opposed to current government. Yes or No?

[Arcesious]

Indeed... I disapprove of it... I guess.

[Totenkopf]

Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

 

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

 

 

Surely, you are not suggesting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.

 

You are aware that nonproductive members (for whatever reasons, both legit and otherwise) of society collect from SS, no?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Indeed... I disapprove of it... I guess.

there you have it, direct from a member of the age group once known as the conscience of the nation: "i guess".

[Druganator]

i was born on welfare, not because my parents were lazy or because they didnt work it was bcuz my parents had two unplanned childeren. my sister and i and could not get hired by anyone cuz my mother was pregnant and my dad got laid off like 4 times bcauz he was just a driver for various delivery companies and welfare is the only reason we got anywhere

[mimartin]

You are aware that nonproductive members (for whatever reasons, both legit and otherwise) of society collect from SS, no?

Yes, I am. I am also aware that productive members die before ever collecting SS.

 

Personally, I am against paying welfare, social security, food stamps, unemployment, etc…. to people that are just too lazy to work. However, I am more against denying those benefits to people that have a legitimate need or who are innocent (like children). Are you saying we should allow our citizens to starve or live on the streets in order to make sure those that should not receive benefits don’t receive them?

 

If we want to cut out welfare completely, then may I suggest cutting out corporate welfare first.

[Totenkopf]

Not sure how you draw that conclusion. One doesn't have to sever all people from a "benefit" to prevent it's being misused. Where do you stand on the topic of means testing? As to corporate welfare, please provide specific examples of what you're referring to and explain how the removal of said welfare would not then be reflected back into the price the consumer gets hit with when the product/service hits the marketplace (sort of like soak the "rich corporation" with exorbitant taxes that won't miraculously show up in the retail prices either).

[mimartin]

Not sure how you draw that conclusion. One doesn't have to sever all people from a "benefit" to prevent it's being misused. [/Quote] I draw my conclusion from experience. The experience of setting in a 1980s high school economic class as the teachers escort students out of class to go to the local junior college to register for class because the President had just signed a bill that would no longer allow it SS to help pay for college tuition. These students, in a college prep class, who had already lost a parent that paid into SS, were losing the benefit so that we could practice voodoo economics and cut the taxes of the rich.

Where do you stand on the topic of means testing? [/Quote] Have no clue, which is why I wrote I am more against denying than making sure the lazy do not receive the benefit. So we are clear, I would rather the system be too loose and allow someone to exploit the system, than be too tight and deny benefits to someone that has a legitimate need. Unless they invent a machine to read minds or hire massive amounts of investigators then I really do not know where we could draw the line.

As to corporate welfare, please provide specific examples of what you're referring to and explain how the removal of said welfare would not then be reflected back into the price the consumer gets hit with when the product/service hits the marketplace (sort of like soak the "rich corporation" with exorbitant taxes that won't miraculously show up in the retail prices either).

 

Right now, I would just be happy if “Rich Corporation” even paid taxes.

 

I was speaking more to bailing out corporation every time they do something stupid. Recent example: The banking industry makes ridicules variable loans to people that clearly cannot afford the property if the interest rates goes any higher and then when foreclosures start going up they don’t have to worry because Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer will bail them out. I happen to believe in survival of the fittest in the business world at least. We could also look at savings and loans, the airline industry, auto manufactures and a segment that I am hypocritical about the American farming industry (I actually agree with this one and don’t think we do enough)….

[Totenkopf]

You misunderstood my question, but perhaps you were only being somewhat rhetorical. I meant that you appeared to suggest I was against any government help. Means testing is the concept that if you make above a certain level of income, or have a certain level of wealth, that you'd be disqualified from collecting SSI (which, as a tax, was originally created to be a safety net in the first place).

 

Unfortunately for your example, those "voodoo economics" raised more more for the federal coffers than the dems could raise with their draconian rates. Can't blame Reagan for the fact that a dem controlled congress wouldn't cut it's spending habit back.

 

You realize, though, that those taxes would only be reflected in the final cost of their products, right? Corps don't really pay any taxes, people do. I do, however, agree that Washington should let some of these outfits collapse and be bought out by someone in the private sector. Farming is predominantly agribiz now, just another "big biz".

[mimartin]

I meant that you appeared to suggest I was against any government help.

