National Debt

[ULTRA26 # 1]

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Apr 2007 at 02:37:30 AM GMT is:
$8,871,556,007,088.75
The estimated population of the United States is 301,639,909
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,411.08.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.82 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Don't tax, just continue to spend $1.82 billion per day more than we make. Brilliant
Let's forget about what happened in the past (history) and consider the present and future for a change.
Have at it Smokin Sorcerer

[lilrick]

just doesn't make sense!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The cost of the war in Iraq, approximately $5,000,000 an hour, is a factor.

[Flyinbowtie]

If that doesn't make you sick I don't know what would.
Our fine elected officials, at almost every level, are completely full of crap.
Back in the 90's, when it was claimed that deficit spending was under control and the budget was balanced, there was a huge shell game going on.
The feds pushed costs down to the state level, creating un-funded mandates,but not changing a darn thing about how business was done.
The state, (Ca. anyway) followed suit and pushed the costs down to the county level.
I found out just how screwed up things were in around '95, during a contract negotiation session where talks stalled, and we were at a standoff. Our deputy sheriff's association was tired of hearing "we're broke" from the county when they were funding artsy-craftsy stuff all over the place, so we paid to have the county audited.
Naturally, we did find out they were full of crap, but what was really revealing and really scary was the final summary report on funding and costs that the company we hired presented to us after about 45 days of work.
The local board of supervisors, which represents the citizens at the closest level and is theoretically most in tune with the needs of the community, had actual fiscal control and spending authority over exactly 27% of the general fund revenue that came into the county coffers annually.
The remaining 73 cents out of every dollar in the budget was pre-spent, earmarked for forced expenditures on unfunded mandates directly related to mental health, social services and the biggest chunk by far on welfare and other forms of entitlement programs that the state and federal government require the counties to provide, but don't pay for.
The CPA who came up and briefed our DSA officers (I was V.P.) explained that this wasn't unusual, and that the county had absolutely no recourse, if they varied one step from the mandates, the state would simply cut off sales tax revenue, or vehicle license fees, or something else. He said this had been the trend for about 5 years. It amounted to blackmail, as far as I could see.
The Feds claimed they were takin' care of business, the books looked good.
The state, busy fighting over the giant mess we were (and still are) in just passed the whole thing down the food chain,never really copping out in public, while small counties like mine started to wither on the vine.
And they still are.
Fiscal responsibility, and simple honesty is dead in DC. But, as long as people keep voting in people like Robt. Byrd, who has led the pack in pork spending for decades, and the other slimeballs who bring home the bucks for b.s. projects we don't need, nothing will change.
The problem with representative forms of government is that the electorate generally gets what they want, even if it isn't good for them. That is a predictable problem I think even the founding fathers of the country could see based upon some of the writings in the Federalist Papers.
What they never expected was the general apathy of the people which the country suffers from today, 30-40% voter turn-out, and vast numbers of citizens who actually expect and just about demand that the government provide cradle-to-grave care, in every sense of the word.
Personal responsibilty, individualism, and self-respect are becoming dirty words. When people don't hold themselves accountable, they don't hold our government accountable, either.
The Socialists in France are proof of that, are they not?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Apr 2007 at 02:37:30 AM GMT is:
$8,871,556,007,088.75
The estimated population of the United States is 301,639,909
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,411.08.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.82 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Don't tax, just continue to spend $1.82 billion per day more than we make. Brilliant
Let's forget about what happened in the past (history) and consider the present and future for a change.
Have at it Smokin Sorcerer
Though it will not make any difference, since it took 5 days to read you a law last time, I will give you a head's up.
1946 Natl Debt.
The dollar value is pointless, but you like it, it's a big number, so will not be convinced otherwise.
Compare it to the ammount of money the nation GENERATES in a year.
The current debt is about 60% of GNP, 60% of the money this nation generates in a year.
What was it in 1946?
Have a nice day, I'll be back tonight.

[centerhill condor]

a few years ago folks said national debt, big deal...we just owe it to ourselves. Now, foreign interests own our national debt and a significant portion of our currency. Suppose one day they all decide to dump dollars and stop loaning us money?
It would make anything the boys from "the base" could imagine doing to us seem insignificant.
I think you're beginning to see the tip of the ice berg with the pound sterling at 20 year highs relative to the dollar and gold at near 20 year highs. Make note to self. Just 'cause we can print more money doesn't mean we should spend all we can print.

[Old Texan]

If that doesn't make you sick I don't know what would.
Our fine elected officials, at almost every level, are completely full of crap.
Back in the 90's, when it was claimed that deficit spending was under control and the budget was balanced, there was a huge shell game going on.
The feds pushed costs down to the state level, creating un-funded mandates,but not changing a darn thing about how business was done.
The state, (Ca. anyway) followed suit and pushed the costs down to the county level.
I found out just how screwed up things were in around '95, during a contract negotiation session where talks stalled, and we were at a standoff. Our deputy sheriff's association was tired of hearing "we're broke" from the county when they were funding artsy-craftsy stuff all over the place, so we paid to have the county audited.
Naturally, we did find out they were full of crap, but what was really revealing and really scary was the final summary report on funding and costs that the company we hired presented to us after about 45 days of work.
The local board of supervisors, which represents the citizens at the closest level and is theoretically most in tune with the needs of the community, had actual fiscal control and spending authority over exactly 27% of the general fund revenue that came into the county coffers annually.
The remaining 73 cents out of every dollar in the budget was pre-spent, earmarked for forced expenditures on unfunded mandates directly related to mental health, social services and the biggest chunk by far on welfare and other forms of entitlement programs that the state and federal government require the counties to provide, but don't pay for.
The CPA who came up and briefed our DSA officers (I was V.P.) explained that this wasn't unusual, and that the county had absolutely no recourse, if they varied one step from the mandates, the state would simply cut off sales tax revenue, or vehicle license fees, or something else. He said this had been the trend for about 5 years. It amounted to blackmail, as far as I could see.
The Feds claimed they were takin' care of business, the books looked good.
The state, busy fighting over the giant mess we were (and still are) in just passed the whole thing down the food chain,never really copping out in public, while small counties like mine started to wither on the vine.
And they still are.
Fiscal responsibility, and simple honesty is dead in DC. But, as long as people keep voting in people like Robt. Byrd, who has led the pack in pork spending for decades, and the other slimeballs who bring home the bucks for b.s. projects we don't need, nothing will change.
The problem with representative forms of government is that the electorate generally gets what they want, even if it isn't good for them. That is a predictable problem I think even the founding fathers of the country could see based upon some of the writings in the Federalist Papers.
What they never expected was the general apathy of the people which the country suffers from today, 30-40% voter turn-out, and vast numbers of citizens who actually expect and just about demand that the government provide cradle-to-grave care, in every sense of the word.
Personal responsibilty, individualism, and self-respect are becoming dirty words. When people don't hold themselves accountable, they don't hold our government accountable, either.
The Socialists in France are proof of that, are they not?
Very well stated and you indeed have focused on the cause of our country's financial irresponsibility.
The general public is completely unaware of where funding comes from and how the idiots being sent to DC pass unrealistic legislation with little thought on the effects to the national debt. In too many states an entitlement mentality has blinded folks to reality. Without enlightment to the masses it will just get worse.
I listened to an interview with Mitt Romney a while back. He was asked about Teddy Kennedy and why he was always reelcted. Romney said TK was great for the state as he always managed to bring plenty of federal money home. Sadly the voters don't realize at what expense Kennedy's pork effects them.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Though it will not make any difference, since it took 5 days to read you a law last time, I will give you a head's up.
1946 Natl Debt.
The dollar value is pointless, but you like it, it's a big number, so will not be convinced otherwise.
Compare it to the ammount of money the nation GENERATES in a year.
The current debt is about 60% of GNP, 60% of the money this nation generates in a year.
What was it in 1946?
Have a nice day, I'll be back tonight.
Smolin,
Are you in some way implying that it's OK for our debt to be increasing at a rate of almost 2 bil or even 2 mill a day
You might want to source the affect of what has happened to the value of the dollar each time our govt has printed more currency and put it into circulation.
The current debt is about 60% of GNP, 60% of the money this nation generates in a year.
Our debt has little to do with how much money our country generates and everything to do with how much money our country spends.
The current administration wants the American people to believe the myth that we can spend nearly $125 million a day on war on our current tax base.
The same apples to the billions tagged as earmarks. (pork).
Please source for all of us illiterates justification for our Govt spending $482.3 billion a year more than it takes in.
Bottom line is simple. More taxes or less spending.
BTW Smokin, you are not the only person in this forum who as the ability to read and and have intelligent thought. I expect you to come back with an endless barage of BS to support a position
that our debt is actually less than it was in 1946, based on the % GNP to debt ratio. The numbers speak for themselves. The Govt is spending almost 2 bil a day more than it's taking in. Dispute that before you start with the GNP smokescreen
Source man source!!!

[Coded-Dude]

I'm not gonna sit here and say what the DEMs have planned is gonna fix everything, but that in no way negates the fact that the REPs are not being very fiscally responsible right now.
We are spending more than we are making. If thats not the case why is our debt increasing daily?
Oh, and the first half of the 1940's was WW2.
"the widest and most destructive armed conflict in human history. "
I bet that cost a lot of money.....it makes since we had a lot of debt back then.
(but that doesn't justify current government overspending)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Here you go Smokin
http://***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28933&stc=1&d=1176920907
GNP or no GNP our Country is spending almost 2 billion a day more than it is taking in. 2 billion a day is borrowed. It is understood the the debt to GNP ratio is les than that in 1946. Nonetheless, this doesn't change the fact that our Govt spending is out of control.
Seems you've already forgotten how I started this thread and are dealing with 1946. Let's forget about what happened in the past (history) and consider the present and future for a change. Please!
The Natioanal Debt is $8,871,556,007,088.75. This indicates that Govt is spending beyond it's means. Let's talk about what can be done to help correct this issue. More taxes or less spending?

[Coded-Dude]

Meh....we'll just borrow from potential enemy nations, then invade, destroy, and rebuild.
That will ensure we wont' have to repay any of this debt we are stockpiling and should also ensure some worthwhile contracts. /sarcasm

[minimatt]

Hey Ultra 26. You might want to take an economics class before you start spewing this garbage. FYI, everytime taxes are LOWERED, tax revenues go UP. It is not a zero sum game. CUT both taxes and spending and you will see the national debt go away. The more you cut both, the quicker the debt will be reduced.

[Coded-Dude]

I think thats the argument......how can one cut taxes, increase spending, and frivolously ignore our National Debt.

[minimatt]

Re-read my post. Cutting taxes generates MORE tax revenue, not less. We need to be pushing for tax CUTS, not increases in order to reduce the debt. I agree with the part about reducing spending and unfunded mandates to the states & local governments, but this notion of raising taxes to reduce the debt hasn't worked yet, so why should we expect it to work now. Cutting taxes spurs the economy and creates jobs and creates taxpayers, thus increasing tax revenues. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Re-read my post. Cutting taxes generates MORE tax revenue, not less. We need to be pushing for tax CUTS, not increases in order to reduce the debt. I agree with the part about reducing spending and unfunded mandates to the states & local governments, but this notion of raising taxes to reduce the debt hasn't worked yet, so why should we expect it to work now. Cutting taxes spurs the economy and creates jobs and creates taxpayers, thus increasing tax revenues. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.
Talk about me spewing garbage. The school of thought that you profess hasn't worked either.

