From what I've been hearing from economists, this isn't going to be like the great depression, more like economical armageddon. Literally we've managed to accumulate so much debt and export so much of our money making ventures overseas that there may be no stopping the spiral this time. It'll just keep getting worse and worse until it becomes a black hole and nothing can escape it.

What galls me the most is that this keeps happening every ten years, and every time it's worse. The Dot.com bubble of 1999, the Wall Street Crash of 1989, the Malaise of 1979, and so on. Is anyone really believing politicians when they say they didn't know anymore? And now Obama's talking about cutting taxes? Has he lost his mind?

Just to show you how desperate things are. Here's the brilliant solution the politicians have come up with to battle the current woes: print more money. Technically that will help in the very short run, and will devaluate the American dollar so that Europe might want to invest in the US. (Remember when the Canadian dollar was worth more? Those days are coming back) But that's a long shot of a bet, and who's to say that Europe will have any money to throw around when the time comes?

I'm no alarmist. I wasn't worried about the Y2K bug, laughed off the idea that America would crumble following 9/11, but this one's bad. Russia's already throwing around a little muscle and China's starting to balk at buying more of our debt. We're in real, serious trouble. And don't believe the BS that the press is spouting. These are the same nimrods that still think Britney's comeback album is bigger news than the fact that credit, as we know it, may end in America.

Bombings and killings and massacres don't start major wars, mass poverty does. The Great Depression without question was one of the factors leading up to WW2 and the Long Depression more less contributed to WW1. That's something to think about. Economical conditions are similar now. I've said that Capitalism prevented more wars than any other ideology since the dawn of man, and I truly believe that. Capitalism shifted the idea of power from military conquest to economic aquisition. However, what happens once you run out of money and all you have left to wield is a big gun?

Yeah...

Hopefully that won't happen. I'm being alarmist about war.

But about the economical collapse? Not a chance. If anything I'll be underestimating the carnage. My job is fairly secure, I'm not worried. But I pity anyone working in the retail business.

Good luck to us all.

This is definitely going to be a very tough time, but the fears that the politicians are throwing around, and the doom-and-gloom "we must act now!" speaches are simply a way to rally everyone around the plans to hand out more and more money, and keep having the government spend itself further into debt.

We need to stop the bailouts of all kinds immediately, and the plan that Obama's team is proposing is the worst possible thing we could do right now. It's not a tax cut, and none of his "job creation incentives" are worth a sh!t. $3,000 incentive for a business to create a new job??? Anyone who has managed any kind of business that has employees knows that for any employee that you hire, it costs anywhere from 30% to 50% more than their wages to have them on the payroll. So at minimum wage, you're talking an investment of $20,000 or more to get $3,000 back? What business owner in their right mind would do that? That's an 85% loss of investment. People are only going to hire employees when they need to, because their business is picking up.

And tax rebates for people not paying taxes? Hello?

Everyone needs to tell their senators and representatives to shoot down the plan if/when it comes to a vote. It will do nothing but further our economic spiral.

You Yanks are going to get the worst of it I'm afraid. I did some quick math and if you divide the national debt by the rough population of the United-States you discover that every man, woman and child in the entire country owes around 23,450$ for starters, then if you count the coming Baby Boomer retirements and the debt inflation/increase that number just shoots up insanely. Roughly speaking, everyone would have to pay about 10,000$ per year for the next fifty years to pay everything off.

That, my friend, is being in a whole heap of trouble. Someone in power is going to have to put on their pants and pretend to be a man and tell people just how deep in the toilet your country is otherwise you'll all be merrilly plunging into the abyss.

Very nice sig

I don't really follow politics, only occasionally, so I am not up to date on everything... However, reading your post sparked some thoughts. I am not fighting either side, but just something I never really though of in this light.

We have certain people in America that have so much money they don't know what to do with it. FAMOUS People (Movie stars, muscians, sports players). There is no need for them to have THAT much money. They only get it because of the proceeds they recieve from people like, us. There is no real reason why they should be making THAT much money. Look at people like Police Officers & Fireman they risk their lives to get paid nowhere near what they should. I mean these people are not just rich. They are so far beyond being wealthy.

What if there was a different way to distribute money, do you think it could save us? Celebrites hold a much lesser population than the general population. There is absolutely no reason they should be make millions & millions every year.

I donno just throwing it out there.

Jazer, please don't take this as an attack, but merely a fact: that's a completely socialist outlook on things, and it's contrary to what has made this country great.

And believe me, that's exactly where Obama would like to see us go. Anyone notice that he just appointed a socialist to his team?

The notion that people shouldn't have the money they made, because no one needs that much, is a slippery slope. Where does it end? Who decides what is enough money? It all sounds great on the surface, and "fair", but the bottom line is that fair is everyone being able to make as much as they want to, without a punitive tax system which takes more and more as you go up the scale. By percentages, the rich already pay far more than everyone else, and their percentage is already higher than the lower ranks, yet there are still a lot of people who want to see them pay even more.