Sorry did not mean to imply you felt this way. I was merely speaking to those in power. Actions speak loader than rhetoric and their actions tell me they are more concern with the wealthy than helping American citizens.

 

 

Means testing is the concept that if you make above a certain level of income, or have a certain level of wealth, that you'd be disqualified from collecting SSI (which, as a tax, was originally created to be a safety net in the first place).[/Quote] I know what means test is, I am just against it being used in the case of SS. While you are correct, about what SS was designed to be in the first place, that is not what it became. If we were to set a specific date in the distant future to say this is were SS again becomes merely a safety net, then maybe. Before that, the Federal Government should put back the money it has stolen from SS and the interest lost. That money was not theirs to spend as they saw fit. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress that did this with a Republican President, but it was called a “conservative Congress” and a conservative President. Neither was really the case, because by definition a conservative would not do this, neo-conservative is another matter entirely.

 

Unfortunately for your example, those "voodoo economics" raised more more for the federal coffers than the dems could raise with their draconian rates. [/Quote] Yea, but where was that Money coming from? The middle class and poor had to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. What happen to the middle class during this time? Hint this was the start of the decline of the middle class. Voodoo Economics is the government’s way to reassign wealth. Only instead of moving wealth to those that will spend the money (poor) the wealth is moved from the hardest working Americans to the rich. I am personally against the government moving the money up or down and believe productivity and ingenuity should be rewarded instead of rewarding someone just because they inherited some money.

 

Do Republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ronald Reagan played congress like a fiddle. If he was truly a conservative, he would not have submitted the budgets he did to congress and he would have used his power to cut their spending.

 

 

Farming is predominantly agribiz now, just another "big biz".

Yes it is, and what happen to food prices as the American farmer disapeared.

 

What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

[Web Rider]

What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

 

No, the correct answer is that you can probably buy from company B. If company A already gives you the best deal, and after raising it's price is still less, or comparatively more affordable than buying from somebody else, you really don't have much of a choice.

 

The same stands for the consumer, you can only save and purchase a lower cost version of the same, or comparable product if one exists on the market.

 

I was speaking more to bailing out corporation every time they do something stupid. Recent example: The banking industry makes ridicules variable loans to people that clearly cannot afford the property if the interest rates goes any higher and then when foreclosures start going up they don’t have to worry because Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer will bail them out. I happen to believe in survival of the fittest in the business world at least. We could also look at savings and loans, the airline industry, auto manufactures and a segment that I am hypocritical about the American farming industry (I actually agree with this one and don’t think we do enough)….

 

There is a special exception made for banks on the simple logic that the average person has so much money wrapped up in them. Part of the logic here was learned from the Great Depression, the banks buckeled and Joe Schmo consumer lost. When 2000 dollars in your savings will literally define the next two months of your life, the collapse of a bank is devastating.

 

I agree that for normal industries, this is a fine way to look at them most of the time(there's always an exception for one reason or another), but if I've got 10k and 9k of it's in the bank, when that bank goes under, I've only got 1k. In a nutshell that means all the bills, expenses and other stuff I have go unpaid. Which for a single person, this has a very small effect.

 

Since banks can do this to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people at once if they crash, that's a serious problem you're looking at, and is exactly why banks are bailed out when they start to flounder.

 

But then that's also why more stringent rules were passed recently on who gets loans and what kinds of loans can be given. I agree that in general, a bad business practice should lead to the demise of a company. But those loans are made with the money people let the banks hold, and if they give it away, and then they fall, they've not nothing, and now you've got nothing too.

 

Sure there are protections in place, but that's like waiting for a Katrina check. It's coming. It might take 10 years but it's coming.

 

...or not.

 

Anyway I'm sure you're aware of that and it probably only adds fuel to your fire of dislike for the situation.

[Totenkopf]

I know what means test is, I am just against it being used in the case of SS. While you are correct, about what SS was designed to be in the first place, that is not what it became. If we were to set a specific date in the distant future to say this is were SS again becomes merely a safety net, then maybe. Before that, the Federal Government should put back the money it has stolen from SS and the interest lost. That money was not theirs to spend as they saw fit. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress that did this with a Republican President, but it was called a “conservative Congress” and a conservative President. Neither was really the case, because by definition a conservative would not do this, neo-conservative is another matter entirely.

 

Ok, but was thrown off by your "no clue" comment. However, not remotely sure how you conclude that Reagan had a "conservative congress" (don't recall them ever being referred to that way), lest you're referring to the first 6yrs of W.