[Coded-Dude]

"Tax revenue is the income that is gained by governments because of taxation of the people."
I guess I should take that econ class as well; how do tax cuts generate more tax revenue than taxation of the people?
On average, Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
On average,Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
Here are some statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All are for the period from January 2001 - July 2005. Add three zeros to all the numbers. The industries that have increased workers are emboldened.
Total Non-Farm Payroll Jobs: 132015 133786
Good Producing jobs: 24523 22140
Natural Resources and mining: 605 629
Construction: 6817 7235
Manufacturing: 17101 14276
Trade Transportation and Utilities: 26262 25916
Wholesale Trade: 5859.5 5729.4
Retail: 15351.6 15245
Transportation and Warehousing: 4451.4 4366.3
Utilities: 599.8 574.8
Information: 3708 3148
Financial Services: 7755 8229
Professional and Business Services: 16834 16941
Leisure and Hospitality: 11974 12793
Education and Health Care: 15364 17353
Government: 20832 21782
Ironically Natural Resources(mining) and Health Care costs are at or close to all time highs for us the consumer.....:eek:
(i chuckle at the fact that a "Conservative" has grown the government more than the previous Democratic president)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Re-read my post. Cutting taxes generates MORE tax revenue, not less. We need to be pushing for tax CUTS, not increases in order to reduce the debt. I agree with the part about reducing spending and unfunded mandates to the states & local governments, but this notion of raising taxes to reduce the debt hasn't worked yet, so why should we expect it to work now. Cutting taxes spurs the economy and creates jobs and creates taxpayers, thus increasing tax revenues. Raising taxes has the opposite effect.
Back in the 1970s, conservative economist Arthur Laffer proposed that high marginal tax rates discouraged people from earning additional income. By cutting taxes, especially on those with the highest incomes, Laffer argued, governments would spur individuals to work harder and invest more, stoking economic growth. Though the government would get a smaller bite from every dollar the economy generated, there would be so many more dollars to tax that government revenues would actually rise. Ronald Reagan invoked the "Laffer curve" in the 1980s, insisting he could cut taxes, hike defense spending, and still balance the budget.
Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax packages are eerily reminiscent of the Reagan cuts. They reduce rates levied on ordinary income, with the largest rate cut going to the wealthiest taxpayers. They extend business tax write-offs and increase the child tax credit (though only for two years and only for families who earn enough to pay federal income taxes). They cut the tax on capital gains from 28% to 15%; dividend income, previously taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, now faces a top rate of 15%.
Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that two-thirds of the 2003 tax cut will accrue to the richest 10% of taxpayers. By 2006, the increased child credit will be phased out and nine out of ten taxpayers will find their taxes cut by less than $100. The top 1%, in contrast, will save an average $24,000 annually over the next four years, thanks to the 2003 cut alone.
Though inspired by the same "supply-side" vision that guided Reagan, Bush officials have not explicitly cited Laffer's arguments in defense of their tax packages. Probably, they wish to avoid ridicule. After the Reagan tax cut, the U.S. economy sank into recession and federal tax collections dropped nearly 10%. The deficit soared and economic growth was tepid through much of Reagan's presidency, despite sharp hikes in military spending. Some of the Republican faithful continue to argue that tax cuts will unleash enough growth to pay for themselves, but most are embarrassed to raise the now discredited Laffer curve.
The problem with your friend's assertion is fairly simple. If the government cuts projected taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, those dollars will recirculate through the economy. The $1.5 trillion tax cut becomes $1.5 trillion in taxable income and is itself taxed, as your friend suggests. But this would be just as true if, instead of cutting taxes, the government spent $1.5 trillion on highways or national defense or schools or, for that matter, if it trimmed $1.5 trillion from the tax liability of low- and middle-income households. All tax cuts become income, are re-spent, and taxed. That reality is already factored into everyone's economic projections. But the new income, taxed at a lower rate, will generate lower overall tax collections.
To conclude that revenues will rise rather than fall following a tax cut, one must maintain that the tax cut causes the economy to grow faster than it would have otherwise—that cutting taxes on the upper crust stimulates enough additional growth to offset the lower tax rates, more growth than would be propelled by, say, building roads or reducing payroll taxes. Free-marketeers insist that this is indeed the case. Spend $1.5 trillion on highways and you get $1.5 trillion worth of highways. Give it to Wall Street and investors will develop new technologies, improve productivity, and spur the economy to new heights.
Critics of the Bush cuts contend, however, that faster growth arises from robust demand for goods and from solid, well-maintained public infrastructure. Give $1.5 to Wall Street and you get inflated stock prices and real estate bubbles. Give it to working families or state governments and you get crowded malls, ringing cash registers, and businesses busily investing to keep up with their customers.
Who is right? Die-hard supply-siders insist that the Reagan tax cuts worked as planned—the payoff just didn't arrive until the mid-1990s! But the Bush administration's own budget office is predicting sizable deficits for the next several years. Maybe, like your friend, they believe the tax cuts will pay for themselves—but they're not banking on it. —Ellen Frank
The thought that lowing taxes increases the amount of tax collected is a myth.

[minimatt]

Nice try. Mz. Frank's commentary is so full of holes I don't know where to begin. If it is a myth, then why not have a 100% tax rate for all earners? Hey, name one country that has taxed itself into prosperity? I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. What a marvelous country that we can freely and openly have these discussions. Have a great evening!:)

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Thank you for doing your own homework this time Ultra.
You are still attatched to the dollar figure, and I have NEVER stated that the federal debt is a GOOD thing. What I have said, repeatedly in the past, is that it is nowhere near the Doom and Gloom "The Sky Is Falling" that some, including apparently you, want it to be.
If a national debt that is only half of the Gross Domestic Product of this nation, is the end of the econony, why did a debt TWICE AS HEAVY, not wreck the economy?
NEVER FORGET HISTORY, or you will repeat it again to learn a lesson that should already be clear.
Our debt has little to do with how much money our country generates and everything to do with how much money our country spends.
BS. It is just like every person on here who has a debt, be it a morgage, a car loan, a boat loan, credit cards, business debt, or any combination/total of the above. The dollar value of the total debt means very little, IF YOU HAVE A BIG ENOUGH INCOME. The important part is how much the debt is RELATED TO YOUR INCOME.
Bottom line is simple. More taxes or less spending.
You've already seen the result of more taxes, I am all in favor of less spending, raise hell with your representatives.
Also, get ready for the next Democrat Tax Increase. The last one, 264 Billion over 5 years, caused the late Clinton recession, and yes, it began MONTHS BEFORE the 2000 election was even VOTED ON. Speaker P. is proposing 400 Billion, over 5 years, increasing taxes on EVERYONE, including 5 million who make too little income now to pay taxes (usually refered to as "the Poor") Where is THAT going to put the ecenomy, and whom will you blame?
Now, on tax reductiuons INCREASING federal revenues:
Talk about me spewing garbage. The school of thought that you profess hasn't worked either
WRONG.
Let's look at the terrible REGAN tax cuts.
Federal Tax Revenue was $244 billion in 1980
At the beginning of the 1980s, the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent.
Then Regan lowered the marginal rates, AND had the rest of the Carter Recession to deal with,
By the end of the 80's, the top marginal tax rate had been lowered to just 28 percent, almost one third of what it had been.
Federal Tex Revenue was $446 billion in 1989.
Very nearly DOUBLE what it was 9 yrs earlier.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers ranked by income, paid over 25 percent of all federal income taxes in 1990, compared to less than 18 percent in 1981.
Tax INCREASES almost never show revenue increases, because the wealthy, who pay most of the taxes, shelter their money aftger taxes get to a certain harshness. Below that, they USE (spend) their money, making it taxable, and they MAKE MORE, and thus, pay even more taxes. This is the history of taxes.
Since you like me to SOURCE, try CONGRESS ITSELF this time.
Joint Economic Committee of the Congress Of The United States. (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm)
The thought that lowing taxes increases the amount of tax collected is a myth.
Wrong. See above.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Thank you for doing your own homework this time Ultra.
You are still attatched to the dollar figure, and I have NEVER stated that the federal debt is a GOOD thing. What I have said, repeatedly in the past, is that it is nowhere near the Doom and Gloom "The Sky Is Falling" that some, including apparently you, want it to be.
If a national debt that is only half of the Gross Domestic Product of this nation, is the end of the econony, why did a debt TWICE AS HEAVY, not wreck the economy?
NEVER FORGET HISTORY, or you will repeat it again to learn a lesson that should already be clear.
BS. It is just like every person on here who has a debt, be it a morgage, a car loan, a boat loan, credit cards, business debt, or any combination/total of the above. The dollar value of the total debt means very little, IF YOU HAVE A BIG ENOUGH INCOME. The important part is how much the debt is RELATED TO YOUR INCOME.
You've already seen the result of more taxes, I am all in favor of less spending, raise hell with your representatives.
Also, get ready for the next Democrat Tax Increase. The last one, 264 Billion over 5 years, caused the late Clinton recession, and yes, it began MONTHS BEFORE the 2000 election was even VOTED ON. Speaker P. is proposing 400 Billion, over 5 years, increasing taxes on EVERYONE, including 5 million who make too little income now to pay taxes (usually refered to as "the Poor") Where is THAT going to put the ecenomy, and whom will you blame?
Now, on tax reductiuons INCREASING federal revenues:
WRONG.
Let's look at the terrible REGAN tax cuts.
Federal Tax Revenue was $244 billion in 1980
At the beginning of the 1980s, the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent.
Then Regan lowered the marginal rates, AND had the rest of the Carter Recession to deal with,
By the end of the 80's, the top marginal tax rate had been lowered to just 28 percent, almost one third of what it had been.
Federal Tex Revenue was $446 billion in 1989.
Very nearly DOUBLE what it was 9 yrs earlier.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers ranked by income, paid over 25 percent of all federal income taxes in 1990, compared to less than 18 percent in 1981.
Tax INCREASES almost never show revenue increases, because the wealthy, who pay most of the taxes, shelter their money aftger taxes get to a certain harshness. Below that, they USE (spend) their money, making it taxable, and they MAKE MORE, and thus, pay even more taxes. This is the history of taxes.
Since you like me to SOURCE, try CONGRESS ITSELF this time.
Joint Economic Committee of the Congress Of The United States. (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm)
Wrong. See above.
Outstanding Post. Very, very well said!:D :D

[Coded-Dude]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/art04_36/0436_46news.gif
I guess we all agree to disagree, because the different "philosophies" do obvisouly, produce different results.
Whom those results are better for also differ.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin,
Simple logic and common sense which you seem to lack.
Example: I make 100K per year for the past 20 years. For the past 20 years I spend 160K per year. The result is a simple debt of $1,200.000. How will this debt ever be paid.
If you spend more than you make, than it doesn't matter how much you make, you are going backwards, thus my earlier comment to which you called B.S.
Not gloom and doom just something that needs serious attention, immediately.

[Flyinbowtie]

You folks have posted all the numbers and we can all interpolate them based on our beliefs. Personally, I strongly believe that some of the first steps on the road to a safe long term economy is cleaning up porkbarrel spending, reevaluate foreign aide programs, and other government waste, and use the $ to pay off the debt. Then step back and take a look at the economic situation after we cease to issue bonds to finance the debt, and the subsequent interest payments go away giving more descretionary spending power to the gov't. for the stuff we dearly need in this country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the majority of the citizens in this country of voting age don't see things this way, they want their entitlements, the health of the country be damned.
They have no more self control than their elected officals, if credit card debt and savings ratios are any indication.
When looking at the economy of the Reagan Era, one must factor in that the country was recovering (in every sense of the word) from both Watergate the '73 oil crisis, and the Carter years, and poised for a uptick, which, to the best of my knowledge, still represents th largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the country. The economy is cyclic, as we all know, and I think it worked, and was the right plan for the time.
The Clinton Era had the incredible boost of the dotcom boom, and he threw the military cuts onto the fire of ecomic growth as well, calling it a peace dividend, which, with the benefit of hindsight, seems rather ironic. With the Reagan tax cuts in place, oil resonably cheap and stable, and the dotcom boom, the revenue generated both jobs and tax money for the goverment to spend.
And, spend they did.
Then, the dotcom boom came back to earth, and the chickens in the middle east hen house finally came home to roost. After ignoring the Achille Laurel, the Beriut event, and burying our heads in the sand after the first attack on the WTC, we finally got whacked hard on 911. Comparing any prevous economy to what we are dealing with now, and trying to squeeze out some sense doesn't seem to me to be likely to produce perfection.
We are at war, and are going to be for at least a decade with people who desperately want to kill us and have a track record of carrying grudges for thousands of years.
Some people don't believe that, and we stand a house divided.
We are fighting to retain some control over our borders, the point being to stop people who want to kill us from coming here. The politicians are twisting the issue into something else, and we stand a house divided.
We buy a huge chunk of the oil that drives our economy from people who hate us. We need to find other ways to deal with energy issues, and I don't mean just electric cars or solar power or just more drilling. We need it all.
The politicians are twisitng this into something else, and we stand a house divided.
I sure as hell don't want to pay any more taxes, and for the life of me I don't understand how taxing anybody or anything is good for the economy. Taking money from the people and companies that make it and giving it to the federal government to spend isn't logical, it is a necessary evil.
Until those elected officals can prove to me that they are using the $ they have in an efficient manner on the things that the country needs, and that they have the constitutional authority to provide, I don't wanna pay no mo.
In all honesty, after being of voting age since 1980, I think the best thing that we could do for our country is to find a way to push through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and apply term limits on service in both houses of Congress. Until those who serve serve us first, and not the needs of their re-election coffers, we're in trouble.
If they were subject to to a maximum of 8 years in congress, they'ed be well able to go out and get a job to create a retirement, and we could free up a hell of alot of money if that particular breast went dry.
Economics 101 is a good foundation for planning, but this world is so unstable, so tenuous, and this nation is so crippled by political infighting, mudslinging, lying and media soundbite addictions that frankly I don't see any leaders on the horizon with the wherewithall to suck it up and do whats right because it is right.
Well, maybe one, but he ain't running at this point, however I am holding a kind thought.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.
Annother great post. Your giving out secrets from Econ 101.;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.
Smokin
I wasn't attempting apply govt specific percentages to use my example salary. I agree simplistic.
While your theory is pretty, it doesn't follow the data. The picture you paint indicates that the debt increases 1.6% anually. From $60,000 to $61,000
Sept 1999 the debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43 Eights years later the debt is $8,871,556,007,088.75. A 63% increase in the debt in eight years. Without doing the math, this should equal around 6% anually Your economic theory doesn't apply to the real numbers
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
Please note the increases during the previous eight years. Approximately 45%
Since 1993 our debt has doubled.
Smokin, that's the true picture

