The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55

Thread: The Fiscal Cliff - Part 2

  1. #31
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Wow, two years older than mine, but 12 yrs newer than my bronco. What's your wife drive?
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    new london, wi
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    Wow, two years older than mine, but 12 yrs newer than my bronco. What's your wife drive?
    96 crown victoria

  3. #33
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murral stark View Post
    Section 8 housing is not owned by the govt. It is owned by private landlords that get subsidies from the govt for low income people. You should hate your neighbors for owning property and accepting Section 8 money, not the people living in the housing.
    NO I hate the government because they decided that moving the slime of society into the general population was better than keeping them confined to their cages. They stopped keeping the animals confined and unleashed them on hard working taxpayers, My neighbors??? Well the condo market went to crap and investors from the mid east bought the units around me. AGAIN let me stress had the gov't kept the animals contained rather than sending them into taxpayer zones, via section 8 (SCREW THE TAXPAYER) my condo would have been salable, but not once the govt screwed me with my tax money.
    I don;t care what you think of this but there is no way in hell that I should work my but off to own a home and then my taxes (STOLEN MONEY) are used to have drug dealing welfare slime move in across and below me. When they can't even follow basic parking rules and block my car in because they are to dmn stoned and now I can;t go to work to pay for them well screw them and screw them some more.


    I could go on and on. I tried everything. Called police, social services (kids) etc. ONe of whore finally got arrested 6 years after I left but I called all the time and sent poilce pics of the liscence plates of the deliverers. the couldn;t or wouldn;t do anything,
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  4. #34
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    Wow, two years older than mine, but 12 yrs newer than my bronco. What's your wife drive?
    MY labmobile was 92 Explorer until 017.jpg
    Still searching for a replacement.
    LOst those really sturdy miwest side by sides too.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    new london, wi
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    NO I hate the government because they decided that moving the slime of society into the general population was better than keeping them confined to their cages. They stopped keeping the animals confined and unleashed them on hard working taxpayers, My neighbors??? Well the condo market went to crap and investors from the mid east bought the units around me. AGAIN let me stress had the gov't kept the animals contained rather than sending them into taxpayer zones, via section 8 (SCREW THE TAXPAYER) my condo would have been salable, but not once the govt screwed me with my tax money.
    I don;t care what you think of this but there is no way in hell that I should work my but off to own a home and then my taxes (STOLEN MONEY) are used to have drug dealing welfare slime move in across and below me. When they can't even follow basic parking rules and block my car in because they are to dmn stoned and now I can;t go to work to pay for them well screw them and screw them some more.


    I could go on and on. I tried everything. Called police, social services (kids) etc. ONe of whore finally got arrested 6 years after I left but I called all the time and sent poilce pics of the liscence plates of the deliverers. the couldn;t or wouldn;t do anything,
    so where are these cages you speak of keeping the animals in? that sounds like slavery to me.

  6. #36
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murral stark View Post
    so where are these cages you speak of keeping the animals in? that sounds like slavery to me.
    NO not at all. Everyone has a choice. If you want to steal from the taxpayers then the cages are the provided housing. NObody has to take that option. They can fend for themselves!!!!
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murral stark View Post
    I make a modest income. The difference is that I still just wear blue jeans,boots, baseball cap. I talk to people the way I want to be talked to, until they give me reason to talk to them differently. People that don't know me and looked at me would never get the impression that I am "rich". Why you might ask, because I don't act snooty I just blend in.
    I have never thought of my in income as modest of lucrative. Some may consider it modest and others as lucrative. I am sitting here wearing a $12 pair of jeans frayed at the pocket and a fairly new $9 walmart shirt. The boots came from Bass pro and did cost $120. My feet are very narrow and I do have trouble finding anything narrow enough. These are satisfactory for cleaning kennels, washing dog bowls, feeding pups and doing "T" with a young dog. Oh yes, I do have to make a bank deposit also. I usually get my hair cut at the barber college for $4 and a tip of $1(got to find a barber here or some will call me a hippie)
    I try to talk to everybody the way I would like to be talked to, but I must admit that at times I let other people influence what I say. That is a failure of mine. I have never tried to blend in. My parents taught me that whether with one of extreme wealth or of meager possessions, to treat them as a respected person.

  8. #38
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,612

    Default

    Wow, a crown vic! You ARE rich! Well, at least the four of us are driving American made, my wife is in a '96 windstar. I like my F150 and love the old bronco, but pretty well hate the windstar (engine in sideways, no frame, real pain to do even routine maintenance).
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    new london, wi
    Posts
    622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HPL View Post
    Wow, a crown vic! You ARE rich! Well, at least the four of us are driving American made, my wife is in a '96 windstar. I like my F150 and love the old bronco, but pretty well hate the windstar (engine in sideways, no frame, real pain to do even routine maintenance).
    I guess if we would've bought the crown vic in 96, we would be rich. Since we bought it used in '04, not so much.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Golddogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    Obviously no one wanted to answer the questions asked in the OP of Part 1 so will try a new tack. This is for those who are obviously smitten with class envy .




    Which means that the middle 40% paid 27.04% of all the federal income taxes, which I would venture to guess would include most who post here.

    If my AGI was only $369,691 & I was being demonized by the POTUS as rich I would be quite upset.

    There is not enough money among the wealthy to cure congresses spending habit & pay off the debt. Those among the very wealthy that say they should pay more can without asking others to, their support means they expect to get a break unavailable to the other wealthy . What sucks is that many of you are falling for that line.

    So I'll try to present it in a manner you understand. The attack on the wealthy is an attempt to gain the viriginity of the taxpayer, nothing less. After the deflowering everything will be much easier. & you can see from the stats that you will be on the list.