Some interesting statistics came out from the holiday season in retail, and guess who got hit the worst? The high-end retail stores. The people with the money are so afraid to spend it right now, because they don't know what's going to happen with the economy, and more importantly, what's going to be done to it by the government. If anyone wants proof that trickle down works in both directions, that's it, because the people who work in those stores, and are paid on commision, are middle class. So guess who got hurt by the rich not spending money??

People, seriously, really look at what the new administration is proposing, and write your congressmen and women and tell them not to pass it. Even a lot of Dems are starting to question it, because they think it's going too far. The only thing that the government can do to really get this country moving again is to cut taxes, and not in the fashion that Obama is proposing. He's basicly talking about subsidizing failing business, and giving money "back" to people who don't even pay taxes, and raising the number of people who don't pay. The reason? To get more people dependant on the government, so that they can dole out more "guidelines" for everyone.

Distributing the money wouldn't work, because to be honest there just isn't enough. Rich Americans are rich, but they're not THAT rich. Just think of it, if you literally took every penny away from the 30 richest Americans you'd still only have about 588 billion. The current debt is 8.7 Trillion and would be reduced only to 8.2 Trillion if we threw their money at it.

That's not even taking into acount that when the Baby Boomers retire in masse, the debt might shoot up to 53 trillion and increase by 3 trillion every year.

It's a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, we're in trouble. Bad. Canada's in the same boat btw, but we have vast natural ressources to hold as collateral on our loans. You guys have... well... what is it that you produce again?

this is a great topic, but I just have to say that I'm sick and tired of hearing, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad how many times people are going to play the same old record. The question is how can we make it better.
Anyone can say is going to get bad, ANYONE. I can probably write a 5,000 word essay about how bad things can get in the future but the question is, Can anyone write how WE make it better. The economic problem is HERE, if you open your eyes and hear and watch the news you will see that the problem is here.

The Obama sign, makes me laugh " The change is coming..." so WTF does that mean? should I jump out of window like people did in 9/11 when the buildings were burning up in flames? is that what I should do because "the change is coming..."? oh no... I'm afraid of change WUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!! I want my mommy WUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
What I wanna hear is about problem solving, because ANYONE can create fear,write critics and complains. One problem is to get people to unite to solve the economic problem. The economic problem is right between our eye balls; right in front of the tip of your nose and people are still saying is going to get worst, well lets see, the longer we play the is going to get worst record, worst is not going to go away!!!!!!

spoiler wrote: should I jump out of window like people did in 9/11 when the buildings were burning up in flames?

that would be excellent. please do this.

spoiler wrote:this is a great topic, but I just have to say that I'm sick and tired of hearing, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad, is goinna get bad how many times people are going to play the same old record. The question is how can we make it better.
Anyone can say is going to get bad, ANYONE. I can probably write a 5,000 word essay about how bad things can get in the future but the question is, Can anyone write how WE make it better. The economic problem is HERE, if you open your eyes and hear and watch the news you will see that the problem is here.

The Obama sign, makes me laugh " The change is coming..." so WTF does that mean? should I jump out of window like people did in 9/11 when the buildings were burning up in flames? is that what I should do because "the change is coming..."? oh no... I'm afraid of change WUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!! I want my mommy WUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
What I wanna hear is about problem solving, because ANYONE can create fear,write critics and complains. One problem is to get people to unite to solve the economic problem. The economic problem is right between our eye balls; right in front of the tip of your nose and people are still saying is going to get worst, well lets see, the longer we play the is going to get worst record, worst is not going to go away!!!!!!

Well... uh... If you read my whole post you'd notice that I did give a solution. Every man, woman and child has to pay 10,000$ a year for the next 50 years (So a family of four, two kids and a mom and dad, would pay 40,000$ a year) and then you'll have paid off all the debt and interest... maybe. That's how deep in the hole you are. You can unite and give it a good think all you want, but until everyone in the country sells everything they own and live like paupers for their whole lifetime the problem won't be solved. Politicians try to skirt the problem by babbling about "Balancing the budget" which sounds like they're doing a lot to solve the economic crisis until you realize that it just means that they're going to stop spending more than the country makes for a year or two. Balancing the budget does nothing to solve the huge debt problem; and the huge debt problem is growing out of control, causing more and more economic problems.

As for solutions, your hands are tied every which way. Countries like China pay off a lot of your debt so that you'll allow them trade imbalances, and you're all so deep in the hole that you can't say no. What's gonna happen, do you think, when they call in their notes and ask for that money back? You want to see a country whose debt has crashed it? Look at Russia. No cars on the road, people can't heat their homes or pay their bills, no social services in many places, no police/ambulances/hospitals, massive unemployment and a lot of billionaires living it up like maggots on the corpse of their country.

You want positive? I'll give ya positive. I think that poverty will do us good. We were going soft for a while and no one needs as much as we have. I think that if you have your health, a family, three meals a day and a warm place to sleep, you're fine. You don't need more. So no matter what happens, some of us are tough enough to weather it, and those who aren't won't be dragging the rest down anymore. How's that for positive?