[Old Texan]

You folks have posted all the numbers and we can all interpolate them based on our beliefs. Personally, I strongly believe that some of the first steps on the road to a safe long term economy is cleaning up porkbarrel spending, reevaluate foreign aide programs, and other government waste, and use the $ to pay off the debt. Then step back and take a look at the economic situation after we cease to issue bonds to finance the debt, and the subsequent interest payments go away giving more descretionary spending power to the gov't. for the stuff we dearly need in this country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the majority of the citizens in this country of voting age don't see things this way, they want their entitlements, the health of the country be damned.
They have no more self control than their elected officals, if credit card debt and savings ratios are any indication.
When looking at the economy of the Reagan Era, one must factor in that the country was recovering (in every sense of the word) from both Watergate the '73 oil crisis, and the Carter years, and poised for a uptick, which, to the best of my knowledge, still represents th largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the country. The economy is cyclic, as we all know, and I think it worked, and was the right plan for the time.
The Clinton Era had the incredible boost of the dotcom boom, and he threw the military cuts onto the fire of ecomic growth as well, calling it a peace dividend, which, with the benefit of hindsight, seems rather ironic. With the Reagan tax cuts in place, oil resonably cheap and stable, and the dotcom boom, the revenue generated both jobs and tax money for the goverment to spend.
And, spend they did.
Then, the dotcom boom came back to earth, and the chickens in the middle east hen house finally came home to roost. After ignoring the Achille Laurel, the Beriut event, and burying our heads in the sand after the first attack on the WTC, we finally got whacked hard on 911. Comparing any prevous economy to what we are dealing with now, and trying to squeeze out some sense doesn't seem to me to be likely to produce perfection.
We are at war, and are going to be for at least a decade with people who desperately want to kill us and have a track record of carrying grudges for thousands of years.
Some people don't believe that, and we stand a house divided.
We are fighting to retain some control over our borders, the point being to stop people who want to kill us from coming here. The politicians are twisting the issue into something else, and we stand a house divided.
We buy a huge chunk of the oil that drives our economy from people who hate us. We need to find other ways to deal with energy issues, and I don't mean just electric cars or solar power or just more drilling. We need it all.
The politicians are twisitng this into something else, and we stand a house divided.
I sure as hell don't want to pay any more taxes, and for the life of me I don't understand how taxing anybody or anything is good for the economy. Taking money from the people and companies that make it and giving it to the federal government to spend isn't logical, it is a necessary evil.
Until those elected officals can prove to me that they are using the $ they have in an efficient manner on the things that the country needs, and that they have the constitutional authority to provide, I don't wanna pay no mo.
In all honesty, after being of voting age since 1980, I think the best thing that we could do for our country is to find a way to push through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and apply term limits on service in both houses of Congress. Until those who serve serve us first, and not the needs of their re-election coffers, we're in trouble. If they were subject to to a maximum of 8 years in congress, they'ed be well able to go out and get a job to create a retirement, and we could free up a hell of alot of money if that particular breast went dry.
Economics 101 is a good foundation for planning, but this world is so unstable, so tenuous, and this nation is so crippled by political infighting, mudslinging, lying and media soundbite addictions that frankly I don't see any leaders on the horizon with the wherewithall to suck it up and do whats right because it is right.
Well, maybe one, but he ain't running at this point, however I am holding a kind thought.
Very good post. Right on the money.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Annother great post. Your giving out secrets from Econ 101.;)
And I never went to economics 101 class.
I DID stay awake through English, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics tho. :D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Smokin
I wasn't attempting apply govt specific percentages to use my example salary. I agree simplistic.
While your theory is pretty, it doesn't follow the data. The picture you paint indicates that the debt increases 1.6% anually. From $60,000 to $61,000
Sept 1999 the debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43 Eights years later the debt is $8,871,556,007,088.75. A 63% increase in the debt in eight years. Without doing the math, this should equal around 6% anually Your economic theory doesn't apply to the real numbers
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
Please note the increases during the previous eight years. Approximately 45%
Since 1993 our debt has doubled.
Smokin, that's the true picture
Interesting how you manage to deny simple mathematics, with sourcing, into "theory."
1+1=2, but it's just a "theory".
In the example I specified, you apparently missed/ignored the FACT that the federal budget specified was 112% of the federal revenue. Read that again, a 12% defecit.
What confused you is that (and I simply fell into this one, it will vary year by year, budget by budget, and no matter how much you refuse to follow logic, I am NOT researching up and calculating it for the last 20 years) the same time the federal defecit was 12% more than the expected revenue, THE REVENUE WAS 11% HIGHER THAN EXPECTED, WHICH MAKES A 1% DEFECIT FOR THAT YEAR.
sheeesh!.
Oh well, the grass calls, and I'm gonna burn fossil fuel to cut it.
Maybe goats or sheep would be better, but they fart, methane is like 20x worse than CO2.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Galoot
Read your own response. Nothing confused me. I based my conclusion on the formula you provided.
I view the debt doubling in 14 years, as cause for concern.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

What do you view the government's income from tax payments becoming in 14 years?

[bigq]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/art04_36/0436_46news.gif
I guess we all agree to disagree, because the different "philosophies" do obvisouly, produce different results.
Whom those results are better for also differ.
Interesting that Clinton did not spend as much on info tech since basically the economy all through the 90's was based on advancing information technology and getting ready for y2k and the Internet explosion.
One major factor also is the realization of 9/11 and the war. I don't know what to tell you if you don't think Bush has done at least an ok job of keeping it going after that.;)

[centerhill condor]

According to Wednesday's WSJ page A-16;
Tax receipts in April were $70 billion above last April. Revenues for the 7 months of fiscal year are up 11.3% or $153 billion. This bonanza has slashed the projected deficit by half from the same point last year.
The deficit this year could tumble to $150 billion or an economically trivial 1% GDP.
The tax rates that "W" cut in '03 represent have resulted in a 30% increase in revenues. Income tax on individuals have increase by 17.5% due to rising wages and low unemployment.
The reality is that the wealthy are financing Dem spending ambitions and the deficit could easily vanish within a year ot two if Congress has the good sense to leave current tax policy in place....but that wasn't on CBS, ABC, or CNN!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Premier Pelosi's 80% taxing of "the rich" will solve averything. :rolleyes:

[SB]

Reagan cut tax rates, and revenue doubled.
Unfortunately spending more than doubled.
I'm worried that we are spending too much. We have to cut spending on old people.
We are also sending the Ayrabs too much cash.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Reagan cut tax rates, and revenue doubled.
Unfortunately spending more than doubled.
I'm worried that we are spending too much. We have to cut spending on old people.
We are also sending the Ayrabs too much cash.
SB,
Seems most of the folks here believe that US spending should be generally limited to the funding of war and the military and should definately not be used to fund social programs, for the elderly or not.
The National Debt is appraching $9,000,000,000,000. (nine trillion dollars).
If you look the responses to this, you will find arguments, to it's no big deal, we are better off today than we were a few years ago, it's because of inflation, and so on
Coded-Dude
I think thats the argument......how can one cut taxes, increase spending, and frivolously ignore our National Debt.
Probabally one of the most intelligent comments in this thread.

[HighRoller]

I don't mean to be inflamatory, but anyone who thinks that a "tax cut" reduces the amount of money that the government receives is ignorant and uninformed. Recently the government received the largest one day receipt of income tax funds EVER. This during a time when tax rates are lower than the Klinton era.
As far as the national debt, what are you all whining about? Most of the people in America today have a financial situation that closely resembles the government. Credit card debt out the ass, a mortgage they can't afford, two cars that total up to more than their yearly income and a bunch of garbage that they got "same as cash". 70% or more of America is living hand to mouth and the national average for savings is a negative. Financial discipline is an unpopular notion these days because we have a "buy now pay later" mentality.
The government spends a TRILLION DOLLARS every year on worthless social programs. All this belly aching on the Iraq war cracks me up because the TOTAL for this war in four years doesn't even equal one year's spending for social programs. At least we get some type of return on the war (dead terrorists) whereas the social programs are a sinkhole where 72 cents of every dollar disappears into the bureaucracy.
My solution? It's so obnoxiously simple that the politicians laugh at the idea.
CUT SPENDING YOU ASSHOLES!

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Look out HR. If you get inflamatory, you'll be branded the next Oversourced Bag of Heavyweight Champion Arrogant Ass.
Especially if you make a habit out of being right.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

My solution? It's so obnoxiously simple that the politicians laugh at the idea.
CUT SPENDING YOU ASSHOLES!
The only part of your post worth quoting. Some of us don't have a financial status that mirrors the govt. The National Debt should never be ignored
As for the trillion we've spent on those dead terrorists, almost twice as many as we've killed have emerged. Not what most would consider, the best bang for the buck.
I can't disagree with your solution.
Look out HR. If you get inflamatory, you'll be branded the next Oversourced Bag of Heavyweight Champion Arrogant Ass.
Especially if you make a habit out of being right.:D
Just like you.
You love believing that you are Yoda. Keeps that ego of yours from starving. :)

[71tahiti]

Condor, Smokin, Roller, all of you guys are RIGHT!!!!! Great Posts....
I would like to know who is Ultra's congressman. He must live in a very liberal community to come up with his view.
Point: If we dont spend the money to irradicate terrorists worldwide(which is expensive) We will have bigger problems later. But hey, I guess we will have the best fed and dressed indigents in the world....

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Just like you.
You love believing that you are Yoda. Keeps that ego of yours from starving. :)
Once wrong then prove me Ultra, and reign in my oversourced arrogant accurate ego.
The knowledge weak in you it is. Also common sense MMMmmmmm yes. Too young is this one Tex. Irrational. Hot-headed. Much time it will take.
Oh, by the way, Jeraldo Rivera is personally raising money to support the illegals who have to leave jobs here to rteturn to Mexico for a year, to ask to come back in, under the new "plan". Heard about it last night. He said it to Glen Beck, after calling him a 'racist affraid of "The Brown Tide".'
Last night the fundraising center (kinda "telethon-ish) had opperators standing by, but apparently phone trouble. Only possible explanation for nobody calling in. :idea:
I think he needs to get Jerry Lewis on it. :D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Point: If we dont spend the money to irradicate terrorists worldwide(which is expensive) We will have bigger problems later. But hey, I guess we will have the best fed and dressed indigents in the world....
If we just close the borders (plural Ultra, the US has 4), we won't have any more terrorist trouble Tahiti. They will just go away and leave us alone. Ultra promises they will.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin,
Not impressed at all, you're a dork :D

[Blown 472]

Reagan cut tax rates, and revenue doubled.
Unfortunately spending more than doubled.
I'm worried that we are spending too much. We have to cut spending on old people.
We are also sending the Ayrabs too much cash.
The GOPs introduced an amendment, calling for giving Israel 70 or 80 million (who's counting?) so that they can develop better missiles. As soon as the member who introduced the amendment finished speaking, applauses and ovations could be heard.
The Demo who took the floor expressed pain, disappointment and sorrow because the GOPs introduced this amendment without advanced notice and didn't give members a chance to actually read it but, of course the Demos were prepared to support the amendment.
Then, a GOP, Mr. Hunter, I believe, took the floor to state that Israel is our best ally ever and they deserved even more.
Then, a Demo took the floor to assure everyone that the GOP amendment was given money to Israel IN ADDITION to what the Demos had in the bill already. Not only were the Demos giving Israel lots of money but they were pushing hard to also give Israel all the classified information Israel needed on some US missile system.
It was very touching.