    Should the R's cave I will be very disappointed, fortunately Boehner has as his two sidekicks in the negotiations, Ryan & Kantor. Hopefully they will be successful in cutting tax breaks of which the ability of the hedge funders to take ordinary income & have it taxed at CG rates would be one + the second home deduction of interest should be eliminated. There are others, including in the farm bill. Because of capital demands there will be 70,000 less farmers at the end of this decade, should we continue to subsidize those very wealthy farmers?

    Interesting commentary.

    Real World Economics

    Current fiscal crisis isn’t real deal


    Decades from now, when historians look back at the “fiscal cliff” crisis of 2012, they are likely to find it the greatest ado about nothing since the turmoil in Andrew Jackson’s administration because Mrs. John C. Calhoun snubbed the wife of his war secretary. Remember that?

    The underlying issues are important, to be sure. But the substantive differences between the two sides are not all that great, even while the level of rhetoric and political posturing is extreme.

    Once again, the good sense of 80 percent of the citizenry clustered around the political center is being overwhelmed by elected officials cowed by the 10 percent on their respective wings.

    Start with the basic issue of marginal personal income tax rates. Moving the top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent is not likely to have discernible effects on growth or employment. The rate has been that high or higher for 64 of the past 80 years. It was 90 percent from 1951 through 1963 and remained at 70 percent or more for the rest of the 1960s. This was the period of greatest growth of median incomes and productivity in this eight-decade span.

    They remained above 50 percent for most of the Reagan era before dropping to 28 percent in 1988. Predictably, annual deficits grew sharply until presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had the guts to ask for legislation to recoup about half of the cuts. Despite wild rhetoric about how this was going to sink the economy, the rest of the 1990s saw good growth.

    While we still had a “structural deficit” (i.e. one over the long run if the economy were not booming), we did manage four years of slight budget surpluses, the first since LBJ’s belated tax boost had last balanced the budget in fiscal year 1969.

    We threw that away with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which needed a statutory end date of 2010 to hide the fact that they would make the deficit explode over the longer run. These were supposed to spur economic activity. Instead, we had the slowest economic growth of any decade since the Great Depression, even if taken only through the good times that ended in 2007.

    Now you might say that there were many other factors that drove 1990s growth, including a one-time technology boom and the Alan Greenspan-led Federal Reserve beginning to goose the monetary throttle as the decade ended. Oil prices also were low relative to longer-run trends.

    Similarly, after 2001, the economy had severe exogenous shocks from the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent slump in air travel. We had high oil prices from ongoing turmoil in the Persian Gulf. And we have had five years of financial-sector crises. Admittedly, higher tax rates did not cause the good growth of the 1990s and lower ones were not responsible for the bust in this century. Other factors were more important.

    But that is precisely the point. No economist would argue that tax rates and the structure of taxes have no effect on economic growth. But it similarly is hard to find a reputable one who argues that any of the sundry income tax rate changes since 1981 made much difference on overall growth. Other factors were more important, for good and for ill, for the past

    three decades and will be for the next three.

    For an excellent exposition of this and other tax issues, see “Taxes in America: What Everyone Needs to Know,” by Leonard Burman and Joel Slemrod. Slemrod, regarded by many as the nation’s premier tax economist, served as a staff member on Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors and is now at the University of Michigan.

    Burman worked on taxes at the Treasury in the 1980s, and was the tax expert at the Congressional Budget Office in the 1990s before serving as the deputy assistant secretary of the treasury for tax analysis for two years. Bruce Bartlett’s new “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform, why we need it and what it will take,” also is excellent.

    If the president now demanded the top rate be pushed back up to 91 percent, or even the 50 percent that prevailed for most of the Reagan years, arguing about effects on growth would have more relevance. But he has not. And the business and household confidence needed for long- term economic growth depends much more on solving our budget quandary than on the exact level of the top rate.

    Equally silly is the president’s insistence that any increase be limited to couples earning more than $250,000 per year. Worse, during the campaign he was wont to assert that the “middle class” really needed tax cuts. This was irresponsible demagogy.

    Yes, since tax rates were last changed, nearly all the growth in real income has gone to the high- income group. But the average fraction of income paid as federal individual income taxes at all household income levels is lower now than at nearly any time since 1970.

    For a median-income household of four, the fraction is half as large as it was in 1981. Yes, many people feel stretched right now. Yes, many people have seen stagnant incomes. But the fact remains that the burden of the federal individual income tax is lower than in the past.

    All this would be less inane if the overall federal tax burden were high. But the fact is that as a percentage of gross domestic product, total federal tax revenues are at their lowest levels in 60 years. And as long as they stay this low we are never going to put our fiscal house in order.

    Equally unfortunate is much of the rhetoric about relatively modest changes in Social Security and Medicare.

    Yes, moving from the consumer price index currently used to a chained index means that Social Security recipients gradually will see smaller payments over time compared with the current system. Yes, further raising the “normal retirement age” for Social Security or the eligibility age for Medicare will hit poorer people harder than rich people, since the poor are less likely to have good jobs into their late 60s.

    Yes, the Medicare age increase would not save much money and savings to the program would be more than outweighed by cost increases elsewhere. And yes, there are better alternatives to achieve the same goals.

    However, the fact remains that as now structured, these programs are not sustainable. If the measures advanced so far are unacceptable, then someone has to put these better alternatives on the table. The political reasons both sides are reluctant to do so are obvious, but the common good requires that someone break the deadlock.

    Furthermore, remember that any effort to shield those older than 60 from all pain means imposing even more eventual pain on those younger than 40. The baby boomers already are giving their own children and grandchildren one of the rawest deals in U.S. history, and I don’t understand why so many of us are willing to support measures that will make it even rawer.

    St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at elotterman@pioneerpress.com.
    Never trust a dog to watch your food!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •