# Welfare good, Rich bad.



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I find it interesting when what you think is fact, is just the opposite of what you thought.
We have been giving tax breaks to the wealthy because when they have money, they invest it and everyone benefits. It is the rich, not the poor, that create the jobs we all depend on.
We believe that the people that are on Welfare and Unemployment are just lazy and the quicker we shut it off, the sooner theyâll get to work. These costs drag down the economic recovery.

Not true.

Let me explain. Perhaps at one time the rich reinvested in this country and the middle class that worked for them helped build this countryâs economy. Everyone paid taxes and the rich benefited by having a modern infrastructure available for their investments. But for the past 15 years, the rich people have discovered that they can grow their wealth faster by investing in other countries. The US Military will protect those foreign investments. They have no need or desire to invest their money here. A tax cut to the wealthy just serves to increase the national debt and make the rich richer.

Give a tax cut or a bail-out to a major corporation and they divide the money amongst themselves at the very top. Money to the rich doesnât trickle down anymore.

However, if you cut people off welfare and unemployment, you just push people to take any job at any wage. That increased supply of people with the same number of jobs available creates an imbalance. Suddenly, people are willing to work for less money. Every wage, including yours, will drop like a stone. Current debt obligations will go unpaid when everyoneâs wages bottom out. A population of minimum wage earners is bad. No one to pay taxes. No one to buy new cars. No one to own a home. 

Money issued to poor people is spent. They pay for rent, they buy food, and they pay their utilities. Every cent goes back into the economy, unlike money held by the rich.

If you taxed the bottom 50% that currently pay no income taxes and gave tax breaks to the top 2%, the end result would be poorer poor people and richer rich people. The money will not be reinvested into our economy.

If you extended unemployment and extended welfare and increased taxes on the top 2% of the richest, that money would quickly enrich our economy. 
Iâd rather see a country where the rich reinvest their wealth and we maintain a healthy economy. But since they chose to sit on their wealth (Google â US Corporations sitting on record profits and record reserves), I think an infusion of money into the economy through welfare and unemployment checks isnât such a bad thing. More money in our economy will create more jobs and the welfare and unemployment problem will shrink on its own.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I give you DONK'S POTD award. Everything you said is true and is one of the things driveing the downfall of this nation.


----------



## Kevingr (Mar 10, 2006)

If giving more money to the poor through more goverment spending will create more jobs why didn't all the money from the two stimulus packages not create more jobs and get the economy moving? (one could I suppose argue that without it it could have been worse) Seems to me with all that money something should have changed for the better. I'm no economics major though. I do agree with you that the large corporations are holding onto their money, I don't know that's true for rich individuals though. The rich individuals that I know are buying realestate like it's going out of style.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Kevingr said:


> If giving more money to the poor through more goverment spending will create more jobs why didn't all the money from the two stimulus packages not create more jobs and get the economy moving? (one could I suppose argue that without it it could have been worse) Seems to me with all that money something should have changed for the better. I'm no economics major though. I do agree with you that the large corporations are holding onto their money, I don't know that's true for rich individuals though. The rich individuals that I know are buying realestate like it's going out of style.


I guess that is the point. Did any of the Stimulus money go to people that were willing to spend it or did it just go to the rich that sat on it? I believe there were several multi-million dollar bonuses handed out that was stimulus money.

The rich individuals you know that are buying realestate because Banks won't make loans to people that could lose their jobs if the economy gets worse, so that increases the number of unsold properties and further drives down the value of property.

If they are just buying foreclosed homes, their money goes from their savings to the bank's funds. If the Banks aren't loaning that money out, the economic impact is zero.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Disposable income can be spent or saved or hidden overseas.

Non-disposable income gets spent back into the cash flow economy.

My economics professor showed us some charts that showed lower income people spend nearly all of their money. Wealthy people accumulate it thereby taking more of it out of the daily cash flow economy.

That's why I believe that we can only transfer so much of the nations wealth to the wealthy before the economy grinds to a halt.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tax breaks are given to the wealthy with the belief they will invest it.
Wouldn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to the poor so they would have more money to spend causing an increase in the demand for goods? Then the rich would make more profits and invest more.
Seems like a win win situation.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> Tax breaks are given to the wealthy with the belief they will invest it.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to the poor so they would have more money to spend causing an increase in the demand for goods? Then the rich would make more profits and invest more.
> Seems like a win win situation.


 The poor already get the best tax break available. They pay zero income taxes. In fact, many of them get money other taxpayers paid in. It's called redistribution of wealth.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

pancho said:


> Tax breaks are given to the wealthy with the belief they will invest it.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to the poor so they would have more money to spend causing an increase in the demand for goods? Then the rich would make more profits and invest more.
> Seems like a win win situation.


UM, the poor already get tax breaks. In fact, if they have half a brain they probably make money on their tax returns. I do my daughter's taxes, and with her young family, and her husband's entry level salary, they qualify for tax credits that result in her getting back more money than they put in.

And to answer your question, yes, they do generally spend that money so it goes into the economy. I keep urging them to save, but they see the tax credits as a windfall and buy things they couldn't otherwise afford. Vacations, TV's and such.

The missing point of this thread is the ineffiency of the federal government when it comes to handling our money. I would argue that EVERYONE should get a tax cut, and no benefits should be reduced, until ALL the pork and waste is eliminated from the federal budget. The idea of playing the poor against the rich is getting old. We all suffer from this huge disfunctional family that we call congress.

That's where I think Obama has it wrong. I'm not against legitimate tax increases for legitimate purposes. But, the republicans were right to demand spending cuts first! Then, and only then, if more money was needed, taxes should be increased across the board. Obama's "balanced" approach isn't really balanced at all.

There should have been a balanced budget amendment years ago, and it's a little late now, but better late than never. We need a balanced budget amendment. No future federal budget should add to the deficit!

Let's stop blaming the people (rich, poor, 1%, 99%, I don't care). Let's put the blame where it belongs, in Washington!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Wouldn't it make more sense to give tax breaks to *the poor *so they would have more money to spend causing an increase in the demand for goods?


They don't pay anything now (Federal )


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Maybe I should change tax breaks to bail outs.
What would happen to the economy if billions would have been given to the poor instead of the banks?
I think the poor pays the same taxes the rich pays every time they buy something. The poor that own real estate pay taxes.
The poor pay taxes on gasoline, pay taxes on phone bills, pay taxes on just about everything the rich does escept federal taxes.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

pancho said:


> Maybe I should change tax breaks to bail outs.
> What would happen to the economy if billions would have been given to the poor instead of the banks?
> I think the poor pays the same taxes the rich pays every time they buy something. The poor that own real estate pay taxes.
> The poor pay taxes on gasoline, pay taxes on phone bills, pay taxes on just about everything the rich does escept federal taxes.


It would be good to give everybody say $300,000 that way the price of everything would go up to what the market would bear. The market would bear a lot of increases in that case. The federal government should make less regulations and get out of Health care all together and let the small business (the ones that employ most of the workers) operate as they would. It is the uncertainly of what is to become with Health care that is making the rich sit on the side lines and wait until the government makes up its mind as to what will happen.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I guess I need to take a swig or toke on whatever your using....

I think you should honestly rephrase the original premise... If we stopped letting rich folks keep more of their money, and take more, we'd be better off. And, give that money to healthy individuals so they can sit on their rears all day, making more welfare babies, smoking dope, and drinking malt liquor. Dude, seriously, Keynesian economics does not work...

If you do away with 100% of welfare tomorrow, suddenly there'd be a rush of folks wanting work, at any wage, and a lot of work would come 'home'.

Tax the rich more, and what do you think they're going to do? They're going to move even more of their capital to friendlier climes...

Personally, I'd like to see a two year raise in taxes, and then drop them down to a maximum of 20%, permanently. Do away with 100% of welfare. By that time, our problems as an economy would be over.

Of course, that'll never ever happen, until the big time SHTF occurs... otherwise there'd be bloodshed on a massive scale. These deadbeat welfare terrorists won't work for any reason, but they'd riot, rape, and pillage if they're liquor and Little Debbie money was cut off...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

haypoint said:


> I find it interesting when what you think is fact, is just the opposite of what you thought.
> We have been giving tax breaks to the wealthy because when they have money, they invest it and everyone benefits. It is the rich, not the poor, that create the jobs we all depend on.
> We believe that the people that are on Welfare and Unemployment are just lazy and the quicker we shut it off, the sooner theyâll get to work. These costs drag down the economic recovery.
> 
> ...


Good post! And its amazing how many "working stiffs" dont get this Haypoint...me thinks their all watching Fox news?


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Man so wrong on so many levels.

Texican had it right - cut off the gravy train and people will start looking for work - sure wages will go down and standards of living will go down for a while but then an amazing thing will happen. People will start to work again you will find that Americans CAN pick fruit off trees and vines and Americans can wield a hammer to pound in nails to build houses and Americans can use a shovel to dig ditches - you will find that with motivation of not receiving all the free stuff they will decide they would rather work then die.

Are these high tech jobs? No - but after doing the manual labor for a generation or two people will start paying attention to their kids and instead of letting them do whatever they want in school the parents will instill in them that in order to not have to dig ditches they will want to get a better education so they can get the well paying jobs that CAN come with a better education.

We did not get into this mess quickly and it will not be gotten out of quickly.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Kevingr said:


> If giving more money to the poor through more goverment spending will create more jobs why didn't all the money from the two stimulus packages not create more jobs and get the economy moving? (one could I suppose argue that without it it could have been worse) Seems to me with all that money something should have changed for the better. I'm no economics major though. I do agree with you that the large corporations are holding onto their money, I don't know that's true for rich individuals though. The rich individuals that I know are buying realestate like it's going out of style.












Yeah, just a transfer to the welfare state from the 1 or 2%. That'll fix us. For sure. Make all the socialists happy as well.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Why is it that as soon as the word "poor" is used folks automatically think "welfare bums"? The majority of the poor in this country work -- they don't sit around on their butts waiting for a handout. 

I'm as against giving folks a permanent free ride through welfare as the next person. However, if we were to substitute "the poor" with "working poor" in the OP, how would that change our perception? Around here, it is difficult to find work for over $8.00 an hour unless you have a skilled profession. Even substitute teachers who have to have some college, only get $50.00 a day --just about at minimum wage. Most blue collar professionals (plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc.) are working for less than they were 5-10 years ago. I just had a shed roof built and the carpenter/roofer doing it charged $13.50 an hour. 20 years ago I was paying $15.00 an hour for skilled handyman kind of work. The person who did the work is what I call the working poor. They are basically honest hardworking folks who live close to the poverty level. 

As for 50% of people not paying taxes. That is a crock. They might not pay income taxes due to their low salaries, but at least in Texas, they pay between 6.25 and 8.25% sales tax on everything except food; they pay state and federal taxes every time they buy gasoline; they pay property taxes if they own a house or purchase a vehicle, etc., etc., etc. Please enlighten me how a person can live in this country and not pay taxes? 

And let me tell you 8.25% tax takes a bigger bite percentage wise out of income if you are the working poor. 

I agree 100% with Haypoint about the fact the trickle down effect in giving breaks to the wealthy is not working. If it had then the Bush era tax cuts that Obama has extended would have resulted in more jobs and more wealth at the lower end. Sadly it didn't as the corporations and folks getting those cuts did not put it back into the economy. I don't know the answer to our current problems, but I do know that Congress is badly broken. And for the first time in my long life, I am becoming discouraged that there is nothing that can be done to turn things around.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Who supports giving money to lazy people so they can sit on the butt, pop out more babies and watch daytime TV?

No one that I know and I know some pretty liberal people.

Keynesian economics has nothing to do with lazy people scamming the system. 

It's hard to have a productive discussion as long as people parrot the talking points of groups that want to divide us and divert our attention from the looting.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Belfrybat said:


> Why is it that as soon as the word "poor" is used folks automatically think "welfare bums"? The majority of the poor in this country work -- they don't sit around on their butts waiting for a handout.
> 
> I'm as against giving folks a permanent free ride through welfare as the next person. However, if we were to substitute "the poor" with "working poor" in the OP, how would that change our perception? Around here, it is difficult to find work for over $8.00 an hour unless you have a skilled profession. Even substitute teachers who have to have some college, only get $50.00 a day --just about at minimum wage. Most blue collar professionals (plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc.) are working for less than they were 5-10 years ago. I just had a shed roof built and the carpenter/roofer doing it charged $13.50 an hour. 20 years ago I was paying $15.00 an hour for skilled handyman kind of work. The person who did the work is what I call the working poor. They are basically honest hardworking folks who live close to the poverty level.
> 
> ...


Quite a few people feel the same. A few years ago there wasn't many who felt the same. The numbers are growing.
Will the numbers ever grow to an amount that they can make any difference?


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Belfrybat said:


> They are basically honest hardworking folks who live close to the poverty level.


Oh I see so you want to give money to people who are CLOSE to the poverty level - come on - we are after equal opportunity not equal results. If you want equal results go move to a communist or socialist country instead of trying to turn this one into either of the two.

I bet those who are "close" to the poverty level are far above the level that my father grew up in - he made choices that provided him with a (much) higher standard of living then he grew up with. His choices and mine allow me to have a higher standard of living then he had.

Do we all make good choices? No, my oldest sister had the same if not better opportunities than I did - she made poor choices and still does - her poor example helped me decide not to make (as many) poor choices.

I am not against all social programs and safety nets but before trying to give even more of the working people's money to the lazy mooching people who DO give the social programs a bad name they should be cleaned up.

Disabled, poor frail elderly should get the "free" assistance - those that are unemployed but able bodied - well there is unemployment - when that runs out then there are the social programs which IMO should not provide a better standard of living then someone who IS working minimum wage. The social programs should provide a standard below minimum wage to encourage people to go find or make a better life then suckling from the government teat.

It does not take vast amounts of wealth to start a small business - it takes hard work and good choices - that does not guarantee success - there are no guarantees - it's risk and reward - there is no reward with out the risk. 

What is your definition of poor? Mine was my grandmother (fathers) who had 11 children to feed, my grandfather was killed when my dad was 3 - he's 2nd youngest. He went on many trips with my grandmother behind the grocer to pick through the trash and remove veggies a little past their prime and meat that was a bit green.

I remember my family going to the peach orchard to pick fruit while we picked off the trees my grandmother picked the fruit off the ground after asking the farmer how much for the fruit on the ground. It was free - she didn't mind that she had to cut out the worms - my father was paying she didn't have to do that but to her the fruit was just fine and she couldn't stand to see it to go waste.

Did all this poverty she experienced end her life short? No - she died at 102 - she was born in 1901 and lived through a hell of a lot more then the people whining more more more from the government.

My wife and I can afford a lot - but she buys the day old bread, she goes to the "dollar" bags of fruit and veggies in the grocery isle that are 1 step from being in the dumpster, she uses coupons, on and on - we try to cut our spending and save. We try to live frugally not because we have to but because we try to make good choices with our money. I see people who live in affluent neighborhoods who are drowning in debt and are 1 setback from loosing everything because they have to have all the "things". I also see people who are using food stamps buying expensive stuff with their $60 dollar manicures and $150 dollar hair driving away in $40k pimped out SUV.

Our social system is broken and throwing more money at it is not the solution.

This is NOT some rant from someone who only "patriots the talking points". My BIL had 4 children by 3 different women when he was killed in a car crash. We have regular contact with 2 of the kids; their mother and her numerous brothers and sisters each of whom are still popping out kids left and right and collecting their government checks and assistance who I see actively scamming the system. When their government assistance finally runs out they go back to work - just long enough to qualify for government assistance again - then they are back on the government assistance programs. They don't HAVE to live like this - they CHOOSE to live like this. This is NOT some short term thing they are going through - this has been going on for over the 17 years I have known them.

YOUR life, MY life, Everyone's life is about the choices made - if you don't like your lot in life then take some responsibility and make some better choices. Sure it's not as easy as saying "hey I will vote for you if you get me more stuff from those that have it" - I'm living in a dream world and it's probably too late because when there are more people who vote who are living off the government then there are people who actually have to pay the government it will never get reversed.

LONG rant - and I still say this idea is a bad one.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Haypoint, I actually do like you and enjoy your posts for a different view of my own, but you are a broken record on this one. 

Just one quick question: when we raise all these taxes, who do you think will actually pay the price? Answer...our beleaugured middle class in the form of higher prices for products and services. Since your view is that large business is inherently evil, do you think for a second they are going to take any hit to their profit margins laying down? Once again, the middle class will be forced to pay as businesses try to keep their profits; in the form of higher prices and layoffs/job loss. 

Trickle down will only work if people TAKE those jobs, and for many people, it is still easier to collect welfare. If I admit that some profit margins ARE obscene, can you admit that some people just won't work?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Disposable income can be spent or saved or hidden overseas.
> 
> Non-disposable income gets spent back into the cash flow economy.
> 
> ...


All the income in my household seems to be disposable.. at least it gets itself disposed of pretty quickly.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

SCRancher said:


> Oh I see so you want to give money to people who are CLOSE to the poverty level - come on - we are after equal opportunity not equal results. If you want equal results go move to a communist or socialist country instead of trying to turn this one into either of the two.
> 
> I bet those who are "close" to the poverty level are far above the level that my father grew up in - he made choices that provided him with a (much) higher standard of living then he grew up with. His choices and mine allow me to have a higher standard of living then he had.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure what your point is??? I am not talking about giving anyone anything. I'm speaking of providing opportunities for folks to better themselves rather than giving tax breaks to the wealthy who apparently are not investing the windfall in this country but are hoarding it. Are you saying that people like your relatives who lived in poverty should not be allowed to get ahead but folks and organizations making megabucks should be given even more money in the form of lower taxes? Why should someone who is financially wealthy be given tax breaks when that apparently isn't trickling down to benefit the economy? 

According to the reading I've done, income taxes are at a historical low, especially for those making hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is fine as long as this country is growing economically. But from everything I see, we are stagnating. But if I read your post correctly, you want to give even more money to the rich and withhold opportunities to get ahead to the poor, especially the working poor. Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Belfrybat said:


> But if I read your post correctly, you want to give even more money to the rich and withhold opportunities to get ahead to the poor, especially the working poor. Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.