[Old Texan]

Once wrong then prove me Ultra, and reign in my oversourced arrogant accurate ego.
The knowledge weak in you it is. Also common sense MMMmmmmm yes. Too young is this one Tex. Irrational. Hot-headed. Much time it will take.
Oh, by the way, Jeraldo Rivera is personally raising money to support the illegals who have to leave jobs here to rteturn to Mexico for a year, to ask to come back in, under the new "plan". Heard about it last night. He said it to Glen Beck, after calling him a 'racist affraid of "The Brown Tide".'
Last night the fundraising center (kinda "telethon-ish) had opperators standing by, but apparently phone trouble. Only possible explanation for nobody calling in. :idea:
I think he needs to get Jerry Lewis on it. :D
Geraldo has been pushing this debate with anyone that will have him aboard. As usual I believe it to be more of a publicity stunt than anything else. On the subject of egos, Geraldo's is with out question record size. What he doesn't really understand is the number of "brown" citizens in this country is as much against amnesty as the other "colors". It isn't right and it isn't a solution. For Geraldo it is just another "campaign" for buying "air time".
Hear about the new fashion craze, "Liberal Blinders". Allows them to pull their heads out of the sand and focus their tunnel vision straight ahead without seeing the gators in the ditches along the road to Utopia.......:devil:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No Tex, I haven't heard of those, but I am sure they are popular with the "in" crowd (head in sand, head in azz, head in the dark, etc).
Are they available in color patterns to match popular late model boat gelcoat designs? If so, Ultra'd be stylin' :D
Yea, Jeraldo is the same camera hog moron the Revs Al and JJ are, he's just not the right color, quite. Apparently he's trying to use JJ's card tho. :idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No Tex, I haven't heard of those, but I am sure they are popular with the "in" crowd (head in sand, head in azz, head in the dark, etc).
Are they available in color patterns to match popular late model boat gelcoat designs? If so, Ultra'd be stylin' :D
Yea, Jeraldo is the same camera hog moron the Revs Al and JJ are, he's just not the right color, quite. Apparently he's trying to use JJ's card tho. :idea:
If we just close the borders (plural Ultra, the US has 4), we won't have any more terrorist trouble Tahiti. They will just go away and leave us alone.
Seems to me that the east, west and northern borders are already fairly secure. Surprised that the Heavyweight Champ of HB, wouldn't know that. If you keep up the stupid comments like this one, you're going to lose your title.
I am sure they are popular with the "in" crowd (head in sand, head in azz, head in the dark, etc). Like yourself?
I thought this thread was about the National Debt. Once again, Smokin, you're a dork.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The only reason you think the other borders are secure is you don't have 100 people per mile just walking across them, every single night.
Our coastlines are not secure, neither are our ports for people could easilly be put off in them, to just walk away.
Canada has a fairly lax entrance policy, and once in Canada, you think THAT border is closely watched in between the road crossings? If so, you are a bigger fool than I believed.
But then agqain, you believe terrorist organizations with virtually unlimited $$$$ supply would not harm us if we just left them alone in the middle east and ignored them for 40 more years.
Do you think El Presidente Pelosi's desired 80% income tax on you would clear up the Natl Debt?:idea:

[Steve 1]

SS do you think any of the Lefties here would know exactly why Ole OBL got his chit stained panties in a wad at the USA in the first place??

[Moneypitt]

Yea, Jeraldo is the same camera hog moron the Revs Al and JJ are, he's just not the right color, quite. Apparently he's trying to use JJ's card tho. :idea:
Didn't Geraldo change his Jewish name, Jerry Rubenstein, or something like that, to Geraldo Rivera to play the minority card?..........MP

[Old Texan]

Didn't Geraldo change his Jewish name, Jerry Rubenstein, or something like that, to Geraldo Rivera to play the minority card?..........MP
Jewish mother.
From Wikopedia:
Rivera was born in New York City, New York to Cruz Rivera (later "Allen Cruz Rivera"), a Puerto Rican, and Lillian Friedman Rivera, a Jewish American.[1] He grew up in Brooklyn and West Babylon, New York. He is an alumnus of University of Arizona, where he played varsity lacrosse as goalie. From September 1961 to May 1963 he attended the State University of New York Maritime College, where he was a member of the rowing team. [1] [2] He received his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1969 and later attended Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He was a lawyer for a New York Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, and attracted the attention of a news producer when he was interviewed about the group's occupation of a Harlem church in 1970.

[Moneypitt]

Jewish mother.
From Wikopedia:
Thanks for clearing that up.........MP
PS he is still an ass............

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The only reason you think the other borders are secure is you don't have 100 people per mile just walking across them, every single night.
Our coastlines are not secure, neither are our ports for people could easilly be put off in them, to just walk away.
Canada has a fairly lax entrance policy, and once in Canada, you think THAT border is closely watched in between the road crossings? If so, you are a bigger fool than I believed.
But then agqain, you believe terrorist organizations with virtually unlimited $$$$ supply would not harm us if we just left them alone in the middle east and ignored them for 40 more years.
Do you think El Presidente Pelosi's desired 80% income tax on you would clear up the Natl Debt?:idea:
More doom and gloom. Get your guns loaded, cause there comin to get us.
Secure our southern border and then work from there.
80% income tax on me. You need to take a break from the crack pipe. Pelosi is a goon
You're pathetic and a dork
PS: The current adminstration has done a bang up job strengthening the Coast Guard. Far weaker than we were before 9/11 at a big price. Who would have guessed that these clowns would screw this up too. Can't seem to get anything right.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Didn't Geraldo change his Jewish name, Jerry Rubenstein, or something like that, to Geraldo Rivera to play the minority card?..........MP
I dunno MP, first I've heard of that. I'll have to see if I can verify it.
Wouldn't surprise me any.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Looks like No MP. Original name, Gerald Miguel Riviera is what I keep finding everywhere.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Very head in the sand of ya the way you want to dismiss the 3rd most powerful person in the country as simply an irrelevant "goon". She is a direct reflection of what your party wants for income redistribution, and since the things you own as a reflection of your income, I am pretty darned sure you will wind up in her desired 80% income tax bracket. And I'll likely wind up taking a bath at about 60%.
The last "tax increase on the rich" raised taxes all the way down to $35,000/yr incomes.
Al Capone was a "goon" too, and RAN Chicago, OWNED the chicago govt, and the police. He was just a "goon" tho.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Very head in the sand of ya the way you want to dismiss the 3rd most powerful person in the country as simply an irrelevant "goon". She is a direct reflection of what your party wants for income redistribution, and since the things you own as a reflection of your income, I am pretty darned sure you will wind up in her desired 80% income tax bracket. And I'll likely wind up taking a bath at about 60%.
The last "tax increase on the rich" raised taxes all the way down to $35,000/yr incomes.
Al Capone was a "goon" too, and RAN Chicago, OWNED the chicago govt, and the police. He was just a "goon" tho.
While Pelosi is a goon, even a goon knows that you nor I can't survive paying 60 or 80% of our net income in Fed Income Tax. Gloom and doom at it's finest. You really do need to stop hitting that pipe

[QuickJet]

While Pelosi is a goon, even a goon knows that you nor I can't survive paying 60 or 80% of our net income in Fed Income Tax. Gloom and doom at it's finest. You really do need to stop hitting that pipe
Who says they don't know that? Why should they have more say in where YOUR money goes than you do?
And don't bitcha bout doom and gloom when its YOUR party preaching the unfounded effects of global warming. Complete BS!!:mad:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Who says they don't know that? Why should they have more say in where YOUR money goes than you do?
And don't bitcha bout doom and gloom when its YOUR party preaching the unfounded effects of global warming. Complete BS!!:mad:
Suggesting that I will soon be an 80% tax bracket is just plain ignorant, doom and gloom BS. Comparing this alleged 80% tax bracket and Global Warming is like comparing apples to turds.
Use your head, and think before you post such nonsense.

[QuickJet]

Suggesting that I will soon be an 80% tax bracket is just plain ignorant, doom and gloom BS. Comparing this alleged 80% tax bracket and Global Warming is like comparing apples to turds.
Use your head, and think before you post such nonsense.
Find where I said anything about an 80% tax bracket. I said how do you know what they think you can live on? Read what I say before you respond to it.
As for Global Warming, the left (yes you) would have us beleive that tornados and Hurricanes never existed before Jaunuary 20th 2001.
It'a fact that the left want to raise taxes and abolish tax cuts. Man caused Global warming is NOT a fact but only a means for Doom and Gloom.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Find where I said anything about an 80% tax bracket. I said how do you know what they think you can live on? Read what I say before you respond to it.
As for Global Warming, the left (yes you) would have us beleive that tornados and Hurricanes never existed before Jaunuary 20th 2001.
It'a fact that the left want to raise taxes and abolish tax cuts. Man caused Global warming is NOT a fact but only a means for Doom and Gloom.
Very head in the sand of ya the way you want to dismiss the 3rd most powerful person in the country as simply an irrelevant "goon". She is a direct reflection of what your party wants for income redistribution, and since the things you own as a reflection of your income, I am pretty darned sure you will wind up in her desired 80% income tax bracket. And I'll likely wind up taking a bath at about 60%.
The last "tax increase on the rich" raised taxes all the way down to $35,000/yr incomes.
Al Capone was a "goon" too, and RAN Chicago, OWNED the chicago govt, and the police. He was just a "goon" tho.
Never said that the 80% figure came from you. It came from Smokin, your mentor.
The comment about me in an 80% tax bracket is absurd. plain and simple.

[QuickJet]

Never said that the 80% figure came from you. It came from Smokin, your mentor.
The comment about me in an 80% tax bracket is absurd. plain and simple.
Point being, Nancy Palosi given the chance will indeed raise your taxes. She has said it on many occasions.
Hey, who else is supposed to pay for the influx of illegals destined to invade our country in the next few years?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Point being, Nancy Palosi given the chance will indeed raise your taxes. She has said it on many occasions.
Hey, who else is supposed to pay for the influx of illegals destined to invade our country in the next few years?
Your point is fairly lame. We all can expect some tax increases after 2008. The current method of cut taxes and increase spending surley hasn't worked.
National Debt 9 trillion and growing. Now 2 billion a week being spent in Iraq.
Hey, who else is supposed to pay for the influx of illegals destined to invade our country in the next few years?
This is the issue that both major parties want fixed. Secure the f'n Southern border. But your man is too busy destroying Iraq, in preparation to go to war with Iran. What a fockin joke.

[QuickJet]

Point being, Nancy Palosi given the chance will indeed raise your taxes. She has said it on many occasions.
Hey, who else is supposed to pay for the influx of illegals destined to invade our country in the next few years?
Your point is fairly lame. We all can expect some tax increases after 2008. The current method of cut taxes and increase spending surley hasn't worked.
National Debt 9 trillion and growing. Now 2 billion a week being spent in Iraq.
Hey, who else is supposed to pay for the influx of illegals destined to invade our country in the next few years?
This is the issue that both major parties want fixed. Secure the f'n Southern border. But your man is too busy destroying Iraq, in preparation to go to war with Iran. What a fockin joke.
You are aware the current economy rivals that of Clintons and is in some ways better. Clinton had the phony tech boom to ride on while Bush has had two wars. Complete opposites yet nearly identical economies. Why you ask? Tax cuts. Tax cuts work.
This is all basic economics taught in 8th grade. I'm suspecting that you never made it past 7th.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You are aware the current economy rivals that of Clintons and is in some ways better. Clinton had the phony tech boom to ride on while Bush has had two wars. Complete opposites yet nearly identical economies. Why you ask? Tax cuts. Tax cuts work.
This is all basic economics taught in 8th grade. I'm suspecting that you never made it past 7th.
Tax cuts only work properly with spending cuts, which hasn't happened as promised.
6th was it for me. School, I don't need no stinking school :D
In your mind, 8th grade basic economics is the proper foundation for economic stability in this Country? :jawdrop:

[dumbandyoung]

Tax cuts only work properly with spending cuts, which hasn't happened as promised.
6th was it for me. School, I don't need no stinking school :D
In your mind, 8th grade basic economics is the proper foundation for economic stability in this Country? :jawdrop:
I got your message Saturday Morning.... So how was Topac?
Ill be up this weekend, you gonna be back up?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Never said that the 80% figure came from you. It came from Smokin, your mentor.
The comment about me in an 80% tax bracket is absurd. plain and simple.
Do you know what is in Nancy's proposed tax bill?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

[/B]
Your point is fairly lame. We all can expect some tax increases after 2008. The current method of cut taxes and increase spending surley hasn't worked.
National Debt 9 trillion and growing. Now 2 billion a week being spent in Iraq.
Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES WENT UP after the Bush tax cuts eh?
Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES WENT UP after the Regan tax cuts eh?
Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES ARE STILL GOING UP after the Bush tax cuts eh?

