus too long. You expect them to supervise twice as many students as a teacher does, and do it with her back turned while driving. They have to be Commercial Drivers, pass regular driving tests, random drug tests, get paid a couple bucks over the minimum wage and expect them to accept less than full time employment. A few hoours in the mornig, a few hours in the afternoon. Do 52 point safety inspection twice a day, on their own time and then the public wants to launch criminal charges when your kid is left sleeping in the back row after the morning run?

A parent's job is to ready their children to be productive adults. One day those kids will be drivers. Don't you think they should know how to get home from a couple blocks away?:help:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IIRC, didn't the USC just say that we are now going to be taxed for living via Obamacare? How is that income?


That has nothing to do with "wealth" nor "income"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Don't you think they should know how to get home from a couple blocks away?


I don't expect very much anymore
Look who they voted for


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I hate to bust your bubble but pain and fear are VERY good motivators. If people today were afraid if they didn't work they'd suffer hunger pains you'd see a lot more people working and fewer of them sitting on their butts watching others work.


This is quite true... and if you look around, the bottom line is always pain and fear, or physical violence (or threat thereof) when it comes to getting what we want.... the cops dont carry pound puppies and hersheys kisses.... they carry those nasty sticks and guns for a reason.... it works!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is quite true... and if you look around, the bottom line is always pain and fear, or physical violence (or threat thereof) when it comes to getting what we want.... the cops dont carry pound puppies and hersheys kisses.... they carry those nasty sticks and guns for a reason.... it works!


Okay, but obedience isn't the objective of school, learning is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Okay, but obedience isn't the objective of school, learning is.


You are aware that learning requires some element of control, rules need to be followed else chaos reigns. Obedience comes into play as soon as a classroom fills up its seats with students. A very good example of this situation was demonstrated many many years before you or I were even born... it happened shortly after the turn of the 20th century... about 1904 in a small community in central California. My grand father was in the third grade... it was a small country school, and had undergone some problems, mostly that of being able to keep a teacher. It seems that some of the older less than mannerly boys had managed to "take control" of the school and the school board was having trouble keeping a teacher due to their rough housing and crude ways. When a new teacher was finally hired classes resumed. She was a small woman, petite I think is the term grampa always used to describe her. At any rate on her first day, she rang the bell and assembled the students in the small one room school house. Once they were all inside, she introduced herself, and proceeded to open the day with a prayer. Of course our big boys took advantage of the situation, snickering, laughing and cutting up during the prayer. Undaunted by their rudeness the teacher continued with her prayer, then when finished she pointed out the offending boys, and instructed them to please step forward and take their lickins. Naturally these boys hoorahed and thought that was rather funny... come and take their whippin indeed! As they continued to jeer, laugh and generally make fun of the new teacher, she reached into her pocket book... pulled out a revolver... and again made her request... "you, you, and you,,, come up and take your lickins" this time with the hammer cocked, and the barrel pointing directly at them.... 

They came forward... took their lickins, and order was once again restored to the little country school. The mornings that followed, those boys took turns leading the morning prayers. That was about the last year my grandfather attended school... but according to him there was never any more trouble out of those boys. My point of recounting this story of course is to point out... that obedience, rules, and the authority to enforce them are necessary for any form of order. Not saying its all warm and fuzzy... its just how things are due to the very basic nature of human beings. We are not all nice folks, and the few can do incredible amounts of damage if they are not kept under control.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

When you lose control while driving on the road you often fail to make your destination. When a child is out of control in the classroom the destination of an education is what is at risk. 

A disobedient child is one who willfully disrupts the class (thus impacting others--selfish), refuses to do the studies, picks on bullies for the simply joy of it (note much different than the rational as to why a paddling from a teacher keeping a child in line ---the goal is not for the joy but a last resort to give a child a reason obey.

We have lowered standards, allowed for chaos to prevent anyone from having hurt feelings and where are we now.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

I trained dogs since I was 12 years old.

Expecting a teacher to paddle and teach an out of control child with horrible parents from a broken home and accomplish something, is like expecting a dog trainer to give a choke chain correction to a crazy rescue dog that missed out on all of it's key developmental periods, lacks socialization, who was adopted too late by horrible dog owners that never properly trained or disciplined it. Would you blame the dog trainer running the obedience class once a week with 20 other dogs in the class, if the choke chain correction didn't solve the dog's issues? Would you expect that correction to solve anything, once that dog goes home at the end of the class? His brain has already been wired since birth in a bad way due to environment, and living 99.9% of his life outside of training class with bad owners will only continue to reinforce his issues.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Another example. I went to a large private school with about a 98% college enrollment rate after 12th grade. Drop outs were unheard of and illiteracy did not exist. I witnessed exactly zero fights in the 4 years I was there.