Sorry you are not reading my post correctly and that is not what I said.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

I will try to respond without making this political. I think people are too invested in their opinions to even consider the other side. 
Belfry, I work for a large employer who is currently hiring "variable staffing" or contractors. They don't want to invest in permanent workers until the economy shows some continuous signs of growth. They don't, and I would concur, that spending money to train someone that they will potentially have to lay off sooner or later is not a worthwhile endeavor. 
Several people here have hit around the topic of wages being part of the problem, and I think we need to take an accurate look at what wages should be. When my parents were growing up, they were making almost pennies on the dollar to what I make only one generation removed. But the costs of goods and services have continued to increase at a rate that can't keep up. If we tax corporations, they don't really care. They just pass the cost on to their customers, that would be me and you folks. I will say, I make decent money, at least compared to my parents. I also make a decision to only buy things I can afford to pay for in cash, other than my house. The reason there are some seriously rich people out there, is they play on the minds of people who don't have the ability to control their own decisions.
I shop at Walmart (hate me if you must), but most other retailers, including mom and pop stores by their goods from overseas now. I buy used vehicles, (Toyota due to it's reliabilty) instead of having to keep up with the Jones'. 
Until about 12 years ago, I was under the poverty level for a family of 5. The difference is, I made a decision that was not going to be my lot in life. So I went out and got an education, paying for it was tough, but we survived on my wife and I each having two jobs. The kids ate potatoes and eggs and occasionally we could afford a package of hot dogs. We had goverment cheese early in our marriage. But eventually, we were able to get better jobs and today, all three of my boys are in or have graduated college. 
I could have just stayed on the sidelines and complained, but instead chose to take my future, and that of my family, and take it into my own hands to deal with. 
I just wish these supposed 99%'ers would get off their butts and realize that the 1% are the ones that create the jobs they are complaining aren't there.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

SCRancher said:


> Man so wrong on so many levels.
> 
> Texican had it right - cut off the gravy train and people will start looking for work - sure wages will go down and standards of living will go down for a while but then an amazing thing will happen. People will start to work again you will find that Americans CAN pick fruit off trees and vines and Americans can wield a hammer to pound in nails to build houses and Americans can use a shovel to dig ditches - you will find that with motivation of not receiving all the free stuff they will decide they would rather work then die.
> 
> ...


Cut off the gravy train and people will look for work. Are there jobs? I canât get a job picking apples because the guy that owns the orchard has a crew that comes up every year from âTexasâ to pick his apples. I have a contractorâs license, but no one is building. 10% of the houses in my town are empty. I drive by hundreds of empty stores, offices and factories every day. The jobs went to China and Mexico. I canât get hired there.

Besides when wages slip, buying power slips. A population that can barely afford food and an apartment isnât going to grow the economy. 

Short history lesson: When Ford started p the Auto Factories, he paid $5. A day. That was about five times the going wage. But these folks were able to buy cars, then homes, then furniture. This snowballed into the economy we now have. Prior to that, for the previous 3 or 4 thousand years, there were few rich people and everyone else was dirt poor. If we donât have jobs and a decent wage, weâll go back to the way things were and this hundred years will be soon forgotten. 

But remember, because of the good wage, we became consumers and that spired manufacturing growth. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (70 years ago) we had by far the largest manufacturing capacity in the world. This allowed us to secure out freedom.

Dig a ditch or die. Thatâs the future you want the USA to aspire to?
Digging a ditch all day for peanuts will make people better parents? Cut off welfare and intercity single parents will discover birth control?

Do you really think that the non-rich are welfare trash? 10,000,000 jobs have been lost in the last three years. Do you honestly believe that is the fault of lazy people?

There wonât be any high paying high tech jobs to aspire to. If you think that because you have a skill or education that permits you a good wage, Iâve got news for you. This country is chock full of under employed folks. Weâll be going after your job, too. Care to work harder than you do today for a tenth of your current wage? Think the bank will be understanding when you canât pay the mortgage?

The solution isnât lower wages. Far too much US currency is going to China (trillion dollar trade imbalance), going to Mexico (15,000,000 illegals mailing their wages back home) and going into the bloated bank accounts of the top 2% ( how can any single person âearnâ a $50,000,000 bonus?)

We need more money in our economy. Making it easier for the tax attorneys of the top 2% to avoid taxes while running up the deficit on your grandchildren isnât the path to prosperity.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

sirquack said:


> I will try to respond without making this political. I think people are too invested in their opinions to even consider the other side.
> Belfry, I work for a large employer who is currently hiring "variable staffing" or contractors. They don't want to invest in permanent workers until the economy shows some continuous signs of growth. They don't, and I would concur, that spending money to train someone that they will potentially have to lay off sooner or later is not a worthwhile endeavor.
> Several people here have hit around the topic of wages being part of the problem, and I think we need to take an accurate look at what wages should be. When my parents were growing up, they were making almost pennies on the dollar to what I make only one generation removed. But the costs of goods and services have continued to increase at a rate that can't keep up. If we tax corporations, they don't really care. They just pass the cost on to their customers, that would be me and you folks. I will say, I make decent money, at least compared to my parents. I also make a decision to only buy things I can afford to pay for in cash, other than my house. The reason there are some seriously rich people out there, is they play on the minds of people who don't have the ability to control their own decisions.
> I shop at Walmart (hate me if you must), but most other retailers, including mom and pop stores by their goods from overseas now. I buy used vehicles, (Toyota due to it's reliabilty) instead of having to keep up with the Jones'.
> ...












Here is a chart that shows how wages have spread over the years. Sure our wages have gone up and the cost of products has risen right along with it. But the wages of CEOs has multiplied way out of proportion. How can you justify a CEO that made 90 times what the workers earned in 1970 and now he earns 400 times what the worker earns? And you want o say it is the workers that are slowing the economy and the CEO is sustaining the economy?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

beccachow said:


> Haypoint, I actually do like you and enjoy your posts for a different view of my own, but you are a broken record on this one.
> 
> Just one quick question: when we raise all these taxes, who do you think will actually pay the price? Answer...our beleaugured middle class in the form of higher prices for products and services. Since your view is that large business is inherently evil, do you think for a second they are going to take any hit to their profit margins laying down? Once again, the middle class will be forced to pay as businesses try to keep their profits; in the form of higher prices and layoffs/job loss.
> 
> Trickle down will only work if people TAKE those jobs, and for many people, it is still easier to collect welfare. If I admit that some profit margins ARE obscene, can you admit that some people just won't work?


Trickle down only works if there are jobs created in this country. 

We have a problem with a segment of our society that is entrenched in welfare. Their family structure has been torn apart and they are paying dearly for it. If the national average shows 70% of Black babies are born to a single parent, what are the numbers in the inner cities? Itâs shameful. The inner cities have a high school drop out rate beyond 50%
But that's a whole different problem. For right now we'd better wake up, because millions of the middle class are headed that way.

If a 2%er wants to grow his wealth by moving all his factories to China, can't blame him. If he wants to pay an elected official to give him some tax breaks, hey, what's money for if you can't buy a few politicians?

What I don't understand is how we can sit back and watch it happen. Like the frog in the kettle of water. Are we going to wake up before it is too late, or are we going to let them cook the liberty out of each one of us?
How hot does the kettle need to get for you? Right now we have 50% so poor that they pay no federal income taxes and we have 1% that even after tax attorneys control about half the money in this country. Will you wake up when 80% are below the poverty level and the 1% control 90% of the money?
If not now, when?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Here is a chart that shows how wages have spread over the years. Sure our wages have gone up and the cost of products has risen right along with it. But the wages of CEOs has multiplied way out of proportion. How can you justify a CEO that made 90 times what the workers earned in 1970 and now he earns 400 times what the worker earns? And you want o say it is the workers that are slowing the economy and the CEO is sustaining the economy?


A ceo making big bucks is "earning" his salary by producing big bucks for the company. How much money does a single assembly line worker produce for the company? how much does a capable hard working ceo produce for the company?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> 10,000,000 jobs have been lost in the last three years. Do you honestly believe that is the fault of lazy people?


Nope, we are losing those jobs to folks who work just as hard.... for a whole lot less money. They dont seem to be as worried about having built in pay raises, guaranteed job security or free medical care as they do having enough rice and beans to eat next week. They sure as heck arent worried about buying the latest electronic gadgets, cellphones or flat screen tvs.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, we are losing those jobs to folks who work just as hard.... for a whole lot less money. They dont seem to be as worried about having built in pay raises, guaranteed job security or free medical care as they do having enough rice and beans to eat next week. They sure as heck arent worried about buying the latest electronic gadgets, cellphones or flat screen tvs.


Is that how we get out of this mess? Pay workers in China a buck a day? Who'll buy the latest gadgets, cellphones and flat screen TVs?
I don't know any worker in the US that has built in raises, free medical or any job security.

The productivity of the American worker is on par with China. Just we have vastly different lifestyles. Unchecked and you'll find the American worker living in a two room apartment, three generations in one apartment, living on rice and beans and riding his bike to work. While the rich get ever more rich.


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Haypoint - I'm not trying to make this personal - we have agreed on other issues - just not on this one. I'm not asking you to respond to this and I'm not assuming your NOT doing this - I am making no assumptions about what you are or are not doing but simply bringing my thinking into the situation you described for yourself.

I assume by your statements that your out of work (or working in a job for which your not earning as much as before) and I know it must be very hard but I have to question if you are making any choices in what free time you have to better your situation other than voting more money for yourself via government?

Have you thought about what products you could make and sell in your spare time?
Have you thought about re-training?
Have you thought about what you can do to produce more of your own needs?
I'm not a builder but even I can think of ideas for products made from building supplies that you could do by yourself and try to sell - is it a get rich quick thing? OFC not but it's a goal - something to work toward.

Henry Ford didn't just start Ford Motor Company and wham bam he's a rich industrialist. Instead I believe he went bankrupt more than once before hitting it big. Do you think he had it easy - think again - did he deserve to make all that money - he sure did!

Going on to your other points - picking and choosing just as you did.
Do I think digging a ditch will make someone a better parent? Let me ask you - do you think someone who is a professional government mooch will make a better parent then the ditch digger? Who is setting the better example? The professional mooch or the ditch digger?

"Dig a ditch or die, is that the future you aspire to?"
Again I'll revers this on you.
Sit around on my ass and take money from those that choose to work - is that the future you aspire to?

Do I think single-mom's in the inner city will discover birth control if their per-child income is cut off? H-E-L-L yes I do - do you REALLY have to ask? Oh sure they may have 1 - oopse - but when they are actually having to work to pay for their food and shelter for themselves and their child I think they will think twice about - oopse - again. OH BTW it's not just inner-city people that do this - the one's in my family are rural.

The older we get the more our past choices build up to limit us in the future for you or I Haypoint it may be too late to get a new education for a high tech field - I'm at that border line age IMO (45) if I was going to do it I would need to start now. I could however learn a trade and get into that - I think if I lost my High Tech job I want to do something out doors next time. Welding, driving a heavy piece of equipment, farming/ranching - don't know just not sitting in front of a computer all day.

More than likely however I would simply write some other software that and market that. There are still so many new untapped ideas floating in my head and the heads of my kids. Just about two weeks ago me and my kids sat around for a couple of hours brain storming about ideas for smart phone apps - I made a list - if I ever have enough time I'll translate the ideas into products.

Anyway back to the choices thing - just because we are older (assumption about your age) does not mean we can't make choices now that would allow to strike it big (or moderate). We may just have to work within our current reach to find the solution.

Anyway I hope I did not offend you - it was not my intention.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Just one quick question: when we raise all these taxes, who do you think will actually pay the price? Answer...our beleaugured middle class in the form of higher prices for products and services. Since your view is that large business is inherently evil, do you think for a second they are going to take any hit to their profit margins laying down? Once again, the middle class will be forced to pay as businesses try to keep their profits; in the form of higher prices and layoffs/job loss.
> 
> Trickle down will only work if people TAKE those jobs, and for many people, it is still easier to collect welfare. If I admit that some profit margins ARE obscene, can you admit that some people just won't work?


Lets see how much people should think a profit margin be for a company to be successful and keep its work force working?
What would be a good Profit Margin????
5%? Maybe 10% is ok? Or how about 50%? is that the line in the sand?
What % should be a favorable amount for everyone?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Lets see how much people should think a profit margin be for a company to be successful and keep its work force working?
> What would be a good Profit Margin????
> 5%? Maybe 10% is ok? Or how about 50%? is that the line in the sand?
> What % should be a favorable amount for everyone?


A business needs to show somewhere in the 10% range minimum return on investment... otherwise they can simply put their capital out on interest with little or no risk, which is what many of the larger corporations are currently doing due to the economic slowdown. There is no upper limit of course... the whole idea is to make money with ones investment. When I was playing the real estate game I always tried to see where I could triple my initial investment on sale day. Say I gave 50k for a little chunk of dirt somewhere... I figured it needed to be able to fetch 150 after cleaning it up and making basic improvements. Seldom happened that way but that was always the "mark" I shot for when buying. After the dust settled and everything was paid for, surveyors, cleanup costs, legal fees, commissions, bank interest, and other developing and marketing expenses were paid I averaged around a 50 to 60 percent return on my initial investment. This was of course over a two, maybe three year period, so it averaged out at around 20 to 30 percent annually. It made me a modest living and was able to tuck a little away for retirement, but the real reward for me was making property available to homesteaders who most likely would never had a chance to acquire their property otherwise.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A business needs to show somewhere in the 10% range minimum return on investment... otherwise they can simply put their capital out on interest with little or no risk, which is what many of the larger corporations are currently doing due to the economic slowdown. There is no upper limit of course... the whole idea is to make money with ones investment. When I was playing the real estate game I always tried to see where I could triple my initial investment on sale day. Say I gave 50k for a little chunk of dirt somewhere... I figured it needed to be able to fetch 150 after cleaning it up and making basic improvements. Seldom happened that way but that was always the "mark" I shot for when buying. After the dust settled and everything was paid for, surveyors, cleanup costs, legal fees, commissions, bank interest, and other developing and marketing expenses were paid I averaged around a 50 to 60 percent return on my initial investment. This was of course over a two, maybe three year period, so it averaged out at around 20 to 30 percent annually. It made me a modest living and was able to tuck a little away for retirement, but the real reward for me was making property available to homesteaders who most likely would never had a chance to acquire their property otherwise.


 Sounds very good. Most are between that 8% and 10% range.
My friends that have a small business in the vending side of things, soda, snacks, and office coffee.
They TRY to maintain 40% to 50% many soda products are down in the 30% range, so the margins are not the same on all products they sell.
Some may think that is a lot.
But TRY to get Paid in 14 days net. that is hard to do when dealing with other small companies, so they don't make a fuss till the 'receivables" get over 30 days.
Now you have to pay out of the 45%, you have to pay the help of 2 drivers on the road, a full time repair person, trucks to upkeep, trailers to keep up, etc.

Now that 45% looks small after the expenses get paid out.
A few don't think out of the box when it comes to those things.

All they see is a company making huge profits and bingo they are the rich. Far far from it when you get down to the nitty gritty of things.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

texican said:


> I guess I need to take a swig or toke on whatever your using....
> 
> I think you should honestly rephrase the original premise... If we stopped letting rich folks keep more of their money, ...



I think you should honestly rephrase the original premise... If we stopped letting rich folks keep more of *OUR* money.....

I seem to remeber a line from somewhere....."All men are created equal....."

The point being that each of us in this nation should have equal rights to its resoruces.
We also should have a equal obligation to pay our way.
The rich reap FAR FAR more of the good and contribute little to the maintence of the nation.
For a very simple instance look at Social security INSURANCE. Yes thats what it was originally called . the poor pay about 15% of their income to it. The rich? Sometimes nothing at all ,always a infentesimal part of their income.
Many many things are that way ,tiny amounts to gas taxes that build and maintain the roads they benifit from. the same as sales taxes etc.

In the 50s and 60 , a great growth period in this nation the highest marginal tax rate was in the 90% now its 35%. there is a reason for that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> I think you should honestly rephrase the original premise... If we stopped letting rich folks keep more of *OUR* money.....
> 
> I seem to remeber a line from somewhere....."All men are created equal....."
> 
> ...


Yep we are all born equal... depending upon how you view equal. We all are equal in the rights dept but not everyone is ambitious, not everyone is lazy, not everyone is smart, or stupid, or tall or short. 

We do all have an equal right to our nations resources, so I dont see what the problem is there. 

The wealthy contribute by far the greatest amount to our nations upkeep via both personal and corporate income taxes so that argument doesnt hold up at all either. 

Half of SS insurance is paid for by working people, the other half by their "wealthy" employers, and the benefits are paid out to the workers. Of course self employed people pay all of their SS, but quite often there is little or nothing to be paid... unless of course those folks are paying themselves a wage. So I see no valid complaint there. I question the legality of its very existence but it does seem fair enough for those who live long enough to receive benefits.

As far as fuel taxes to pay for hiways.... that one can be no more fair.... them that use the hiways pay for them. Pretty simple and one of the fairest taxes going.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

fantasymaker said:


> I think you should honestly rephrase the original premise... If we stopped letting rich folks keep more of *OUR* money.....
> 
> I seem to remeber a line from somewhere....."All men are created equal....."
> 
> ...


Is that the Internationale playing on your stereo? Apparently partaking of the same magic stuff....:bouncy:

Yes, there is a saying all men are created equal... tis a nice saying, and such a fairy tale... do you seriously believe that? Some folks are dumb as a stack of old bricks, and some smart as can be. Cream always rises to the top... and if that 'cream' happened to live in one of the progressive/socialist paradises of the past, they emigrated as fast as they could to this country, where their talents were appreciated. Deadweight all sinks to the bottom... especially if progressives make the bottom so comfortable.

Strip the rich of everything they own, literally, and give it to the deadweight of society. There'd be a huge party for a month or so, then the naked smart people would soon be back on their feet (probably by catering to the deadweights 'needs') and in short order everything would be the way it is now... face it, crazy cousin Willie ain't no Bill Gates...

Social Security has never ever been anything but a Ponzi scheme... accept it

Exactly when did profits belong to everyone instead of the one who earned it? So, 100% of my earnings actually belong to you and the other progressives of the world, and ya'll are actually being nice by letting us keep some of your money!

These type of posts make me seriously wonder why anyone would willingly want to hang out with people on an internet forum that espouses self reliance! 

I do sometimes visit progressive websites, but never post... I go to them to get a good laugh. It is too far to drive to the nearest insane asylum (at Rusk), and gas being so high, I just make a mouse click or two, and bam, I'm there. If I did post, I'd be considered a troll... so why bother... I'd never change a single one of their thoroughly brainwashed minds.

I do wish all of ya'll that are smoking the good stuff, to stay at home, and not get behind the wheel.... it's dangerous out there, and I seriously don't want any of ya'll 'gone'... you lighten my heart with such posts, and sitting around conversing with only folks that agree with each other is boring.

Btw, reckon you agree that Welfare is good... we should all sit at home, drinking beers, doing shots of tequila, making more babies with unwed mothers, doing drugs, watching Oprah, being just a drag on society, than to be out there working our buttocks off, trying to get ahead?

I wonder if even 10% of those on welfare are physically unable to work... the rest of them should have to work, or go back home and live with their parents, or meet their maker. Work or Die... real simple.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Here is a chart that shows how wages have spread over the years. Sure our wages have gone up and the cost of products has risen right along with it. But the wages of CEOs has multiplied way out of proportion. How can you justify a CEO that made 90 times what the workers earned in 1970 and now he earns 400 times what the worker earns? And you want o say it is the workers that are slowing the economy and the CEO is sustaining the economy?