I take no offence to what was brought up against my points. Like I said I do not really support any side of it, just wanted thoughts. I think it was taken a lil differently than I intended though. I didn't mean only celebrities give up money towards the national debt. I merely only brought it up looking at it in the light that, it is such an extreme difference.

IF there was even slightly more of a balance between the wealthy & low income (and I don't mean people mooching off the system) I mean peopel that actually work hard and just don't make @!#$. I think it would certainly boost the economy, I guess.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a college degree, and I work my ass off... currently at a health insurance company (health insurance is pretty important right?! Specifically what I do here & contribute here at the company...) And my financial bracket, before taxes, before anything is deducted, it's dancing the fine line of being at the poverty level. Obviously I'm young and you don't just start out making 200k/year.... BUT do you kinda see where I am coming from?

How can we sell everything that we own? If we do, then where are we going to sleep? outside on the streets? Come on….
China is not going to ask for that money back all at once in full. (I’m sure there is a contract) besides, China needs us as much as we need them. Do you know why everything is made in China? Everything is made in China because China is a communist country with a very cheap labor system. The Chinese government does not allow them to spend more money than they need. They have cheap labor, cheap food, cheap house, cheap everything. Everything is cheap in China.

Look at Russia? I can’t see Russia from my house. (That was Sarah Palin hehe) Again, Russia is a poor communist country, well it was communist but they’re still poor, they never had a good functional government. The government always had and always will have control of everything in Russia because they’re communist. Russia also has weather problems. The temperature stays in the 20s all day all night and it cost more to heat their homes and that also has a negative impact on their energy/economic problem.

The reason why people have more in America is because we have the freedom to work and make money and spend money without government interference. And yes we can have three meals a day and we can have a fourth meal at Taco Bell. When people worry all the time and don’t spend any money, don’t buy cars, don’t buy anything, the economy does not roll. The problem comes when people over spend their money and buy homes they can’t afford and get in trouble with credit cards and bad loans. And they can’t say NO because they’re thinking way over their heads.
We have to keep it balance. We can’t spend too much money but at the same time we can’t spend nothing at all. Like the temp in your car. Not so hot not too cold. The temperature has to stay in the middle 195F degrees.

Jazer {Turbo Chica} wrote:I take no offence to what was brought up against my points. Like I said I do not really support any side of it, just wanted thoughts. I think it was taken a lil differently than I intended though. I didn't mean only celebrities give up money towards the national debt. I merely only brought it up looking at it in the light that, it is such an extreme difference.

IF there was even slightly more of a balance between the wealthy & low income (and I don't mean people mooching off the system) I mean peopel that actually work hard and just don't make @!#$. I think it would certainly boost the economy, I guess.

I'll use myself as an example. I have a college degree, and I work my ass off... currently at a health insurance company (health insurance is pretty important right?! Specifically what I do here & contribute here at the company...) And my financial bracket, before taxes, before anything is deducted, it's dancing the fine line of being at the poverty level. Obviously I'm young and you don't just start out making 200k/year.... BUT do you kinda see where I am coming from?

^He doesn't understand that...
His philosophy that the rich are taxed a little percentage more therefore in theory they pay more taxes. But the most that gov't will taxe is 35% if you make $350K to infinity. Where as average pays 15-25%. The problem here is like you said... you will be knocked down hard... while a person making over a million will hardly make a dent on his status. The tax percentage to income ratio is favorable for the wealthy.
Do you see the disparity?

Quiklilcav wrote:Jazer, please don't take this as an attack, but merely a fact: that's a completely socialist outlook on things, and it's contrary to what has made this country great.

That is partly true. Believe it this country practices socialist, fascist, capitalist. What made this country great was initially capitalist with factories and manufactures rising on each corner, then the socialist education continued that trend as we learned to improve on existing products and ground-break others. Then fascism came in the form of greed as the capitalist calls for maximize profits and low wage and long work hours aroused... here the the union was invented to stop such malpractice.
Although you may think that the people who think that: "some areas should not make more than others" is labeled a socialist as a bad thing. But where does the imbalance stop? Because of the imbalance this country falls. If a 20 year old has the opportunity to throw a ball right for $10 million a year or has the knowledge to teach college class about science formulas for $65K a year, where would the 20 year old go? For large portion of society money is motivation.
Thats what is happening now... we don't have technology anymore because there are other places to make more money and in those places it does not improve the nation as a whole, like the yester years... maybe on the Olympics we can shine proudly.
We hire outsiders to do technology because in their country making movies or playing sports is little to no importance as their salary suggests.
Like it or not Education is a form of socialist program, it is a necessity, with out it the population stays ignorant and dense. And when they do become like that... you can look at third world nations as the out come of low education level. As much as you hate socialist philosophy, like any "ism" it has its good and bad.

Quote:

Some interesting statistics came out from the holiday season in retail, and guess who got hit the worst? The high-end retail stores. The people with the money are so afraid to spend it right now, because they don't know what's going to happen with the economy, and more importantly, what's going to be done to it by the government. If anyone wants proof that trickle down works in both directions, that's it, because the people who work in those stores, and are paid on commision, are middle class. So guess who got hurt by the rich not spending money??

