• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Greenspan Urges Caution on Social Security

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Justathought said:
I understand what you are saying but you have two issues....take home pay or gross earnings. You also state well the issue of small businesses and the problems they face. The larger issue of Exxon is just as important as the issues you are concerned with as a prior small business owner.

1. The issue of take home pay versus gross earnings is really not the same. Your take home pay is after individual taxes are taken out and your gross earnings are before these deductions happen. If your take home pay ends up to be $90,000 after deductions, your establishment must have made a huge profit. As a small business owner I would not be weeping or concerned of having to lay off an employee because your individual taxes gave you less money for your personal use.

2. If you are dependent on your salary to keep your business alive something is wrong. A small business should have a profit after your salary and employee deductions. You do not pay your employees or their insurance or other benefits from your salary (at least the small business owners I know do not) but this is deducted from your profit scale as is other costs. A small business owner is quite aware of this before hiring other employees let alone attempting to start a small business....if you want a large take home pay for yourself don't hire...if you can settle with a smaller take home pay then hire. If your small business will not make a profit and thus all costs come out of your salary, maybe a small business establishment is not the way to go.

3. As to Exxon, this is directly related to the Bush mumble jumble plan and should be looked at in all its potential failures. Thousands of Exxon employees lost everything through the 401k plan that placed their funds in the stock market....then Exxon stock crashed as a result of scamming and bilking the company of millions. Where is this type of scenario placed in the Bush plan as a probability or a possibility.


First, before I answer your quoted text let me say KUDOS to PACRIDGE. I couldn't agree more about those "rich folks" the likes of Bush and Cheney. Don't forget the Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards and also remember that the richest politicians that are contained inside the beltway are Democrats and not Republicans. Of course, class warfare within politics is counterproductive for all concerned because it doesn't address JOB CREATION which still goes unanswered here by those who love taxes on the rich or redistribution which both are job killers. Guess I'm just whistling down an empty hallway. Done that before but, I like to mention both Democrats and Republicans because they all share blame, not just the party you don't like.

And let me put this out there: The President proposes and the Congress passes or fails. Kind of means that the President needs to work with Congress as he has proposed. They should also work with him. That equals doing the work of the people. Elections are something else.

And JUSTATHOUGHT, let me put it this way.

1. "The issue of take home pay versus gross earnings is really not the same", your quote - Your gross earnings if you are a small business owner is all the business brings in. Then you deduct your expenses. What is left over is your salary and, even if you cut yourself a paycheck that is less than your business net, you still pay taxes on the remainder each and every year. You may not worry, as a small business owner if you lose personal income but when you look at your expenses and realize that you are also a target for law suit or other unforseen expense you have to be concerned. You are not looking at withholding but rather at quarterly taxes and then more by the next April 15th.

2. "If you are dependent on your salary to keep your business alive something is wrong", your quote - AND, if this is what you know of money earned in a small business, you know little. I hope you aren't getting help with your posts from those small business owners you seem to know because they don't seem to know gross - expense = net from which comes your salary or is just taken as your profit as profit = earnings. Anything you pay, whether it is required (Worker's Comp Ins.) or voluntary (Health Ins contribution) comes out of the gross and decreases the net. You say, "if you want a large take home pay for yourself don't hire". Rediculous!!! You hire based upon making as much profit as you can. You expand based upon making as much profit as you can. And, may I say with a straight face? IF YOU DON'T MAKE A PROFIT YOU HAVE NO SALARY!!! Sheesh, do you know anything about small business or even basic economics?

3. "the Bush mumble jumble plan", your quote - Could this "mumble Jumble plan" be the plan that President Bush wants to formulate along with the help of the Democrats and Republicans that currently hold office? May I ask? Do you think the only way to help the Social Security crisis/problem is to take more money out of the pockets of rich or medium income Americans? Are you saying that if you take millions of dollars out of the pockets of citizens of towns, cities and counties that those local markets will not suffer from loss of tax base? Let's see? You don't want the private sector to have more money unless they give it to the government so the government can give it to someone else who doesn't have as much? And you believe that government (as long as it isn't President Buish) will know how to use that money better than the worker and his heirs? Gosh, you must be an imigrant from Uzbekistan. Get and read the pamphlet from the Small Business Administration while you're at it and get those friends you reference that are in small business themselves to read it too. You could save their businesses.

In closing, be sure not to take me serious, nothing personal meant here except that you don't seem to understand what you're saying but, I do that too sometimes; you know, human? :cool: ~~~
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Perhaps Bush should just cut SS benefits to those who make over $90,000. Mr. gordon here seems to make some sense, but I still don't agree with 'privatizing' SS. So, what does everyone think of the gov't cutting benefits for those making over $90,000, who really don't need the benefits anyway. Of course, that would make their SS taxes largely a collectivist effort, since the rich wouldn't see any (or most) of that money when they retire. Now, I know collectivism is largely frowned upon in America, but in this case it seems to offer a good solution to this supposed 'crisis'.
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
First, before I answer your quoted text let me say KUDOS to PACRIDGE. I couldn't agree more about those "rich folks" the likes of Bush and Cheney. Don't forget the Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards and also remember that the richest politicians that are contained inside the beltway are Democrats and not Republicans. Of course, class warfare within politics is counterproductive for all concerned because it doesn't address JOB CREATION which still goes unanswered here by those who love taxes on the rich or redistribution which both are job killers. Guess I'm just whistling down an empty hallway. Done that before but, I like to mention both Democrats and Republicans because they all share blame, not just the party you don't like.