Teachers were not allowed to beat or hit kids in this school.

Why is this school an amazing success without allowing teachers to beat kids? Because the kids had responsible *parents* that sent them there.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

So if a child is basically unable to be taught what next? Is said child allowed to take the opportunity other children have to get an education from them? IMHO the ones that are not able to control themselves should be removed and educated separately thus not punishing all.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Ambereyes said:


> So if a child is basically unable to be taught what next? Is said child allowed to take the opportunity other children have to get an education from them? IMHO the ones that are not able to control themselves should be removed and educated separately thus not punishing all.


I agree. The sad fact is that not all good kids can afford to be sent to private school to avoid the growing cesspool.

I'm sure there is a solution that includes some slippery slopes and balancing acts; i'm not informed enough to know what a good permanent answer would be. I suppose some people deal with it by home schooling, but many people believe that has many downfalls as well.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

There are definitely problems with schools and the ability for kids to get an education. Used to be an extra in the local schools called alternative ed. where the basically uncontrolled were sent, but for some reason that was discontinued, even though they had full classes. 

IMHO we have a sub-culture that is effecting all the kids with their basically erratic behavior. My DIL who is a psychiatrist focusing on mainly young people has said that there is a real breakdown in parenting or lack there of. She also is on the staff at a youth detention center for very violent offenders, her words were it is only going to get worse as there has been no real avenue to make the parents take responsibility.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Okay, but obedience isn't the objective of school, learning is.


Sort of hard to teach without it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Haven said:


> Another example. I went to a large private school with about a 98% college enrollment rate after 12th grade. Drop outs were unheard of and illiteracy did not exist. I witnessed exactly zero fights in the 4 years I was there.
> 
> Teachers were not allowed to beat or hit kids in this school.
> 
> Why is this school an amazing success without allowing teachers to beat kids? Because the kids had responsible *parents* that sent them there.


Mitt Romney went to school at Cranbrook, a few miles north of Detroit where the drop out rate is 75%. 

Spanking a rich kid will get you sued. Spanking an inner city kid will get you shot.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Yup. That's what I'm saying. That's the way it has always been. You stop paying and I take back my car. If I'm in the business of carrying the paper on cars I sell, that's the risk I take.


Complaining about the bank's behavior in not accomodating out those folk unable or unwilling to meet their half of the obligation while maintaining that you personally need feel no compunction in doing the same must be a painful stretch of the psyche.Either it is strictly a business proposition, and the bank is perfectly proper and moral in evicting anyone who doesn't meet the contract obligations at their convenience or it is acknowledged that there are at least some human considerations to be met on both sides.I suspect banks rarely made money on foreclosures but have previously made enough with other loans to cover the losers. With all the personnel time and legal fees and unrecovered income on investment, it's probably a bad deal to do anything further in modifiying a contract- at best it might minimize the loss. Now it's a complete drag.If you really believe that you are principled in abandoning the obligation, then don't whine about the bank doing the same. Just because the laws protect individuals from debtor's prison, doesn't mean the debtor is honest.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Complaining about the bank's behavior in not accomodating out those folk unable or unwilling to meet their half of the obligation while maintaining that you personally need feel no compunction in doing the same must be a painful stretch of the psyche.Either it is strictly a business proposition, and the bank is perfectly proper and moral in evicting anyone who doesn't meet the contract obligations at their convenience or it is acknowledged that there are at least some human considerations to be met on both sides.I suspect banks rarely made money on foreclosures but have previously made enough with other loans to cover the losers. With all the personnel time and legal fees and unrecovered income on investment, it's probably a bad deal to do anything further in modifiying a contract- at best it might minimize the loss. Now it's a complete drag.If you really believe that you are principled in abandoning the obligation, then don't whine about the bank doing the same. Just because the laws protect individuals from debtor's prison, doesn't mean the debtor is honest.


I think what you are seeing in my posts is the evolution I have made in all this. If the Banks want/need to be business above custoer service, then it has tto work both ways.
Iâve never missed a payment and currently have no debt. However, over the past few years, I have witnessed folks that fell on hard times, lost jobs unexpectedly, etc. Knowing that their cash reserves would eventually run out, they talked to their banker. They let him know what was going on and their intent on keeping payments current. They attempted to get a 20 year mortgage to replace the 10 years they had left in their current mortgage. They were told that as long as they were current, hey couldnât do anything. A year later, they fall seriously behind. They return to the Bank to be told that they canât get a new mortgage because they donât have good credit due to the recent late payments. They struggle through another year, but canât quite catch up with all the late fees that are added on. The Bank forecloses and the home is sold at an auction on the Courthouse steps.
Looking back, if they had simply stopped paying, they could have squatted in their own home for over a year. So, in the end, being responsible cost them thousands of dollars they really couldnât spare. Turning over the keys at the first onset of financial trouble would have made the house available to the bank sooner and they would have been free to move where they could find a job.
But for those not living it, it is easy to say, âTo heck with those folks that bought more house than they could afford.â But the reality is far different.
Iâve sold land on land contract, basically holding the paper on land I sold. I knew going in that if the payments stopped, Iâd have the land back.
I was a juror in a trial about non-payment of a loan. Betty married a Coast Guard guy, Bill. They bought a Suburban from the Credit Union. A few years later, Bill borrowed money for a dirt bike and a stereo system. A year later, he got out of the Coast Guard and left his wife, moved far away. He took the dirt bike and stereo system. Betty couldnât afford the Suburban. She took it to the Credit Union and told them the situation. They agreed to lengthen the number of payments, make the payments smaller and roll the loan for the motorcycle and stereo system into the one for the Suburban. Upset and confused, she signed. 
A year later, she is having trouble paying and asks for it to be repossessed. They take it and try to sell on sealed bids. The highest offer is $1000 short. They tell her to take back the Suburban and they streach out the payments again. 
Another year passes, she canât pay and they repossess her Suburban. The put $2,000 in paint and repairs to make it saleable. The top bid is $3,000 short of the amount owed. The Credit Union gives the keys to the new owner and takes Betty to court to get their $3000 shortfall. Betty says that she was tricked into accepting her ex husbandâs loans and if the CU would have done as she instructed, the shortfall would have only been $1000. Plus they put money into her vehicle without her authorization. 
While I believe the CU did not look out for her best interests, I didnât see how they had any obligation to be helpful. They are in the business to make money. The jury found in favor of the CU.
By paying under 1% on $10,000 12 month CDs, and refusing to approve loans, they are holding back financial recovery. 
So, I have adopted a hard line approach. The banks arenât there to help you. They exist to make money from you. Its business. Treat it like business. When Banks will foreclose on you when it benefits them, walk away from your debt when it suits you.
Younger people accept this better. Iâm old and I grew up thinking Iâd take a job and be there a lifetime. That I was like extended family to my employer. We looked out for each other.
The 2020 generation doesnât plan to keep a job long and has no emotional ties to it. They know theyâll likely have 6 or 7 careers in their working lives. They know the employer is just using them to make more money, nothing more.
It works fine for them. But us old guys that put our hearts and minds into a job, sacrificing to make our employers richer, often donât see the change until itâs too late. There is no respect for the workers. Laying off a higher paid long time employee and replacing him with a minimally experienced person for a buck an hour less is just a business decision, simple as that. 
Moral obligation? What is that?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

If people do not like the way a bank works take your business somewhere else.
You are not forced to borrow from a bank.
You are not forced to put your money in a bank.

See how easy it is to solve a problem if you really want a solution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Complaining about the bank's behavior in not accomodating out those folk unable or unwilling to meet their half of the obligation while maintaining that you personally need feel no compunction in doing the same must be a painful stretch of the psyche.Either it is strictly a business proposition, and the bank is perfectly proper and moral in evicting anyone who doesn't meet the contract obligations at their convenience or it is acknowledged that there are at least some human considerations to be met on both sides.I suspect banks rarely made money on foreclosures but have previously made enough with other loans to cover the losers. With all the personnel time and legal fees and unrecovered income on investment, it's probably a bad deal to do anything further in modifiying a contract- at best it might minimize the loss. Now it's a complete drag.If you really believe that you are principled in abandoning the obligation, then don't whine about the bank doing the same. Just because the laws protect individuals from debtor's prison, doesn't mean the debtor is honest.


It's strange how some people believe in debt responsibility when it comes to paying a bank what it's owed, yet are quick to say that Social Security shouldn't be paid back because we already spent it.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

pancho said:


> If people do not like the way a bank works take your business somewhere else.
> You are not forced to borrow from a bank.
> You are not forced to put your money in a bank.
> 
> See how easy it is to solve a problem if you really want a solution.



Yes and it works well for some of us.. I haven't dealt with a bank in quite a while.. All my accounts except my mortgage are with a Credit Union... I only choose to leave the mortgage there because at the time it was the best rate. May not be true at this time, but not worth changing / refinancing at this time either..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's strange how some people believe in debt responsibility when it comes to paying a bank what it's owed, yet are quick to say that Social Security shouldn't be paid back because we already spent it.


SS is being paid back... the same way it was taken out, a little bit at a time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> SS is being paid back... the same way it was taken out, a little bit at a time.


That's fine with me, just so they keep paying it back.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's strange how some people believe in debt responsibility when it comes to paying a bank what it's owed, yet are quick to say that *Social Security shouldn't be paid back *because we already spent it.


You're the only one who ever says that.
Reality is they CAN'T pay it back until they* cut the funds* from something else


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Most folks draw out every bit they put into Social Security in the first 5 years and then expect the rest of us to fund the rest. That adds a lot to the Federal debt. But people don't want to take cuts in stuff they want, they want cuts in other people's programs. 
Maybe we just need to "dial down" SS, like dropping it 2% a year, every year.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

haypoint said:


> Most folks draw out every bit they put into Social Security in the first 5 years and then expect the rest of us to fund the rest. That adds a lot to the Federal debt. But people don't want to take cuts in stuff they want, they want cuts in other people's programs.
> Maybe we just need to "dial down" SS, like dropping it 2% a year, every year.


10% would be more like it, or better yet defund it in total.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Most folks draw out every bit they put into Social Security in the first 5 years and then expect the rest of us to fund the rest. That adds a lot to the Federal debt. But people don't want to take cuts in stuff they want, they want cuts in other people's programs.


 No cuts. But that 5 years sure shows why we need extend the age limit before getting SS.
When SS started 1 in 10 live long enough to collect. Now it is upwards of 8 in 10.
Something wrong here.
People are living much longer and there would be no problem moving the age upward.
Just like Medicare also.
Back in 66 when Medicare started the average length of people living was 65~! 65 Hardly anybody collected.
Now that age has been lengthen by at least 8 years.
And many people are living well beyond that. 
And both programs have never kept up with the living longer population.
That is why both are in trouble. So bothy should be upped before you can draw.
I see no problem with that at all.
If nothing is done soon 10 in 10 will collect and not far after that more people taking out then paying in. Things have to be made more in line with living longer population that is happening.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the only one who ever says that.
> Reality is they CAN'T pay it back until they* cut the funds* from something else


I like the quote I stumbled across a while back, from a high end SSA official.

Paraphrased from memory......

"We can guarantee payments indefinitely, but we cannot guarantee their purchasing power."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Yup. That's what I'm saying. That's the way it has always been. You stop paying and I take back my car. If I'm in the business of carrying the paper on cars I sell, that's the risk I take. There is a whole network of businesses set up to insure this happens. There is even a TV show about it. I think it is called Repo Man.
> 
> For most of the past hundred years banks thought that setup was just dandy. After you put down down payment, the banks were fairly sure you wouldn't risk losing your down paayment, plus homes were increasing in value. Many Banks made money by repossesing homes. So, now that the shoe is on the other foot, I accept that the rules still apply. It frosts the cake when I hear of Banks that are unwilling to restructure a loan that has been kept current. The borrower sees trouble ahead and tries to avoid getting behind, yet the banks won't listen.


Now I got it. Your word mean nothing. I hope any woman who marries you knows this because as soon as things aren't going your way you'll drop them (after all they took the risk on you) and look for another.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> So, to prevent running out of money, are you willing to tell "Santa" that you'll take a cut in your Social Security?


The SS ponzi scheme is dead, it just hasn't fell down yet. You were lied to when you were told you were paying into an 'account' which you could draw from if you lived long enough. The hard truth is, just as all ponzi schemes, all the money you paid in was being passed right back out to pay for the people who got there before you. Now there's not enough people out there to take enough money from to pay for it any more. There is no money. You were lied to. You were conned. You were SCREWED.




haypoint said:


> Got to start somewhere. We can't afford to fund SS the way we have. Medicare costs too much. Cut that benifit in half?