First.. you are right... that the rich don't want to spend more money today. And thats because what the poor and middle class has felt the past eight years has caught up to them. The rich seem to forget that the working class is what moves the economy, not them. If they thought the rich moves economy, we would not be in the predicament we are now.
Lastly that's how trickle down does NOT work. In theory it sounds like a good plan. But because the way how the system is set up, the top doesn't trickle down nothing, hence no bump at all in the economy in the last months nor in the 80's. It is so bad today, that Capitol Hill is questioning where has the money went?

Quote:

People, seriously, really look at what the new administration is proposing, and write your congressmen and women and tell them not to pass it. Even a lot of Dems are starting to question it, because they think it's going too far. The only thing that the government can do to really get this country moving again is to cut taxes, and not in the fashion that Obama is proposing. He's basicly talking about subsidizing failing business, and giving money "back" to people who don't even pay taxes, and raising the number of people who don't pay. The reason? To get more people dependant on the government, so that they can dole out more "guidelines" for everyone.

LOL Because of that last sentence thats how rumors get started by other people's opinions.
I am not agreeing on giving money in a form of a stimulus... that money could be used to open up gov't jobs, which is what people needs as the private sector is laying off. Cut taxes is another thing we should not do, because of our national debt rising.
As for Obama's subsiding failing business as form of a bad thing, hey thats what Bush did last year and the in 80's how come you are complaining now? What you don't like Trickle-down economics no more? lol



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Knoxfire wrote:From what I've been hearing from economists, this isn't going to be like the great depression, more like economical armageddon. Literally we've managed to accumulate so much debt and export so much of our money making ventures overseas that there may be no stopping the spiral this time. It'll just keep getting worse and worse until it becomes a black hole and nothing can escape it.

Agreed.

Quote:

What galls me the most is that this keeps happening every ten years, and every time it's worse. The Dot.com bubble of 1999, the Wall Street Crash of 1989, the Malaise of 1979, and so on. Is anyone really believing politicians when they say they didn't know anymore? And now Obama's talking about cutting taxes? Has he lost his mind?

Agreed. But the .Com was no where near as bad as the 80's Wallstreet crash. Wallstreet crash was national nee-world problem where as the .Com crash was a mostly a California/west coast problem.

Quote:

Just to show you how desperate things are. Here's the brilliant solution the politicians have come up with to battle the current woes: print more money. Technically that will help in the very short run, and will devaluate the American dollar so that Europe might want to invest in the US. (Remember when the Canadian dollar was worth more? Those days are coming back) But that's a long shot of a bet, and who's to say that Europe will have any money to throw around when the time comes?

Who in their right minds would be stupid enough to even consider this as an option?

Quote:

Russia's already throwing around a little muscle and China's starting to balk at buying more of our debt. We're in real, serious trouble. And don't believe the BS that the press is spouting. These are the same nimrods that still think Britney's comeback album is bigger news than the fact that credit, as we know it, may end in America.

Yep, and the stronghold is now going farther west. First Europe, then US, next China as a superpower? We can thank Reagan for that one.

Quote:

Bombings and killings and massacres don't start major wars, mass poverty does. The Great Depression without question was one of the factors leading up to WW2 and the Long Depression more less contributed to WW1. That's something to think about. Economical conditions are similar now. I've said that Capitalism prevented more wars than any other ideology since the dawn of man, and I truly believe that. Capitalism shifted the idea of power from military conquest to economic aquisition. However, what happens once you run out of money and all you have left to wield is a big gun?

You are correct on that on poverty leads to wars, back then the philosophy was there because we made things in this country, so by us making materials it move manfacturers to build. WW2 happened because US globalization was threatened in Europe, and we were facing a problem of exporting our goods to our #1 market. Long story short, US buisness pushed for a stop with war and in the process the US benefited two-fold.
Now Capitalism actually starts more wars then prevented. Because of said above. A company naturally wants to expand their market, and thats when war is usually called in.

Quote:

But I pity anyone working in the retail business.

The sad thing is, thats where the majority of the country is at... retail. Remember technology and manufacturing is a thing of the past.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

so if technology and manufacturing is a thing of the past, then what's the thing going on now?
Let me guess: A. American Idol B. Reality shows C. Sports
I need to teach my little boy how to play ball and I need to teach my daughter how to sing.
If they can't do both, I guess they're goinna have to finish school. J/K

I also think Fuel cars is a thing from the past. The media and so many people are so in to fame and sports ahg makes no sense

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:^He doesn't understand that...
His philosophy that the rich are taxed a little percentage more therefore in theory they pay more taxes. But the most that gov't will taxe is 35% if you make $350K to infinity. Where as average pays 15-25%. The problem here is like you said... you will be knocked down hard... while a person making over a million will hardly make a dent on his status. The tax percentage to income ratio is favorable for the wealthy.
Do you see the disparity?