And let me put this out there: The President proposes and the Congress passes or fails. Kind of means that the President needs to work with Congress as he has proposed. They should also work with him. That equals doing the work of the people. Elections are something else.

And JUSTATHOUGHT, let me put it this way.

1. "The issue of take home pay versus gross earnings is really not the same", your quote - Your gross earnings if you are a small business owner is all the business brings in. Then you deduct your expenses. What is left over is your salary and, even if you cut yourself a paycheck that is less than your business net, you still pay taxes on the remainder each and every year. You may not worry, as a small business owner if you lose personal income but when you look at your expenses and realize that you are also a target for law suit or other unforseen expense you have to be concerned. You are not looking at withholding but rather at quarterly taxes and then more by the next April 15th.

2. "If you are dependent on your salary to keep your business alive something is wrong", your quote - AND, if this is what you know of money earned in a small business, you know little. I hope you aren't getting help with your posts from those small business owners you seem to know because they don't seem to know gross - expense = net from which comes your salary or is just taken as your profit as profit = earnings. Anything you pay, whether it is required (Worker's Comp Ins.) or voluntary (Health Ins contribution) comes out of the gross and decreases the net. You say, "if you want a large take home pay for yourself don't hire". Rediculous!!! You hire based upon making as much profit as you can. You expand based upon making as much profit as you can. And, may I say with a straight face? IF YOU DON'T MAKE A PROFIT YOU HAVE NO SALARY!!! Sheesh, do you know anything about small business or even basic economics?

3. "the Bush mumble jumble plan", your quote - Could this "mumble Jumble plan" be the plan that President Bush wants to formulate along with the help of the Democrats and Republicans that currently hold office? May I ask? Do you think the only way to help the Social Security crisis/problem is to take more money out of the pockets of rich or medium income Americans? Are you saying that if you take millions of dollars out of the pockets of citizens of towns, cities and counties that those local markets will not suffer from loss of tax base? Let's see? You don't want the private sector to have more money unless they give it to the government so the government can give it to someone else who doesn't have as much? And you believe that government (as long as it isn't President Buish) will know how to use that money better than the worker and his heirs? Gosh, you must be an imigrant from Uzbekistan. Get and read the pamphlet from the Small Business Administration while you're at it and get those friends you reference that are in small business themselves to read it too. You could save their businesses.

In closing, be sure not to take me serious, nothing personal meant here except that you don't seem to understand what you're saying but, I do that too sometimes; you know, human? :cool: ~~~

Having been an accountant for many years before disability and working in a small business industry, I am quite aware of what I am saying and what you have just said proves my point. Your profits are not your salary, your salary is deducted from your profits based on what is left after expenses. If you have a set salary and you don't meet your profit margin...then yes you will have to dip into your salary. But your salary does not pay for your expenses unless you allow it to that is why you have expenditure and income columns in your budget. This is the way it is done in most small and large businesses but that does not mean you can choose to do it differently. Your salary is always in the expenditure column as is insurance etc. Your profit is in the income column and that is where you determine what you must cut in the expenditure column. This in no way says you cannot choose to do it differently, but I doubt you will set yourself a salary limit that is going to be listed in your income column from which expenditures will be deducted.

2. Yes I know a lot about economics. What I am suggesting or stating is there are alternatives. Yes, I invested in a small business and we did not hire until we found ourselves with enough overhead to hire. By overhead, you have to figure out all the expenses as you say (and I said) that must come from the gross to make a profit. Our profit margin did not suffer starting out with fewer people but increased with fewer expenses. As we grew and had enough overhead to hire, we did this and our profits continued to increase. I left that small business and went to a different career but that small business now has five employees. The bigger part of that success story is my partner and I were willing to set a lower salary for ourselves in order to have more gross income to pay for the newly hired in salary as well as benefits.

Now, if you had truly read my post, you would have seen me state that the way to help the problem of SS is to clamp down on the individuals who are abusing the system. I did say "mumble jumble" plan of Bush because he is not addressing the probability and possibilities of failure in his proposed plan as pointed out in my reference to the 401K debacle of Enron. These employees had their employee retirement plans based on stock market ups or downs. When the company scammed the employees by millions of dollars the stock market for this company crashed as well as the retirement plans of all its employees. There is nothing in what I call a "mumble jumble" plan to address such possibilties.

As to increasing taxes to support SS, I say no, as to the top 1% of the richest paying their fair share.....amen to that.
 
Last edited:

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Justathought said:
Having been an accountant for many years before disability and working in a small business industry, I am quite aware of what I am saying and what you have just said proves my point. Your profits are not your salary, your salary is deducted from your profits based on what is left after expenses. If you have a set salary and you don't meet your profit margin...then yes you will have to dip into your salary. But your salary does not pay for your expenses unless you allow it to that is why you have expenditure and income columns in your budget. This is the way it is done in most small and large businesses but that does not mean you can choose to do it differently. Your salary is always in the expenditure column as is insurance etc. Your profit is in the income column and that is where you determine what you must cut in the expenditure column. This in no way says you cannot choose to do it differently, but I doubt you will set yourself a salary limit that is going to be listed in your income column from which expenditures will be deducted.

2. Yes I know a lot about economics. What I am suggesting or stating is there are alternatives. Yes, I invested in a small business and we did not hire until we found ourselves with enough overhead to hire. By overhead, you have to figure out all the expenses as you say (and I said) that must come from the gross to make a profit. Our profit margin did not suffer starting out with fewer people but increased with fewer expenses. As we grew and had enough overhead to hire, we did this and our profits continued to increase. I left that small business and went to a different career but that small business now has five employees. The bigger part of that success story is my partner and I were willing to set a lower salary for ourselves in order to have more gross income to pay for the newly hired in salary as well as benefits.

Now, if you had truly read my post, you would have seen me state that the way to help the problem of SS is to clamp down on the individuals who are abusing the system. I did say "mumble jumble" plan of Bush because he is not addressing the probability and possibilities of failure in his proposed plan as pointed out in my reference to the 401K debacle of Enron. These employees had their employee retirement plans based on stock market ups or downs. When the company scammed the employees by millions of dollars the stock market for this company crashed as well as the retirement plans of all its employees. There is nothing in what I call a "mumble jumble" plan to address such possibilties.

As to increasing taxes to support SS, I say no, as to the top 1% of the richest paying their fair share.....amen to that.


I don't doubt you were a bookeeper but that sure doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. Take number 2 above: You base hiring on having enough overhead? So you would look at your overhead and when it is big enough, you would hire to increase your overhead more. Sorry, you don't get it and I don't think with your expertise that you can blame this on the Exxon/Enron mix-up. Overhead is what your expenses are. These come out of your gross. After expenses, you have net. That is where new equipment, hiring and the occasional vacation comes from, not to mention something to feed your kids.

Also, most small businesses operate on a draw instead of a salary for the owners. Tax advantages are much better for that system. But then you know that, you are a bookeeper. And let me say, just for myself. I truly read every post beginning to end if I am to respond. I think it is as important to understand what I am writing and to understand you if I am to use that writing to reply. Why waste my time?

Even with downturns in the market, the market outperforms the Social Security system in every 10 year period since we've had Social Security. Every single one. If the privatizing of 1/3 of the worker's Social Security is done by Congress, it will start with the workers that are at least 12 years away from retirement. If we have a depression such as the 29 crash, do you think the current Social Security system will survive? If so, how? And, how would it recover in comparison to a partial market based system? Do you know? You need to. If you believe in alternatives, why not privatization? You do remember how business works, right? :cool: ~~~
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Even with downturns in the market, the market outperforms the Social Security system in every 10 year period since we've had Social Security. Every single one. If the privatizing of 1/3 of the worker's Social Security is done by Congress, it will start with the workers that are at least 12 years away from retirement. If we have a depression such as the 29 crash, do you think the current Social Security system will survive? If so, how? And, how would it recover in comparison to a partial market based system? Do you know? You need to. If you believe in alternatives, why not privatization? You do remember how business works, right? :cool: ~~~[/B][/I][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
Hmm so much faith in the market? This is heavy speculation. The market can only go so high before it falls (Great Depression, anyone). China and Japan have tons of money (perhaps literally) invested in the market...what if (now it is a small chance) China pulls out? I'm sure they could do business with Europe and do just fine. If you had money in the market, and the market was down when you retired, you certainly wouldn't have enough in there to retire on. And with all these trillions of dollars being invested, who knows what would happen! It is risky at best. But why all this talk about investing? According to the gov't, the gov't has no plans of investing your money in the market for you...Bush's private accounts are rather hazyily described.
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
I don't doubt you were a bookeeper but that sure doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. Take number 2 above: You base hiring on having enough overhead? So you would look at your overhead and when it is big enough, you would hire to increase your overhead more. Sorry, you don't get it and I don't think with your expertise that you can blame this on the Exxon/Enron mix-up. Overhead is what your expenses are. These come out of your gross. After expenses, you have net. That is where new equipment, hiring and the occasional vacation comes from, not to mention something to feed your kids.

Also, most small businesses operate on a draw instead of a salary for the owners. Tax advantages are much better for that system. But then you know that, you are a bookeeper. And let me say, just for myself. I truly read every post beginning to end if I am to respond. I think it is as important to understand what I am writing and to understand you if I am to use that writing to reply. Why waste my time?

Even with downturns in the market, the market outperforms the Social Security system in every 10 year period since we've had Social Security. Every single one. If the privatizing of 1/3 of the worker's Social Security is done by Congress, it will start with the workers that are at least 12 years away from retirement. If we have a depression such as the 29 crash, do you think the current Social Security system will survive? If so, how? And, how would it recover in comparison to a partial market based system? Do you know? You need to. If you believe in alternatives, why not privatization? You do remember how business works, right? :cool: ~~~


As you are misquoting gordon I prefer to end this conversation for it sure appears you are incapable of reading very carefully the posts of others. I am here for sharing what I believe is problematic on this issue and believe I have stated that quite well. Thanks
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
anomaly said:
Hmm so much faith in the market? This is heavy speculation. The market can only go so high before it falls (Great Depression, anyone). China and Japan have tons of money (perhaps literally) invested in the market...what if (now it is a small chance) China pulls out? I'm sure they could do business with Europe and do just fine. If you had money in the market, and the market was down when you retired, you certainly wouldn't have enough in there to retire on. And with all these trillions of dollars being invested, who knows what would happen! It is risky at best. But why all this talk about investing? According to the gov't, the gov't has no plans of investing your money in the market for you...Bush's private accounts are rather hazyily described.