[QuickJet]

Tax cuts only work properly with spending cuts, which hasn't happened as promised.:
I am all for cutting spending. I agree to abolish welfare, state aid, medical, education for illegals, public transit, aid to N. Korea, aid to foreign nations in time of need, using the death penalty instead of life sentances, deporting ALL illegals etc.
In your mind, 8th grade basic economics is the proper foundation for economic stability in this Country? :jawdrop:
No, economics is so basic that even an 8th grader can understand it. This might explain your difficultly in doing so.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES WENT UP after the Bush tax cuts eh?
Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES WENT UP after the Regan tax cuts eh?
Still in denial that the federal TAX REVENUES ARE STILL GOING UP after the Bush tax cuts eh?
Still in denial that the National Debt is now nearly 9 trillion dollars?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I got your message Saturday Morning.... So how was Topac?
Ill be up this weekend, you gonna be back up?
Dennis,
I hope I didn't wake you up calling so early Sat morning. Got my weekends crossed.
It was good. Made it down to the channel at about 9:30 am and hung out with Todd and Dana for while.
All in all it was a fun trip. Boat ran good
I'm going to take this weekend off and head the a week from this Thursday. We will connect sometime soon. I want check out that jet rocket of yours. Stay in touch.
John M

[dumbandyoung]

Dennis,
I hope I didn't wake you up calling so early Sat morning. Got my weekends crossed.
It was good. Made it down to the channel at about 9:30 am and hung out with Todd and Dana for while.
All in all it was a fun trip. Boat ran good
I'm going to take this weekend off and head the a week from this Thursday. We will connect sometime soon. I want check out that jet rocket of yours. Stay in touch.
John M
No, you didn't wake me. My dog took care of that for me about 20 minutes before you called. haha. I'll save your # in my phone, we'll connect soon.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No, you didn't wake me. My dog took care of that for me about 20 minutes before you called. haha. I'll save your # in my phone, we'll connect soon.
Talk to you soon
John M

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Still in denial that the National Debt is now nearly 9 trillion dollars?
No, I just don't think it is pulling the sky down like you do.
The 2006 GDP was 13 trillion dollars
2007 is looking like 13.6 trillion dollars.
Since a tax increase in 2008 is inevitable, just how much more do you want to pay? Since you are not paying your fair share,how much is enough?
I'm paying plenty thank you.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No, I just don't think it is pulling the sky down like you do.
The 2006 GDP was 13 trillion dollars
2007 is looking like 13.6 trillion dollars.
Since a tax increase in 2008 is inevitable, just how much more do you want to pay? Since you are not paying your fair share,how much is enough?
I'm paying plenty thank you.
Obviously Smokin, you and I have very different political views and different political fears. I think your views and fears are from another planet, and I imagine you see mine similarly. Age is part of the issue as is location. Well this is a political forum... Nevermind
I don't want to pay more taxes but I don't believe this Country is making it's bills. An average 2.5% tax increase and a 7.5% spending decrease would get this Country moving is a better direction. I also see the need to increase SS tax. As I recall, the system is based on the average family consisting of 2 children, and the birthrate today is down to about 1.4. People are also living longer. This system need to be fixed, and it's going to take money to do it.
Now it's your turn to tell me how ignorant I am for making such an uninformed and stupid comment.

[QuickJet]

Obviously Smokin, you and I have very different political views and different political fears. I think your views and fears are from another planet, and I imagine you see mine similarly. Age is part of the issue as is location. Well this is a political forum... Nevermind
I don't want to pay more taxes but I don't believe this Country is making it's bills. An average 2.5% tax increase and a 7.5% spending decrease would get this Country moving is a better direction. I also see the need to increase SS tax. As I recall, the system is based on the average family consisting of 2 children, and the birthrate today is down to about 1.4. People are also living longer. This system need to be fixed, and it's going to take money to do it.
Now it's your turn to tell me how ignorant I am for making such an uninformed and stupid comment.
And tell me how the Dems are going to cut spending. Who is going to pay the 2.5% increase and why?

[Old Texan]

[QUOTE=ULTRA26 # 1;2575537] I also see the need to increase SS tax. As I recall, the system is based on the average family consisting of 2 children, and the birthrate today is down to about 1.4. People are also living longer. This system need to be fixed, and it's going to take money to do it.
QUOTE]
Yeah we can't wait for the Dems to tackle SS. They have had their heads in the sand regarding the issue for the last 6 years as the current administration was fought at every corner over the issue. Privitization vs. raising the SS tax, the Dems will pick the latter every time. Obama has already hinted he is for bailing out failing Union / Auto worker pension funds, where's that money gonna come from?
There's a whole lot of grief on the horizon regarding retirement funding. How are you going to blame W for that??????

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Yeah we can't wait for the Dems to tackle SS. They have had their heads in the sand regarding the issue for the last 6 years as the current administration was fought at every corner over the issue. Privitization vs. raising the SS tax, the Dems will pick the latter every time. Obama has already hinted he is for bailing out failing Union / Auto worker pension funds, where's that money gonna come from?
There's a whole lot of grief on the horizon regarding retirement funding. How are you going to blame W for that??????
W isn't to blame for this issue. SS has been broken for long time. I didn't believe that the Bush plan was a good one but I give the man credit for at least trying. The Dems will have their hands full very soon and I have to hope thay are up to tasks. So far I'm not overly impressed by anyone in the field.
And tell me how the Dems are going to cut spending. Who is going to pay the 2.5% increase and why?
Based on every Dem running, their first order of business is ending the war in Iraq. If you cut the cost of the milidary in Iraq by 50%, you reduce spending by 50 bil a year.
The 2 1/2% is a number I suggested. I know of no support for this figure. If it was up to me it would be shared by middle income folks, paying the smalest % and the highest income folks paying the largest %. SS tax increases for all

[QuickJet]

Based on every Dem running, their first order of business is ending the war in Iraq. If you cut the cost of the milidary in Iraq by 50%, you reduce spending by 50 bil a year.
The 2 1/2% is a number I suggested. I know of no support for this figure. If it was up to me it would be shared by middle income folks, paying the smalest % and the highest income folks paying the largest %. SS tax increases for all
That's so cute, you actually believe that the Dems want to end the war in Iraq. Tell me then, why have they not stopped the funding for it?
The reality is that they want YOU to think they want to end the war. It's a way to get elected.
Why should a wealthy man pay more % than that of a middle class man? Doesn't he pay more already? Why penalize the wealthy?
Why not penalize the poor? They use more Government resources than anybody.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That's so cute, you actually believe that the Dems want to end the war in Iraq. Tell me then, why have they not stopped the funding for it?
The reality is that they want YOU to think they want to end the war. It's a way to get elected.
Why should a wealthy man pay more % than that of a middle class man? Doesn't he pay more already? Why penalize the wealthy?
.
1. Yes I believe that the Dems want to end the war in Iraq
2. I don't have an the answer to why the Dems just don't cut off funding. I would imagine that an immediate end to funding would cause extreme hardship to our troops.
3. It is the basis of our current tax structure. Not necessary proper. A more equitable system would to tax all income at the same rate and remove all deductions. If all income was taxed at a flat 15% no ded's, our Country would be in surplus mode real quick. Fat chance of getting something this by Corporate America.
Why not penalize the poor? They use more Government resources than anybody
4. Is is a dumb question. :eek: It's impossible to collect more income tax from those who have no income.

[QuickJet]

1. Yes I believe that the Dems want to end the war in Iraq .
So you belive what a polititian says rather than what he does.
2. I don't have an the answer to why the Dems just don't cut off funding. I would imagine that an immediate end to funding would cause extreme hardship to our troops. .
Actually Einstein if they said no more funding past August they would start the redeployment tomorrow. So why havn't they done that if they are so hell bent on ending this so called war?
3. It is the basis of our current tax structure. Not necessary proper. A more equitable system would to tax all income at the same rate and remove all deductions. If all income was taxed at a flat 15% no ded's, our Country would be in surplus mode real quick. Fat chance of getting something this by Corporate America. .
I agree 100%. A flat tax would tax those who pay no taxes. If we raised the taxes on goods and services and abloished the income tax, EVERYBODY would pay there share.
4. Is is a dumb question. :eek: It's impossible to collect more income tax from those who have no income.
See the above response. It's exactly what I was getting at.

[Old Texan]

Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
3. It is the basis of our current tax structure. Not necessary proper. A more equitable system would to tax all income at the same rate and remove all deductions. If all income was taxed at a flat 15% no ded's, our Country would be in surplus mode real quick. Fat chance of getting something this by Corporate America. .
QJ-
I agree 100%. A flat tax would tax those who pay no taxes. If we raised the taxes on goods and services and abloished the income tax, EVERYBODY would pay there share.
The plan being touted about DC is "The Fair Tax." Basically a National Sales Tax with monthly rebates based on a set cost for food and staples, equal across the board. Talk show host Neil Boortz and Sen. John Linder have a book telling how the plan works. It's a good plan.
Guess which party is the most against it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[QuickJet]

The plan being touted about DC is "The Fair Tax." Basically a National Sales Tax with monthly rebates based on a set cost for food and staples, equal across the board. Talk show host Neil Boortz and Sen. John Linder have a book telling how the plan works. It's a good plan.
Guess which party is the most against it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
I'm thinking that anything with the word "Fair" in the title is going to be opposed by the Dems. Just a hunch.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I'd like to see it come to be, but Demacrats and some Republicians are too addicted to being able to control us with tax write offs etc to ever grant us the increase in financial freedom the "Fair Tax" would provide.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

If all income was taxed at a flat 15% no ded's, our Country would be in surplus mode real quick. Fat chance of getting something this by Corporate America.
Just how do you figure "Corporate America" has a beef against a flat 15% income tax, which is less than half of what they pay already,
Besides, you don't know much about running a business, do you?:
No business out there pays taxes. It's CUSTOMERS pay the taxes. The taxes are added into the cost of the product/service.

[QuickJet]

Just how do you figure "Corporate America" has a beef against a flat 15% income tax, which is less than half of what they pay already,
Besides, you don't know much about running a business, do you?:
No business out there pays taxes. It's CUSTOMERS pay the taxes. The taxes are added into the cost of the product/service.
How dare you critisize Ultra26. He knows everything about everything http://***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Just how do you figure "Corporate America" has a beef against a flat 15% income tax, which is less than half of what they pay already,
Besides, you don't know much about running a business, do you?:
No business out there pays taxes. It's CUSTOMERS pay the taxes. The taxes are added into the cost of the product/service.
Smokin,
Obvioisly you haven't taken my suggetion to quit hitting the pipe. There is a big difference in paying flat tax based on gross income (no deductions) and paying adusted tax based on net income (after deductions).
Your second comment is even more ridicules and uniformed than your first.
No business out there pays taxes Please! Again dude, you need to lay off the pipe.

[QuickJet]

Smokin,
Obvioisly you haven't taken my suggetion to quit hitting the pipe. There is a big difference in paying flat tax based on gross income (no deductions) and paying adusted tax based on net income (after deductions).
Your second comment is even more ridicules and uniformed than your first.
No business out there pays taxes Please! Again dude, you need to lay off the pipe.
Business DON"T pay taxes!!! I don't know what polititian told you that they do, but they don't. Their taxes are payed for by the consumers in the products they sell. If you raise the taxes or cost (overhead) it is past directly onto the consumer. That's how I run my buisiness. I don't pay for gas, material, taxes, overhead, nothing. I have a bottom line that I make on every job. Anything above that the customer pays for.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Business DON"T pay taxes!!! I don't know what polititian told you that they do, but they don't. Their taxes are payed for by the consumers in the products they sell. If you raise the taxes or cost (overhead) it is past directly onto the consumer. That's how I run my buisiness. I don't pay for gas, material, taxes, overhead, nothing. I have a bottom line that I make on every job. Anything above that the customer pays for.
Stating that no business pays taxes is just plain stupid. While some businesses maybe able to operate with your methods, there are many who can't. Nothing to do with politics, just facts.
If you raise the taxes or cost (overhead) it is past directly onto the consumer Does this in some way suggest thay you don't pay taxes?
To suggest that increased consumer pricing in some way reduces your tax liability is not very bright. Increased consuner pricing will result in higher on the books profits, which will result, in many cases, in a higher tax bracket, and more taxes.
There is little difference between you and the employee who must take home 75K a year. You must charge your customer the difference between your bottom line needs and the amounts needed to generate your bottom line. The 75K take home employee must demand a salary, depending on his/her available deductions, somewhere in the 100 to 110k range.
In your position, you can only pass on so much to the consumer before you are no longer competitively priced.
I guess your way of looking at things helps you to believe the myth that you don't pay taxes.
You do pay taxes, no matter how you want to look at it.

[QuickJet]

Stating that no business pays taxes is just plain stupid. While some businesses maybe able to operate with your methods, there are many who can't. Nothing to do with politics, just facts.
If you raise the taxes or cost (overhead) it is past directly onto the consumer Does this in some way suggest thay you don't pay taxes?
To suggest that increased consumer pricing in some way reduces your tax liability is not very bright. Increased consuner pricing will result in higher on the books profits, which will result, in mnay cases, in a higher tax bracket, and more taxes.
There is little difference between you and the employee who must take home 75K a year. You must charge your customer the difference between your bottom line needs and the amounts needed to generate your bottom line. The 75K take home employee must demand a salary, depending on his/her available deductions, somewhere in the 100 to 110k range.
In your position, you can only pass on so much to the consumer before you are no longer competitively priced.
I guess your way of looking at things helps you to believe the myth that you don't pay taxes.
You do pay taxes, no matter how you want to look at it.
I pay personal income taxes from the salary I draw from my company. My prices are adjusted accordingly to expenses. Taxes being one of them. Sure I write the IRS a check every quarter but it's the customers who are footing the bill, not me. Same goes with gas, truck expenses, etc. My customers even pay for my fast food habit.
I'm a small company though.
Take a company like Sony. If suddenly the tech industry was thrown into a "tech tax", who do you think would pay the increase? Anytime the expense of running a buisiness goes up no matter what it is, the consumer always pays.

[Old Texan]

I pay personal income taxes from the salary I draw from my company. My prices are adjusted accordingly to expenses. Taxes being one of them. Sure I write the IRS a check every quarter but it's the customers who are footing the bill, not me. Same goes with gas, truck expenses, etc. My customers even pay for my fast food habit.
I'm a small company though.
Take a company like Sony. If suddenly the tech industry was thrown into a "tech tax", who do you think would pay the increase? Anytime the expense of running a buisiness goes up no matter what it is, the consumer always pays.
Part of the "Fair Tax" plan is the removal of "Imbedded Taxes". There are taxes incurred as part of doing business and are taken into account as part of the cost of doing business. Any business that "doesn't" pass these taxes / costs on to the consumer will not stay in business as they will eventually go broke. The Fair Tax being a national "Sales Tax" would generate revenue strictly on purchased goods.
Side note: Ultra John, by outward appearances your debate style of namecalling isn't generating a whole lot of substance. When conversing with your accountant, doctor, or others, do you point out any contrary opinions as "stupid", "you dork", etc.???? I don't recall that chapter in the old standby "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Just curious......:confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Part of the "Fair Tax" plan is the removal of "Imbedded Taxes". There are taxes incurred as part of doing business and are taken into account as part of the cost of doing business. Any business that "doesn't" pass these taxes / costs on to the consumer will not stay in business as they will eventually go broke. The Fair Tax being a national "Sales Tax" would generate revenue strictly on purchased goods.
Side note: Ultra John, by outward appearances your debate style of namecalling isn't generating a whole lot of substance. When conversing with your accountant, doctor, or others, do you point out any contrary opinions as "stupid", "you dork", etc.???? I don't recall that chapter in the old standby "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Just curious......:confused:
Tex,
There is little chance of me winning any friends aound here, this should be obvious to you as well. I have never called you stupid, nor will I. We generally don't agree, but we do it respectfully. Reffering to Smokin as a dork, is done so with a smile.
If my doctor or accountant called me a stupid ignorant fool, as many have in this forum, I don't believe that I would spend a great deal of time trying to make friends with them.
I find it interesting that I don't see you making comments to your buddies who constantly call me names or refer to me in all kinds of unpleasent ways. I'm sorry that my style offends you.
For me to comment of the FairTax plan wouldn't be proper as I don't understand all of it's fine points, of this issue, at this time.
I pay personal income taxes from the salary I draw from my company. My prices are adjusted accordingly to expenses. Taxes being one of them. Sure I write the IRS a check every quarter but it's the customers who are footing the bill, not me. Same goes with gas, truck expenses, etc. My customers even pay for my fast food habit.
I'm a small company though.
Take a company like Sony. If suddenly the tech industry was thrown into a "tech tax", who do you think would pay the increase? Anytime the expense of running a buisiness goes up no matter what it is, the consumer always pays.
This is far different that stating that businesses do not pay taxes. Just trying to keep this issue straight.

[Old Texan]

Tex,
There is little chance of me winning any friends aound here, this should be obvious to you as well. I have never called you stupid, nor will I. We generally don't agree, but we do it respectfully. Reffering to Smokin as a dork, is done so with a smile.
If my doctor or accountant called me a stupid ignorant fool, as many have in this forum, I don't believe that I would spend a great deal of time trying to make friends with them.
I find it interesting that I don't see you making comments to your buddies who constantly call me names or refer to me in all kinds of unpleasent ways. I'm sorry that my style offends you.
For me to comment of the FairTax plan wouldn't be proper as I don't understand all of it's fine points, of this issue, at this time.
This is far different that stating that businesses do not pay taxes. Just trying to keep this issue straight.
I'm not offended John, just making an observation. Please don't assume how people think as it adds to how opinions are interpreted, if that makes any sense to ya....:)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'm not offended John, just making an observation. Please don't assume how people think as it adds to how opinions are interpreted, if that makes any sense to ya....:)
Tex,
Sorry if my style offends you, would have been a better choice of words.
I repesct your opinions, whether I agree with them or not. It's not always what you say, it's how you say it.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Reffering to Smokin as a dork, is done so with a smile.
Not for long.
If my doctor or accountant called me a stupid ignorant fool, as many have in this forum, I don't believe that I would spend a great deal of time trying to make friends with them.
I'm glad I am not your Dr. or Accountant, or your English teacher. They want your $$$, I want nothing. I call it like it is when you make foolish, ignorant statements like "businesses pay taxes".
FACT!. Every dollar every business has, once belonged to a customer of the business.
FACT. What a business pays in taxes, comes from money given the business, by the customers.
FACT. A business wants, say, a 18% profit, and prices it's goods or services, to generate that profit, AFTER IT PAYS IT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING TAXES.
FACT. A business does not take from it's own coffers the funds it needs to pay it's expenses, it figures those expenses into it's costs of doing business, and charges it's customers what it has to to cover those costs, and then generate the profit margin it wants.
The customers pay the employees wages, not the employer.
The customers pay the corporate portion of medical insurance coverage, not the employer.
The customers pay the businesses building rent/lease/construction and maintenance costs, not the business.
The customer pays the corporations's business lisencing fees, taxes, stock dividends (if publicly traded company) INCLUDING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES.
Any company, large or small, works this way, or will not work very long.
Since you think I haver it wrong, then explain to me HOW I am wrong, instead of your usual empty claims. Educate me (for once) Ultra.
your buddies who constantly call me names or refer to me in all kinds of unpleasent ways.
I used to be pleasant, untill I discovered you don't listen. I think this was somewhere arround the 4th time I quoted a law to you.
For me to comment of the FairTax plan wouldn't be proper as I don't understand all of it's fine points, of this issue, at this time.
And I don't think, from your history, you will be researching it any time soon either will you.

[Blown 472]

Not for long.
I'm glad I am not your Dr. or Accountant, or your English teacher. They want your $$$, I want nothing. I call it like it is when you make foolish, ignorant statements like "businesses pay taxes".
FACT!. Every dollar every business has, once belonged to a customer of the business.
FACT. What a business pays in taxes, comes from money given the business, by the customers.
FACT. A business wants, say, a 18% profit, and prices it's goods or services, to generate that profit, AFTER IT PAYS IT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING TAXES.
FACT. A business does not take from it's own coffers the funds it needs to pay it's expenses, it figures those expenses into it's costs of doing business, and charges it's customers what it has to to cover those costs, and then generate the profit margin it wants.
The customers pay the employees wages, not the employer.
The customers pay the corporate portion of medical insurance coverage, not the employer.
The customers pay the businesses building rent/lease/construction and maintenance costs, not the business.
The customer pays the corporations's business lisencing fees, taxes, stock dividends (if publicly traded company) INCLUDING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES.
Any company, large or small, works this way, or will not work very long.
Since you think I haver it wrong, then explain to me HOW I am wrong, instead of your usual empty claims. Educate me (for once) Ultra.
I used to be pleasant, untill I discovered you don't listen. I think this was somewhere arround the 4th time I quoted a law to you.
And I don't think, from your history, you will be researching it any time soon either will you.
Then why is all them bidnesses moving offshore?

[Blown 472]

http://www.dor.mo.gov/tax/business/

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Not for long.
I'm glad I am not your Dr. or Accountant, or your English teacher. They want your $$$, I want nothing. I call it like it is when you make foolish, ignorant statements like "businesses pay taxes".
FACT!. Every dollar every business has, once belonged to a customer of the business.
FACT. What a business pays in taxes, comes from money given the business, by the customers.
FACT. A business wants, say, a 18% profit, and prices it's goods or services, to generate that profit, AFTER IT PAYS IT'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING TAXES.
FACT. A business does not take from it's own coffers the funds it needs to pay it's expenses, it figures those expenses into it's costs of doing business, and charges it's customers what it has to to cover those costs, and then generate the profit margin it wants.
The customers pay the employees wages, not the employer.
The customers pay the corporate portion of medical insurance coverage, not the employer.
The customers pay the businesses building rent/lease/construction and maintenance costs, not the business.
The customer pays the corporations's business lisencing fees, taxes, stock dividends (if publicly traded company) INCLUDING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES.
Any company, large or small, works this way, or will not work very long.
Since you think I haver it wrong, then explain to me HOW I am wrong, instead of your usual empty claims. Educate me (for once) Ultra.
I used to be pleasant, untill I discovered you don't listen. I think this was somewhere arround the 4th time I quoted a law to you.
And I don't think, from your history, you will be researching it any time soon either will you.
Smokin,
Your statements are so utterly ridicules, I am not going to waste much time on an explanation. I really thought you were brighter than this.
There are businesses that sell products that have fixed prices.
The business provides a service or a product to a customer. The customer pays the business for the product or service. The money now belongs to the business, not the customer. Duh!!
Tax is paid under a businesses Tax ID, or SS #
Your logic follows a notion that employees don't pay income tax, their employers or customers of the employer pay it for them. Again, false.
The funds received from consumers by business, are taxed based on how the business manages these funds, or income. Who is liable to the feds, for the taxable income, from a business, surely not the consumer. You have balls to call my comment follish and ignorant.
Again, I'm not wasting another minute on this semantic silliness. Your 100% wrong on this one.
Where do you get this garbage.
PS Post something worthwhile and I will listen
BYW you are too thick headed to admit your wrong about this or any other issue.