LMAO. Here we go again. I'm done trying to get anything through to you, because you either don't understand the concepts you talk about, or you are truly a socialist who is trying to spread bullsh!t. My responses are meant for everyone else, who may not understand the two points of view. While you continue to make yourself feel better by saying I don't get it, you are so far from the truth it's funny. I get exactly what you keep saying in your pointless posts, but it's primarily based in twisted truth, not pure fact.

The tax ratio is absolutely not favorable for the wealthy. If it were, you would pay a lower percentage the more you make. Your view, coinciding with the liberal leadership view, is entirely punitive and based in class envy. If someone makes a million dollars a year, and they pay $350K in takes, you call it unfair, when the person making $50K only paid $12K, or one 30th of what they person making a million paid. It's got nothing to do with "denting" someone's status, it's got to do with fair. It is absolutely unfair to think that someone paying that much isn't paying enough. And to your point about being knocked down hard, that's exactly what will happen to more and more people under the tax plans that the liberals in power want to impose. Basicly, it goes back to the redistribution of wealth. The more you earn, the more others benefit, not you. It takes the motivation away from people who might otherwise improve their lives, because as they try to make more money, more is taken away from them.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:LOL Because of that last sentence thats how rumors get started by other people's opinions.
I am not agreeing on giving money in a form of a stimulus... that money could be used to open up gov't jobs, which is what people needs as the private sector is laying off. Cut taxes is another thing we should not do, because of our national debt rising.
As for Obama's subsiding failing business as form of a bad thing, hey thats what Bush did last year and the in 80's how come you are complaining now? What you don't like Trickle-down economics no more? lol

The notion that we can't cut taxes because our national debt is to high is based on the assumption that the economic activity is a hard, finite number. This is what no one gets, or gets, but doesn't want others to realize. When you lower taxes, you stimulate an increase in economic activity, which increases revenue. To really dumb it down, it's the same premise as stores having a sale. They decrease the price of items and advertise, to get more people in buying the products, so while they make less on each item, they sell far more, so overall make more money. This concept has been proven to work with taxes.

As for what GWB has done, he has swung so far left over the past couple of years in respect to the economy that I'm surprized he doesn't call himself a Democrat. I was p!ssed that after congress shot down the auto bailout that he took the TARP money and gave it to the auto makers, in spite of the fact that the TARP money was absolutely not supposed to go to any other industry. I'm really surprized that no one is screaming bloody murder over that. His final press conference made me want to puke. He sucked up to everyone, including the press who has been ripping him apart and mis-quoting him for the past 8 years, as if they were buddies. And subsidizing failing business is not trickle down. It's a big fail. It's a slap in the face to those business men and women who have worked hard and succeeded.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:First.. you are right... that the rich don't want to spend more money today. And thats because what the poor and middle class has felt the past eight years has caught up to them. The rich seem to forget that the working class is what moves the economy, not them. If they thought the rich moves economy, we would not be in the predicament we are now.
Lastly that's how trickle down does NOT work. In theory it sounds like a good plan. But because the way how the system is set up, the top doesn't trickle down nothing, hence no bump at all in the economy in the last months nor in the 80's. It is so bad today, that Capitol Hill is questioning where has the money went?

Your argument is that the rich don't to spend money because they forgot that the lower classes move the economy? This is perhaps one of the most rediculous statements you've made in all of your ramblings. The rich have cut back their spending because they are looking at the economy, and are completely unsure of how badly the government is going to f*#k it up now. Trickle down has worked. The facts are there. In spite of the fact that the liberals have tried repeatedly to rewrite history, you can't hide the truth that when the taxes were brought from 70% to 35% in the 80's, the country boomed. Unemployment dropped from the highest it had been in years, to the lowest it had been in years. I've pulled out the supporting facts from the goverment statistics before to prove it. Dyed-in-the-wool liberals can't stand that fact, and continue to try and rewrite history and spew lies about the concervative ways working.

And I still can't believe how f*#king blind everyone is about Obama. He was one of the people who was present and supposedly fighting for the bailout money to have plenty of strings attached, and is now trying to blame Bush for not managing it and holding the companies accountable?!? The wording was never in the legislature that the congress passed!!! Obama and his liberal friends said the whole time they were talking about the TARP plan that they were going to make sure that the banks could not use the money for bonuses and golden parachutes, and that they were going to require them to use the money to make more loans, but THEY NEVER DID! Now, they want to turn around and pass the buck, blaming the current administration.

Here's another thing. For anyone who doesn't believe how full of sh!t the liberals are, has anyone noticed that for the past 8 years, every time the Republicans have tried to cut taxes, the Democrats all start screaming "where are we going to get the money? We can't afford it! The Republicans are exploding the national deficit!", etc. etc., but now, Obama hasn't even taken the oath yet, and he's talking about increasing the deficit significantly, with spending, and everyone is saying that it's the right thing.