I feel that it is no one's business what the CE0 of a corp makes as long as the board of directors and stockholders are satisfied with the output. If they are not satisfied, the CE0 will be replaced as happened recently with HP. I really don't understand how it is any one's business what someone else makes for their labor. There are those that might say I make too much doing what I do, i feel I earn my pay and am pretty sure that most CEOs feel the same way. But then again I am a die hard capitalist and believe in the ability to get ahead is not the responsibility of anyone but myself. 

I was not born well off, but like others here I did some pretty menial labor and decided I would rather work smarter than keep slinging horse poop and waitressing. Now I got a place paid for and like Texican said, not a slave to a mortgage so when opportunity called, I answered. Seems to be part of the American dream to be holding to no one except myself. I would love to make what some folks make, but I don't envy them for it. Just gives me a little inspiration to keep chugging along.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We do all have an equal right to our nations resources, so I dont see what the problem is there. .


The problem is we dont all get equal access



Yvonne's hubby said:


> The wealthy contribute by far the greatest amount to our nations upkeep via both personal and corporate income taxes so that argument doesnt hold up at all either..


I dont think so, its the poor and middle class that pay most .



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Half of SS insurance is paid for by working people, the other half by their "wealthy" employers, and the benefits are paid out to the workers. Of course self employed people pay all of their SS, but quite often there is little or nothing to be paid... unless of course those folks are paying themselves a wage. So I see no valid complaint there. I question the legality of its very existence but it does seem fair enough for those who live long enough to receive benefits..


Its a INSURANCE plan. Would you think it fair if you were in a insurance pool for any other reason and the rich folks in it didnt have to pay?



Yvonne's hubby said:


> As far as fuel taxes to pay for hiways.... that one can be no more fair.... them that use the hiways pay for them. Pretty simple and one of the fairest taxes going.


LOL Nope not true at all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> The problem is we dont all get equal access


Of course we do... all anyone has to do is file a claim and they are allowed to dig up any minerals they want on government owned property, or purchase property and do with it as they so desire.. cut timber, mine for gold or drill for oil/gas. Which of our resources do you believe are denied to anyone?




fantasymaker said:


> I dont think so, its the poor and middle class that pay most .


I (as well as many others) have posted the numbers here many many times.... you are simply WRONG. The top 15 per cent of our nations taxpayers put up 85 percent of all income tax collected by the IRS. The poor pay none and the middle class divide up the other 15 percent on a weighted scale where those earning the most pay the most of the 15 percent. 




fantasymaker said:


> Its a INSURANCE plan. Would you think it fair if you were in a insurance pool for any other reason and the rich folks in it didnt have to pay?


The rich folks who dont pay in do not receive benefits either.... benefits paid out are paid out based on what a person pays in. Well, with the exception of the poor who can collect SS benefits without ever paying in a dime. You seem to have that part backwards. 



fantasymaker said:


> LOL Nope not true at all.


Again... check your facts.... fuel taxes pay for our hiways. Those that use the roads are the ones paying for them... those that use them the most obviously pay the most.... fuel tax is collected at the pump so if you arent going anywhere... you aint having to pay. Those that drive on our hiways a lot, buy more fuel and therefor pay more tax.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

SCRancher said:


> Haypoint - I'm not trying to make this personal - we have agreed on other issues - just not on this one. I'm not asking you to respond to this and I'm not assuming your NOT doing this - I am making no assumptions about what you are or are not doing but simply bringing my thinking into the situation you described for yourself.
> 
> I assume by your statements that your out of work (or working in a job for which your not earning as much as before) and I know it must be very hard but I have to question if you are making any choices in what free time you have to better your situation other than voting more money for yourself via government?
> 
> ...


Iâve never collected welfare and it has been nearly 40 years since I drew an unemployment check. Iâm making a fair wage because I have desired skills. Iâve seen lots of people with skills that canât get a job. I have a friend that has a Bachelorâs Degree in Psychology and is working the only job she could find: part time secretary at her church. 
To make and sell products requires a population with expendable income. People around here have stopped taking their pets for check-ups, people have stopped going to the dentist for cleanings, people have stopped going to auctions and estate sales. They are buying food and trying to hold onto their homes.
Re-training is a great idea, but train to what? There needs to be a job type to train for. 
Henry Ford reinvested his money as he went along. Most CEOs could learn a lot by studying Ford.

Clearly, we have created a social problem by providing welfare. No one can know for sure what things would have been like without it. We can all look back and see mistakes. I hate the idea of people collecting money for nothing. But I donât see any real solution beyond shutting it off and closing our eyes to a couple decades of bloodshed.
Collecting welfare checks does not make you a bad parent any more than digging ditches makes you a good one. Thankfully there is a lot more to parenting than occupation. 
Going on to your other points - picking and choosing just as you did.
âChoose to workâ implies that those without jobs select to be unemployed. Not true. 
Let me give a real life example. A refrigerator factory in Greenville Michigan operated for a hundred years ( they started making wooden ice boxes in the late 1800s)was the major employer in the area. Several other factories made parts for this bigger factory. It was a healthy, clean community with nearly no unemployment, no slum areas. Just blue collar workers.
The company was bought by a bigger company from Sweden. They closed the factory and moved to Mexico. The workers offered to cut their wages by a large amount. The city offered to cut property taxes. The State offered huge grants if theyâd stay. Nope. There was more money to be made by being in Mexico.
Almost overnight these workers were without jobs. Home values dropped by half. Support Factories closed. Stores and business closed. There were no new jobs to be had for at least 200 miles around, and those required special skills. Few could sell their homes and those that did had to take huge losses. Many suddenly found themselves upside down on their home mortgage. Dig a ditch? Not hiring.
It is easy for some to blame the factory workers that actually went into debt to buy homes and cars. No one was getting rich, but they could afford modest lives.
How wonderful the world would be if turning off the welfare spigot made inner city women celibate. But thatâs a whole topic in itself and a fair distance from welfare and unemployment checks stimulating the economy better than tax breaks for the wealthiest 2%.
In a shrinking economy there is no use training to operate a backhoe or steel fabrication. That requires a growing economy.
In the past year we have gone from not knowing what an app is to nearly a million apps. If you can come up with another one, but yet developed, more power to you. Make money from it, great. Probably better chances of writing a bestseller book. 
Iâve always worked hard. Iâve had successes and Iâve had failures. I accept that. But to pretend that the economy isnât stacked against 99% of the people is to deny what is going on in Wall Street, Washington, and China.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

sidepasser said:


> I feel that it is no one's business what the CE0 of a corp makes as long as the board of directors and stockholders are satisfied with the output. If they are not satisfied, the CE0 will be replaced as happened recently with HP. I really don't understand how it is any one's business what someone else makes for their labor. There are those that might say I make too much doing what I do, i feel I earn my pay and am pretty sure that most CEOs feel the same way. But then again I am a die hard capitalist and believe in the ability to get ahead is not the responsibility of anyone but myself.
> 
> I was not born well off, but like others here I did some pretty menial labor and decided I would rather work smarter than keep slinging horse poop and waitressing. Now I got a place paid for and like Texican said, not a slave to a mortgage so when opportunity called, I answered. Seems to be part of the American dream to be holding to no one except myself. I would love to make what some folks make, but I don't envy them for it. Just gives me a little inspiration to keep chugging along.


And the CEO of Home Depot that failed at his job duties, got fired after less than two years, and collected $20 million severance package is fair and just? 

If my retirement is invested in solid American companies, like Home Depot and I lose value (example: I have $1000 of money I earned invested in their stock and because of the CEO's failure, it becomes worth $800) and that $20million comes off what should have been profit and I don't get a dividend from these stocks, it becomes my business. But I don't own enough stock to sway the corp heads.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course we do... all anyone has to do is file a claim and they are allowed to dig up any minerals they want on government owned property, or purchase property and do with it as they so desire.. cut timber, mine for gold or drill for oil/gas. Which of our resources do you believe are denied to anyone?.


 LOL just where do you get such ideas? I worked for the Bureau of Land Managment, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs While all the programs that would give land to most people were closed it was realitivly easy for the rich to get government land for things they wanted.
File a claim? CLOSED,unless you are rich.Any minerals you want? HARDLY,unless you are rich, Cut timber? ONLY if you are VERY wealthy. and drill for oil? OFFICALLY restricted to the super rich only. YES THATS PART OF THE LAW!



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I (as well as many others) have posted the numbers here many many times.... you are simply WRONG. The top 15 per cent of our nations taxpayers put up 85 percent of all income tax *collected by the IRS.* The poor pay none and the middle class divide up the other 15 percent on a weighted scale where those earning the most pay the most of the 15 percent..


 Trying to disseminate a bit there? The Irs doesnt collect most taxes just some of the income and a few others.




Yvonne's hubby said:


> The rich folks who dont pay in do not receive benefits either.... benefits paid out are paid out based on what a person pays in. Well, with the exception of the poor who can collect SS benefits without ever paying in a dime. You seem to have that part backwards. .


WRONG! Simply wrong! Sometimes the rich DO collect without paying in...just like the poor. 
Once again you muddy the water to obfiscate the key.You dont get a garantee that you will collect in a insurance program,infact most people hope they wont have to collect insurance.


Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again... check your facts.... fuel taxes pay for our hiways. Those that use the roads are the ones paying for them... those that use them the most obviously pay the most.... fuel tax is collected at the pump so if you arent going anywhere... you aint having to pay. Those that drive on our hiways a lot, buy more fuel and therefor pay more tax.


Nope not at all.
Do you think that the rich man selling goods all over the nation doesnt benifit from the roads? Sure he may live in Bermuda but he benifits imensly.
Im sure you would say that the fuel tax is built into the cost of having his goods hauled BUT you forget that he gets to dedduct those costs from his income.
INFACT if like many rich he can have the actuall tax he paid calculated he can deduct them from the actuall taxes he would pay. So nope he doesnt pay highway tax at all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL just where do you get such ideas? I worked for the Bureau of Land Managment, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs While all the programs that would give land to most people were closed it was realitivly easy for the rich to get government land for things they wanted.
> File a claim? CLOSED,unless you are rich.Any minerals you want? HARDLY,unless you are rich, Cut timber? ONLY if you are VERY wealthy. and drill for oil? OFFICALLY restricted to the super rich only. YES THATS PART OF THE LAW!


I get these ideas by knowing people.... common everyday folks.... who have filed mining claims... and sell minerals profitably. As to drilling for oil specifically..... I personally know several folks here in my area that have drilled for oil.... who are certainly not wealthy or "super rich" folks. If you could please provide me with an official source that points to any law regarding "only the wealthy can drill for oil..... that would be greatly appreciated. 



fantasymaker said:


> Trying to disseminate a bit there? The Irs doesnt collect most taxes just some of the income and a few others.


Our federal government is funded by very few taxes.... and the income tax is the source of the vast majority of its revenue. Yes, there are a few other taxes paid to the feds... but they are not a large percentage of our national funding. SS of course is the other large tax collected by the IRS, but you seem to want to set that aside from the federal budget.... so we need to set it aside from that portion of the tax revenue as well.... for the purpose of this particular discussion anyway. 




fantasymaker said:


> WRONG! Simply wrong! Sometimes the rich DO collect without paying in...just like the poor.
> Once again you muddy the water to obfiscate the key.You dont get a garantee that you will collect in a insurance program,infact most people hope they wont have to collect insurance.


Perhaps again you could look through the SS benefits regulations and rules and guide me to the section that allows anyone other than the poor to collect SS benefits that have not paid into the fund. 



fantasymaker said:


> Nope not at all.
> Do you think that the rich man selling goods all over the nation doesnt benifit from the roads? Sure he may live in Bermuda but he benifits imensly.
> Im sure you would say that the fuel tax is built into the cost of having his goods hauled BUT you forget that he gets to dedduct those costs from his income.
> INFACT if like many rich he can have the actuall tax he paid calculated he can deduct them from the actuall taxes he would pay. So nope he doesnt pay highway tax at all.


hiway use tax (fuel tax) can be deducted from anyones income tax, just like any other tax they pay. all one has to do is keep track of it and file appropriately.... the federal government does not allow for double taxing in any given year. The fuel tax is taken from those who purchase fuel to drive on our hiways... goes into that fund for that purpose, and of course its a legitimate deduction when one files their income tax.... but that does not mean that the wealthy do not pay their hiway tax.... just like anyone else who uses the roads. I am quite amazed at your apparent hatred for our neighbors who have achieved some level of success. I have to wonder if you would feel the same way if you had played the game differently and became ultra wealthy?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Who are these rich people? I know many of them in my area due to my business. All of them are successful small business men and women who employ a considerable amount of people in this area. I don't know if they have any overseas investments but I do know one who exports there locally made product to 25 different Countries.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Who are these rich people? I know many of them in my area due to my business. All of them are successful small business men and women who employ a considerable amount of people in this area. I don't know if they have any overseas investments but I do know one who exports there locally made product to 25 different Countries.


Nice try, but I believe you are talking to some of the many small businessmen that create most of the jobs in this country. They are rich by most folks' standards, but not the top 1%

An easy way to gain some better insight would be to watch a couple movies based on real events. Wall Street is a good one. Margin is at the theater right now. If you can grasp how the top 1% are gaining wealth, you can understand how hard earned money is being milked from the economy by people that control Wall Street and ultimately our government.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Nice try, but I believe you are talking to some of the many small businessmen that create most of the jobs in this country. They are rich by most folks' standards, but not the top 1%
> 
> An easy way to gain some better insight would be to watch a couple movies based on real events. Wall Street is a good one. Margin is at the theater right now. If you can grasp how the top 1% are gaining wealth, you can understand how hard earned money is being milked from the economy by people that control Wall Street and ultimately our government.


You're wrong on many counts. Why is it wrong for a failed and fired CEO to collect 15 million if that was the agreement he was hired under? Is it wrong for some McDumb girl at the drive up window to get minimum wage when she isn't worth half that? If some idiot hires you to help him fence in 20 acres thinking you know how to set fence posts and offers you $1000 when you are done but your fence posts are all crooked, do you still expect your $1000? Also, you are equating income with wealth. Certainly the rich get richer if they have any sense purely because only an idiot could do otherwise. Money makes money but we all get wealthier unless we are fools. I don't care how you live, look around you at "poor" people. Most have cars, cell phones, tv, air conditioning, plenty of food ( as evidenced by them being too fat ), and all sorts of other unnecessary things. Those things constitute wealth. They may not be making much money, but they are gaining wealth, often at someone else's expense. Compare their lifestyle today to that of poor people 40 years ago and their gain in wealth is obvious.


----------



## maverickxxx (Jan 25, 2011)

People should be able to keep what they earn. When everyone makes same there isn't insentive to strive for more. The number dosnt make one bit of difference in job performance if everyone makes the same. An I'd like to say if I was making ten million a year I'd go the extra mile but that's not true if that was cap no reason to change anything. Besides they'd just find way around it. I see an know people on unemployment welfare etc... An of all these people have zero wrong with them other than being lazy. Now on the other hand I can't find a useful wrker no matter pay scale I'm actually trying to find a retired guy to drive truck for me least I know they will wrk


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

maverickxxx said:


> Now on the other hand I can't find a useful wrker no matter pay scale I'm actually trying to find a retired guy to drive truck for me least I know they will wrk


Too bad yer not closer to my neighborhood. I can drive a truck.. as long as its a regular one, I am not licensed to drive the big ones. My negatives include not being able to drive more than a couple hours a day, and dont have the strength to load or unload anything. On the plus side I am dependable, loyal, and work cheap... min wage is fine if you can stand it. I dont do many drugs, and I seldom drink very much before five oclock.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Too bad yer not closer to my neighborhood. I can drive a truck.. as long as its a regular one, I am not licensed to drive the big ones. My negatives include not being able to drive more than a couple hours a day, and dont have the strength to load or unload anything. On the plus side I am dependable, loyal, and work cheap... min wage is fine if you can stand it. I dont do many drugs, and I seldom drink very much before five oclock.


Is that 5:00 AM or PM?:thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> Is that 5AM or PM?:thumb:


That depends on how late the party runs,,,, or which time zone you want to work with. I do hate giving the Brits and the aussies a head start.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

sidepasser said:


> I feel that it is no one's business what the CE0 of a corp makes as long as the board of directors and stockholders are satisfied with the output. If they are not satisfied, the CE0 will be replaced as happened recently with HP.


That's real funny. I guarantee Kodak stockholders are none to pleased with the output of former HP vice president/now Kodak CEO Antonio Perez. Who hired a bunch of his HP buddies and turned Kodak into his personal retirement playground, not understanding the company or where it was headed, making foolish decisions and actually killing a project in 2006 that would have turned Kodak into THE leader of photographic digital technology. Actually, one of his ignorant HP buddies whom he hired was responsible for that - hey, sometimes, getting a top position in power has NOTHING to do with ability, but who you know. 

Kodak is going down the tubes, thousands laid off, the remainder paranoid for their jobs. They live with broken office equipment and scramble for basic office supplies while Perez enjoys not one but TWO private jets among other fun perks to make a CEO enjoy life. He and his buddies are profiting from Kodak's downfall as brilliant, motivated people lose their jobs (the chaff was weeded out many, many years ago). Not exactly concerned with his community.

When the CEO and the board of directors pat each other's backs, the CEO can enjoy an $8 million dollar raise, by the way. An $8 million dollar reward for killing a company sure would fix a lot of office equipment necessary for efficient production. So, no, CEO's aren't necessarily replaced, if they surround themselves with yes-men and have nothing to lose. Not like Perez needed a job for his personal survival, just something to do during retirement. I WISH stockholders could kick out this guy, but I think it's too late for Kodak to survive. 

At any rate, it's not necessarily true that bad CEO's will be replaced - ideally, yes. Perez did nothing illegal. But that doesn't mean it's ok. Character counts. We live and die with it, if you have any.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

poppy said:


> You're wrong on many counts. Why is it wrong for a failed and fired CEO to collect 15 million if that was the agreement he was hired under? Is it wrong for some McDumb girl at the drive up window to get minimum wage when she isn't worth half that? If some idiot hires you to help him fence in 20 acres thinking you know how to set fence posts and offers you $1000 when you are done but your fence posts are all crooked, do you still expect your $1000? Also, you are equating income with wealth. Certainly the rich get richer if they have any sense purely because only an idiot could do otherwise. Money makes money but we all get wealthier unless we are fools. I don't care how you live, look around you at "poor" people. Most have cars, cell phones, tv, air conditioning, plenty of food ( as evidenced by them being too fat ), and all sorts of other unnecessary things. Those things constitute wealth. They may not be making much money, but they are gaining wealth, often at someone else's expense. Compare their lifestyle today to that of poor people 40 years ago and their gain in wealth is obvious.