[Moneypitt]

Smokin,
Your statements are so utterly ridicules, I am not going to waste much time on an explanation. I really thought you were brighter than this.
There are businesses that sell products that have fixed prices.
The business provides a service or a product to a customer. The customer pays the business for the product or service. The money now belongs to the business, not the customer. Duh!!
Tax is paid under a businesses Tax ID, or SS #
Your logic follows a notion that employees don't pay income tax, their employers or customers of the employer pay it for them. Again, false.
The funds received from consumers by business, are taxed based on how the business manages these funds, or income. Who is liable to the feds, for the taxable income, from a business, surely not the consumer. You have balls to call my comment follish and ignorant.
Again, I'm not wasting another minute on this semantic silliness. Your 100% wrong on this one.
Where do you get this garbage.
PS Post something worthwhile and I will listen
BYW you are too thick headed to admit your wrong about this or any other issue.
Excuse me, but if a business never sees a customer's money none of your ideas about where the business' tax money comes from will work. No income, no taxes, (sales or personal, or payroll)....So, somewhere, someone had to spend some money there to generate and sustain the business. The customer pays the sales tax, the business forwards that to the proper tax base. The customer pays, the company profits, pays wages, employees pay income taxes from the same money the customer spent/ profit made,....it is a never ending cycle, but the first customer to spend a dime at that business started the whole process. No customer's money, no nothing.......MP

[Old Texan]

Smokin,
Your statements are so utterly ridicules, I am not going to waste much time on an explanation. I really thought you were brighter than this.
There are businesses that sell products that have fixed prices.
The business provides a service or a product to a customer. The customer pays the business for the product or service. The money now belongs to the business, not the customer. Duh!!
Tax is paid under a businesses Tax ID, or SS #
Your logic follows a notion that employees don't pay income tax, their employers or customers of the employer pay it for them. Again, false.
The funds received from consumers by business, are taxed based on how the business manages these funds, or income. Who is liable to the feds, for the taxable income, from a business, surely not the consumer. You have balls to call my comment follish and ignorant.
Again, I'm not wasting another minute on this semantic silliness. Your 100% wrong on this one.
Where do you get this garbage.
PS Post something worthwhile and I will listen
BYW you are too thick headed to admit your wrong about this or any other issue.
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. John I give up.
In the immortal words of Frasier Crane, "Woody, what color is the sky in your world?"

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Excuse me, but if a business never sees a customer's money none of your ideas about where the business' tax money comes from will work. No income, no taxes, (sales or personal, or payroll)....So, somewhere, someone had to spend some money there to generate and sustain the business. The customer pays the sales tax, the business forwards that to the proper tax base. The customer pays, the company profits, pays wages, employees pay income taxes from the same money the customer spent/ profit made,....it is a never ending cycle, but the first customer to spend a dime at that business started the whole process. No customer's money, no nothing.......MP
MP, we all know where the money comes from and it's obvious that the customer starts the process. To say that businesses don't pay taxes, which what this is about, is absurd.
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. John I give up.
In the immortal words of Frasier Crane, "Woody, what color is the sky in your world?"
Again, I agree Tex, Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. To come on here and agree that businesses dont pay taxes is Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. This is Semantic nonsense and you know it as well as I. I pay tax, and plenty of it. My busness pays tax and plenty of it. I buy the products at a fixed price, they are sold the consumer at fixed price. The result is my profit. Feds raise income taxes, result less profit. Operating cost increases, less profit. Who is liable for the income tax on my businesses net profit, I am. Businesses pay income taxes. Of course this is all starts with consumer spending DUH!!!, but business still pay the income taxes. AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT SALES TAX WHICH OBVIOUSLY THE CONSUMER PAYS
If this is too complicated for you it is a good idea that you give up. Apparantly in your world the color of the sky is something other than blue.
.

[centerhill condor]

MP, To say that businesses don't pay taxes, which what this is about, is absurd.
.
Actually, Ray (MP) is correct...business doesn't pay taxes they merely pass that expense on to the customer. The profit margins remain the same and your friends get to make their speeches about how they stuck it to "the man, big oil, whatever". When in reality they stuck it to you yet again!
That is how we pay roughly 40 cents per gallon in taxes...the company collects the tax for the gov't.
Now you know.

[QuickJet]

If the Government raised the taxes on buisiness, said product price to the consumer would rise. Customers pay the taxes not the buisiness.
It's very simple Ultra (well to anyone that knows anything)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If the Government raised the taxes on buisiness, said product price to the consumer would rise. Customers pay the taxes not the buisiness.
It's very simple Ultra (well to anyone that knows anything)
Not if the price if the product is fixed and/or regulated. If the Govt raised the income tax %, the margin of profit goes down.
It is very simple and I obviously know much more than you would like to give me credit for.
Actually, Ray (MP) is correct...business doesn't pay taxes they merely pass that expense on to the customer. The profit margins remain the same and your friends get to make their speeches about how they stuck it to "the man, big oil, whatever". When in reality they stuck it to you yet again!
That is how we pay roughly 40 cents per gallon in taxes...the company collects the tax for the gov't.
Now you know.
The 40 cent per gallon you refer to are sales and/or some of the form of State or Federal taxes collected at the point of sale. This has nothing to do with the income tax due the IRS, for the profit made between wholesale, middleman and retail. Some business sell products that the govt fixes the prices. In these cases the margin of profit is affected by the income tax rates.

[QuickJet]

Not if the price if the product is fixed and/or regulated. If the Govt raised the income tax %, the margin of profit goes down.
.
What products in America are regulated by the Government according to price? What products have "fixed" pricing? The market, cost, demand and availability dictates price. If the tax goes up so does the price you pay. Why would a buisiness eat the the tax when they can pass the expense onto the consumer and keep the stockholders happy?
Tell me what happend when the steele tarrifs went up?? Oh, damn, the price of steele went up. Gee I wonder if it was the increase in cost that caused it. See the steel industry still made their priffit no matter what and the consumer paid the increase.
Did you even take economics in school? You seem to have problems in grasping common sense issues.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What products in America are regulated by the Government according to price? What products have "fixed" pricing? The market, cost, demand and availability dictates price. If the tax goes up so does the price you pay. Why would a buisiness eat the the tax when they can pass the expense onto the consumer and keep the stockholders happy?
Tell me what happend when the steele tarrifs went up?? Oh, damn, the price of steele went up. Gee I wonder if it was the increase in cost that caused it. See the steel industry still made their priffit no matter what and the consumer paid the increase.
Did you even take economics in school? You seem to have problems in grasping common sense issues.
Insurance. The State of California regulates the price of insurance. As I have stated over and over and over again. In the case of dealing with product where prices are gerenally fixed, such as insurance in CA, if fed income tax rates are increased, the insurance company or agent selling the insurance
has a lower margin of profit.
Your original statement NO BUSINESS PAY TAX, and again I say and have proved you're wrong.

[QuickJet]

Insurance. The State of California regulates the price of insurance. As I have stated over and over and over again. In the case of dealing with product where prices are gerenally fixed, such as insurance in CA, if fed income tax rates are increased, the insurance company or agent selling the insurance
has a lower margin of profit.
Your original statement NO BUSINESS PAY TAX, and again I say and have proved you're wrong.
You prooved that you know nothing. Even though there is an insurance commisioner, insurance rates are far from regulated. Insurance rates flexuate throughout the market. The Insurance industry is a prime example of how if the cost of doing buisiness goes up, so do your rates.
I'm under the impression that you believe buisiness's fill out the 1040 EZ form and send it off in hopes a tax return like Joe Public.
Wanna try another one?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You prooved that you know nothing. Even though there is an insurance commisioner, insurance rates are far from regulated. Insurance rates flexuate throughout the market. The Insurance industry is a prime example of how if the cost of doing buisiness goes up, so do your rates.
I'm under the impression that you believe buisiness's fill out the 1040 EZ form and send it off in hopes a tax return like Joe Public.
Wanna try another one?
Insurance rates in CA are absolutely regulated by the Depertment of Insurance. I have been in the businesss for 25 years and assure you I know what I am talking about. California law requires an State approved rate filing to increase or decrease rates. I have seen rate filings take as long as 6 months to get approved or declined, with the minimum being 90 days. Increases in the cost of paper, or incerased income tax %'s are not considered when filing for a rate increase. If you believe that an insurance company can raise or lower rates any time it needs more income, you are mistaken, I promise.
I'm under the impression that you believe buisiness's fill out the 1040 EZ form and send it off in hopes a tax return like Joe Public.
You shouldn't have gotten this impression from anything I have stated about this subject. A 1040 EZ in only available to an employee who operates under, or receives a W2 from his/her employer. Businesses pay tax, based on estimated income, and this tax is paid quarterly. On or before April 15th, the or the equivilant day due date, the following year, a business, must assemble a virtual book of forms that outline all income and expenditures. The business tax liability or credit (or return) if any, is based on the adjusted net income vs. the amount paid in estimate tax.
Leave the condescending BS for a subject you know something about.

[QuickJet]

Insurance rates in CA are absolutely regulated by the Depertment of Insurance. I have been in the businesss for 25 years and assure you I know what I am talking about. California law requires an State approved rate filing to increase or decrease rates. I have seen rate filings take as long as 6 months to get approved or declined, with the minimum being 90 days. Increases in the cost of paper, or incerased income tax %'s are not considered when filing for a rate increase. If you believe that an insurance company can raise or lower rates any time it needs more income, you are mistaken, I promise.
I'm under the impression that you believe buisiness's fill out the 1040 EZ form and send it off in hopes a tax return like Joe Public.
You shouldn't have gotten this impression from anything I have stated about this subject. A 1040 EZ in only available to an employee who operates under, or receives a W2 from his/her employer. Businesses pay tax, based on estimated income, and this tax is paid quarterly. On or before April 15th, the or the equivilant day due date, the following year, a business, must assemble a virtual book of forms that outline all income and expenditures. The business tax liability or credit (or return) if any, is based on the adjusted net income vs. the amount paid in estimate tax.
Leave the condescending BS for a subject you know something about.
Again you exhibit the attention span of a 10 year old.
Here is an example (not that it will help you out since everyone else has tried with you)
Are you aware of a bottom line profit? It means that if Hershey neaded to make .30 cents per every 1.00 candy bar sold to be successfull and stay in buiisiness, then the .30 cents is the bottom line. Now lets say you have it your way and the big government steps in and adds a .10 cent "junk food tax" onto every Hershey candy bar sold that leaves the factory. Now suddenly Hershey is only clearing .20 cents per every candy bar. So in accordance to "bottom line profits" they have to add .10 cents at the register to every candy bar sold. Now Hershey is making their .30 cents and the consumer is paying for it.
If they taxed the insurance industry the same way, then yes we would have to pay the increase via higher premiums and deductables. Otherwise you would have Government control buisiness finances via taxes.
I guess the only way to convince you is to take a poll. When you see that 70% of the people or more know this then and only then will your mind be changed.
P.S. And don't tell me about Government regulations when it comes to insurrance. One company can charge 1,800 per year while another will only charge $1,000. There is a big spaqn of costs before the Government steps in. You would have us all believe that there is a flat rate for every type of driver that the insurance industry has to adhere to.
Complete BS.

[centerhill condor]

Hey QJ, don't you get it...Ultra is a tar baby.. He is right no matter what you say. Forget profits...if they don't raise the rates the company will leave. Notice he said some...not most or all.
His buddy Chavez is having real trouble with this because unlike Ultra he actually has to run a country. Currently, Chavez's subjects are running out of food because the gov't set prices and there is no "incentive" to produce or import for no profit...this is what happens when the gov't sets the price and the company can't make a profit suitable to the investment.
Chavez did the next logical thing...nationalized the media to elimate the ciritcs.
Sets up a nice black market, though.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Again you exhibit the attention span of a 10 year old.
Here is an example (not that it will help you out since everyone else has tried with you)
Are you aware of a bottom line profit? It means that if Hershey neaded to make .30 cents per every 1.00 candy bar sold to be successfull and stay in buiisiness, then the .30 cents is the bottom line. Now lets say you have it your way and the big government steps in and adds a .10 cent "junk food tax" onto every Hershey candy bar sold that leaves the factory. Now suddenly Hershey is only clearing .20 cents per every candy bar. So in accordance to "bottom line profits" they have to add .10 cents at the register to every candy bar sold. Now Hershey is making their .30 cents and the consumer is paying for it.
If they taxed the insurance industry the same way, then yes we would have to pay the increase via higher premiums and deductables. Otherwise you would have Government control buisiness finances via taxes.
I guess the only way to convince you is to take a poll. When you see that 70% of the people or more know this then and only then will your mind be changed.
P.S. And don't tell me about Government regulations when it comes to insurrance. One company can charge 1,800 per year while another will only charge $1,000. There is a big spaqn of costs before the Government steps in. You would have us all believe that there is a flat rate for every type of driver that the insurance industry has to adhere to.
Complete BS.
Your simplistic 8th grade economic veiws of how all busineses operate don't apply in the real world. If company A rasies it's price every time everyime there is an increase in the cost of doing business, and company B does not, company B will see a serge in sales and company A will see a decline. While company A might maintain it's bottom line profit per item, it's overall profit will decline as a result of decreased sales. On the other hand, company B's bottom line profit per item will decrease, but it's overall profit will rise as a result of increased sales.
Please give it up and leave this topic to those of us who understand what operateing a financially successful business entails. There is way more to maintaining a company's profitability than simply raising the price of the product or service concurrently with the cost of doing business. And by the way, BUSINESSES DO PAY TAXES, YOU PAY TAXES, I PAY TAXES AS DOES EVERYONE ELSE WHO MAKE A TAXABLE INCOME. Taxes suck but thay are our way of life.
Hey QJ, don't you get it...Ultra is a tar baby.. He is right no matter what you say. Forget profits...if they don't raise the rates the company will leave. Notice he said some...not most or all.
His buddy Chavez is having real trouble with this because unlike Ultra he actually has to run a country. Currently, Chavez's subjects are running out of food because the gov't set prices and there is no "incentive" to produce or import for no profit...this is what happens when the gov't sets the price and the company can't make a profit suitable to the investment.
Chavez did the next logical thing...nationalized the media to elimate the ciritcs.
Sets up a nice black market, though.
Now I am TAR BABY.
Tar Baby:
Though the term's provenance arose in African folklore, some now consider "tar baby" to have negative connotations revolving around pejorative images of African-Americans
What a fockin moron. The boat, the truck and my vacation house in the picture weren't gifts, and I own them outright, When you get to the point where you know as little as I do, about how to run a business, maybe you will be successful too.
Tar Baby, nigger, jig, spook coon. Again, you're a fockin moron.
If this wasn't the meaning of Tar Baby you were referring to, you, should have thought of a name to call me without so many meanings.

