- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 28,233
- Reaction score
- 14,327
- Location
- Boca
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually I don;t know what you are talking about.
I get no such notifications.
Yet funny enough.. I seem to be able to respond to your diatribes.
I think its funny that you think I am trying to "avoid argument"..
Honestly.. THATS hilarious.
So it's ok for the right (or Moderate Right and a few others specifically) to say that everyone above poverty needs to pay some federal income tax, without regard to the fact that overall taxation per quintile is pretty evenly split to correlate to the percentage of income garnered by that quintile, but when the left wants to segregate federal deficit spending, that's not ok, even though the states can't deficit spend.
Well John.. taking it out of the equation does not prove me wrong.
You just admit it:
See.. but you don't understand the mechanisms of why we save. You assume that the reason that we don't "dis save" is a static state. when its not.
Ummm wrong..
In your equation.. less deficit spending would mean less income than the year before which according to you means a recession, and long enough a depression.. unless something else picked up the full amount of decrease.
sorry John.. but no wiggling around here.
All borrowing that occurred during high interest rate portion of the recession.
On the contrary, it is you that cannot understand what makes a good leader. Running under the Republican ticket isn't the be all end all.
Medicare and SS weren't supposed to be what they have become which is typical of most govt. programs. there were to be a supplement to retirement, not sole retirement ....
....and in fact most people weren't supposed to be alive to collect it when it was first created. It has turned into a Ponzi Scheme as the money put into the account was spent as part of the unified budget and people working today are paying for my retirement supplement. Medicare is similar to any govt. program red tape, inefficiencies, and have created a dependence that will never go away.
Doesn't take much intelligence to take what you contribute to SS and your employer, put that money into a simple savings account and then see what you have after your 35 years of employment and the money is yours and your families.
Yes, addicted, that is what govt. programs do and why they are a failure when considering the alternative
You appear to be rather smart, do yourself a favor and use a simple investment calculator to see what you would have had you and your employer contributed to a simple savings account over 35 years. As I have told you, my wife died of cancer four years ago. She paid into SS during her working career, died at age 62, I got $255 dollars. where did her contributions go?
Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? As usual you address the wrong issue, the issue is the role of the federal govt. and the part it should play in solving social problems which affect the state and local communities a lot more than it affects the Federal Taxpayers. All I ever see from people like you is class warfare and jealousy. I was taught to try and emulate the right, why weren't you taught that then you can do with your money whatever you want including helping actually solving social problems rather than just throwing money and lip service at them
Critter7r;1066214183]BS. It was designed so that seniors wouldn't end up in poverty. The only seniors that would end up in poverty are the ones that DIDN'T HAVE A RETIREMENT FUND TO "SUPPLEMENT".
I've always wondered why this format bothered people, or if they just liked that they could call it a Ponzi scheme and make it sound nefarious. Workers continually pay into the system, and retirees continually draw from the system. It works. Current workers fund the current retirees. What's the problem?
Which would explain why you didn't provide a dollar figure.
Saving $200/month at 1% gets you to about $100k after 35 years.
I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.
Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".
BS, it was implemented when the life expectancy was 62 but the bigger problem is the Federal Govt. using your contributions for everything other than your own retirement supplement
What do you call it when your money goes to fund someone else's retirement supplement?
Current workers were never supposed to fund past retirees, the money was for their own retirement supplement. You really have been duped by the liberal left
Use bankrate.com put in the amount of money you put into SS each paycheck and that of your employers. Use historical interest rates and see what you will have when you turn 65.
1% return on a savings account over 35 years? Wow, you really are naïve and very poorly informed. Further your contribution to SS is going to go up as your pay increases and your employer is going to match that contribution. You are so far off it is scary and that is what is wrong with the left today, false information passed off as fact
=Critter7r;1066214326]I call it a tax.
How is that possible when the first retirees received checks just a few years after the program started? You don't really think the gov't hold onto your money in some sort of personal retirement account, do you? How cute.
I DID THAT.
]
The irony is astounding.
No, he is correct. You do this all the time when pressed on a subject. It makes you a coward.
The amount of stupid in this post is truly mind boggling.
much hope that they can run the healthcare business any better.
Hillary is a known, incompetent, a habitual liar with nothing to truly show for all the positions held. More of the same, more entitlements, more spending, and more selling of access.
There are many including me who say we have failed.
Medicare and SS … money put into the account was spent as part of the unified budget
a world on fire
poor leadership and incompetence led to a prolonged recession
Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes?
Why do you care what someone else pays in taxes? That is jealousy
More money was coming in than going out and that is why LBJ put the money on budget so it could be used.
I spend too much time answering inane posts.
Yes it does. You thought that everything was fine without deficit spending, credit, or net exports because income would always pop back up to $50,000. What you fail to understand is that income doesn't just pop back up to $50,000 after net saving without one of those other demand injections. The fact that you thought it did just demonstrates that you don't understand where income comes from. .
I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.
Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".
A big HECK YES" on that one.
What saddens me is that while Conservative thinks wistfully on how things "used to be".
He forgets that the city budget was probably large enough that the parks were being cleaned by a civil employee. Who was getting paid a wage that he could raise a child and have a wife that did not work outside the home.
He forgets that how things used to be.. is that public colleges often provided free college education to poor and middle class students (like my parents.)
He forgets that manufacturing base in this country was different.
That unions were stronger.
that pay was such that it was a rarity that a woman even had to work if she was married.
then he get sore because a family with one kid.. and two parents working 50 hours a week and barely seeing each other.. with a120,000 dollars of college loans biting at their heads. With no increase in real wages compared to inflation.