Anomaly that is what the private accounts will be set up for. They will be like the 401K plan whereby you set aside monies to invest in stock or bonds for your retirement account. It is hazy like you state, but the intention is to have you invest in your retirement based on risky programs. The way in which this will be done is the hazy part....will it be small companies who will invest your monies for you or will it be companies you work for doing it such as Enron.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Justathought said:
As you are misquoting gordon I prefer to end this conversation for it sure appears you are incapable of reading very carefully the posts of others. I am here for sharing what I believe is problematic on this issue and believe I have stated that quite well. Thanks


Sorry you can't handle debate JUSTATHOUGHT so if it must be good bye then... good bye. Maybe another thread another time. As for misquoting, I just hit the quote button and there you were. Sheesh.

As for the comments on risky investment vehicles, is that based upon the knowledge of what those vehicles will be? I happen to follow the market and you will not have individual stocks to choose from. The risk factor will be in the low catagory with your choices coming from mutual funds in stocks and bonds. You can also opt out of the privatization plan altogether and stay with Social Security just as it is now.

As for China or any other country pulling their money out of the United States to foster a collapse of our economic system I will borrow a well weathered quote used by any economic smarty - "In the world economy, when the United States gets a cold the world gets pneumonia!" The idea that other countries would try to damage our economy to the point of ruin or even sever trade relations is the height of the very speculation you accuse the Bush Administration of. Our markets have increased over the last 3 years even while our interest rates have fallen to near all time lows. Europe has higher interest rates and should be attracting much more in investment money but, Europe is not nearly as stable as the U.S. market. Before you ask me for proof, read what I wrote here.

And still, no one here will even address what I have said about JOB CREATION. Raise taxes you say? Give our government more money to spend (there is no lock box) and you think you can trust our government to hold that money safely? Hey, spending for the folks back home gets you re-elected and that's more important than doing the job the way it should be. Democrats and Republicans can't be trusted to handle more money than we already give them. Why do you think Social Security is in trouble in the first place? It's funds are open to the hands of Democrat and Republican politicians.

Please, will someone at least address how raising taxes will create jobs that will create more taxes or can you? Just in case you forgot - I think taking higher taxes from anyone will cost jobs and economic growth. If you don't agree, why not tell me here; especially those of you who prefer to tax the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor but the jobs he created were not very high quality :cool: ~~~
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Sorry you can't handle debate JUSTATHOUGHT so if it must be good bye then... good bye. Maybe another thread another time. As for misquoting, I just hit the quote button and there you were. Sheesh.

As for the comments on risky investment vehicles, is that based upon the knowledge of what those vehicles will be? I happen to follow the market and you will not have individual stocks to choose from. The risk factor will be in the low catagory with your choices coming from mutual funds in stocks and bonds. You can also opt out of the privatization plan altogether and stay with Social Security just as it is now.

As for China or any other country pulling their money out of the United States to foster a collapse of our economic system I will borrow a well weathered quote used by any economic smarty - "In the world economy, when the United States gets a cold the world gets pneumonia!" The idea that other countries would try to damage our economy to the point of ruin or even sever trade relations is the height of the very speculation you accuse the Bush Administration of. Our markets have increased over the last 3 years even while our interest rates have fallen to near all time lows. Europe has higher interest rates and should be attracting much more in investment money but, Europe is not nearly as stable as the U.S. market. Before you ask me for proof, read what I wrote here.

And still, no one here will even address what I have said about JOB CREATION. Raise taxes you say? Give our government more money to spend (there is no lock box) and you think you can trust our government to hold that money safely? Hey, spending for the folks back home gets you re-elected and that's more important than doing the job the way it should be. Democrats and Republicans can't be trusted to handle more money than we already give them. Why do you think Social Security is in trouble in the first place? It's funds are open to the hands of Democrat and Republican politicians.

Please, will someone at least address how raising taxes will create jobs that will create more taxes or can you? Just in case you forgot - I think taking higher taxes from anyone will cost jobs and economic growth. If you don't agree, why not tell me here; especially those of you who prefer to tax the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor but the jobs he created were not very high quality :cool: ~~~

I handle debate very well....it is not demeaning comments I do not want to address.....case in point....I am and received a degree in accounting not bookkeeping. For this reason, I choose to end what could have been a good debate for demeaning another is not a way to address the issues. So goodbye is appropriate. Thanks
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:
Sorry you can't handle debate JUSTATHOUGHT so if it must be good bye then... good bye. Maybe another thread another time. As for misquoting, I just hit the quote button and there you were. Sheesh.

As for the comments on risky investment vehicles, is that based upon the knowledge of what those vehicles will be? I happen to follow the market and you will not have individual stocks to choose from. The risk factor will be in the low catagory with your choices coming from mutual funds in stocks and bonds. You can also opt out of the privatization plan altogether and stay with Social Security just as it is now.

As for China or any other country pulling their money out of the United States to foster a collapse of our economic system I will borrow a well weathered quote used by any economic smarty - "In the world economy, when the United States gets a cold the world gets pneumonia!" The idea that other countries would try to damage our economy to the point of ruin or even sever trade relations is the height of the very speculation you accuse the Bush Administration of. Our markets have increased over the last 3 years even while our interest rates have fallen to near all time lows. Europe has higher interest rates and should be attracting much more in investment money but, Europe is not nearly as stable as the U.S. market. Before you ask me for proof, read what I wrote here.

And still, no one here will even address what I have said about JOB CREATION. Raise taxes you say? Give our government more money to spend (there is no lock box) and you think you can trust our government to hold that money safely? Hey, spending for the folks back home gets you re-elected and that's more important than doing the job the way it should be. Democrats and Republicans can't be trusted to handle more money than we already give them. Why do you think Social Security is in trouble in the first place? It's funds are open to the hands of Democrat and Republican politicians.

Please, will someone at least address how raising taxes will create jobs that will create more taxes or can you? Just in case you forgot - I think taking higher taxes from anyone will cost jobs and economic growth. If you don't agree, why not tell me here; especially those of you who prefer to tax the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor but the jobs he created were not very high quality :cool: ~~~

I'll address job creation. In some ways what you and the conservative movement puts forth makes some sense quite a bit of sense. By keeping limits and taxes low on business the economy grows. Jobs are created. But the conservatives have taken this to the point where the losses far out weigh the gains. We've cut taxes on wealthy people and corporations far beyond any gains we're receiving from these cuts. It's almost like some weird twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone. In this case corporations and wealthy get it and they're just expected to go forth and do good with it. Go create jobs. Only unlike socialism there's no mandate that they actually spend that money to create those jobs. Cutting or raising taxes on a CEO who's going to make 190 million this year isn't going to have any effect on whether he creates one job. It will have a huge effect on him and the tax rolls.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me say JUSTATHOUGHT that I know the difference between an accountant and a bookeeper and for that reference I do apologize. However, you still are taking a political stance rather than one based upon historical market results for your insistence that the market is too "risky". Your arguments are therefore week in the face of actual figures. I am a firm believer that politics will not fix Social Security and the Democrats and Republicans will have to implement both tax and privatization reforms to cope with growing retirement numbers. Can you spell "Baby Boomers"? Although no one has addressed the huge numbers of people on disability, that is a large part of the problem already and I can also envision separate accounts to provide for that eventuality.

Socialism is brought up as something good? I am not sure the reference to Socialism is meant to be good but it is cited as requiring business that get tax breaks to provide more jobs. I've never heard of this and would like to hear the country and time period so I can go research it. I know of no Socialist government that can hold a candle to the United States economically and that includes everything from the purchase of necessities such as groceries and petrol to healthcare and prescription drugs. They can't show better living standards for their people and that's a fact. Before you tell me that you can buy prescription drugs 55% cheaper in Canada, know where the research, development and manufacture of those drugs occurs and where Canadians go for treatment when the disease looms deadly. They get it here and they come here. Socialize our medical industry and you will slow the wheels of progress for medicine and treatments.

Socialize the workforce as they do in France and Germany and have the problems they have there now. Katie Couric sang the praises of having any business here with 15 employees or more give 7 days of paid sick leave mandatorily. She won't mention how French businesses that are required to give 5 to 6 weeks of vacation and more than 7 days of paid sick leave are suffering under the Socialized workforce rules. It is becoming a political football in Europe costing jobs and we want it here?

When you talk about the corporate executive making 190 million a year who won't be hurt by a payroll tax cap increase you act as if that wonderful socialists dream won't hurt those making over 90k as well as job creation at the basic employment level. I think you would like the shoe to fit someone making 190 million as well as someone making 95K but it won't. Socialism in all it's ugly head rearings is a failure and our country is the proof. There is only one path to job creation and that is through money. The more the government takes and misappropriates, the less the average American has to look forward to. Socialism may require a business to act a certain way; vacation time for employees; payment for services by the employer but - socialism is a failure with so many examples that it's laughable to compare any socialist country or socialistic idea to the United States. But, I'll read it if you try :cool: ~~~
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:
Let me say JUSTATHOUGHT that I know the difference between an accountant and a bookeeper and for that reference I do apologize. However, you still are taking a political stance rather than one based upon historical market results for your insistence that the market is too "risky". Your arguments are therefore week in the face of actual figures. I am a firm believer that politics will not fix Social Security and the Democrats and Republicans will have to implement both tax and privatization reforms to cope with growing retirement numbers. Can you spell "Baby Boomers"? Although no one has addressed the huge numbers of people on disability, that is a large part of the problem already and I can also envision separate accounts to provide for that eventuality.

Socialism is brought up as something good? I am not sure the reference to Socialism is meant to be good but it is cited as requiring business that get tax breaks to provide more jobs. I've never heard of this and would like to hear the country and time period so I can go research it. I know of no Socialist government that can hold a candle to the United States economically and that includes everything from the purchase of necessities such as groceries and petrol to healthcare and prescription drugs. They can't show better living standards for their people and that's a fact. Before you tell me that you can buy prescription drugs 55% cheaper in Canada, know where the research, development and manufacture of those drugs occurs and where Canadians go for treatment when the disease looms deadly. They get it here and they come here. Socialize our medical industry and you will slow the wheels of progress for medicine and treatments.

Socialize the workforce as they do in France and Germany and have the problems they have there now. Katie Couric sang the praises of having any business here with 15 employees or more give 7 days of paid sick leave mandatorily. She won't mention how French businesses that are required to give 5 to 6 weeks of vacation and more than 7 days of paid sick leave are suffering under the Socialized workforce rules. It is becoming a political football in Europe costing jobs and we want it here?

When you talk about the corporate executive making 190 million a year who won't be hurt by a payroll tax cap increase you act as if that wonderful socialists dream won't hurt those making over 90k as well as job creation at the basic employment level. I think you would like the shoe to fit someone making 190 million as well as someone making 95K but it won't. Socialism in all it's ugly head rearings is a failure and our country is the proof. There is only one path to job creation and that is through money. The more the government takes and misappropriates, the less the average American has to look forward to. Socialism may require a business to act a certain way; vacation time for employees; payment for services by the employer but - socialism is a failure with so many examples that it's laughable to compare any socialist country or socialistic idea to the United States. But, I'll read it if you try :cool: ~~~

If your above statements have anything to do with what I said about socialism I'm at a loss to understand any of what you're trying to say. I certainly never said socialism was a positive thing. I said the current situation was "It's almost like some twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone..." And you somehow took that to mean I favored socialism? You then seem to go on and ramble and rant about socialism.