Jazer, I completely understood that you weren't necessarily supporting either argument, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think my statement in response was any kind of a personal attack. And to your point about having a degree and not making the living that you believe you should, I feel that's purely due to the astronomical costs of schooling these days outweighing, in the majority of cases, the benefit of the career path. This is a discussion for another thread, though. The educational system is a defunct disaster at this point, and many things about it need to be turned upside down. We're falling drasticly behind because there was too much complacency, and too many bad apples among the school administrations and even among the teachers.

However, back on point, as you get your career going, and start making more money, do you think the tax code should start taking significantly more of it, so that you end up taking home not much more than you do now? That is the slippery slope redistribution of wealth can lead us to.

And when the hell is everyone going to wake up and realize that the economy crashed because of government intervention? The housing bubble bursting is what lead to the banking failure, because of all of the bad mortgages out there written under the Community Reinvestment Act. That was the goverment telling banks that they had to lower their standards. It was the government pushing the notion that it was every American's right to own a home, and not a priviledge. So the banks wrote tons of high-risk loans, and Fanny and Freddie came up with all kinds of new types of loans for first-time home buyers. Together, these added up to a huge housing boom, where prices inflated exponentially, and millinos in investments were made on Wall Street based on the assumption that it would continue. When all of these unconventional mortgages started moving into their variable rates, and monthly mortgages started skyrocketing, millions began defaulting, which led to a quickly increasing sell-off from both banks who had forclosed property to sell, and homeowners trying to get out from under their house, which in turn lead to the prices falling. This had the added effect of many people who had not yet defaulted owing more money than their house was worth. So they started walking away from them. Now the banks are getting killed, and so are the investors who were buying in. Anyone who doesn't think this is what killed our economy doesn't know the facts. It's all out there. Now, the very people responsible for it are acting like they are riding in to save the day, and they are the only ones who can. How can the people who made the mess possibly clean it up by merely throwing more money at it? They need to leave it the f*#k alone! It's infuriating to hear so many people believe the bullsh!t propaganda and rhetoric that spews from the mouth of the liberals on a daily basis.

They are talking about getting the country into more debt to fix the problem we're in, which is debt. A moron should be able to see that you can't fix debt by getting deeper into it, but somehow the government gets everyone to believe that it's the only way we'll survive.

How can I take you serious when you don't understand simple math, think there was a economic boom in the 80s and doesn't know the definition of "liberal" is.
Did you not go school to learn history and politics because it was to "socialist" to your likings? Or is it tuning your radio to Rush Limbaugh so much easier then picking up a book?

Either way, I'm not going to deter from the topic to argue with someone that get his info from a prescription drugie on the radio .


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

I almost forgot that there might be one positive thing they're trying to do:
When they socialize the health care industry, you'll be able to afford to have your head removed from your @ss, so there's an upside to everything.

I'm disappointed that you chose not to use the new signature I made for you a couple of months ago, although the caveman does suit you. LOL.

And so that you know, I do listen to Rush, although not religiously, and that is not where I get my information. Every single fact that I posted in any of our arguments on other threads was one that I dug up and found myself, and not once have I quoted him or any other conservative that you'd like to bash. I am a person who is completely capeable of investigating, thinking, and arguing my own points. As a contrast, you regurgitate every piece of rhetoric that comes from the liberals and tout it as a fact. I'm still waiting for you to show me the statistics that back up the claim that Clinton had budget surpluses, aside from the report from his own administration claiming they had them. The facts don't lie. Go to the website of the Treasury Department, and you will see that every year he was in office the national debt grew. That equals budget deficits, not surpluses. The surplus bullsh!t was an unsubstantiated claim that his administration made, and the liberals repeat to this day.

And again, show me the statistics that Reagan's tax reforms didn't work. The unemployment statistics don't lie. While he had a high point in his first year, which is because it was climbing from the Carter mess when he took office, it dropped consistently from there until reaching a low we hadn't seen for years.

Not wanting government to step in to regulate the situation is like telling a life guard not to save the person who is drowning because the person needs to learn how to swim even if he dies mmmok. so don't save the person. yeah is not my life that is on the line, is not my job that is on the line.

I personally do not believe the government forced banks to make bad loans. I believe there is more to the story because I'm sure banks know that 2+2 does not equal to 14. it doesn't make sense.
btw,
I can't stand Rush limbaugh because when a caller puts him on the spot, POOPS!! he then talks over the caller's voice and cuts him off and moves on to commercials or the next caller. If the caller agrees with Limbaugh, then the caller has more time to get his nose more and more dirty. I find that really annoying so when that happens I tune my radio to something else and tell limbaugh to shut the hell up!
anyway,
I'm not trying to pick a side between democrats and conservatives but I'm sure that's what it seems like, bottom line is sometimes the government has to step-in to regulate the situation when it gets out of control. if not, things will get more out of control because people love money and many people in general believe there is no such thing as too much money or too much power and people become monsters and think they can rule the world and get away with everything just because they have money. Money is power so how much power do they want? A LOT!!!

I also believe the war in iraq has a lot to do with the economic crisis and is part of the fear from the consumers.
How can the iraqi people take control of their own country? I don't know the answer. Let them fight on their own and cause a civil war but that doesn't sound right either.
so many people were against the war from the start, even people from other countries around the world. Pulling out would be a big "Told you they didn't have weapons of mass-destruction!" but we are at a point where we can't just pull out. Think, Think, think, think, think...