Look at it this way you can either start cutting these things and do it slowly, say 5-10% a year, until they are eliminated. Or you can wait until China stops loaning the government money and have them disappear all at once. Which of those do you think would be easier/better on the people?




haypoint said:


> You aren't one of those leaches that expect the highway system to be maintained or keep a standing army?


There is a MAJOR difference in the government doing things which are a benefit to everyone and doing things which benefits only an individual. I benefit from roads because I use them and the goods I want are delivered via them. But I don't benefit by the government paying for you to raise your family.




haypoint said:


> All the while you won't consider raising the top income tax bracket to pre Reagan levels?


You can raise the tax rates back to pre JFK rates and you'd still not get enough money to balance the budget. 


One last thing. Care to point out to me where in the Constitution the government gets the power to give money directly to a citizen who is not providing a good nor service? Davy Crockett said it quite well. 

_[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Mr. Speaker â I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." [/FONT]_


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with "wealth" nor "income"


It has to do with being taxed. But you are wrong. If you don't met the "wealth" requirements or the "income" requirements you are not required to pay the tax. As usual the makers are having what they earn taken from to be given to the leaches.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

watcher said:


> Now I got it. Your word mean nothing. I hope any woman who marries you knows this because as soon as things aren't going your way you'll drop them (after all they took the risk on you) and look for another.


And what would be wrong with that.:gaptooth::gaptooth:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Okay, but obedience isn't the objective of school, learning is.


Obedience is part of learning. If the teacher tells you to sit down and you refuse how can you learn? If the teacher tells you to be quite and you refuse how can those around you learn? If the teacher tells you to write your times tables and you refuse how can you learn?

Did some schools/teachers take obedience too far? Sure. But at the same time some went the other way as well. I've seen the results of free learning teaching where kids are allowed to do what ever they wish so they can learn "in their own way" and it wasn't pretty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Haven said:


> I trained dogs since I was 12 years old.
> 
> Expecting a teacher to paddle and teach an out of control child with horrible parents from a broken home and accomplish something, is like expecting a dog trainer to give a choke chain correction to a crazy rescue dog that missed out on all of it's key developmental periods, lacks socialization, who was adopted too late by horrible dog owners that never properly trained or disciplined it. Would you blame the dog trainer running the obedience class once a week with 20 other dogs in the class, if the choke chain correction didn't solve the dog's issues? Would you expect that correction to solve anything, once that dog goes home at the end of the class? His brain has already been wired since birth in a bad way due to environment, and living 99.9% of his life outside of training class with bad owners will only continue to reinforce his issues.


Are you saying that choke chains, pinch collars and even shock collars have NO place in dog training when used correctly?

I have a pup right now which is, as the wife puts it, hard headed. She will try to drag you, will lunge and do all the things you expect from a hard headed pup on lead. Yet when you put the pinch collar on her she will ALMOST lead correctly. Once she has *learned *to do it correctly the odds are the pinch collar will no long be needed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I think what you are seeing in my posts is the evolution I have made in all this. If the Banks want/need to be business above custoer service, then it has tto work both ways.
> Iâve never missed a payment and currently have no debt. However, over the past few years, I have witnessed folks that fell on hard times, lost jobs unexpectedly, etc. Knowing that their cash reserves would eventually run out, they talked to their banker. They let him know what was going on and their intent on keeping payments current. They attempted to get a 20 year mortgage to replace the 10 years they had left in their current mortgage. They were told that as long as they were current, hey couldnât do anything. A year later, they fall seriously behind. They return to the Bank to be told that they canât get a new mortgage because they donât have good credit due to the recent late payments. They struggle through another year, but canât quite catch up with all the late fees that are added on. The Bank forecloses and the home is sold at an auction on the Courthouse steps.
> Looking back, if they had simply stopped paying, they could have squatted in their own home for over a year. So, in the end, being responsible cost them thousands of dollars they really couldnât spare. Turning over the keys at the first onset of financial trouble would have made the house available to the bank sooner and they would have been free to move where they could find a job.



Have you talked to the bankers? If so you might be shocked to discover the reason they are doing these things is because of GOVERNMENT REGULATION. I had to refinance our property not that long ago at a bank we have been using for years. The loan 'officer' was telling me he was amazed we had NEVER made a late payment in all the years we had been dealing with them. Later on when we were talking about the loan the was saying how banks can no longer take things like payment history into account when setting the details (e.g. interest rates) of loans. They have specific things they are required to use, your credit score was the major factor IIRC. This is because government rules which are supposed to protect people from banks giving some people favorable treatment.

So the odds are the reason your hard luck person couldn't get the bank to help them is because the bank was restricted by government rules. 






haypoint said:


> Younger people accept this better. Iâm old and I grew up thinking Iâd take a job and be there a lifetime. That I was like extended family to my employer. We looked out for each other.





haypoint said:


> The 2020 generation doesnât plan to keep a job long and has no emotional ties to it. They know theyâll likely have 6 or 7 careers in their working lives. They know the employer is just using them to make more money, nothing more.
> It works fine for them. But us old guys that put our hearts and minds into a job, sacrificing to make our employers richer, often donât see the change until itâs too late. There is no respect for the workers. Laying off a higher paid long time employee and replacing him with a minimally experienced person for a buck an hour less is just a business decision, simple as that.
> Moral obligation? What is that?


I see this whining all the time. Employers don't love their employees. Employers have no loyalty to their employees. Well buddy let me tell you it goes both ways. People will leave a job in a heart beat to make a nickle more an hour somewhere else. People will walk off a job because they don't think its paying them enough, even though its paying what they were told it would.

The place I'm working for now has a huge employee turn over at the lower end because people think they should be promoted into an easy job and making $50/hr after a year. These people are stupid. I've worked for a lot of places in my life and this is a very good company and if you are there for a few years it gets better. Three of the four guys I work with get 160 hours of vacation time a year (that's *FOUR [4]* weeks) on top of the 10 or 12 paid holidays PLUS a personal day and your birthday off that all full time employees get. And there are other benefits. Now on top of that there's a longitivy bonus (cash) and every year there's Thanksgiving and Christmas bonuses (gift cards) given to ALL employees (full and part time). But the young punks want all that RIGHT NOW!!!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's strange how some people believe in debt responsibility when it comes to paying a bank what it's owed, yet are quick to say that Social Security shouldn't be paid back because we already spent it.


I freely entered into an agreement with the bank. I was *FORCED *at the point of a gun to enter into SS.

I was told the truth by the bank about my loan. I was *LIED* to by the government about SS.

The bank took my money and used it for just what it said it would, pay for my house. The government took my money and *SPEND* it.

The bank had the legal authority to do what it did. There is *NOTHING* in the Constitution which givens the government authority to take money from one citizen and pay it directly to another when the payee is not providing a good nor service to the nation.

The bank has money to loan to others because of this. The government has *NO MONEY* because of their actions.

I have no reason to expect someone to make good on a criminal's actions other than the criminal. Seeing as how there's no way the current and former members of congress could pay all of us back for what they have stolen I have to put on my big boy undies and admit the money is gone and it we'll never see any of it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Most folks draw out every bit they put into Social Security in the first 5 years and then expect the rest of us to fund the rest. That adds a lot to the Federal debt. But people don't want to take cuts in stuff they want, they want cuts in other people's programs.
> Maybe we just need to "dial down" SS, like dropping it 2% a year, every year.


Wrong. No one draws a dime of what they put in. Every dime they put in was spent as soon as the government got their hands on it. It was given out to those already sucking on that government teat. And any extra was used to buy more votes.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Our ancestors were deceived into selling us into SS.

Our parents applied for the number so they could _write us off_.

Then by application and agreement/consent, every participant signed and accepted the conditions of SS, etc. upon entering the workforce or filling out their first 1040.

It is all a contract. 

No one was forced to sign, but they will enforce with a vengeance, once you do, unless and until you correct those mistakes.

Who has the guts or determination to correct the mistakes, and live in the desolate land of liberty ?

Much easier to imagine that we were forced into it, and just go along cuz it's easy.

Funny how that easy part is beginning to fade fast, right on schedule.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> If the teacher tells you to write your times tables and you refuse how can you learn?
> .


By doing something that actually contributes to learning instead of getting in the way. :bash:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> I was told the truth by the bank about my loan. I was *LIED* to by the government about SS.
> 
> The bank took my money and used it for just what it said it would, pay for my house. The government took my money and *SPEND* it.


Well apparently your bank LIED TO YOU.
You see they paid for your house with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.
Your money has paid for other peoples things.
WOW just like SS.