As for most of the rest of your post I honestly have a hard time following your logic. Could you clarify some of it? Any of it?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
If your above statements have anything to do with what I said about socialism I'm at a loss to understand any of what you're trying to say. I certainly never said socialism was a positive thing. I said the current situation was "It's almost like some twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone..." And you somehow took that to mean I favored socialism? You then seem to go on and ramble and rant about socialism.

As for most of the rest of your post I honestly have a hard time following your logic. Could you clarify some of it? Any of it?


On the contrary. I put the good of socialism in question form. You make statements about socialism and I ask for a reference point of the country and time period so I can go research it with a willingness to understand your points better. I agree that you haven't said socialism is positive just as I haven't but I cite some examples between the socialistic approach and our free market system. You "seem" to go by what you "seem" to believe that I said rather than what I "did" say. You can find historical evidence from our market system to back my words. You can find historical evidence to back the direction of our Social Security system.

You can find historical evidence for what taxes do to the job market. Reagan's second term tax increase lead to major job losses. Clinton's first term huge tax increase didn't because the Republicans prevented him from spending it and thereby from both ends the miraculous surplus was created. Regardless of what the media tells you, it was both a Democrat and Republican surplus.

We are discussing Social Security, a socialistic program within a capitalistic democracy. It has worked because the numbers allowed it to. Soon the numbers will turn against its very survival and all sides of the issue will have to give and take what they may to save the system. I have made myself plain in my "ramble and rants". If you don't like what the President proposes you have to accept some of it while getting some of what you suggest in the process. It is the process that will lead to a solution and not some particular ideology or political party's wishes. You reference the "conservative" way but you know if it was the "liberal" way it would be just as detrimental to the problem with a one-sided solution. You do see that don't you?

Our media promotes the chance for political figures to paint their opponents as not capable of doing or thinking anything right. If we applied that to you and me, I would care less where you get your examples and wouldn't want to go see them. I do.

Why not show me where you find your reference to socialism's mores so I could go study it for myself. Call mine a rant but it is a rant I am willing to change with the proper citations. Don't expect me to discount or figure the things you say are made up or I simply don't understand them. Show me and let me learn. Well? :cool: ~~~
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:
On the contrary. I put the good of socialism in question form. You make statements about socialism and I ask for a reference point of the country and time period so I can go research it with a willingness to understand your points better. I agree that you haven't said socialism is positive just as I haven't but I cite some examples between the socialistic approach and our free market system. You "seem" to go by what you "seem" to believe that I said rather than what I "did" say. You can find historical evidence from our market system to back my words. You can find historical evidence to back the direction of our Social Security system.

You can find historical evidence for what taxes do to the job market. Reagan's second term tax increase lead to major job losses. Clinton's first term huge tax increase didn't because the Republicans prevented him from spending it and thereby from both ends the miraculous surplus was created. Regardless of what the media tells you, it was both a Democrat and Republican surplus.

We are discussing Social Security, a socialistic program within a capitalistic democracy. It has worked because the numbers allowed it to. Soon the numbers will turn against its very survival and all sides of the issue will have to give and take what they may to save the system. I have made myself plain in my "ramble and rants". If you don't like what the President proposes you have to accept some of it while getting some of what you suggest in the process. It is the process that will lead to a solution and not some particular ideology or political party's wishes. You reference the "conservative" way but you know if it was the "liberal" way it would be just as detrimental to the problem with a one-sided solution. You do see that don't you?

Our media promotes the chance for political figures to paint their opponents as not capable of doing or thinking anything right. If we applied that to you and me, I would care less where you get your examples and wouldn't want to go see them. I do.

Why not show me where you find your reference to socialism's mores so I could go study it for myself. Call mine a rant but it is a rant I am willing to change with the proper citations. Don't expect me to discount or figure the things you say are made up or I simply don't understand them. Show me and let me learn. Well? :cool: ~~~

No, I never put socialism in question. Again I said the current massive tax cuts were "almost like some weird twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone. In this case corporations and wealthy get it and they're just expected to go forth and do good with it" I never said socialism worked or that the theory of handing it out for the good of everybody ever ends up happening. I'm simply questioning the massive tax cuts and my position is, at this point, we're not benefiting from them as much as we're losing from them. And no I don't find your ramble and rants plain or simply. In fact I find them confusing and difficult to follow. Whether your doing that intentionally, I have no idea. Then you state "Why not show me where you find your reference to socialism's mores." When I clearly have never made any reference to any such mores. I'm left to believe there's at some intent to muddle the content of what's being said.

As for: "You reference the "conservative" way but you know if it was the "liberal" way it would be just as detrimental to the problem with a one-sided solution" I completely agree with that statement. Though I'm not certain which movement would be more detrimental to the country. Could honestly be if either had their way the country would be in ruin. Which is kind of my current point. My postion is the conservatives have taken this too far, the gains made are not equal to what being lost at this point.
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gordon your apology is accepted but I would ask that you not put a response to another poster in your reply unless you indicate who you are actually responding to. I never said anything about socialism and I am not looking at this in a political view.

I did not say the plan was right or wrong in view of a specific party....I did say the Bush plan was risky as it relates to people placing their investments in stocks and bonds for retirement. Stocks and bonds are a risky retirement option as Enron itself proved with the 401K plan that wiped people out of all their retirement monies. If you check with the Bloomberg Institute review of this plan....this is the major concern for investing in private accounts. The Bush plan does not elaborate at all on how private accounts will be instituted such as will a small company invest for the person or will the company do this. There is a lot of risk in this option and the stock market and bonds system is extremely risky....just check with the employees of Enron who lost everything.
 
Last edited:

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would like to acknowledge a mistake in this last post I made....it is the Brookings Institute and not Bloomberg. Sorry for mistake.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Justathought said:
I would like to acknowledge a mistake in this last post I made....it is the Brookings Institute and not Bloomberg. Sorry for mistake.

Just so you, know down at the bottom of your post next to the "quote" tab there's one labeled "edit." You may use that at anytime to make changes to any post you have posted. Other's may not edit your post, but you or a moderator or administrator may. Moderators and administrators are not likely to edit your post unless you resort to fowl language or violate some major forum rule. A link to the forum rules may be found on the main page.

And I assume you're already are aware of the the "spell check" feature near the sumbit post tab.
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge I do thank you for sharing that with me. I did try to edit post but all that showed at bottom was quote and fast reply. Is there something else I should have done when signing up to have edit there. After I submitted and came back a few minutes later, edit disappeared which is when I noticed my mistake. Thank you if you can help me with this.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Justathought said:
Pacridge I do thank you for sharing that with me. I did try to edit post but all that showed at bottom was quote and fast reply. Is there something else I should have done when signing up to have edit there. After I submitted and came back a few minutes later, edit disappeared which is when I noticed my mistake. Thank you if you can help me with this.

Maybe I'm completely in error here. I'll have to contact Vague the head Honcho and ask him. Maybe only Moderator and Admin have edit.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,357
Reaction score
7,487
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pacridge said:
Maybe I'm completely in error here. I'll have to contact Vague the head Honcho and ask him. Maybe only Moderator and Admin have edit.

Editing is allowed for 10 mins.
We have had folks abuse the edit feature in the past.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Justathought said:
Gordon your apology is accepted but I would ask that you not put a response to another poster in your reply unless you indicate who you are actually responding to. I never said anything about socialism and I am not looking at this in a political view.

I did not say the plan was right or wrong in view of a specific party....I did say the Bush plan was risky as it relates to people placing their investments in stocks and bonds for retirement. Stocks and bonds are a risky retirement option as Enron itself proved with the 401K plan that wiped people out of all their retirement monies. If you check with the Bloomberg Institute review of this plan....this is the major concern for investing in private accounts. The Bush plan does not elaborate at all on how private accounts will be instituted such as will a small company invest for the person or will the company do this. There is a lot of risk in this option and the stock market and bonds system is extremely risky....just check with the employees of Enron who lost everything.


First, PACRIDGE, it was your statement about a socialistic system requiring a company to plow it's profits back into more jobs and expansion. I have never seen this as my understanding is that the socialistic system takes those extra profits for it's own use which may be on programs that are end means programs instead of promoting off welfare and on to work. You and I may be close to agreement on conservative or liberal or Democrat vs. Republican when it is one or the other that gets their way. I prefer a middle of the road approach where all sides add to the stew and then let the majority vote. As to the tax cuts doing more harm than good; jobs created are the major outcome and you also should check the manufacturer's index for new construction over the last three years. There's where you will find some of the best benefits of the tax cuts for business; new factory construction and the resulting jobs.

And JUSTATHOUGHT? I quoted you above because of two things. Risky and Enron. Enron and what happened at Enron has nothing to do with the Bush Plan nor would it. Enron required their employees to put their entire 401k in Enron stock. That is now against the law because of Enron. Instead of the company dictating what an employee can do with their 401k, it is now law that the employee can move within the regulations of the 401k even employing a financial advisor ourside of the jurisdiction of their company. The company can make suggestions but no demands of any kind on where a holder of the 401k puts their money. IT IS A FACT that the only way 401k money can be put into a single stock is by the decision of the 401k holder and I'm not even sure that the 401k holder can do that anymore. It will be impossible in Social Security privatization.

The Bush Plan makes it clear that there will be no individual stocks allowed in the privatization plan. The investments will be in stock mutual funds that will spread the investment out in fund shares of baskets of many instead of individual stocks. No more Enrons. These funds will also be "low risk" and not at all "extremely risky" as you portray. You are wrong in your assessment of risk. There is even an age scale to show how much weight the investor should have in the "riskier" stocks as opposed to the more "principle preserving" bond investments. Why not contact Fidelity Investments for the various risk levels of their investment vehicles and understand what the choices would be. These companies would have to stay within strict guidelines in order to stay in the Social Security system as investment vehicles. There would be no Enron style investing whatsoever. Why not drop your emotional "extremely risky" attitude for the reality of the situation JUSTATHOUGHT. You are an accountant and should understand that the Social Security system itself is what is "extremely" at risk now :cool: ~~~
 

Justathought

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
Editing is allowed for 10 mins.
We have had folks abuse the edit feature in the past.