Why is it that a fence builder doesnât get paid when he screws up and a CEO gets millions when he screws up?

Equate income with wealth? I think we can agree that with wealth you have more opportunity to create income. Perhaps if you believe everyone except fools gain wealth, you are using your real life examples of lower middle class and upper middle class. I wonder if you know any poor people. 30% of the households in Detroit have no vehicle. Most of the people in this country are overweight, not just the poor. If you cared to look into it, youâd find they are getting fat on cheap high carb diets. Perhaps in a better world lettuce would be cheaper than a box of mac and cheese.

You want to compare todayâs poor with those of 1970? Then letâs compare the wealth of the factory workers of 1970 and their counterparts today. Wages have gone up from $4 an hour to $20 an hour, a 500% increase. A car cost $3000 in 1970 and today retails for $20,000, nearly a 700% increase. A home that sold for $25,000 then will sell for $100,000 now, a 500% increase. But, the CEO has seen his salary grow 1000 to 5000%.

Capitalism works when everyone has access to opportunity. When a small group of people control most of the money and make choices that idle thousands of factories and ultimately thousands of cities, choices are very limited.

If you believe it was not wrong for a CEO to collect millions as a severance package, do think it is wrong to bundle home mortgages and unsecured credit card debt and sell them as valuable securities to the people managing your retirement fund? Is it right for a company to send a lobbyist to Washington with a million dollars to secure an income tax exemption for just your company, so you can âearnâ ten times that amount? If you havenât drawn the line yet, Iâll have to ask you if it is alright to hack into a computer server and empty the bank accounts of a few million people. Seems if you have the skills to âearnâ, it should be alright, since everyone else is too stupid to protect their money better.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

maverickxxx said:


> People should be able to keep what they earn. When everyone makes same there isn't insentive to strive for more. The number dosnt make one bit of difference in job performance if everyone makes the same. An I'd like to say if I was making ten million a year I'd go the extra mile but that's not true if that was cap no reason to change anything. Besides they'd just find way around it. I see an know people on unemployment welfare etc... An of all these people have zero wrong with them other than being lazy. Now on the other hand I can't find a useful wrker no matter pay scale I'm actually trying to find a retired guy to drive truck for me least I know they will wrk


Keeping what you earn only is fair when we both agree what âearnâ means. A bank robber might âearnâ $100,000 in a day. I donât believe that is income any more than a $50 million bonus to a CEO of a failing company. If earning 20 times what a worker earned in 1960 was enough incentive for a CEO then, why is 2000 times what a worker earns not enough today?

Iâm not talking about a Communist plan where everyone earns the same. But something is wrong when thousands of Wall Street brokers are earning multi-million dollar bonuses while the workers of this country suffer through a depression.

I have no idea what job you canât find workers for, but in Michigan that isnât the case.

But this discussion isnât about how lazy people on welfare are. If all the people on welfare and unemployment left your state, thousands of businesses would close. Like it or not, those checks get spent and a lot of businesses depend on it. On the other hand, if every person in the top 1% left your state, nothing would happen.

If I gave a hundred dollars to a rich person, heâd put it in his savings and forget about it. If I gave a hundred dollars to a poor person, it would get spent. Then the place that got some of that money would spend it and those places would spend it. That hundred would turn over many times, multiplying its benefit to the economy.

Thatâs why I believe that cutting taxes to the rich just helps them and welfare checks stimulate the local economies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> If all the people on welfare and unemployment left your state, thousands of businesses would close. Like it or not, those checks get spent and a lot of businesses depend on it. On the other hand, if every person in the top 1% left your state, nothing would happen.


If all those people on unemployment and welfare suddenly left our state... we could give a huge amount of tax money back to the decent hard working citizens of our state. Businesses would thrive and wouldnt be burdened with the tax structure in place to provide all those deadbeats with a check every month. Think for a moment.... if I reach into my pocket and hand people the money to buy my product.... what have I gained? the have my product, and I have my money back. That is far better than giving my money to the government who then pays people to give part of my money to my customer who then only gives me part of my money back! On the other hand... if all the 1 percenters up and left my state??? I would no longer have a bank to lend me money when I need it, I would no longer have paying customers for my products, my friends and neighbors would no longer have their jobs to go to, my state would lose lots of tax revenue, which our schools, parks, and courts need, yes my friend, we would miss the one percenters much more than we would the deadbeats.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> If I gave a hundred dollars to a rich person,


Based on your previous comments here...... he would fall over in a dead faint! :hysterical:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I find it interesting when what you think is fact, is just the opposite of what you thought.
> We have been giving tax breaks to the wealthy because when they have money, they invest it and everyone benefits. It is the rich, not the poor, that create the jobs we all depend on.
> We believe that the people that are on Welfare and Unemployment are just lazy and the quicker we shut it off, the sooner theyâll get to work. These costs drag down the economic recovery.
> 
> ...


:shocked: Wow, we may not agree on farming methods, but we sure as heck agree right here! In fact, you may be one of the few people to actually see any sense. However, step lightly now, people don't want to know the truth. 
The only disadvantage I see is that the poor people might just blow all the money and send it straight back to the rich. :shocked:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If all those people on unemployment and welfare suddenly left our state... we could give a huge amount of tax money back to the decent hard working citizens of our state. Businesses would thrive and wouldnt be burdened with the tax structure in place to provide all those deadbeats with a check every month. Think for a moment.... if I reach into my pocket and hand people the money to buy my product.... what have I gained? the have my product, and I have my money back. That is far better than giving my money to the government who then pays people to give part of my money to my customer who then only gives me part of my money back! On the other hand... if all the 1 percenters up and left my state??? I would no longer have a bank to lend me money when I need it, I would no longer have paying customers for my products, my friends and neighbors would no longer have their jobs to go to, my state would lose lots of tax revenue, which our schools, parks, and courts need, yes my friend, we would miss the one percenters much more than we would the deadbeats.


 My sentiments exactly...

From what I understand, the financial crisis in 2008 got to the point where if the govt. hadn't stepped in and saved a few of the banks, the entire system would have crashed completely, and all business transactions ceased. Part of me would welcome a complete and utter crash, the other part realizes millions of folks would have died in the ensuing chaos...

You save someone who creates things and the world keeps spinning.
You cut loose someone who does nothing but consume, on someone else's dollar, and you've lost nothing.

If it weren't for rich folks, (richer than me) I'd have no work. I sometimes do work for poor folks, but have learned to get the money up front, or expect it to be a charity case. My finances are such that my charity is gone for the year.

Keynesian economics, practiced by a Kenyan, don't work in the real world.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If all those people on unemployment and welfare suddenly left our state... we could give a huge amount of tax money back to the decent hard working citizens of our state. Businesses would thrive and wouldnt be burdened with the tax structure in place to provide all those deadbeats with a check every month. Think for a moment.... if I reach into my pocket and hand people the money to buy my product.... what have I gained? the have my product, and I have my money back. That is far better than giving my money to the government who then pays people to give part of my money to my customer who then only gives me part of my money back! On the other hand... if all the 1 percenters up and left my state??? I would no longer have a bank to lend me money when I need it, I would no longer have paying customers for my products, my friends and neighbors would no longer have their jobs to go to, my state would lose lots of tax revenue, which our schools, parks, and courts need, yes my friend, we would miss the one percenters much more than we would the deadbeats.


But the world doesnât work like that. If those poor people left the state, you arenât going to see any tax money returned to you. That is as silly as expecting that if more rich people moved to your state that YOUR taxes would go down. Taint a going ta happen. Have you ever received a check from the state because they had extra money left over? 
Half of the people in your community pay no federal taxes and most donât pay property taxes. The 1% pay very little property taxes themselves, so they make little difference. Schools and most parks are funded by State income taxes and property taxes, so the 1% arenât helping much there, either. It is, as always, the working class that pays the bills and keeps the economy rolling. 
Michigan wants to build another bridge to Windsor, ON. The owner of the current bridge is against it (of course) so he has run a bunch of ads that say, â Why spend millions on an un-needed bridge when that money should go to fix up your roads.â Bridge or no bridge, no money is going to be spent on roads. 
The 1% arenât living in your state and running the local bank. They arenât overseeing the local slaughter house or egg factory. 
If you lost your local bank it would be because the 1 %ers moved all the local jobs to another country, depleted the coal mine, cut off the forests or overfilled the landfill and there arenât any jobs left to pay off any loans.
You asked, âif I reach into my pocket and hand people the money to buy my product.... what have I gained?â Well, if you are selling ink jet copiers, Iâd say you have secured another customer for your over-priced ink cartridges. 
Why is it that when your neighbors buy your product, the community prospers, but when the government drops a few mill on your state each month, that does nothing to the economy?
I realize the money spent by the Welfare recipients isnât the same as money earned. But, I am trying to get you to see that more than the poor benefit from that money. In an attempt to promote more big business, you permit tax breaks for the wealthiest; you just make a rich person richer, nothing more. If the very rich were reinvesting that tax windfall, youâd have a valid argument, but for 15 years, they stopped playing fair.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> My sentiments exactly...
> 
> From what I understand, the financial crisis in 2008 got to the point where if the govt. hadn't stepped in and saved a few of the banks, the entire system would have crashed completely, and all business transactions ceased. Part of me would welcome a complete and utter crash, the other part realizes millions of folks would have died in the ensuing chaos...
> 
> ...


Iâm not claiming to be an expert on high finance, but I know more than most.
The crisis in 2008 was caused by a bunch of companies with a bunch of people that foisted worthless securities onto the unsuspecting public.

These securities were multi-level bundles of loans and mortgages, some good and some bad. But there were huge risks involved, because they contained so much unsecured credit card loans. They traded these derivatives back and forth with the retirement funds of the workers in this country. They drew million dollar salaries and worked in some of the most architecturally extravagant buildings ever built. They created no wealth. They traded worthless paper until the bubble burst.

The US Government thought they might collapse. So to prevent that, the US Government took trillions, borrowed from China, to prop up the dens of thieves. Real people still lost large parts of their retirement savings, while the creators of this voodoo economics took turns giving each other millions in bonuses. 

Iâd say they are the ones consuming and not creating anything. Sort of like poor people, but with better shoes.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Iâm not claiming to be an expert on high finance, but I know more than most.
> The crisis in 2008 was caused by a bunch of companies with a bunch of people that foisted worthless securities onto the unsuspecting public.
> 
> These securities were multi-level bundles of loans and mortgages, some good and some bad. But there were huge risks involved, because they contained so much unsecured credit card loans. They traded these derivatives back and forth with the retirement funds of the workers in this country. They drew million dollar salaries and worked in some of the most architecturally extravagant buildings ever built. They created no wealth. They traded worthless paper until the bubble burst.
> ...


Reckon we Are starting to agree some. Toxic debt, created by progressives, who thought homeless bums should have homes, forced banks to give loans that they knew were less than worthless.... they were given trillions of lemons and they made lemonade, packaging the garbage together, and perfuming it with the sweet smells of Fannie/Freddie govt. backing. After a couple years and the perfume wore off, everyone realized the stank for what it was.

Still say I'd half way been alright with the system crashing. Folks that have jobs, folks wanting credit, you know, most everyone, probably wouldn't have liked it very much.

Hopefully, the lesson will be learned.... never loan money to people to build homes, if they don't have a job, work history, or no credit history. A mighty expensive lesson we had to learn...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> Reckon we Are starting to agree some. Toxic debt, created by progressives, who thought homeless bums should have homes, forced banks to give loans that they knew were less than worthless.... they were given trillions of lemons and they made lemonade, packaging the garbage together, and perfuming it with the sweet smells of Fannie/Freddie govt. backing. After a couple years and the perfume wore off, everyone realized the stank for what it was.
> 
> Still say I'd half way been alright with the system crashing. Folks that have jobs, folks wanting credit, you know, most everyone, probably wouldn't have liked it very much.
> 
> Hopefully, the lesson will be learned.... never loan money to people to build homes, if they don't have a job, work history, or no credit history. A mighty expensive lesson we had to learn...


Itâs a might bit more complicated than that.

You and I can agree that it is bad to loan money to a lazy jobless bum. But government backed mortgages werenât the problem. 

Banks made mortgages on their own, collected the huge closing costs and then sold their loans to large financial brokerage houses that sold them as securities. 
The top 1% got the government to make lopsided free trade agreements so they could exploit the people of the third world and avoid the tariffs that had protected this country since 1776.
As a result, good, hardworking people lost their jobs quite unexpectedly. A slight up-tick in mortgage foreclosures caused a panic. Suddenly, banks couldnât get 95 cents on the dollar for their home loans. Their cash cow had dried up and they were stuck with questionable mortgages in an economic downturn. 
Sort of like playing with Monopoly money for a decade, then suddenly someone demands to cash out only to discover there isnât any real money at all.
Bottom line, poor lazy people couldnât pay their house payments, lost their house and either moved in with relatives or are renting. Hard working middleclass folks lost their jobs, raced around working two jobs while the value of their home went underwater before they could sell it. Faced with staying in a home they canât sell and can no llonger afford, they walked away. Many moved in with relatives or moved to other states.
Now you have lots of extra homes, supply and demand kicks in and prices drop everywhere. Except the over million dollar homes. Those folks didnât lose their jobs, they got raises and bonuses.

Here are some facts from the US Census:
In the past 30 years the bottom 20% have gotten 18% richer
In the past 30 years the middle class (60%) have gotten 40% richer
In the past 30 years the next 19% have gotten 65% richer
In the past 30 years the top 1% have gotten 275% richer.
I predict that the next 30 years will see a slower growth for the bottom 99% and a much faster growth for the top 1%


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

haypoint said:


> ...I&#8217;m making a fair wage because I have desired skills. ...
> Re-training is a great idea, but train to what? There needs to be a job type to train for.


Do you see the contradiction?



haypoint said:


> I hate the idea of people collecting money for nothing. But I don&#8217;t see any real solution beyond shutting it off and closing our eyes to a couple decades of bloodshed.


Yup - I didn't say it would be easy, pretty, or polite but IMO the results of what is suggested by the OP just delays the inevitable by keeping the moochers happier - basically kicking the can down the road. Once you have taxed the super rich of their wealth (and they move out) who then will you tax to keep the government handouts coming?



haypoint said:


> Collecting welfare checks does not make you a bad parent any more than digging ditches makes you a good one. Thankfully there is a lot more to parenting than occupation.


I agree not ALL however I have first hand experience with the professional government mooches who ARE bad parents and who teach their children their trade which IS mooching off the government.
Please NOTE I am not saying the blue collar workers in your refrigerator scenario are the professional mooches I want to cut out of the system however they would not be the one's to riot in the streets if the funds were cut off. They would more than likely do what others have done in the past: Either create something new, work for less at ANY job just to feed and house their family's, or move to somewhere that does have employment.




haypoint said:


> &#8220;Choose to work&#8221; implies that those without jobs select to be unemployed. Not true.


 It IS true sometimes just as it is NOT true other times. If you don't recognize that there ARE people who choose not to work (or only work long enough to be eligible to draw from the govt) then you really need to come visit with me and I can show you part of MY family that lives like this. 

Over Thanksgiving we had the pleasure of having my niece and nephew over. We got to hear about all their aunts and uncles and cousins. The aunts and uncles of which there are 7 - each have 3 children each by multiple partners EACH drawing the full plate of government programs.
NONE of these people WANT to work They all are "rich" by standards that I judge against what poor is (my grandmother as described earlier). They all have cars, cell phones, facebook, all 3 of the major game systems, Nintendo DSI, the list goes on and on...



haypoint said:


> It is easy for some to blame the factory workers that actually went into debt to buy homes and cars. No one was getting rich, but they could afford modest lives.


I am not blaming them and in reality I am not really talking about this group however really their hard luck on being upside down on their mortgage WAS a result of their choices - they choose to buy a house on credit. They HAVE a choice - they can choose to default - and move out and on. Their standard of living may go down but that in reality is life - it's not pretty and it's not the American dream but we don't live in a dream world.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Itâs a might bit more complicated than that.
> 
> You and I can agree that it is bad to loan money to a lazy jobless bum. But government backed mortgages werenât the problem.
> 
> Banks made mortgages on their own, collected the huge closing costs and then sold their loans to large financial brokerage houses that sold them as securities.


I don't think huge closing cost were that big of a problem. Many of the loans were nothing down and no closing costs.

One example.
Last year one of the local TV stations asked people to donate money to a person who was going to loose her home. A woman bought a $250,000 home and couldn't make the payments. She was a part time school bus driver. Her only income came from a part time job.

Much of the problem came from people buying homes for an investment instead of buying a home to live in. For many years people could buy a home and either resell it or refinance it a few months later and pocket the profit.
Remember all of the late night infomercials selling books that told people how to?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> But the world doesnât work like that. If those poor people left the state, you arenât going to see any tax money returned to you. That is as silly as expecting that if more rich people moved to your state that YOUR taxes would go down. Taint a going ta happen. Have you ever received a check from the state because they had extra money left over?


Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I also receive checks from other municipalities when they have money left over. 



haypoint said:


> Half of the people in your community pay no federal taxes and most donât pay property taxes.


Actually the vast majority of folks in my community pay property taxes... I have a feeling that most folks in your community pay property taxes too. I cant imagine where you are getting your information that leads you to believe otherwise. :shrug:



haypoint said:


> The 1% pay very little property taxes themselves, so they make little difference. Schools and most parks are funded by State income taxes and property taxes, so the 1% arenât helping much there, either. It is, as always, the working class that pays the bills and keeps the economy rolling.


now how do you suppose the one percent are avoiding their property and income taxes in my state? Any property owner is subject to the property tax, and one percenters own a LOT of property in our state, maybe in your state they are exempt, not in Ky. 



haypoint said:


> Michigan wants to build another bridge to Windsor, ON. The owner of the current bridge is against it (of course) so he has run a bunch of ads that say, â Why spend millions on an un-needed bridge when that money should go to fix up your roads.â Bridge or no bridge, no money is going to be spent on roads.


I have to wonder what will happen to the 2.9 billion that is appropriated in the 2012 state budget for roads and bridges? You really should educated yourself a bit more before posting your conclusions. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/1_345974_7.pdf



haypoint said:


> The 1% arenât living in your state and running the local bank. They arenât overseeing the local slaughter house or egg factory.
> If you lost your local bank it would be because the 1 %ers moved all the local jobs to another country, depleted the coal mine, cut off the forests or overfilled the landfill and there arenât any jobs left to pay off any loans.


You might be surprised at the number of one percenters living in Ky  more than you might think. 



haypoint said:


> You asked, âif I reach into my pocket and hand people the money to buy my product.... what have I gained?â Well, if you are selling ink jet copiers, Iâd say you have secured another customer for your over-priced ink cartridges.
> Why is it that when your neighbors buy your product, the community prospers, but when the government drops a few mill on your state each month, that does nothing to the economy?