 

 

 

Yea, but where was that Money coming from? The middle class and poor had to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. What happen to the middle class during this time? Hint this was the start of the decline of the middle class. Voodoo Economics is the government’s way to reassign wealth. Only instead of moving wealth to those that will spend the money (poor) the wealth is moved from the hardest working Americans to the rich. I am personally against the government moving the money up or down and believe productivity and ingenuity should be rewarded instead of rewarding someone just because they inherited some money.

 

As I recall, the lowering of capital gains tax rates freed up money that sat in tax shelters and another source was no doubt the dem idea of raising payroll taxes that Reagan signed off on. Despite this influx, Congress wouldn't mend its spending addiction. Don't get idea I'm lionizing RWR. He made some real bonehead moves as well. Two of which come to mind are the illegal amnesty he signed on with and the debacle at Beruit. Still, since when is not stealing inherited money from lucky people in the form of high taxes a reward?

 

Do Republicans ever take responsibility for their actions? Ronald Reagan played congress like a fiddle. If he was truly a conservative, he would not have submitted the budgets he did to congress and he would have used his power to cut their spending.

 

Probably about as often (or more so) than dems. As the Presidential veto isn't irreversible, not really sure what he could have done.

 

What you are not taking into account is if A company raises the price due to paying taxes. I can always buy from company B. I own a business and I cannot pass on all my cost to my customers or they will go across the street to purchase the service. I am taxed and I still run a profitable business.

 

Yes, but you are not taxed at one rate and your competitors at another. You are also not a big corporation, right? If GM gets hit with higher taxes, so will Ford and Chrysler and those will be reflected in current or future prices. Hitting Exxon, Shell, etc...with a draconian windfall profits tax will only cause prices to go up. Either to make up for the immediate loss or b/c the money taken by congress won't be available for reinvestment. Less money to expand means less opportunity for people's IRAs and less ability for the industry to bring more supply to the market to combat future disruption possibilities. All lead to higher prices, in addition to any increase in the price of crude.

[mimartin]

No, the correct answer is that you can probably buy from company B. If company A already gives you the best deal, and after raising it's price is still less, or comparatively more affordable than buying from somebody else, you really don't have much of a choice. [/Quote] No, if B is lower than A I'm buying from B. If Office Max is cheaper than Walmart on copy paper, what kind of business sense does it make to buy the paper from Walmart?

 

Now if the product or the service gets to high, I can always cut back or look for an alternative.

 

Right now 2/3 of corporation are not paying any taxes. I’m not planning on buying a motor home, but I’m paying a share of the producers of Motor Homes taxes now. These companies still receive benefits (use of infrastructure...), but pay none of the expense of maintaining that infrastructure. Sure you can say that it will raise the cost of goods sold to consumers, but if you are not going to purchase those products why would you care if the price goes up? At least when you tax everyone fairly you spread out the cost. So a motor home goes up or shoes go up what do I care if my taxes go down, unlike paying Uncle Sam I have a choice if I spend my money on shoes or a motor home.

[Web Rider]

Except that those things do not exist in a closed system. The price of a motor home goes up, why? Because the price of parts and labor went up. Why? because the price of something that depends on went up.

 

You may not care if the price of shoes goes up, but when the price of shoes going up causes the price of labor to go up, which increases the cost of just about everything, now do you care?

 

And I don't think you read a thing I wrote about companies A and B. Of course you'll buy from B if it's cheaper, but that wasn't my point so I'm assuming you didn't catch it. My point was that you can only buy from somebody else and save if there is somebody else from whom whatever you want costs less. If costs go up everywhere, you're stuck with what they're charging.

 

And since you hadn't addressed "cutting back" I did not likewise address it either. Sure you can cut back. But you can't keep cutting back, at some point your operation will be running so bare bones that it's impossible to cut. You'll have to do the same thing everyone else does, raise prices.

[mimartin]

The price of a motor home goes up, why? [/Quote] Because they now have to pay taxes.

Because the price of parts and labor went up. Why?[/Quote] Good the workers need a raise and with their taxes going down they have more buying power. No, I understand what you are saying.