Vague, thank you for your reply. I have been a moderator of another site and administrator of two sites and I can understand the reasoning you have made. I have seen the abuse from editing first hand and am glad to know how your site treats the editing process. Thank you very much.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:
First, PACRIDGE, it was your statement about a socialistic system requiring a company to plow it's profits back into more jobs and expansion. I have never seen this as my understanding is that the socialistic system takes those extra profits for it's own use which may be on programs that are end means programs instead of promoting off welfare and on to work. You and I may be close to agreement on conservative or liberal or Democrat vs. Republican when it is one or the other that gets their way. I prefer a middle of the road approach where all sides add to the stew and then let the majority vote. As to the tax cuts doing more harm than good; jobs created are the major outcome and you also should check the manufacturer's index for new construction over the last three years. There's where you will find some of the best benefits of the tax cuts for business; new factory construction and the resulting jobs.


To begin with, when did I ever say anything about a socialistic system requiring a company to plow it's profits back into more jobs and expansion? Again- I said "almost like some weird twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone. In this case corporations and wealthy get it and they're just expected to go forth and do good with it" I think this is the third or possibly the fourth time I've had to restate exactly what I've stated. Seriously, are you doing this intentionally?

And where can I find these manufactures index numbers. And is there anywhere that compares them to the massive debt we're currently incurring to obtain these gains?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
To begin with, when did I ever say anything about a socialistic system requiring a company to plow it's profits back into more jobs and expansion? Again- I said "almost like some weird twisted version of socialism where instead of the Government getting all the money and then handing it out for the good of everyone. In this case corporations and wealthy get it and they're just expected to go forth and do good with it" I think this is the third or possibly the fourth time I've had to restate exactly what I've stated. Seriously, are you doing this intentionally?

And where can I find these manufactures index numbers. And is there anywhere that compares them to the massive debt we're currently incurring to obtain these gains?


And my apologies to you PACRIDGE for not understanding the "weird twisted version of socialism" which I misinterpreted as you saying was a fact. That can happen and I'll try to be careful in the future to decipher what you are saying better.

As for the manufacturing index numbers: You can start by typing in "manufacturer's index" to your search engine and then following links there that will give you information on new industrial construction. It has also been the regular topic of discussion on Bloomberg Information Television and CNBC since the first Bush victory over Al Gore. You may try them for archival material. That there has been new starts in manufacturing construction is a fact. If you have a brokerage site such as Scottrade or TD Waterhouse (you can open an account without money for research purposes) you can also get figures on new construction starts.

Also, the increase in jobs that has occured since the bottom after 9/11 is a fact and you can find sites through usgoverment.gov sites. All this information is available on the internet and it shouldn't be incumbent upon me to list every citation to back my numbers when you can be just as informed. However, I have given you a leg up for your research and if you go to these official sites and find that Bloomberg and CNBC have been lying to me, please let me know. That would be of interest.

My bottom line? While the Democrats said that tax cuts that were won by the first Bush Administration would "cost" jobs, jobs actually "increased". This tells me that the President's policy worked as expected and what the Democrats said was wrong. The figures back it up. Fact. And again, I apologize for not being more careful in reading your post. I will endeavor to do better (and I recommend TD Waterhouse if you want an in to market information) :cool: ~~~
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
gordontravels said:
And my apologies to you PACRIDGE for not understanding the "weird twisted version of socialism" which I misinterpreted as you saying was a fact. That can happen and I'll try to be careful in the future to decipher what you are saying better.

As for the manufacturing index numbers: You can start by typing in "manufacturer's index" to your search engine and then following links there that will give you information on new industrial construction. It has also been the regular topic of discussion on Bloomberg Information Television and CNBC since the first Bush victory over Al Gore. You may try them for archival material. That there has been new starts in manufacturing construction is a fact. If you have a brokerage site such as Scottrade or TD Waterhouse (you can open an account without money for research purposes) you can also get figures on new construction starts.

Also, the increase in jobs that has occured since the bottom after 9/11 is a fact and you can find sites through usgoverment.gov sites. All this information is available on the internet and it shouldn't be incumbent upon me to list every citation to back my numbers when you can be just as informed. However, I have given you a leg up for your research and if you go to these official sites and find that Bloomberg and CNBC have been lying to me, please let me know. That would be of interest.

My bottom line? While the Democrats said that tax cuts that were won by the first Bush Administration would "cost" jobs, jobs actually "increased". This tells me that the President's policy worked as expected and what the Democrats said was wrong. The figures back it up. Fact. And again, I apologize for not being more careful in reading your post. I will endeavor to do better (and I recommend TD Waterhouse if you want an in to market information) :cool: ~~~

I have no doubt the Democrats were wrong when they said the cuts wouldn't produce jobs. And for the most part I'm aware of the reference sites you listed. In fact, I note on Friday the Commerce Dept. released it's Oct-Dec. qtr. report. They're reporting an improvement to the economy greater than expected. They attribute that increased growth, in part, to businesses spending on capitals and inventory goods. I think the GDP grew at 3.8 and was expected to grow at 3.1.

So I'm not saying that these tax cuts aren't doing positive things for the economy. My concern is the cuts have a cost. And that cost is getting huge. Seems to me the original plan was to cut taxes- spur the economy and that would help bring down the deficit. And at some point hopefully the debt. Isn't that how you understood the plan? Well we're not bringing any of that down are we? In fact it's getting bigger. Some day that bills going to come due. I'm looking for somewhere to compare the effect of the tax cuts on the economy. What effect that has on our deficit. Then what longterm effect it's all going to have on our economy. I mean I could live like a king for a few months maybe a year or so, but my credit cards going to stop working someday, if I don't pay it down.

Plus, these countries that are loaning us money are going to start wanting to dictate more and more of the international trade rules if they hold all the purse strings. It could all have a very negative effect.
 
Top Bottom