Quiklilcav wrote: The facts don't lie. Go to the website of the Treasury Department, and you will see that every year he was in office the national debt grew. That equals budget deficits, not surpluses.

I heard that on Neal Boortz (you should hear the truth, and the truth should make you mad!!!)

A caller asked Neal Boortz where did he get his information from and Neal Boortz told him that he didn't have all the information with him or something like that and that he should to go to the webiste of the treasure department and he will see that blablablablabla and I'm not picking on you man, is just that you sound just like him and sometimes I can't stand both. I used to like to listen to them but then I asked myself does everything has to be so damn negative? if you dn't agree with the fear they're trying to dumb in your head you're wasting your time calling. if you call and you don't agree, you have to tell them why you don't agree real quick, give them something specific, you've got 10sec, times up, sorry good bye and they make you look like an idiot. Today they said Obama is going to take all the money from 401K accounts? is that really going to happen? come on, give me a break.

LOL. I don't listen to Boortz, but if I sound like him, then I might enjoy listening to him.

I'm not a negative person, but when I see stuff like what is happening to our country, you're damned right I'm going to stand up and point out what is wrong with it.

As far as not wanting the government to step in and regulate, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about them pretty much taking over, handing out money they don't have, and making more and more people dependant on them. To fit it into your analogy, it would be like asking the lifeguard to stay in the pool and hold you up the whole time you were swimming. And in this case, it would be like the lifeguard giving you ankleweights before you went in, and then calling out for him to come save you.

Again, the facts are out there about the loans. Look into it yourself. The Community Reinvestment Act required banks to have pretty much quotas on loans to people who were a high risk. It was shrouded in anti-discrimination wording, but it is exactly what caused the housing bubble. More and more people were able to get mortgages, and the higher risk, the sh!ttier the mortgage, so they were set up to fail. All these "non-conventional" mortgages, such as the 2 and 3 year fixed with variable rates thereafter, the "interest only" loans, etc. were all doomed from the start, but what they did was to exponentially increase the demand for houses, driving up the prices. Also, they were allowing people to borrow up to 95% of the houses value. When the mortgage industry all started to crash, that inflated demand crashed, causing houses to lose value like crazy. Due to the high value to mortgage ratio, a huge number of people ended up defaulting on loans far higher than their house was now worth, causing banks to lose money like crazy. Seriously, do some research for yourself. It's all out there.

Quiklilcav wrote:I almost forgot that there might be one positive thing they're trying to do:
When they socialize the health care industry, you'll be able to afford to have your head removed from your @ss, so there's an upside to everything.

I'm disappointed that you chose not to use the new signature I made for you a couple of months ago, although the caveman does suit you. LOL.

Superbly played. God you're awesome. Did you swing your mullet from side to side and had you hands on hips when you thought of that one?

Quiklilcav wrote:[I'm still waiting for you to show me the statistics that back up the claim that Clinton had budget surpluses, aside from the report from his own administration claiming they had them. The facts don't lie. Go to the website of the Treasury Department, and you will see that every year he was in office the national debt grew. That equals budget deficits, not surpluses. The surplus bullsh!t was an unsubstantiated claim that his administration made, and the liberals repeat to this day.

Last time I showed you 5+ links, you shrugged it off, because it did not conform to your likings nor platform. Now if I show you graphs, are you going to give me the run around and excuse?
Also do you grasp the concept and definition of "surplus?" Because by me not only showing you the links and now graphs, you'll have to understand "surplus" and where the little tiny line goes. It is easy, when the little tiny line goes down that is a surplus and debt is not accumulating.

Here is a few so you can make excuses.

Quote:

And again, show me the statistics that Reagan's tax reforms didn't work. The unemployment statistics don't lie. While he had a high point in his first year, which is because it was climbing from the Carter mess when he took office, it dropped consistently from there until reaching a low we hadn't seen for years.

I'll just repost what I said before in the past post.
Hey fool, your 9.7% in 1983 is the (average) for a year and not recorded for specific time period. During his tenure his unemployment rate hit as high to a very close to 11%. And that lame Bullsh-it that it was because of Carter is just pathetic, it was well into his time frame and even when Reagan immediately went into office and unveiled his "Program for Economic Recovery" in Feb/1981 where he called for a 30% tax cut over three years and an increase in defense expenditures. Also his (yearly average) unemployment rate was highest ever recorded during tenure in the 1980's, but if you want to shrug it off or downplay his (yearly average) of 9.7% unemployment, to put it in perspective, with all the crap we have going on TODAY we are just ONLY at 4.7%. This BTW is citing your very own USDOL, and I can not find (as I'm at work) the month average where it almost hit 11%.