He gets sore that they aren;t working hard enough.
Please.. like I care if you call me a "coward". :mrgreen:
I have absolutely no need to avoid being "pressed on a subject". If anything I spend too much time answering inane posts.
How liberal of you, knowing what I think and what is going on in my community. You couldn't be more wrong but that's ok, most liberal thinking individuals are wrong. The liberal in you judges everyone else by your own standards and personal responsibility doesn't exist as it is always someone else's fault for personal failures.
The liberal in you simply doesn't have a clue. The only solution to the local problems has to be handled by the people in your community and to say there isn't enough money then maybe you ought to quite having the federal govt. take tax dollars out of your community so there is more funding for local programs. Reagan saw record spending on charities because people had more money but you fail to recognize the drain the federal govt. has on local services because you think all that rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion is just that, rhetoric, results don't truly matter as people appeal to the hearts of good people
When will you ever hold the federal govt responsible for the demand for more and more tax dollars taking it from whom??
One of the things I love about TX is we find away to get things done, we find a way to take care of people just like Interfaith of The Woodlands and other local charities. You look at numbers and charts out of context and never question what is really going on in TX giving the people very little credit. Do you believe that people move to TX because of low wages, no insurance, high pollution? Think about the brainwashing the left is doing.
But in the meantime stop telling me who I am, what I think, and that things cannot get done locally. My community proves differently
Oh jeeeeeeeeeeees. Here we go again, with the far right accusing moderates of being liberals.
How many moderates do you know that claim they know more about someone else, where they live, and what their community is doing. I really didn't realize that believing in smaller govt. returning power to the states, believing in fiscal responsibility is being far right. What part of my post do you disagree with?
The part that claims Jaegar is a liberal. Most of the ones he is debating with are the real liberals.
I'm on a city council that is basically a volunteer position ($900/year), I'm the chair of the local Parks Commission, on the finance committee and public safety committee. I spend two Saturdays per year leading a group of about 30 other volunteers cleaning up our city's parks, I spend 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday for three weekends after Thanksgiving manning various posts in our city's winter festival, I spent a few hours per week for the past 4 months raising funds with a dedicated group of volunteers to get a playscape built for an underserved and less affluent area in the city, I spend countless hours talking with local residents about the goings-on in our community and later this very evening I will be sitting in a storefront in our downtown area in an effort to reach out to the locals and hear what they have to say about how our city council and administration is doing. All while working a 50-hour-a-week job that is a 45-minute commute each way.
Don't accuse me of giving lip service. I'm in the local ****ing trenches while you're over there keyboard warrior'ing it from your memory banks about how it "used to be".
just so you know.. I am not breaking out your conversation because god forbid.. somehow you don't get a notification.. it might make Kushinator blow a gasket. :2razz:
1. John.. That's all in your mind. I never said. "everything is fine without credit, deficit spending, net exports". Never ever ever. That's just you.. yet again trying to make up a position for me.
Yes.. john there are other ways to grow the economy besides net exports, credit and deficit spending.
Innovation from the private sector, building of infrastructure from the government, education investments from the private sector and government.
And it does not have to occur with credit. or net exports or deficit spending.
What I have contended is that we don't need the deficit spending that you claim we do. And we don't need it for the reasons that you claim we do. Unfortunately.. to get you out of your ideological stance.. I often have to dumb down the conversation into very simple things. So.. I point out that we have tons of savings available. Its not a money supply issue.. like you claim it is.
Our economy has issues that are way way way more important than money supply.
2. The reasons that we save VERY much matter. And I think that even you recognize that it matters at some level.. because I have gotten you to admit that production would be different if more income was to go to poorer people.. than to 1-2 rich people.. yet the income of the country would be the same.
Wait.. well you floundered a bit on that.. trying to claim that income in 2016 wouldn't affect production in 2016 but only in 2017. But when I pointed out that's absurd because people spend income in the same year that they earn it and that means they influence production in that year.. well you failed to respond.. so I am assuming you got it.
The problem john.. is that the reasons we are net savers matter. If you would get off your ideology of deficit spending for a minute.. you might realize that its possible that the deficit spending that we are doing is actually encouraging saving and less "dis saving". Maybe.. just maybe you can take a deep breath and think for a minute. MAYBE just maybe one of the reasons that we are good savers is because that deficit spending is NOT going to help the poor and middle class. Maybe that money is going directly to rich people with more propensity to save it.. or maybe more of that money is going to things that might superficially benefit a poor person..but then ends up right in the hands of the rich person. Or MAYBE that deficit spending is going into subsidizing workers for wealthy people.. (like walmart being subsidized by welfare,) and this is creating more inequity.
Maybe that money is going to subsidize large companies over smaller ones.. so that smaller companies don't invest because they can't compete. Like when one of the big Ag guys I compete with gets a subsidy that allows him to buy up ground that three smaller producers like myself would all have bought.
3. John.. sorry but you are going back on your examples
According to you .. If I made 100,000 in profit in 2015. And only made 80,000 in 2016. Then according to you.. I would have to contract because I would only have 80,000 to spend in 2017.
Where in 2016.. I had 100,000 (from 2015).
In other words.. "aggregate" demand in 2016 was 100,000 (because that was the available income from 2015). While aggregate demand fell to 80,000 in 2017 (because that was the available income in 2016)
Your assertion that State's can't run deficits is a bold fat lie. Only State in the US that has a balanced budget amendment to their State Constitution is Vermont
I think you may have this upside-down. Not surprising.
The situation is a bit complicated.
Sounds like good advice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?