The difference is when productive citizens buy products they are spending dollars earned from production, not taking it out of the economy through taxation. productivity increases wealth.... taking money out of the economy via taxation, to put back in via handouts does nothing to increase wealth. 



haypoint said:


> I realize the money spent by the Welfare recipients isnât the same as money earned. But, I am trying to get you to see that more than the poor benefit from that money. In an attempt to promote more big business, you permit tax breaks for the wealthiest; you just make a rich person richer, nothing more. If the very rich were reinvesting that tax windfall, youâd have a valid argument, but for 15 years, they stopped playing fair.


Actually many businesses are reinvesting those profits.... right here in Ky. and yes... some companies are sick and tired of being abused and have pulled up their tent stakes and moving out. Cant really blame them for that now can we?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

SCRancher said:


> I agree not ALL however I have first hand experience with the professional government mooches who ARE bad parents and who teach their children their trade which IS mooching off the government.
> Please NOTE I am not saying the blue collar workers in your refrigerator scenario are the professional mooches I want to cut out of the system however they would not be the one's to riot in the streets if the funds were cut off. They would more than likely do what others have done in the past: Either create something new, work for less at ANY job just to feed and house their family's, or move to somewhere that does have employment.


Well YES i THINK i SEE your POINT actually. 
Basically, you somehow think to find the "professional moochers" and get rid of them. Well, all the power to you when you can actually figure out how to do that. Do you think the gov't just walks out and says "Hey, free money, who wants it?" There have to be criteria, and if you don't meet the criteria, you don't get the free money, period. 
As for moving to new employment, and actually a good idea, so long as you don't mind not having any roots anywhere, and provided you can sell your place _and_ buy a new one. Both of these are very difficult for poor people.
And, just a little pointer, not everyone is poor because they are lazy bums. Using that stereotypical paintbrush is really showing some hefty ignorance here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Here are some facts from the US Census:
> In the past 30 years the bottom 20% have gotten 18% richer
> In the past 30 years the middle class (60%) have gotten 40% richer
> In the past 30 years the next 19% have gotten 65% richer
> In the past 30 years the top 1% have gotten 275% richer.


Well now, I like it when people do their homework. From these stats its pretty obvious to me that every single group in our country is increasing their wealth! Even the bottom 20 percent has managed to increase their wealth by 18 percent.... not bad for folks who are supposedly starving in the streets.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well now, I like it when people do their homework. From these stats its pretty obvious to me that every single group in our country is increasing their wealth! Even the bottom 20 percent has managed to increase their wealth by 18 percent.... not bad for folks who are supposedly starving in the streets.


You should keep in mind that inflation likely makes it so that their wealth didn't actually go up.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Kevingr said:


> If giving more money to the poor through more goverment spending will create more jobs why didn't all the money from the two stimulus packages not create more jobs and get the economy moving?


It did some but the stimulus was heavily weighted toward tax cuts and tax cuts only help if you have a job.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> now how do you suppose the one percent are avoiding their property and income taxes in my state? Any property owner is subject to the property tax, and one percenters own a LOT of property in our state, maybe in your state they are exempt, not in Ky.


Sure they are exempt in my state. And I'd bet they are in yours too.

Ever notice all those special tax districts and exemptions? Who do you think they go to?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> Sure they are exempt in my state. And I'd bet they are in yours too.
> 
> Ever notice all those special tax districts and exemptions? Who do you think they go to?


Nope, I havent seen any special tax districts, and the only folks that I know of who get any property tax exemptions in my state are those who are disabled, or over 65. These exemptions do not relieve you of all property taxes, but they do lower your tax bill. I have a feeling your information on this subject is about as good as it is about money going into hiways in your state. I could be wrong there.... but there is one easy way to clear it up... google is your friend. A link to your states property tax exemptions would be very handy.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

If these have been posted b/4 its a good review.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the weathy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

(NOT like: "..to each according to his need, from each according to his ability...")

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first TAKE from somebody else.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

oh my!! where is that post of the day thingy when you need it!! 



Tricky Grama said:


> If these have been posted b/4 its a good review.
> 
> You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the weathy out of prosperity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ah, thanky, YH. :buds:


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, all the power to you when you can actually figure out how to do that. Do you think the gov't just walks out and says "Hey, free money, who wants it?" There have to be criteria, and if you don't meet the criteria, you don't get the free money, period.


So you don't think the criteria can be gamed? Please let's not think about fixing it and instead just take more money from people who earn and give it to those who know how to game the system.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Hey, Barney FranK is not running for re-election. He is a major contributor to the financial mess this Country is in now. Lets all be happy.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Maybe I can explain it in a way that youâll understand.
Imagine a company town. One family owns the coal mine, all the houses and the store. Every man works in the mine. Some women work in the company bakery, some in the garment factory and some work in the grocery store.
Each family earns enough to pay the rent, buy food, utilities and clothing. This process goes on for hundreds of years. Everyone is happy and prosperous.
He sells the homes to the townâs people. He sells shares in the bakery, garment factory and grocery store.
The owner discovers a distant village where children are imprisoned to make baked goods, clothing and mine coal. The owner of that village will sell products at less than the cost to make them in the other town. The owner of the company town begins to earn more profit because of the reduced input costs and he maintains the retail prices.
So, the bakery is closed. Then the garment factory. People begin to struggle due to the reduced income. Many scramble for the grocery store jobs, so the owner weeds them out by seeing who will work hard for the least amount of money. The stocks become worthless. Home values drop like stones.
The owner wants more profit, so he sells the coal mine so he can simply buy coal from the other village. But without mining jobs, the people canât pay for rent, food, utilities or clothes. 
The owner calls his friends in Washington and explains that his family will become destitute because all those lazy slackers arenât making their mortgage payments. So, the President gives the family a trillion dollars. The owner pays off the loans, throws all the families out of the houses and pockets the rest. This is seen as smart business. They are richer than ever.
Over in the corner, someone is whispering a few questions, â Does anyone realize that the trillions used to patch up the financial mess the owner made, came from the village that has been using imprisoned children to do the work? Does anyone know who will have to pay it back? Hey, does anyone know that that village has been building aircraft carriers with the money the owner has been paying them? Does anyone know why?â


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well now, I like it when people do their homework. From these stats its pretty obvious to me that every single group in our country is increasing their wealth! Even the bottom 20 percent has managed to increase their wealth by 18 percent.... not bad for folks who are supposedly starving in the streets.


Google "inflation"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I also receive checks from other municipalities when they have money left over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Iâll assume I didnât make myself clear and you arenât just nit picking.
Iâve never gotten a âleft over at the end of the fiscal yearâ check from the government or an employer. Never heard of anyone else that has either. 
Glad for you.

Most of the folks in my community donât pay property taxes. They rent. You could say that they pay taxes through what they pay in rent, but it is the land owner that has the tax deduction.

Do you have a team of full time tax attorneys on your staff? Thatâs how the top 1% avoids taxes. In an effort to lure businesses to Michigan, many corporations are given grants and tax abatements just for the chance to profit on the labors of the hard working, willing Michigan laborers.
Those that can afford it can place their lands into trusts, designate unused land as preserves and get tax rebates. 

I didnât intend to say that nothing is spent on roads in Michigan. I meant that the failure to sell bonds for the construction of a bridge would not suddenly create funds to repair roads and other infrastructure repairs. My point was that if the bridge doesnât get built, we have âextra moneyâ. To advertise that the bridge shouldnât be built so the millions can go elsewhere is misleading.
Let me try an example. Say your wife needs a car to get to her new job. It costs $10,000. You plan to borrow $8,000. The other lady that interviewed for that job calls you up and explains, â Hey, donât buy her a car, that $10,000 would be better spent on a Four Wheeler that you could use to haul wood up to the house.â The motive is the other lady wants the job and if she can make you think there is $10,000 that could be used for something youâve always dreamed of, you might go for it. But in truth, there is no $10,000. Donât listen to the person with the vested interest in taking your wifeâs job. But the guy that owns the bridge doesnât want another bridge cutting into his monopoly and convinced a lot of people with his misleading ad campaign. Money buys politicians and money buys votes. As Jack Kennedy stated after his sonâs Presidential victory, âI said Iâd pay for a victory, I didnât mean a landslide.â

You might be right. I might be surprised by the number of 1%ers in Kentucky. Got the number and a list of names? You want me to do my research, whereâs yours?

When you wrote, âThe difference is when productive citizens buy products they are spending dollars earned from production, not taking it out of the economy through taxation. productivity increases wealth.... taking money out of the economy via taxation, to put back in via handouts does nothing to increase wealth.â I think Iâm getting my point across.

If you accept what you wrote, then change it so that the things you buy arenât made here, then you can see that the available money in the system gets smaller with every purchase.

Then, increase the profit margin from historic levels, you see that the 1% are syphoning off more money from that balanced system.

Iâd much rather have a system where the very rich reinvest a portion of their profits back into the businesses and pay the workers an amount that permits them to spend beyond the basic necessities. I have seen how that works. Henry Ford tried it. It sparked the growth of the middleclass. It has been a wonderful ride. But as soon as big business focused solely on getting richer, the model was broken. When companies showed no loyalty to this country or its workers, the slide began. Money that once rotated throughout our economy grew wings and went overseas and into the pockets of the very wealthy.

The 1% might be investing in your state, but with the 1% wealth up 275% in 30 years, it would take a lot of reinvestment to keep the circle going. Corporations are making record profits and sitting on record reserves. Iâd like to believe they are waiting to see what happens with Health Care. But the way they are throwing around $50 million dollar bonuses, I think they are happy playing âkeep awayâ with the financial football.

Canât blame them for pulling up stakes? Being abused? Sticking the General Public with toxic loans, getting trillions in bailouts, operating tariff free on any junk they care to flood the market with. Controlling politicians with their campaign donations that get refunded tenfold in grants and subsidies. If they tried this BS in a few other countries, theyâd be well hung.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Belfrybat said:


> I agree 100% with Haypoint about the fact the trickle down effect in giving breaks to the wealthy is not working. If it had then the Bush era tax cuts that Obama has extended would have resulted in more jobs and more wealth at the lower end.


Couple of things about tax cuts... Back when the highest tax rates were 70+% cutting taxes made jobs and helped the economy. Now that it's more like 15-20% cuts aren't going to do much of anything. The lower the tax rate is the less value cutting it has.

As well, as long as it's so much cheaper to make anything in China and ship it here unemployment will remain and things will not improve. So much money flowing out to consume those foreign goods with none coming back is not sustainable.

As for taxes, I think we need to have some significant spending cuts, but the deficit is too big for just cuts. Repealing the Bush cuts for all would cut the deficit by about 4 trillion alone, add in a couple of trillion in cuts and the countries finances wouldn't be looking so bad.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

SCRancher said:


> So you don't think the criteria can be gamed? Please let's not think about fixing it and instead just take more money from people who earn and give it to those who know how to game the system.


Why would any sane person live completely off welfare? That's hardly a good living. However, I do know some abusers of the welfare system. Does that mean they are ALL abusers of the system? What handicapped people? Just brush them aside and let them die? Beg on the streets? No, there is little need to beg on the streets in this country; that is one thing to be grateful for. Do you want elderly people, handicapped, etc. on the streets begging for food and money? That's evil to desire that. And don't throw any of that "their family can help them" BS. 
In this country, you can assured that anyone begging on the streets is kidding themselves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why would any sane person live completely off welfare? That's hardly a good living. However, I do know some abusers of the welfare system. Does that mean they are ALL abusers of the system? What handicapped people? Just brush them aside and let them die? Beg on the streets? No, there is little need to beg on the streets in this country; that is one thing to be grateful for. Do you want elderly people, handicapped, etc. on the streets begging for food and money? That's evil to desire that. And don't throw any of that "their family can help them" BS.
> In this country, you can assured that anyone begging on the streets is kidding themselves.


I think most of us are quite willing to help those who try to help themselves, and I havent heard anyone begrudge those with honest to goodness physical or mental impairments taxpayer supported state aid. I cant speak for everyone... but I know a few disabled folks, besides myself, I also know a much larger number of able bodied folks who have "bad backs" or a trick knee or are plagued with being overweight, or some who even have substance abuse issues that are quite pleased to sit back, and live off their disability checks. Those are the ones that make a lifestyle out of bleeding the system... and are perfectly capable of working. I worry too about the elderly... what the heck were they doing their whole lives? Did they not plan for the time when they would no longer be able to do for themselves? Did they not save or invest anything during their productive years? Todays elderly are just yesteryears youth. Were they not taught as children that life has consequences? We need to be encouraging todays productive folks to tuck away for their old age, and teach our children those lessons or they will be the "poor" elderly forced to live on catfood in a few short years. Actually I dont know how much truth there is to that whole living on cat food thing either.... walking a couple aisles over from the pet food will prove to most anyone that Star kist tuna is cheaper than a can of "miss Kitty" or whatever brand your store carries. Cmon people, lets stop all the whining and get to work, earn, save and make this country something to be proud of again. My grand parents arent elderly.. they are well past all that, but when they were young and productive they not only survived the great depression, they prospered. They worked, they scrimped, they saved, they invested and provided themselves with a comfortable lifestyle that lasted them all of their lives.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Itâs a might bit more complicated than that.
> 
> You and I can agree that it is bad to loan money to a lazy jobless bum. But government backed mortgages werenât the problem.
> 
> Banks made mortgages on their own, collected the huge closing costs and then sold their loans to large financial brokerage houses that sold them as securities.


True, but have they always done this? Or did it start with the threat of sanctions that Congress put over their heads, to ensure 'everyone' could have a home.

Our local conservative banks were/are evil... they've always wanted you to have a job, credit history, collateral, and a large down payment.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> True, but have they always done this? Or did it start with the threat of sanctions that Congress put over their heads, to ensure 'everyone' could have a home.
> 
> Our local conservative banks were/are evil... they've always wanted you to have a job, credit history, collateral, and a large down payment.


You and I must have had differing experiences. 
I see modest homes that were bought by working people that put large down payments and paid thousands in closing costs and ten years later, the factory closed and the value of the house fell below what they still owed on it. And they are on the street. You want to call these displaced workers lazy slackers?

Sure, the banks made some mortgages that they shouldn't have, but those were foreclosed on years ago. I saw what the banks had done in the Legal notices in the local paper. They made risky loans and the purchasers did stupid things. The first mortgages to go were the $200,000 homes with 8% interest owed to Wells Fargo. There aren't any Wells Fargo offices for 300 miles. Clearly, the local bank made a risky loan at a high interest rate and quickly sold it to Wells Fargo. The population has dropped 10% in 10 years, the average wage is $25,000 a year and the bank is loaning $200,000 and telling the buyer that they can afford 8% interest. Yea right.

To answer your question, no, they haven't always done this. Bundling toxic loans and marketing them as sound securities is new.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Hey, Barney FranK is not running for re-election. He is a major contributor to the financial mess this Country is in now. Lets all be happy.


No kidding! Farewell to the biggest blustering idiot since Teddy.


----------



## SCRancher (Jan 11, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why would any sane person live completely off welfare? That's hardly a good living. However, I do know some abusers of the welfare system. Does that mean they are ALL abusers of the system? What handicapped people? Just brush them aside and let them die? Beg on the streets? No, there is little need to beg on the streets in this country; that is one thing to be grateful for. Do you want elderly people, handicapped, etc. on the streets begging for food and money? That's evil to desire that. And don't throw any of that "their family can help them" BS.
> In this country, you can assured that anyone begging on the streets is kidding themselves.


You sir have failed to read what I have written in all of my various posts on this thread showing that elderly and disabled should still receive help as well as my other views on this topic.

As to why - well because they can - because the standard of living provided by the government handouts must be acceptable to the people gaming the system. 

You apparently fail to see my point so there really is no need to discuss it further. I have posted my view that before putting more money into a broken system it should be fixed first.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Why would any sane person live completely off welfare? That's hardly a good living. However, I do know some abusers of the welfare system. Does that mean they are ALL abusers of the system? What handicapped people? Just brush them aside and let them die? Beg on the streets? No, there is little need to beg on the streets in this country; that is one thing to be grateful for. Do you want elderly people, handicapped, etc. on the streets begging for food and money? That's evil to desire that. And don't throw any of that "their family can help them" BS.
> In this country, you can assured that anyone begging on the streets is kidding themselves.


There are a lot of insane people in this world.

Please, tell me, exactly who took care of the handicapped and elderly, before FDR's Nanny State was foisted on this country?

And, if civilization grinds to a halt, who's going to take care of the handicapped and elderly... if not for relatives. Yes, it's a total whack of BS, that relatives don't take care of their own. But then, why should they, when the State will take care of their every need...

Anyone can get a handicap 'label'... I know there 'are' some handicapped folks out there who can't/won't take care of themselves, and find comfort in the arms of welfare.

My first year in college, I had to live off campus because of no dorm space... next door neighbor was a blind guy w/cerebral palsy... he was getting his masters degree. No better candidate for welfare, yet, this guy was taking care of himself, and making a future.



haypoint said:


> You and I must have had differing experiences.
> I see modest homes that were bought by working people that put large down payments and paid thousands in closing costs and ten years later, the factory closed and the value of the house fell below what they still owed on it. And they are on the street. You want to call these displaced workers lazy slackers?
> 
> Sure, the banks made some mortgages that they shouldn't have, but those were foreclosed on years ago. I saw what the banks had done in the Legal notices in the local paper. They made risky loans and the purchasers did stupid things. The first mortgages to go were the $200,000 homes with 8% interest owed to Wells Fargo. There aren't any Wells Fargo offices for 300 miles. Clearly, the local bank made a risky loan at a high interest rate and quickly sold it to Wells Fargo. The population has dropped 10% in 10 years, the average wage is $25,000 a year and the bank is loaning $200,000 and telling the buyer that they can afford 8% interest. Yea right.
> ...


Reckon I've just been cursed, born into a region rich in natural resources... this area has steadily boomed for 70 years... when the country'd go into a depression/recession, folks here still had jobs. I've worked all over the Western US and seen lots of boom and bust towns. Finally moved back after 20 years of rambling, to take care of my parents, and have stayed. Was in the bank today, transferring money between accounts... some of the same folks have been there since high school graduation. I know them, they know me. I'd still like to get a low interest loan to do my new house, but my work is intermittent, and I 'know' my collateral (land) would be on the line....

Don't think the First State Bank ever need to bundle any loans and pass em off on speculators....


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> There are a lot of insane people in this world.
> 
> Please, tell me, exactly who took care of the handicapped and elderly, before FDR's Nanny State was foisted on this country?
> 
> ...


Since you know them, why not ask them if they have ever sold a mortgage they made in their bank? You might prove me wrong or you might be enlightened. Do ya feel lucky?


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

No way in hell that I will support extending unemployment, giving more welfare and raising taxes on the "rich" who make over $250,000.

I know too many deadbeats who sit on their butts all day long and will not get out and look for work. The peach grower down the street cannot get his peaches picked without illegals because the work is "too hard" for Americans.

I once told a state senator that Arabs were taking the high-paying waiters and waitress jobs in the big steak houses in Tulsa. She sniffed and said that "My people are not looking for that kind of work". Lazy illegitimates lie around and sniff crack, steal hubcaps and peddle meth while waiting to carry Cadillac-loads of whores to the welfare office on welfare day. Friend who was a guard at the state office building saw that happen month after month. 

It is true, too, that we dare not cut off welfare all at once. The riots would destroy most cities. Keep your powder dry, boys.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> However, I do know some abusers of the welfare system. Does that mean they are ALL abusers of the system?


Then weed out the abusers and then we'll talk. I will guarantee there are WAY more abusers of welfare than there are CEO's getting the mega salaries but the left sure doesn't mind painting them all with the same brush. We need smaller government and to quit worrying how much someone else earns. Look at the vast number of programs to help the poor. It is time to wind them ALL into one program ran through one office. You go in and apply for benefits, prove you need them, they enter your info into the program ( age, kids, cost of living in your area, etc.,) and the computer shows what you will get. Period. That payment would replace welfare checks, food stamps, healthcare (if qualified), rent subsidies, free school lunches, WIC, utility subsidies, etc. Close a bunch of government offices and lay off the paper shufflers.


----------



## mozarkian (Dec 11, 2009)

Social programs have done nothing to "help" people. They were a crutch offered to people as a means of controlling them. Nothing has done more to break up families. Families used to pull together, with the kids taking over the family home or farm, Grandpa and Grandma still lived there and helped out with the grandkids, etc. Kids were given chores and grew up feeling useful and needed. Moms and Dads worked together to create a home and support the kids. Everyone had a purpose, was useful and learned and leaned on each other, creating a close knit unit.
Pregnancy outside of marriage was not rewarded with a welfare check and food stamps. Fathers had to step up and support thier kids. People had personal responsibility. Now you have the older generation in or headed for a nursing home, Mom and Dad are probably divorced, maybe there are several step kids involved, and the kids have no way to learn self-worth and self-respect because they come home from their PC correct school to veg out on the couch in front of the tv, and each generation is more disadvantaged than the previous.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Since you know them, why not ask them if they have ever sold a mortgage they made in their bank? You might prove me wrong or you might be enlightened. Do ya feel lucky?


Why would they want to sell a mortgage? That's how local banks make money??? The owner of the bank is a third cousin... very picture of conservative. They make their money off loaning money to businesses and individuals. If they sold all their loans, where exactly would they make their money? A 30 year mortgage will bring in twice as much as the original loan 100k nets 200k in interest. Sell the loan? What will you get, a few percent of that final number........and then what? What you have then is banks that go bust and get taken over by the FDIC and resold to someone else.

I went inside yesterday, first time since spring, when I went in and picked up some boxes of nickels. I will ask, when and if I get back in in person...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

They 'bundle' a bunch of mrtgs, & sell, prolly putting some bad w/good ones.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> They 'bundle' a bunch of mrtgs, & sell, prolly putting some bad w/good ones.


Thats the nice thing with our local banks here in hillbillyville.... they dont sell any mortgages... and they do their very best to not make bad ones coz it comes out of their pocket if they do. Real estate mortgage companies on the other hand seldom hold a mortgage more than a few months... and many have them sold to fannie and freddie before they are even written. Thats where most home mortgages end up. Its also why so many bad ones were written, bundled with good ones and we wound up in the mess we have now. Our well intentioned leaders in DC required a percentage of all home mortgages to be of a high risk nature or freddie and fannie couldnt/wouldnt buy any of them. Look into the Community Reinvestment Act for more info.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Just about every bank sells mortgages. They are then able to make at least 90% more loans on the same cash.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You should keep in mind that inflation likely makes it so that *their wealth didn't actually go up*


Then it didn't go up for the "1%" either, huh?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then it didn't go up for the "1%" either, huh?


You are right if you believe that the poor people's inflation was 17% and the top 1% had 240% inflation.
But we both know that inflation effects the value of money and it is always the same for everyone.
So if inflation is 50% over 30 years and your income goes up 17%, you are sliding backwards. But if inflation is 50% over 30 years and your income goes up 275%, most folks call that tall cotton.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But if inflation is 50% over 30 years and *your income goes up 275%*, most folks call that tall cotton.


I call that a tall TALE


----------



## DanielY (Aug 25, 2011)

Sorry but the entire argument from the OP is full of huge holes.

Think about where the average person spends most of the money they have.
For most that is Housing, Food, Energy, and possibly transportation.

Name one person that bought a house from a foreign manufacturer. Very few places you could rent would be foreign owned. Now a person can work and earn the money to pay for this major expense or they can lean on society to do it for them.

Food, How much of yoru groceries are bought in foreign contries. Maybe soem of the products where produced outside our borders but the grocery store and the profits they make are right here.

Transportation, Even if a car was manufactured over seas it is sold by a US Business.

Energy, Other than buying all our oil from overseas, The fuel that it is converted to is all sold by US businesses. Again the profit being made by US companies. most other forms of energy are home grown.

By now you have chewed through most of the incomes of even working people.

As for business sending jobs overseas. this may be true of larger companies. it might even be true in part to every company. but as a whole the majority of US business is right here in the US. Unless you consider the illegals that are allowed to take our jobs at cut throat wages.

Leaving the money at the top is not a perfect answer either. But giving to people that will do nothing for the economy is no answer at all. Poor people doing more of nothing does not help the economy, sorry. It drags down the ability of those that can do something. It is the whole give a man a fish or teach him to fish argument. Far to many people are revolted at the idea of having to fish. Let them go hungry until fishing seems like a real good idea.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats the nice thing with our local banks here in hillbillyville.... they dont sell any mortgages... and they do their very best to not make bad ones coz it comes out of their pocket if they do. Real estate mortgage companies on the other hand seldom hold a mortgage more than a few months... and many have them sold to fannie and freddie before they are even written. Thats where most home mortgages end up. Its also why so many bad ones were written, bundled with good ones and we wound up in the mess we have now. Our well intentioned leaders in DC required a percentage of all home mortgages to be of a high risk nature or freddie and fannie couldnt/wouldnt buy any of them. Look into the Community Reinvestment Act for more info.


Yup, and Bawnee & Dodd.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I don't know any worker in the US that has built in raises, free medical or any job security.


You obviously dont hang out with government employees much.... or union workers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> You are right if you believe that the poor people's inflation was 17% and the top 1% had 240% inflation.
> But we both know that inflation effects the value of money and it is always the same for everyone.
> So if inflation is 50% over 30 years and your income goes up 17%, you are sliding backwards. But if inflation is 50% over 30 years and your income goes up 275%, most folks call that tall cotton.


The info posted said the bottom 20 percent had gotten 17 percent richer.... IE their bottom line wealth had increased by 17 percent. One can logically presume that these figures are adjusted for inflation... pretty much like the benefits they receive from the government are.

Another point that I would like to make is who exactly are these "poor"? Are they the same people that were poor 30 years ago? Did most of those people not move on up the ladder into higher incomes, and have been replaced with new poor high school graduates or dropouts?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

DanielY said:


> Sorry but the entire argument from the OP is full of huge holes.
> 
> Think about where the average person spends most of the money they have.
> For most that is Housing, Food, Energy, and possibly transportation.
> ...


Just from personal observation I would say a good percentage of people waste much of their money.

People do need shelter. Not everyone needs a mansion. Todays house market is filled with foreign buyers. They are buying houses in blocks of several hundred at a time. Realtors are putting together special deals and special tours for foreign buyers. Many buyers and renters buy and rent from foreign investors. The numbers are growing daily.

Most people need transportation. Not all need a new car every year or two. They definately do not need a set of tires and wheels or a tv and stereo in that transportation that is more valuable than the vehicle.

Much of the food we eat comes from foreign countries. Just look at the labels.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I call that a tall TALE


I didn't respond right away because I was away from my data. So, what you call a tall tale is factual. Let me explain it to you just as the US Census Bureau recorded it:

"The 1 percent has been getting far richer over the past three decades (1979-2007) while income for the middle class and poor has only crawled up.

The top 1% Up 275%

The next 19% Up 65%

The next 60% (middle class) Up 40%

The bottom 20% Up 18%"

You and I don't have to agree on what is happening to this country's economy, but taxing the middle class and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest isn't creating a healthy economy.

If a CEO is hired to manage a company that I hold stock in, I expect him to generate enough profit for me to get a return on my investment, not take a $50,000,000 bonus for doing what the company hired him to do. It maters to me because that $50,000,000 should have gone to the shareholders, not spread around at the top.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

DanielY said:


> Sorry but the entire argument from the OP is full of huge holes.
> 
> Think about where the average person spends most of the money they have.
> For most that is Housing, Food, Energy, and possibly transportation.
> ...


Let me try to plug those holes for you. 

You may be right that major expenditures for the average Joe is housing, food, utilities and transportation. Letâs look at where that goes.

Few people buy their home from another middleclass average Joe. Most local banks sell their mortgages to huge financial institutions, owned and operated by the wealthiest Americans and foreign investors.

Kind of hard to lean on society for home ownership. There are some low interest/low income plans, but most homeownership help comes from the interest deduction on your income tax.

How many companies market all of the chicken produced in this country? How many companies own the beef that you eat? Most folks donât know that the wealthiest 1% control much of what we pay for food. But since you mention imported food, did you know that most of the apple juice you buy came from concentrate bottled in China? Do you know that most honey sold in this country came from China? Corn flakes, popped wheat cereal is imported from China.
Do you really believe that our crippling foreign trade imbalance is improved because the vehicle is bought from a local dealership?

You wrote, âEnergy, Other than buying all our oil from overseas, The fuel that it is converted to is all sold by US businesses. Again the profit being made by US companies. most other forms of energy are home grown.â To me that is like saying, other than the Oceans, this earth is quite dry. What do you think BP stands for? Who owns Shell?

The daily expense to import oil is a huge drain on our society. But it is the top 1% that control the oil wells in this country and they own all the refineries.


You wrote, âAs for business sending jobs overseas. this may be true of larger companies. it might even be true in part to every company. but as a whole the majority of US business is right here in the US.â

You are right, it is true of larger companies. Larger companies, often owned by the top 1% have shipped the jobs overseas. 20 years ago, most refrigerators, air conditioners, water heaters, washers and dryers, etc. were made here. None are made here now. Tools, electric hand tools, air compressors, on and on, not made here anymore. Try buying clothes or shoes made here. Difficult to find. Our trillion dollar trade imbalance proves that much of what we buy is imported. Look close and it is often imported by huge corporations run by the top 1%. 

You added this disclaimer, âUnless you consider the illegals that are allowed to take our jobs at cut throat wages.â Well of course I count that. Do you understand that most illegals send their earnings back to where they came from? They arenât interested in assimilating. The only advantage to them to get amnesty is so they can earn more money to send home.

Leaving the money at the top is not a perfect answer either. But giving to people that will do nothing for the economy is no answer at all. Poor people doing more of nothing does not help the economy, sorry. It drags down the ability of those that can do something. It is the whole give a man a fish or teach him to fish argument. Far to many people are revolted at the idea of having to fish. Let them go hungry until fishing seems like a real good idea.
We agree that leaving the money at the top isnât perfect. Iâll go so far to agree that it stinks that welfare and unemployment money is needed to stimulate this economy. I wish the very rich would spend their wealth, invest in this country. 

For a second, letâs think about what would happen if you shut off welfare and unemployment. Owners of rental houses would go broke, those houses and others would go to the banks. House values would drop like rocks. Wages would drop with everyone scrambling for any sort of job. At first it would be the entry level jobs, but then the skilled trades would feel the impact of too many people and not enough jobs. With less income, there would be fewer purchases and sales of everything would slow, causing more business failures, more people out of work and more foreclosures. Crime is bound to increase and the cities wouldnât be able to fund police because of the shrinking tax base.

Give a billion dollar tax break to the top 1% and theyâll build another factory overseas. Throw a billion dollars into the hands of 100,000,000 laid off workers and that money gets turned over at least ten times in each local community.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You obviously dont hang out with government employees much.... or union workers.


I don't pretend to know what goes on in your state, but in Michigan the only free medical was for teachers, and that has stopped. The rest of the State workers have taken on larger and larger portions of their health care costs. They haven't had raises in a few years. Last year, they had 6 unpaid days off. Seems small, but that's a 10% cut in pay for 12 weeks. 
The last Unionized factory that i worked at went 10 years without any raises. Then the company wanted to cut wages $1.00 an hour and make workers pay even more of their health insurance. The Union went on strike and the company hired new workers, mostly drunks and addicts. The company is now out of business.

I know someone in the Michigan Department of Ag and the whole department went from 1000 employees to 350 in the past few years, still doing the same work loads. They inspect milk, vegetables, feed, livestock auctions, slaughterhouses, animal shelters, gas pumps, pesticides, pests and TB in deer and cattle. It is always fun to poke fun at Union workers and government workers, sometimes they deserve it, but mostly it isn't based on truth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> I didn't respond right away because I was away from my data. So, what you call a tall tale is factual. Let me explain it to you just as the US Census Bureau recorded it:
> 
> "The 1 percent has been getting far richer over the past three decades (1979-2007) while income for the middle class and poor has only crawled up.
> 
> ...


So even using your numbers the middle class has gained. Which is good. And one of the reasons they have is the Upper ones have built factories, hired more paid more, and made life better for those down the ladder. And taking away fro the rich and giving more to the poor is not the answer at all.
That is not what america is about. You have the RIGHT to Pursue Happiness.~! PURSUE is the key work here. Not a Guarantee from the nanny government. A person makes his OWN decision as to how he pursues his or hers own happiness.
There are no guarantees as to how low or high your aim is while pursuing that happiness. it is ALL up to the person, NOT the Government.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

A country is only as healthy as its citizens. The U.S., citizens and government, have been living on credit. A person or a country cannot continue to do this. The people have been borrowing on their houses, charging up credit cards, and living for consolidation loans. The country has been living on borrowed money and imaginary money.

Homes are being foreclosed on in record numbers. How much longer do we have until the U.S. is foreclosed on?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The last Unionized factory that i worked at went 10 years without any raises. Then the company wanted to cut wages $1.00 an hour and make workers pay even more of their health insurance. *The Union went on strike* and the company hired new workers, mostly drunks and addicts. *The company is now out of business.*
> 
> I know someone in the Michigan Department of Ag and *the whole department went from 1000 employees to 350 in the past few years, still doing the same work loads.* They inspect milk, vegetables, feed, livestock auctions, slaughterhouses, animal shelters, gas pumps, pesticides, pests and TB in deer and cattle. It is always fun to poke fun at Union workers and government workers, sometimes they deserve it, but mostly it isn't based on truth.


Ok, you make a couple of pretty good points, in the first example, it sounds to me like the union struck their members entirely out of a job. maybe the company knew what they were talking about and knew they either had to cut expenses or go out of business. I am sure the union workers feel much better about not having any work... but they showed that company who was boss now didnt they?

Then in you second scenario you point out that one third of the work force can handle the work load.... I would have to ask what the heck they were doing in the previous years?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, you make a couple of pretty good points, in the first example, it sounds to me like the union struck their members entirely out of a job. maybe the company knew what they were talking about and knew they either had to cut expenses or go out of business. I am sure the union workers feel much better about not having any work... but they showed that company who was boss now didnt they?
> 
> *Then in you second scenario you point out that one third of the work force can handle the work load.... I would have to ask what the heck they were doing in the previous years*?


I took it to mean that a lot of the work is probably going undone. Since the job involves food inspections, it sounds as though the food supplyisn't being properlt inspected.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> I took it to mean that a lot of the work is probably going undone. Since the job involves food inspections, it sounds as though the food supplyisn't being properlt inspected.


There is always that possibility.... but then there is no guarantee that it was being done properly with 3 times as many employees either.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is always that possibility.... but then there is no guarantee that it was being done properly with 3 times as many employees either.


Yes, and if it took three times the number of employees in the first place that means we were paying for a lot of excess employees.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> So even using your numbers the middle class has gained. Which is good. And one of the reasons they have is the Upper ones have built factories, hired more paid more, and made life better for those down the ladder. And taking away fro the rich and giving more to the poor is not the answer at all.
> That is not what america is about. You have the RIGHT to Pursue Happiness.~! PURSUE is the key work here. Not a Guarantee from the nanny government. A person makes his OWN decision as to how he pursues his or hers own happiness.
> There are no guarantees as to how low or high your aim is while pursuing that happiness. it is ALL up to the person, NOT the Government.


Google "inflation" and you'll better understand that the middle class isn't gaining.

The "Upper Class" as you call them, have been building all their factories in Mexico and China and closing the doors on the middle class. Trickle down doesn't work when the jobs are overseas.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Google "inflation" and you'll better understand that the middle class isn't gaining.
> 
> The "Upper Class" as you call them, have been building all their factories in Mexico and China and closing the doors on the middle class. Trickle down doesn't work when the jobs are overseas.


Exactly. I don't know why more people can't understand this. They seem to think there's just some magical money that the rich have that they're getting somehow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I didn't respond right away because I was away from my data. So, what you call a tall tale is factual. Let me explain it to you *just as the US Census Bureau recorded it*:
> 
> "The 1 percent has been getting far richer over the past three decades (1979-2007) while income for the middle class and poor has only crawled up.
> 
> ...


They "recorded" whatever people told them on the forms.
Figures can lie



> The next 19% Up 65%
> 
> The next 60% (middle class) Up 40%


That says 79% (middle class) had an* increase of 40-65%*, yet I keep hearing how the "rich are taking all the money from the middle class"


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They "recorded" whatever people told them on the forms.
> Figures can lie
> 
> 
> ...


While the top 1% control a lot of money, the next group, the 19% are not what most folks consider "middle class". That top 20% has a taxable, after deductions, income of over $100,000. 

The top 20% earned 53% of taxable income in 2007, but in 1979 they only earned 43%. So the rich are getting richer. Big suprise? The top 1% had 8% of the taxable income in 1979, but in 2007 it had more than doubled to 17%,


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

haypoint said:


> While the top 1% control a lot of money, the next group, the 19% are not what most folks consider "middle class". That top 20% has a taxable, after deductions, income of over $100,000.
> 
> The top 20% earned 53% of taxable income in 2007, but in 1979 they only earned 43%. So the rich are getting richer. Big suprise? The top 1% had 8% of the taxable income in 1979, but in 2007 it had more than doubled to 17%,


That stat is irrelevant since you are talking about TAXABLE income. Look at the number of people who have income that is not taxable compared to 1979. We never made a lot of money and our boys were age 9 and 7 in 1079 but we had taxable income because there were no child tax credits or earned income credits back then. Nearly 50% of workers today pay zero income taxes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> While the top 1% control a lot of money, the next group, the 19% are not what most folks consider "middle class". That top 20% has a taxable, after deductions, income of over $100,000.
> 
> The top 20% earned 53% of taxable income in 2007, but in 1979 they only earned 43%. So the rich are getting richer. Big suprise? The top 1% had 8% of the taxable income in 1979, but in 2007 it had more than doubled to 17%,


And? :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> That stat is irrelevant since you are talking about TAXABLE income. Look at the number of people who have income that is not taxable compared to 1979. We never made a lot of money and our boys were age 9 and 7 in 1079 but we had taxable income because there were no child tax credits or earned income credits back then. Nearly 50% of workers today pay zero income taxes.


In 1079????? Columbus will set sail west to reach the east in another few hundred years.... and a thousand years later..... I will be in Kentucky!  Funny thing about our federal income tax... which I have been filing since 1967... there has always been a child tax credit.... cept I think we called them exemptions.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

I suppose, once again, I must ask for "the rich" to be clarified. What, exactly, defines "the rich"? If I have investments, am I considered "rich"? If I run my own business, and my annual corporate revenues are $1 million or more (despite the fact that I only take home 7-8% of that) am I considered "rich"? 

The problem I have with all of these "the rich don't create jobs" or "the rich need to pay more taxes" or "the rich are taking from the poor" threads is that no one actually defines what THEY mean as "the rich".


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

It would seem like there wouldn't be any child tax credit or exemptions. Children eat up more of the tax dollar than anyone and we let the people who have then pay less taxes. To be fair, the more kids you have the higher taxes you should pay.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> I suppose, once again, I must ask for "the rich" to be clarified. What, exactly, defines "the rich"? If I have investments, am I considered "rich"? If I run my own business, and my annual corporate revenues are $1 million or more (despite the fact that I only take home 7-8% of that) am I considered "rich"?
> 
> The problem I have with all of these "the rich don't create jobs" or "the rich need to pay more taxes" or "the rich are taking from the poor" threads is that no one actually defines what THEY mean as "the rich".


Rich doesnât need clarification. I think the OWS folks (except the crazy ones the NEWS picked to discuss their sex habits or collage loans) had it figured out. âWe are the 99%â. So, by that standard, it is the top 1% that is rich.
The figures that Iâve been posting here are about after tax income. I fully understand that when a farm or another business grosses a million dollars a year, they arenât rich. Sometimes a million in gross sales is poor.

But if your tax attorneys can hide all but a million in income, Iâd say thatâs rich. 

If you are raking in $70,000 a year on corporate revenues, you arenât rich. But the Conservative news media will try to make you believe you are being grouped in with the wealthy and the middle class is after your money. They do that to broaden the support for tax breaks for the wealthy.

The US census divides income in 20% groups. The top 20% make over $100,000 in after tax income. 

For a hundred years, those that could afford to( the rich) invested in businesses that created jobs that in turn created demand for more goods and a strong country.

More recently, the top 1 or 2 % have made their fortunes a different way. They invest in other countries and exploit foreign workers. While it may be more profitable to use third world labor, you reduce the jobs in this country and reduce the demand for your products when fewer people can afford your products due to the lack of jobs. Free Trade Agreement doesnât help the American workers. It was big business that pushed our protective tariffs down. 

Another way the top 1% has been able to increase their annual after tax incomes 275% over the past 30 years is on Wall Street. Several books have been written explaining it, it would take too long to explain here. But the bottom line, the rich get richer and the poor poorer. 

In the past, our government has had to step in and break up monopolies, Google Standard Oil. But today, big business has turned our government into sock puppets. 

Tax breaks to the wealthy so they will create jobs is a myth. Right now most corporations are making record profits while sitting on record revenue, as the middle class struggle to hold onto their homes and the poor drift further from a chance at the American Dream. 

" I couldn't figure out why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me."
If you don't see why a country of a few very wealthy and many poor people isn't a strong country, just wait. The rich are getting richer and the number of poor is growing. At some point it'll hit you.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> It would seem like there wouldn't be any child tax credit or exemptions. Children eat up more of the tax dollar than anyone and we let the people who have then pay less taxes. To be fair, the more kids you have the higher taxes you should pay.


Children become tax payers. The government wants you to make lots of tax payers.

The biggest expense is education. In Michigan, school is mostly funded by property taxes. So a homeowner with 5 bedrooms pays more than a guy in a single bedroom house.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45620148/#45620148
check out the Ed Show "Job Creators"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Tax breaks to the wealthy so they will create jobs is a myth. Right now most corporations are making record profits while sitting on record revenue,


Rich DOES need to be clarified.
The Top 1% Starts at 350K
The top 10% Start at 56K
That takes in a whole Bunch of small businesses as well~!
And why are companies have huge can on hand.
This is no secrete its been reporters on the news many times.
They are HOLDING on to their money because they Do not know what the next couple of years will bring in form of Taxes and Expenses, all brought to them by this healthcare carp that won't take place yet for another 2 years.
And they ARE making plenty of money selling in CHINA~!!!
How many know the ONLY reasons GM aged the Buick label is because they are selling TWICE as many Buick's in China then the USA.
And that is because of the government strangling companies with so many rules regulations, and the UNCERTAINTY, what will happen in the next 2 years.
And companies HATE uncertainty. 
We NEED to lower if not cut out corporate taxes~!! Then the companies will be able to omelet on the World market and make stuff here in the States instead of eslwhere where the business climate is better for them, and that country is making the corporate life a better way of doing things.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Rich doesnât need clarification. I think the OWS folks (except the crazy ones the NEWS picked to discuss their sex habits or collage loans) had it figured out. âWe are the 99%â. So, by that standard, it is the top 1% that is rich.
> The figures that Iâve been posting here are about after tax income. I fully understand that when a farm or another business grosses a million dollars a year, they arenât rich. Sometimes a million in gross sales is poor.
> 
> But if your tax attorneys can hide all but a million in income, Iâd say thatâs rich.
> ...


This is exactly what happens with agribusiness. Large agribusinesses are so large and powerful that they exert an enormous amount of control over farmers and the government. The agribusiness is the true head of the game, this is why we see so many small farmers squashed. The same is true with climate change: the oil industry is so powerful that it simply buys off the media and coerces a general picture in everyone's mind about climate change. The other thing that makes climate change programming so easy is that the public doesn't want to believe it anyways, thus paving the way for the oil industry to spread huge amounts of vile propaganda.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> We NEED to lower if not cut out corporate taxes~!! Then the companies will be able to omelet on the World market and make stuff here in the States instead of eslwhere where the business climate is better for them, and that country is making the corporate life a better way of doing things.


Provided the large businesses do not squash smaller businesses due to lack of governmental oversight, the US is still a perfect area to do business. Thinking that we cannot do business here due to "over regulating," which is a load of bologna.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The other thing that makes *climate change *programming so easy is that the public doesn't want to believe it anyways, thus paving the way for the oil industry to spread huge amounts of *vile propaganda*.


Most of the "vile propaganda" I see doesn't come from the oil company side


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Rich DOES need to be clarified.
> The Top 1% Starts at 350K
> The top 10% Start at 56K
> That takes in a whole Bunch of small businesses as well~!
> ...


 According to the US Census, the top 20% have taxable incomes of $100,066 and UP. So there is no way the top 10% earn $56,000. Where did you get your figures?

I know the NEWS has been saying that business are sitting on their cash reserves because they donât know what the future brings. But that canât be true, since they are also making record profits. Obama care gets health care off the backs of employers, so that canât be the reason to hold back.

US Companies are investing in China. China is growing. They are buying things. That creates more demand and even more jobs. That is what made this country strong. But the money in this country is being sent to China. This country is getting weak and China is getting strong.

Corporations are making money by selling Chinese products here. Corporations are making money selling Chinese products in China. Their standard of living is going up. Capitalism is short sighted. We are now stimulating their economy to the point that billions of Chinese can afford to drive a Buick and thatâs a good thing? Where is the oil coming from to supply this increase?

Businesses are not investing in the US. Cut their taxes and they just make more profits and invest in China.

Weâll be able to compete on the World market as soon as we start copying the China model: Three generations in a two room apartment, long work days, bike to work, buy fresh food daily so you donât need a refrigerator, give up safety and environmental concerns, etc. 

Doesnât it strike you as strange when Japanese and Korean companies can make cars in the US, but US companies think that China is the answer?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Check out the second segment on the Ed Show, Trickle Up Economics
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45662464/#45662201


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Check out the second segment on the Ed Show, Trickle Up Economics
> http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45662464/#45662201


Ok, in order to be fair... I just sat and watched Mr. Ed...... my question to you would be

and? :shrug:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

pancho said:


> it would seem like there wouldn't be any child tax credit or exemptions. Children eat up more of the tax dollar than anyone and we let the people who have then pay less taxes. To be fair, the more kids you have the higher taxes you should pay.


excellent!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

haypoint said:


> According to the US Census, the top 20% have taxable incomes of $100,066 and UP. So there is no way the top 10% earn $56,000. Where did you get your figures?
> 
> I know the NEWS has been saying that business are sitting on their cash reserves because they donât know what the future brings. But that canât be true, since they are also making record profits. Obama care gets health care off the backs of employers, so that canât be the reason to hold back.
> 
> ...


You forgot one, the corporation you work for can farm out your organs any time they want. Now that's capitalism!:happy2:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, in order to be fair... I just sat and watched Mr. Ed...... my question to you would be
> 
> and? :shrug:


You questioned the 275% wage increases for the top 1% while the rest of us limped along. There it is in the second segment.
Think it is because they worked 275% harder? Perhaps they are 275% smarter? 
That's where you and I differ. My answer to both questions is, "No."


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> You forgot one, the corporation you work for can farm out your organs any time they want. Now that's capitalism!:happy2:


I liked your reply, but I'm not sure most people know that is done in China.:goodjob:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> You questioned the 275% wage increases for the top 1% while the rest of us limped along. There it is in the second segment.
> Think it is because they worked 275% harder? Perhaps they are 275% smarter?
> That's where you and I differ. My answer to both questions is, "No."


Yep, we found our difference in opinions.... in your second question. Those old boys get to the top by working hard.... and smart. Most of the population couldnt even begin to handle the mental tasks they take on as a matter of routine. You dont get into the 1 percent group by being average. I also tend to doubt that many of the 1 percenters actually work for wages, a ceo usually works on a contracted salary, and ceo's are generally not in the 1 percent group.. wages and salaries are one thing.... owning the company outright is where the money is. 

I dont recall questioning the top 1 percents rise above the lil workers either. Thats pretty much a given.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, we found our difference in opinions.... in your second question. Those old boys get to the top by working hard.... and smart. Most of the population couldnt even begin to handle the mental tasks they take on as a matter of routine. You dont get into the 1 percent group by being average. I also tend to doubt that many of the 1 percenters actually work for wages, a ceo usually works on a contracted salary, and ceo's are generally not in the 1 percent group.. wages and salaries are one thing.... owning the company outright is where the money is.
> 
> I dont recall questioning the top 1 percents rise above the lil workers either. Thats pretty much a given.


Again, we agree: Owners and CEOs get more than the lil workers. 
We agree that the 1% don't get ther by being average. We agree that they don't get there by working for wages.

But we part company in the details. A CEO that earned 40 times what a worker earned in the 1970s does not deserve/earn 400 times what a worker earns in 2010. That's the reality that chafes me. 

You might get into the top 1% on your own, but most are born into it. There is a harsh reality when you look at one person with a great idea and another person with a good idea and a million dollars. Guess which one has a home in Aruba?
Money is a tool. A lot of money is a powerful tool. It is even more true today than when Woody Guthrie sang "Dough ray me" in the 1920s.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, we found our difference in opinions.... in your second question. Those old boys get to the top by working hard.... and smart. Most of the population couldnt even begin to handle the mental tasks they take on as a matter of routine.


They may be smarter, but not THAT much smarter. And not millions of dollars worth of smarter. And I'm sure they work smart, but hard work doesn't have to be in it. I know a former CEO who made boocoo bucks and is quite lazy. I know a computer programmer who makes about a little more than a CEO who is even lazier, sloppy, and crude. Making more money doesn't mean you're less lazy. Lot's of farmers are quite smart but not lazy in the slightest. It's all relative, which makes your statement utterly worthless.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> They may be smarter, but not THAT much smarter. And not millions of dollars worth of smarter. And I'm sure they work smart, but hard work doesn't have to be in it. I know a former CEO who made boocoo bucks and is quite lazy. I know a computer programmer who makes about a little more than a CEO who is even lazier, sloppy, and crude. Making more money doesn't mean you're less lazy. Lot's of farmers are quite smart but not lazy in the slightest. It's all relative, which makes your statement utterly worthless.


Again, I will ask why some of you care in the least what someone else makes? Whether a CEO is paid nothing or 10 million dollars will not affect you in the least. A corporation's price for goods or services will not increase or decrease one cent no matter what a CEO makes. Those guys making the big bucks will get old or sick and die just like you and I and their money will make no difference. Your problem with their salaries has to be rooted in envy. Envy is a terrible sickness.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> They may be smarter, but not THAT much smarter. And not millions of dollars worth of smarter. And I'm sure they work smart, but hard work doesn't have to be in it. I know a former CEO who made boocoo bucks and is quite lazy. I know a computer programmer who makes about a little more than a CEO who is even lazier, sloppy, and crude. Making more money doesn't mean you're less lazy. Lot's of farmers are quite smart but not lazy in the slightest. It's all relative, which makes your statement utterly worthless.


I am reminded of the story about two fellas camping and a bear came nosing around their tent... one fella was quietly slipping on his tennis shoes and the other fella questioned his logic.... knowing that neither of them could out run the bear.... the first fella just kept lacing his shoes and responded "I know that... but I dont have to outrun the bear... all I have to do is outrun YOU." Being just a little smarter can win the top slot, and as with the bear... its a winner takes all deal. 

My statement may be totally worthless... but if you look around there does seem to be a few that make the top bucks while most dont. perhaps they were the ones that put on their running shoes.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

""Money issued to poor people is spent. They pay for rent, they buy food, and they pay their utilities. Every cent goes back into the economy, unlike money held by the rich.""

Disregarding rent subsidies, food subsidies, electric and heating subsidies? We have a decent retirement income yet the people ahead of us in the checkout using food stamps eat a lot better than we do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A CEO that earned 40 times what a worker earned in the 1970s does not deserve/earn 400 times what a worker earns in 2010.


As Eastwood so aptly put it in the movie "unforgiven"...... "Deserves got nuthin to do with it"


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

poppy said:


> Again, I will ask why some of you care in the least what someone else makes? Whether a CEO is paid nothing or 10 million dollars will not affect you in the least. A corporation's price for goods or services will not increase or decrease one cent no matter what a CEO makes. Those guys making the big bucks will get old or sick and die just like you and I and their money will make no difference. Your problem with their salaries has to be rooted in envy. Envy is a terrible sickness.


The ability to make random, illogical, ridiculous assumptions and assertions is also a terrible sickness.



jross said:


> Disregarding rent subsidies, food subsidies, electric and heating subsidies? We have a decent retirement income yet the people ahead of us in the checkout using food stamps eat a lot better than we do.


That simply means you don't buy certain foods and try to skimp more.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

haypoint said:


> You might get into the top 1% on your own, but most are born into it. *There is a harsh reality when you look at one person with a great idea and another person with a good idea and a million dollars. Guess which one has a home in Aruba?*
> Money is a tool. A lot of money is a powerful tool. It is even more true today than when Woody Guthrie sang "Dough ray me" in the 1920s.


the one with the desire to see there good idea through. many companies were and have been started by individuals with little money. if you have a good product and drive to succeed there are people looking to give you money, for a cut of future profits to develop that idea. making excuses for lack of drive will not get us anywhere but down hill.

until we suck up and accept personal responsibility we are doomed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> The ability to make random, illogical, ridiculous assumptions and assertions is also a terrible sickness.
> 
> *I agree, but hopefully some day they'll find a cure and make folks like Obama and his minions feel better*
> 
> ...


*Most responsible people who pay their own way have to skimp because they know unexpected things happen and they will need money to pay for them. Irresponsible people don't care because it's someone else's money and it's easy to waste money you didn't work for. *


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

poppy said:


> *Most responsible people who pay their own way have to skimp because they know unexpected things happen and they will need money to pay for them. Irresponsible people don't care because it's someone else's money and it's easy to waste money you didn't work for. *


I love broad paintbrushes. You can cover so much surface area very quickly, yet if you work on intricate work it merely looks like a child's splatter job.
There are many different forms of "welfare." Some forms are beneficial and people don't even debate them, such as police and firemen. Then are is welfare that helps working families with their interfamilial difficulties, that keeps people from starving, and that keeps disabled, family-less people alive. But this is a big paintbrush, and we cannot afford to paint the puzzle nicely.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> They may be smarter, but not THAT much smarter. And not millions of dollars worth of smarter. And I'm sure they work smart, but hard work doesn't have to be in it. I know a former CEO who made boocoo bucks and is quite lazy. I know a computer programmer who makes about a little more than a CEO who is even lazier, sloppy, and crude. Making more money doesn't mean you're less lazy. Lot's of farmers are quite smart but not lazy in the slightest. It's all relative, which makes your statement utterly worthless.


See, we all have examples. Just means we've done a study of 2.

For the record, I think CEOs who are making 100+ times the am't the workers are paid is not a good idea, not 'fair', but why do I get to decide when life's fair? Do I think the OWS demands that min wage be $20 & MAXIMUM be $50? (of whatever their idiot # was) NOOooo!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I love broad paintbrushes. You can cover so much surface area very quickly, yet if you work on intricate work it merely looks like a child's splatter job.
> There are many different forms of "welfare." Some forms are beneficial and people don't even debate them, such as police and firemen. Then are is welfare that helps working families with their interfamilial difficulties, that keeps people from starving, and that keeps disabled, family-less people alive. But this is a big paintbrush, and we cannot afford to paint the puzzle nicely.


Right.
There is a time for delicate intricate work but this is not the time and welfare is not the place. We may have to forget the paintbrush and go with spray painting.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

pancho said:


> Right.
> There is a time for delicate intricate work but this is not the time and welfare is not the place. We may have to forget the paintbrush and go with spray painting.


That depends on the user: spray painting can actually be quite delicate and high quality if done by the right hands. So, let's see what happens if we just phase out all government welfare:
A bunch of homeless, jobless people on the streets because the government was paying their rent, no food so they're starving, and no vehicle to even go to work in because it got repossessed because they couldn't make payments any longer, and no insurance because they can't afford any and their government free insurance was just severed. The homeless shelters would be clogged in no time. The only advantage would be a lot more people trying to find jobs in a major recession.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> That depends on the user: spray painting can actually be quite delicate and high quality if done by the right hands. So, let's see what happens if we just phase out all government welfare:
> A bunch of homeless, jobless people on the streets because the government was paying their rent, no food so they're starving, and no vehicle to even go to work in because it got repossessed because they couldn't make payments any longer, and no insurance because they can't afford any and their government free insurance was just severed. The homeless shelters would be clogged in no time. *The only advantage would be a lot more people trying to find jobs in a major recession.*


I am not sure that would be the only advantage. If we phase out all government welfare.... assuming here we are just talking about federal government.... that would put a huge amount of tax money back in the hands of people who create jobs, thus stimulating job growth and the economy overall. The scenario you describe would be more what it would be like if these programs were discontinued all at once. IF we were to phase them out over 5 to 10 years or even 15 years... I really dont see it as being that much problem. In the long run I think we would be better off overall once we got rid of all of that excess spending.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I love broad paintbrushes. You can cover so much surface area very quickly, yet if you work on intricate work it merely looks like a child's splatter job.
> There are many different forms of "welfare." Some forms are beneficial and people don't even debate them, such as police and firemen. Then are is welfare that helps working families with their interfamilial difficulties, that keeps people from starving, and that keeps disabled, family-less people alive. But this is a big paintbrush, and we cannot afford to paint the puzzle nicely.


I never thought of paying for police and fire protection as welfare. These folks provide an actual service, which is beneficial to society. What benefits does society get from promoting multigenerational welfare families?

Imho, they are two completely different creatures....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> I never thought of paying for police and fire protection as welfare. These folks provide an actual service, which is beneficial to society. What benefits does society get from promoting multigenerational welfare families?
> 
> Imho, they are two completely different creatures....


People have to either be extremely poor, or disabled to get welfare. In the former case, the welfare is designed to boost you, except that it can also go in a circle and force you to stay poor. Giving the poor more money in a shorter period of time may help them more than a little money stretched out way over time. This is true in the country: extremely poor people cannot afford cars, and thus cannot get a job anyways. And don't throw no car-pool crap at me, that doesn't always work. 
Thus, in order for a family to be multi-generational welfare, and this term can simply mean a poor mother and children, they basically all need to be disabled. With the food nowadays and diabetes, well, that's not usually too hard. 
And this is if they can actually get a job. Even people who are fully willing to work are having a hard time finding anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> People have to either be extremely poor, or disabled to get welfare.


LOL

No they don't

They just have to lie


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> No they don't
> 
> They just have to lie


True. You just have to play the system and its been that way for decades. I had a friend 2 doors away growing up and spent a lot of time at his house. He had 5 brothers and sisters and his dad just wouldn't work due to laziness. I can remember his mom hiding the phone and tv on the days the welfare lady would visit because those weren't allowed. That was in the late 50's.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

as long as we have so much welfare the goverment will have to inflate prices to cover it. So no matter how many times we raise wages, the prices will go up as well as taxes, we have to stop with all the welfare.

I swear all you do is sneeze and they put you on welfare now. Used to be people got married and made it work, now they get in a little tiff and off they go to get on welfare. Husband doesn't feel like working, he leaves and tells the wife to get on welfare, its a mess.

I bet alot of those people who want to tax the rich haven't worked a day in their life.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"I bet alot of those people who want to tax the rich haven't worked a day in their life."

No I don't agree. Those in the multi-generational welfare as a lifestyle mode don't want to tax the rich. They see it as either Gobment money or Obama Money.

The middle class that don't have teams of tax attornys getting them out of their tax obligations are tired of supporting the bolated welfare system that grows larger as the wealthiest export more jobs. The wealthiest get the benifits of bailouts, give each other million dollar bonus with the taxes collected from the middle class.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

haypoint said:


> "I bet alot of those people who want to tax the rich haven't worked a day in their life."
> 
> No I don't agree. Those in the multi-generational welfare as a lifestyle mode don't want to tax the rich. They see it as either Gobment money or Obama Money.
> 
> The middle class that don't have teams of tax attornys getting them out of their tax obligations are tired of supporting the bolated welfare system that grows larger as the wealthiest export more jobs. The wealthiest get the benifits of bailouts, give each other million dollar bonus with the taxes collected from the middle class.


Yes, they do want to tax the rich, because they have been told they have more of Obama's money.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> No I don't agree. Those in the multi-generational welfare as a lifestyle mode don't want to tax the rich. They see it as either Gobment money or Obama Money.


That is a problem. Many do not have any idea where the money comes fromand don't care. It is free to them, doesn't cost them a cent. Many do not care how much it might cost others.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> "I bet alot of those people who want to tax the rich haven't worked a day in their life."
> 
> No I don't agree. Those in the multi-generational welfare as a lifestyle mode don't want to tax the rich. They see it as either Gobment money or Obama Money.
> 
> The middle class that don't have teams of tax attornys getting them out of their tax obligations are tired of supporting the bolated welfare system that grows larger as the wealthiest export more jobs. The wealthiest get the benifits of bailouts, give each other million dollar bonus with the taxes collected from the middle class.


we have been over this way too many times for you to still believe the middle class pays all the taxes. roughly 15 percent of all income tax revenue comes from the middle class... none from the poor, and 85 percent comes from the wealthy few.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> we have been over this way too many times for you to still believe the middle class pays all the taxes. roughly 15 percent of all income tax revenue comes from the middle class... none from the poor, and 85 percent comes from the wealthy few.


It is fine with me if you want to believe that those that earn over $50,000 are "rich". :hysterical:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

pancho said:


> That is a problem. Many do not have any idea where the money comes fromand don't care. It is free to them, doesn't cost them a cent. Many do not care how much it might cost others.


I agree it is a problem, a serious problem. But But a small elete group of people earning record profits, sitting on record reserves that spend very little into this country are slowing the economy down. As the economy slows, there are fewer jobs and more people put on welfare. 

Having the people on welfare to simply "get a job" isn't going to happen in a depression. 

If the wealthiest 1% were somehow "moved" to either pay more taxes or invest in this country, much of the welfare problem would go away. 

There isn't much use in programs to get the unemployed trained or educated for juobs that either don't exist or are already filled.

We were all swimming in the same pool, but one group decided to pump a bunch of the water out and irrigate another land, then they pumped a bunch more out just 'cause they like water. The rest of us in the pool are struggling on what it left and the rich want you to simply paddle harder.:bash:


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

When you put businesses in the position where they have to pay wages, health care, unemployment and in some cases child care. Then expect them to take care of people who don't even work for them. Things get spread a little to thin. Businesses give up, or don't get started at all. There is the problem.
The real problem is the stimulus was given to the wrong people. If it had been given to the people the economy would have taken off like a jet.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I agree it is a problem, a serious problem. But But a small elete group of people earning record profits, sitting on record reserves that spend very little into this country are slowing the economy down. As the economy slows, there are fewer jobs and more people put on welfare.
> 
> Having the people on welfare to simply "get a job" isn't going to happen in a depression.
> 
> ...


The depression is our fault. We can't put the blame on anyone else.

American workers priced themselves out of a job. That along with regulations, licenses, permits, and taxes added on top of rising labor costs sent jobs elsewhere.

One group of people shouldn't be expected to provide for another group.
People who cannot make a living for themselves should not try to raise a family. If people on welfare would wait until they can afford to take care of a family before they start one we would not have many people on welfare.

We can count on the water getting even more shallow in the future. If everyone would bring their fair amount of water in before jumping in we would all still be swimming. Some just decided to use the water without putting any in. Then those putting in the most water decided to go to another pool.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> It is fine with me if you want to believe that those that earn over $50,000 are "rich". :hysterical:


huh?!?! at 50k we are talking about the group that starts paying in a little, the middle class I think starts somewhere in there... and goes up to like 345k, that would be the group that picks up about 15 percent of all the income tax collected by our dear uncle sam.... now once you get past a million bucks a year or so... then you become part of the real tax payers club.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Every high school kid should have to be given a business tax form so they can fill them out as their final test. Or run a fictional business for a month and see how hard it is to run, and what the business owner really goes through. i wonder if their fictional workers would be allowed to push the boss around the way they are trying to now. i bet their would be no unions allowed.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Every high school kid should have to be given a business tax form so they can fill them out as their final test. Or run a fictional business for a month and see how hard it is to run, and what the business owner really goes through. i wonder if their fictional workers would be allowed to push the boss around the way they are trying to now. i bet their would be no unions allowed.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

SquashNut said:


> Every high school kid should have to be given a business tax form so they can fill them out as their final test. Or run a fictional business for a month and see how hard it is to run, and what the business owner really goes through. i wonder if their fictional workers would be allowed to push the boss around the way they are trying to now. i bet their would be no unions allowed.


And probably all the businesses would go belly up. I know of almost no kids who could actually run a business. Maybe after a bunch of schooling.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

haypoint said:


> I agree it is a problem, a serious problem. But But a small elete group of people earning record profits, sitting on record reserves that spend very little into this country are slowing the economy down. As the economy slows, there are fewer jobs and more people put on welfare.


Corporations are sitting on those record reserves, because we have a Marxist Redistributionist occupying the White House... trying with his evil marxist heart every means in the book a way of legally (or if needs be, illegally) to slaughter those that 'have' and give it to the 'have nots'.

Appears you have fell into the redistributionist camp? 

Why would anyone invest here, if people want to take away the profits?

You mentioned elsewhere, that you'd invested in the market (and lost some)..... did you invest to make money? (Greedy profits required!) or to lose money? Would you invest your money in a company that didn't intend on making a profit? Would you invest in a company that planned on losing money, by supporting Obama's Marxist ideology?

I'm against redistributing anything. No one is going to give me anything... except a hard time.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

texican said:


> Corporations are sitting on those record reserves, because we have a Marxist Redistributionist occupying the White House... trying with his evil marxist heart every means in the book a way of legally (or if needs be, illegally) to slaughter those that 'have' and give it to the 'have nots'.
> 
> Appears you have fell into the redistributionist camp?
> 
> ...


Ok, for the sake of this post, letâs say I agree with you.

We seem to agree that the super-rich, owners of the major corporations, are holding on to their cash reserves while collecting record incomes from businessâs record profits.

You say it is because of the nut in the Whitehouse. Iâm not falling for the oldest trick in the book, since Lucy pulled the football on Charlie Brown, the â if you cut regulations, give us tax breaks, it will stimulate the economy and everyone will prosper.â Nonsense. Wealthy people donât spend more money just because their earnings are going through the roof. Poor folk do that. 

So, after pages of comments, we get back to the original post. If you want to stimulate the economy, the money has to be placed where it will be spent. It is in the spending that the economy gets stimulated. I buy more groceries and the store owner can afford to buy a new couch. The guy at the couch factory remodels his living room. The guy at the lumber and Paint store gets the money and he can afford to buy more groceries.

But you cut taxes and reduce costly environmental restrictions and you just made a rich man more rich. No one gets the spin off. The economy continues to falter and the nation doesnât get those tax monies from the rich, so the working poor have to pay more taxes for less benefit.
So, you prefer the tax breaks for the wealthiest and I prefer no tax breaks to the wealthiest. 

If, after 30 years on the job, it gets out-sourced to China, you think the lazy bum should lose his home, his car and that foolish kidney operation he bought for his lazy uninsured brother. Giving a guy unemployment benefits is too dear of a price for just stabilizing the economy.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Or you could let the first guy earn the money from the corp and the goverment doesn't have to borrow it to do the stimulus and the tax payers are off the hook for it. Never though of that did you?

I was just told today there are all kinds of jobs in this area, but no one is applying for them. Afraid they will loose their welfare and food stamps.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

SquashNut said:


> Or you could let the first guy earn the money from the corp and the goverment doesn't have to borrow it to do the stimulus and the tax payers are off the hook for it. Never though of that did you?
> 
> I was just told today there are all kinds of jobs in this area, but no one is applying for them. Afraid they will loose their welfare and food stamps.


The first guy can't earn money from the Corp if the job is 10,000 miles away in China.

I was told today that MLK wasn't black. Does that make it so? If you turn down a job, they yank you off unemployment so fast, your head will spin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> If, after 30 years on the job, it gets out-sourced to China, you think the lazy bum should lose his home, his car and that foolish kidney operation he bought for his lazy uninsured brother. Giving a guy unemployment benefits is too dear of a price for just stabilizing the economy.


I am pretty sure most states cover the unemployed for 26 weeks.... thats half a year! Why would a guy lose his home if hes been working and making his payments for 30 years? It should have been paid for at least ten years ago. What has he been doing with all his money all these years.... for heavens sake he should be just about ready to retire. :shrug:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

SquashNut said:


> When you put businesses in the position where they have to pay wages, health care, unemployment and in some cases child care. Then expect them to take care of people who don't even work for them. Things get spread a little to thin. Businesses give up, or don't get started at all. There is the problem.
> The real problem is the stimulus was given to the wrong people. If it had been given to the people the economy would have taken off like a jet.


Stimulus was just Obama's version of trickle down economics.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> If you turn down a job, they yank you off unemployment so fast, your head will spin.


well... Yeah! :hysterical: If you are not willing to take a job thats offered.... why should you be drawing unemployment?!?!?! I think thats prolly why to folks who play the unemployment game are very careful to not apply with companies that are hiring.


----------



## wildcat6 (Apr 5, 2011)

Most of the jobs are going over seas because of the ridicuolous union demands and the high taxes to cover all the entitlement programs.


----------



## wildcat6 (Apr 5, 2011)

Kevingr said:


> If giving more money to the poor through more goverment spending will create more jobs why didn't all the money from the two stimulus packages not create more jobs and get the economy moving? (one could I suppose argue that without it it could have been worse) Seems to me with all that money something should have changed for the better. I'm no economics major though. I do agree with you that the large corporations are holding onto their money, I don't know that's true for rich individuals though. The rich individuals that I know are buying realestate like it's going out of style.


I believe large corporations are holding onto their money because of the uncertainity of our governments positions. From constantly talking about raising taxes to health insurance to not making an even playing field with China (economically speaking). Smart if you ask me.


----------



## wildcat6 (Apr 5, 2011)

poppy said:


> The poor already get the best tax break available. They pay zero income taxes. In fact, many of them get money other taxpayers paid in. It's called redistribution of wealth.


I couldn't agree more. I have never heard of a poor person that owed taxes. Thanks to the EIC most are owed money. I don't understand where American ingenuity and self-reliance has gone. It seems like many folks just want to take from others these days, instead of killing it and dragging it home themselves. To me this most disturbing. I will get off my soapbox now as I probably shouldn't replied to this anyhow as the last thing I want to do is to offend anyone.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> Stimulus was just Obama's version of trickle down economics.


That's completely false. The stimulus was used with Fed money, thus caused inflation. In therefore had no net effect on the economy. Any economic gain from the stimulus was probably from psychological comfort.


----------



## wildcat6 (Apr 5, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's completely false. The stimulus was used with Fed money, thus caused inflation. In therefore had no net effect on the economy. Any economic gain from the stimulus was probably from psychological comfort.


That's completely false. Stimulus was used with China's money.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

haypoint said:


> The first guy can't earn money from the Corp if the job is 10,000 miles away in China.
> 
> I was told today that MLK wasn't black. Does that make it so? If you turn down a job, they yank you off unemployment so fast, your head will spin.


Didn't you read my post, there are all kinds of jobs near here. People won't take them. Becuse they might loose their food stamps. I live in Idaho not China!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wildcat6 said:


> Most of the jobs are going over seas because of the ridicuolous union demands and the high taxes to cover all the entitlement programs.


Yup, those darn Union people won't work for $5, a day and a sack of rice.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wildcat6 said:


> That's completely false. Stimulus was used with China's money.


I'm fairly sure China is expecting to get their loan money, plus interest, returned.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> That depends on the user: spray painting can actually be quite delicate and high quality if done by the right hands. So, let's see what happens if we just phase out all government welfare:
> A bunch of homeless, jobless people on the streets because the government was paying their rent, no food so they're starving, and no vehicle to even go to work in because it got repossessed because they couldn't make payments any longer, and no insurance because they can't afford any and their government free insurance was just severed. The homeless shelters would be clogged in no time. The only advantage would be a lot more people trying to find jobs in a major recession.


so maybe if they get hungry enough they will get a job.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I'm fairly sure China is expecting to get their loan money, plus interest, returned.


Wonder where they think the U.S. will get the money to pay them back?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

SquashNut said:


> *S*o maybe if they get hungry enough they will get a job.


Maybe you should pay attention to what I actually write. In the country, no vehicle basically means no job because you can't get to their job. And I'm glad that you have extra jobs in your area, but in case you haven't noticed, the country is on job shortage. If I was so shortsighted, I'd be running into walls!!


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe you should pay attention to what I actually write. In the country, no vehicle basically means no job because you can't get to their job. And I'm glad that you have extra jobs in your area, but in case you haven't noticed, the country is on job shortage. If I was so shortsighted, I'd be running into walls!!


Just keep up with that story and we can all watch this country fall over the cliff.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

pancho said:


> Wonder where they think the U.S. will get the money to pay them back?


The money we are spending now is not china money, It's being printed by the fed out of thin air. That is what is causing the out of control inflation.
china has enough of their own problems.


----------



## FrogTacos (Oct 25, 2011)

pancho said:


> Maybe I should change tax breaks to bail outs.
> *What would happen to the economy if billions would have been given to the poor instead of the banks?*
> I think the poor pays the same taxes the rich pays every time they buy something. *The poor that own real estate pay taxes.*
> The poor pay taxes on gasoline, pay taxes on phone bills, pay taxes on just about everything the rich does escept federal taxes.


The poor would go out and spend it in a right good hurry, then start demanding more. Where you do you draw the line? 

I don't know what stick you measure wealth with, but poor folks don't own real estate. I guess I should say, if you can afford land, yer not poor.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

FrogTacos said:


> The poor would go out and spend it in a right good hurry, then start demanding more. Where you do you draw the line?
> 
> I don't know what stick you measure wealth with, but poor folks don't own real estate. I guess I should say, if you can afford land, yer not poor.


Really, I own a house and I am definetly poor. We live on $500 a month wouldn't you call that poor. or should i sell my place?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> Yup, those darn Union people won't work for $5, a day and a sack of rice.


Why would they when the government will feed them, clothe them, provide them with a nice house to live in, and hand them some walking around money to boot???


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

The unions will be the death of us. That is for sure, but they do need paid, it is getting out of control however.


----------



## wildcat6 (Apr 5, 2011)

haypoint said:


> I'm fairly sure China is expecting to get their loan money, plus interest, returned.


lol, exactly. In the meantime we will need to keep lowering the value of our dollar because of our debts.


----------