You may not care if the price of shoes goes up, but when the price of shoes going up causes the price of labor to go up, which increases the cost of just about everything, now do you care?[/Quote] Yes, I know. But I have a choice to purchase anything or nothing. Taxes I have to pay. No choice. So I’d rather spread the tax burden out. No one deserves a free ride. Not the 70 year-old women with 50 cats or the billion dollar corporation. I’m also not advocating taxing businesses out of existence. They could still write off capital improvement, investments, cost of doing business… I’m only saying let them earn their tax free status by investing in jobs and faculties in this country. Giving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas is not my idea of smart politics or smart business. 2/3 not paying taxes.

If costs go up everywhere, you're stuck with what they're charging..

No, I understand but not everyone is going to go up. Unless we are talking about goods control by a monopoly, then someone will always be lower.

And since you hadn't addressed "cutting back" I did not likewise address it either. Sure you can cut back. But you can't keep cutting back, at some point your operation will be running so bare bones that it's impossible to cut. You'll have to do the same thing everyone else does, raise prices.

Sure, but not necessarily. In the paper example, I can use an alternative, electronic documents and electronic signatures. Necessity breeds ingenuity.

[mur'phon]

If GM gets hit with higher taxes, so will Ford and Chrysler and those will be reflected in current or future prices.

 

Not neccesarly, companies are loth to increase prices for fear of being the only one who does so, or pushing consumers to substitute their product for another if possible. It only applies when either A: The companies can't lover the price without becoming unproffitable. B: there is no substitute or the companies are agreeing (possibly ilegal) on a set price.

On a side note, I'm not sure those companies you listed wil be abe to set any prices in the future:D

 

Hitting Exxon, Shell, etc...with a draconian windfall profits tax will only cause prices to go up. Either to make up for the immediate loss or b/c the money taken by congress won't be available for reinvestment. Less money to expand means less opportunity for people's IRAs and less ability for the industry to bring more supply to the market to combat future disruption possibilities. All lead to higher prices, in addition to any increase in the price of crude.

 

Again, it depends on what the competitors do, sometimes it wors, sometimes it dosen't.

[mimartin]

Ok, but was thrown off by your "no clue" comment. However, not remotely sure how you conclude that Reagan had a "conservative congress" (don't recall them ever being referred to that way), lest you're referring to the first 6yrs of W.[/Quote] I’m a conservative democratic, most the southern states had democratic in congress and most of these were conservative democratic. Many also defected over to the Dark Side during the Reagan years. Everyone blaming the Democratic need to also look at Mr. Reagan’s election results. Bush had around 50 percent and said he had a mandate, not true. Reagan did have a mandate.

[Totenkopf]

Not neccesarly, companies are loth to increase prices for fear of being the only one who does so, or pushing consumers to substitute their product for another if possible. It only applies when either A: The companies can't lover the price without becoming unproffitable. B: there is no substitute or the companies are agreeing (possibly ilegal) on a set price.

On a side note, I'm not sure those companies you listed wil be abe to set any prices in the future:D

 

Yeah, the "cabal" will probably be Honda, Toyota and Hundyai. Usually, though, when one is talking about hitting corporations with higher taxes they aren't talking about only one company. If Ford got hit with higher taxes it would likely be the same with the others in the "tax the big corporations" scenario. There are already price fluctuations between similiar products from different American companies, but they aren't so great that one of them has been forced out of business because of that discrepancy (usually the problems lie elsewhere). If Detroit is already having a hard time being competitive, what point in increasing its tax burden less you wish to put them out of business (the consumer will probably balk at the tax induced price increase and look elsewhere). So, unless you're looking to increase the welfare rolls......

 

 

Again, it depends on what the competitors do, sometimes it wors, sometimes it dosen't.

 

Doesn't really matter so much what the competitors will do (likely try to milk as much profit as the situation allows) in the oil situation. Fact is that the tax increase on the corporation will end up being paid by the consumer. Esp since oil is almost monopolistic in the energy sector anyway. Nevermind its myriad other uses/markets.

 

Everyone blaming the Democratic need to also look at Mr. Reagan’s election results. Bush had around 50 percent and said he had a mandate, not true. Reagan did have a mandate.

 

Clinton claimed a mandate and had fewer votes than Bush (W), so not sure what that proves. One need only look at Reagan's opponents to understand why he won both elections. Still, it holds true that the president proposes and the congress disposes. All budgetary crises ultimately land at the feet of Congress. That's part of the reason for the current disaffection w/in the rep party over the behavior of the so called "conservative congress" under Bush.