You are right, unemployment statistics don't lie and here there are year by year.
http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea1.pdf

By Fall 1982 The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On November 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.
By February 5, 1986 Reagan submits his 1987 budget -- deficit of $143.6b. Cumulative deficits reach one trillion dollars.
By January 5, 1987 Reagan submits first-ever $1 trillion budget for fiscal raising owner national debt higher
Depending on who you ask, the 80's was a economic boom, the CEO of GM will say YES! With lower tax rate. The line worker who puts the dash on that Citation will say NO! As his job is done by Juan in Mexico and dealt with a higher tax rate.

Quiklilcav wrote:
And so that you know, I do listen to Rush

By you admitting this, which is no surprise btw, you're are officially as legit as a Sunday Comic section. Congratulation sunhine.

I digress.





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

I don't disagree with your figures Good, but there is one thing you don't take into account. Clinton's surplus was entirely due to the fact that he balanced the budged (IE: Stopped spending more than the US was making) and that the billions people paid in Medicare was creating a surplus because none of it needed to be paid out. Since, at the time, the Boomers were still a decade from retirement. Now, it's a different story. Instead of creating a surplus, medicare will be a huge drain on ressources.

So those days are gone my friends.

I just heard on the news that the unemployment rate is at a 16 year high, same rate when the other Bush was getting out of the office (the White House)

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Last time I showed you 5+ links, you shrugged it off, because it did not conform to your likings nor platform. Now if I show you graphs, are you going to give me the run around and excuse?

Last time you posted a letter from the Clinton administration talking about how well they did with the budget. And the graphs are very pretty, but the bottom line is that every year Clinton was in office, the national debt increased. As Knoxfire touched on, they were counting their surplus by including the Medicare intake/expenditure, which was not included prior to this. Now, if you can show me a single piece of legitimate information from the treasury department, that shows tax revenue vs. money spent (excluding Medicare!), that shows more coming in than going out, I'll STFU. However, you can't, because it never happened.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Also do you grasp the concept and definition of "surplus?" Because by me not only showing you the links and now graphs, you'll have to understand "surplus" and where the little tiny line goes. It is easy, when the little tiny line goes down that is a surplus and debt is not accumulating.]

Quote:

And again, show me the statistics that Reagan's tax reforms didn't work. The unemployment statistics don't lie. While he had a high point in his first year, which is because it was climbing from the Carter mess when he took office, it dropped consistently from there until reaching a low we hadn't seen for years.

I'll just repost what I said before in the past post.
Hey fool, your 9.7% in 1983 is the (average) for a year and not recorded for specific time period. During his tenure his unemployment rate hit as high to a very close to 11%. And that lame Bullsh-it that it was because of Carter is just pathetic, it was well into his time frame and even when Reagan immediately went into office and unveiled his "Program for Economic Recovery" in Feb/1981 where he called for a 30% tax cut over three years and an increase in defense expenditures. Also his (yearly average) unemployment rate was highest ever recorded during tenure in the 1980's, but if you want to shrug it off or downplay his (yearly average) of 9.7% unemployment, to put it in perspective, with all the crap we have going on TODAY we are just ONLY at 4.7%. This BTW is citing your very own USDOL, and I can not find (as I'm at work) the month average where it almost hit 11%.

You are right, unemployment statistics don't lie and here there are year by year.
http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea1.pdf

By Fall 1982 The nation sinks into its worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan fears budget deficits as high as $200 billion. On November 1, more than 9 million Americans are officially unemployed.
By February 5, 1986 Reagan submits his 1987 budget -- deficit of $143.6b. Cumulative deficits reach one trillion dollars.
By January 5, 1987 Reagan submits first-ever $1 trillion budget for fiscal raising owner national debt higher
Depending on who you ask, the 80's was a economic boom, the CEO of GM will say YES! With lower tax rate. The line worker who puts the dash on that Citation will say NO! As his job is done by Juan in Mexico and dealt with a higher tax rate.

LMAO. Again, I will say this, because it's fact, and you can't argue it: During the Carter administration, the unemployment rate began climbing. When Reagan took office, and unveiled his plan, it wasn't just a switch that once turned on would immediately stop the climb. All policies take time to become effective, particularly ones that affect something like unemployment. Just because taxes are lowered, doesn't immediately mean companies run out and start hiring. Less than 18 months after he took office, it finally peaked and began to decline, which it did significantly year after year, including the first Bush 41 year. Unemployment dropping that significantly says far more about our economy than the national debt.

Now, don't confuse that statement, or twist my words, as you so love to do. I did not say increasing the national debt is good, but the debt goes up every single year, like it or not. Unemployment is the best indicator as to the state of the economy.

Now stop trying to foolishly claim that a peak in unemployment at the beginning of 8 years in office means his plans did not work. That's ignorance that you've heard a million times from the MSM and the Clinton Democrats, and clearly just believe it all without fail.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:
And so that you know, I do listen to Rush

By you admitting this, which is no surprise btw, you're are officially as legit as a Sunday Comic section. Congratulation sunhine.

I digress.

You digress every time you post. LOL.

I'm glad that you admitted with this statement that you take people seriously or not based on their choice of radio shows. Would you make the same judgement based on my musical tastes too?

You fail.