*SSI* used to be the programs name. Social Security *INSURANCE*. I think that made things much clearer.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Wrong. No one draws a dime of what they put in. Every dime they put in was spent as soon as the government got their hands on it. It was given out to those already sucking on that government teat. And any extra was used to buy more votes.


Well if you are going to split hairs, I'll say it again. The message is too important to dismiss with semantics.



The amount you paid in, even with interest, was or will be paid back in a few short years. 



The amount you paid in, even with interest, amounts to the amount you drew or will draw in a few short years.



The amount you paid in, even with interest, equals only a few years of SS checks.



Everything after that is adding to the National Debt and should be looked at as another form of Welfare. Taking from the workers and giving to the non-workers.



Maybe we should just give everyone back the money they paid in at 67 years old and let them worry about how long they want it to last?



But that's not how you want to look at it. You want what you feel you've got coming and to heck with every other program and to heck with everyone else. 



Amazing to me that folks won't accept a smaller SS check, while we are getting swallowed up in National Debt, yet you think a Billionaire should be allowed to shelter his earnings in off shore accounts and what they do claim, that they should be allowed to pay an income tax rate that hasn't been that low since the Civil War. Amazing.



Maybe when the country has a financial collapse, you lose all your SS and Medical benefits, you'll look back and say, maybe, just maybe, the rich should have paid their fair share. Because when that happens, the Richest .1% won't shed a tear.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

If you think of it as insurance it is very simple to make the program VERY solvent. If you dont need SSI to stay out of poverty you dont draw it. Problem solved.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I think I will treat the govt. the same as they treated me for 40-50 years.
They took money away from me and I couldn't do anything about it.
Now I will do my best to take back what I can.

The people who never paid in a cent into SS and collecting for 18 or more years might be one cause of SS going broke.
I know a woman who had 3 kids. Her husband shot and killed himself when they were 1, 2, and 3 years old. He never had a steady job, never worked 6 months in a row.
Each kid and the mother collected SS benefits until the kids were 18 years old.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Well apparently your bank LIED TO YOU.
> You see they paid for your house with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.
> Your money has paid for other peoples things.
> WOW just like SS.


Way off. Again each and every person who let the bank hold their money knew what the bank was going to do with it and freely let the bank hold it. At no time did the bank tell any one if they did not put their money in the bank they would have their assets taken and/or be placed in jail. At no time did the bank tell my family if I died it would keep all the money I had given it.




fantasymaker said:


> *SSI* used to be the programs name. Social Security *INSURANCE*. I think that made things much clearer.


Call it what you want its still a ponzi scheme which the government uses force to make every worker in the US to involved. 

In insurance part of the money you pay in is used to pay for current claims. Part of it is used to pay for running the system. The rest is invested to make more money to assure there is enough money to pay claims and pay for the system in the future. 

In a ponzi scheme part of the money is used to pay for current claims all of the rest goes into the pockets of those running the system. None of it is is put to use for the future of the system. It keeps running as long as you have enough suckers paying in today to line the pockets of those running the ponzi and either pay the suckers who paid yesterday or at least enough to make them think they will be paid soon. At some point the math always brings it down because there are not enough suckers on the bottom to pay those above them. The ONLY this scheme has been going on so long is the government is running it. The government has the power to FORCE people to play which keeps new money coming in. The government has to power to change the rules in mid-scheme and the 'players' can't do a thing about it. The government can borrow billions of dollars to keep paying.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> Our ancestors were deceived into selling us into SS.
> 
> Our parents applied for the number so they could _write us off_.


That wasn't necessary when I was a kid. Before 1986 the IRS took your word for it, but in 1986 it was required for all children ages 5 and older. In 1990 it was required for children aged 1 and over. Today you can't take a deduction without a number.

The fact is that Social Security numbers weren't even required for working adults until 1962.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

It's called incremental totalitarianism.

In layman's terms, think of it as warming the pot to boiling, very slowly.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Watcher what you said was


watcher said:


> "The bank took my money and used it for just what it said it would, pay for my house. The government took my money and *SPEND* it.".


That is a lie



watcher said:


> Way off. Again each and every person who let the bank hold their money knew what the bank was going to do with it and freely let the bank hold it. At no time did the bank tell any one if they did not put their money in the bank they would have their assets taken and/or be placed in jail. At no time did the bank tell my family if I died it would keep all the money I had given it.
> 
> .


That has NOTHING to do with your statement that I quoted and replied to above.
We both know the bank paid for your house with other peoples money.


----------