[Old Texan]

Hey Condor, let's start a "poll" to pick some names to call Ultra John......he's just so fascinated with names ya know.:devil:

[QuickJet]

Your simplistic 8th grade economic veiws of how all busineses operate don't apply in the real world. If company A rasies it's price every time everyime there is an increase in the cost of doing business, and company B does not, company B will see a serge in sales and company A will see a decline. While company A might maintain it's bottom line profit per item, it's overall profit will decline as a result of decreased sales. On the other hand, company B's bottom line profit per item will decrease, but it's overall profit will rise as a result of increased sales.
Please give it up and leave this topic to those of us who understand what operateing a financially successful business entails. There is way more to maintaining a company's profitability than simply raising the price of the product or service concurrently with the cost of doing business. And by the way, BUSINESSES DO PAY TAXES, YOU PAY TAXES, I PAY TAXES AS DOES EVERYONE ELSE WHO MAKE A TAXABLE INCOME. Taxes suck but thay are our way of life.
.
You still fail to see how it works. Your A and B example is meaningless. If your A and B were true, Shell and Cheveron would be out of buisiness while Arco and Citgo experienced a surge.
The Government doesn't impose a tax on a buisiness, it imposses it on an industry. They would not just tax Hersheys, but Nestle as well. Now if Hershey raised their candy bar prices to offset the tax and nestle didn't one of two things would happen. Nestle would start to loose profits due to the new tax which would scare shareholders and cause a sell off, or they would raise the price as well being that the rest of the industry is doing so. The later is what happends. Just like with gas. Arco has lower expenses and is there for cheaper yet Shell still outsells Arco hands down.
Just because Hershey costs more doesn't mean you suddenly enjoy a Crunch bar.
A candy bar cost .35 cents when I was a kid, why are they now .85?
Maybe because the cost of doing buisiness went up a bit http://***boat.com/ubb/graemlins/idea_2.gif

[eliminatedsprinter]

Even if insurance rates in Ca are tightly regulated by the state, I fail to see why one would call it a success. Ever since it's inception the insurance commissioner's office has been plagued by scandal. It has such a huge potential for corruption, that it is a magnet for graft. I would hate it if other industries followed their lead.
Government price regulation often leads to shortages. Which insurance co just said they are going to stop selling new homeowners policies in Ca? Isn't it Allstate??

[eliminatedsprinter]

Now I am TAR BABY.
Tar Baby:
Though the term's provenance arose in African folklore, some now consider "tar baby" to have negative connotations revolving around pejorative images of African-Americans
What a fockin moron. The boat, the truck and my vacation house in the picture weren't gifts, and I own them outright, When you get to the point where you know as little as I do, about how to run a business, maybe you will be successful too.
Tar Baby, nigger, jig, spook coon. Again, you're a fockin moron.
If this wasn't the meaning of Tar Baby you were referring to, you, should have thought of a name to call me without so many meanings.
Tar Baby may not the best choice of words, but the definition that is in referrance to the story of Brier Rabbit is the only one that makes any sense in the context of his point. Getting all dramatic and hysterical and using the racist insinuation is not helpful in promoting open discussion. It is not the same as using ni@@*#.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You still fail to see how it works. Your A and B example is meaningless. If your A and B were true, Shell and Cheveron would be out of buisiness while Arco and Citgo experienced a surge.
The Government doesn't impose a tax on a buisiness, it imposses it on an industry. They would not just tax Hersheys, but Nestle as well. Now if Hershey raised their candy bar prices to offset the tax and nestle didn't one of two things would happen. Nestle would start to loose profits due to the new tax which would scare shareholders and cause a sell off, or they would raise the price as well being that the rest of the industry is doing so. The later is what happends. Just like with gas. Arco has lower expenses and is there for cheaper yet Shell still outsells Arco hands down.
Just because Hershey costs more doesn't mean you suddenly enjoy a Crunch bar.
A candy bar cost .35 cents when I was a kid, why are they now .85?
Maybe because the cost of doing buisiness went up a bit http://***boat.com/ubb/graemlins/idea_2.gif
My example of companies A and B are true. I've never suggested that my examples apply to all business. They were given to point out that all businesses don't operate in exactly that same manner as you continue to state. Obviously you are unable to grasp that there is obviously more to it. If you chose to continue believing that profit levels are always adjusted in line with the cost of doing business, that's up to you. However, I know better.
Even if insurance rates in Ca are tightly regulated by the state, I fail to see why one would call it a success. Ever since it's inception the insurance commissioner's office has been plagued by scandal. It has such a huge potential for corruption, that it is a magnet for graft. I would hate it if other industries followed their lead.
Government price regulation often leads to shortages. Which insurance co just said they are going to stop selling new homeowners policies in Ca? Isn't it Allstate??
Prop 103 was the worst thing that has ever happened to the insurance industry. I don't believe I suggested that govt control of insurance rates was a success. Yes it is Allstate that is going to cease all new business with regard to home owners insurance Insurance was used as an example of a business that can't pass on all increased costs of doing business to the consumer.
If I were a black man, I suspect that being called a Tar Baby would be an insult. Reacting with a suggestion to find a more suitable name to call another was hardly dramatic. Tar Baby is a racial slur and is useless in promoting meaningful conversation.
With regard to the discussion at hand, I give up. If you folks want to believe all businesses simply tag all increases in the cost of doing business onto the price of a product, than so be it.
Again, I give up!

[centerhill condor]

:)
Hope all had a safe Memorial Weekend! Nice and quiet here just as we like it!
Hey Condor, let's start a "poll" to pick some names to call Ultra John......he's just so fascinated with names ya know.:devil:
"Eazy money" comes to mind...but I've taken that one for myself some time ago!
There is way more to maintaining a company's profitability than simply raising the price of the product or service concurrently with the cost of doing business.
Now I am TAR BABY.
The boat, the truck and my vacation house in the picture weren't gifts, and I own them outright, When you get to the point where you know as little as I do, about how to run a business, maybe you will be successful too.
"Real" is relative. Most of us sell/support/make a product that we want the customer to actually use...the insurance industry does not.
Also, you've stated that the gov't sets your pricing and competition. Presumably they also require some of your clients to purchase your product...very few of us share the luxury of such market stability.
Perhaps you'll consider that during future evaluations of the "real" world.
So, when you're around people with bigger boats and finer vacation homes do you feel inferior? I'm sure if you work harder at denying claims and cutting commissions you'll catch up one day...you keep dreaming!
BTW the story of your latest success kept us sooo entertained.
I can just imagine what it must be to work in your shadow day after day...realizing that the world is run by "c" students and that there is no escape.
Tar Baby may not the best choice of words, but the definition that is in referrance to the story of Brier Rabbit is the only one that makes any sense in the context of his point.
ES understands the analogy and is qualified to comment on this usage rationally.
I was writing about Ultra not to Ultra. Free speech doesn't apply to his critics. A true liberal.
If you were a black man? Holy cow! You wouldn't need such a big boat!;)
If you were a black man you'd likely have understood the story many years ago and wouldn't be a tar baby. The injustice of being born white...how did you overcome?
Ultra has likely been a "Tar Baby" for quite a while. But none in his world has done him the service bringing this to his attention.
Ultra, your opinion has as much value as and is just as welcome as any. Your many celebrated years of successful service in one industry may have skewed your view of the free market's many faceted splendors. Not the worst problem to have, my friend.
Resistance is futile. You and Cindy Sheehan quit on the same day.. :idea:
I'm off to the lake for some fun in the sun! or maybe the couch!

[Old Texan]

My example of companies A and B are true. I've never suggested that my examples apply to all business. They were given to point out that all businesses don't operate in exactly that same manner as you continue to state. Obviously you are unable to grasp that there is obviously more to it. If you chose to continue believing that profit levels are never adjusted in line with the cost of doing business, that's up to you. However, I know better.
Prop 103 was the worst thing that has ever happened to the insurance industry. I don't believe I suggested that govt control of insurance rates was a success. Yes it is Allstate that is going to cease all new business with regard to home owners insurance Insurance was used as an example of a business that can't pass on all increased costs of doing business to the consumer.
If I were a black man, I suspect that being called a Tar Baby would be an insult. Reacting with a suggestion to find a more suitable name to call another was hardly dramatic. Tar Baby is a racial slur and is useless in promoting meaningful conversation.
With regard to the discussion at hand, I give up. If you folks want to believe all businesses simply tag all increases in the cost of doing business onto the price of a product, than so be it.
Again, I give up!
The 2 highlighted statements appear to be in contradiction, or I'm missing something here????:confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

:)
Hope all had a safe Memorial Weekend! Nice and quiet here just as we like it!
"Eazy money" comes to mind...but I've taken that one for myself some time ago!
"Real" is relative. Most of us sell/support/make a product that we want the customer to actually use...the insurance industry does not.
Also, you've stated that the gov't sets your pricing and competition. Presumably they also require some of your clients to purchase your product...very few of us share the luxury of such market stability.
Perhaps you'll consider that during future evaluations of the "real" world.
So, when you're around people with bigger boats and finer vacation homes do you feel inferior? I'm sure if you work harder at denying claims and cutting commissions you'll catch up one day...you keep dreaming!
BTW the story of your latest success kept us sooo entertained.
I can just imagine what it must be to work in your shadow day after day...realizing that the world is run by "c" students and that there is no escape.
ES understands the analogy and is qualified to comment on this usage rationally.
I was writing about Ultra not to Ultra. Free speech doesn't apply to his critics. A true liberal.
If you were a black man? Holy cow! You wouldn't need such a big boat!;)
If you were a black man you'd likely have understood the story many years ago and wouldn't be a tar baby. The injustice of being born white...how did you overcome?
Ultra has likely been a "Tar Baby" for quite a while. But none in his world has done him the service bringing this to his attention.
Ultra, your opinion has as much value as and is just as welcome as any. Your many celebrated years of successful service in one industry may have skewed your view of the free market's many faceted splendors. Not the worst problem to have, my friend.
Resistance is futile. You and Cindy Sheehan quit on the same day.. :idea:
I'm off to the lake for some fun in the sun! or maybe the couch!
The example of my success was an arrogant attempt to help you to realize that all businesses do not operate in such a simple manner. Govt control of the price of insurance has been a nightmare with trying to maintain an acceptable level of profit. Running a successful business and maintaining acceptable levels of profit takes much more than simply passing on increased costs of of doing business to the consumer. It's much more like a chess game. I didn't anticipate meeting such strong resistance to what I know to be true not just in the insurance industry but many other industries as well. I would be great if all that was needed to maintain profit was passing increased cost to the consumer. Per item or service profits must be constantly adjusted to remain competitive.
I don't feel superior or inferior to anyone, regarding stuff. It's just stuff.
Easy Money? Maybe compared to some and maybe not compared to others.
As I said, I'm done with this one.
Have a safe and enjoyable time at the lake.
The 2 highlighted statements appear to be in contradiction, or I'm missing something here????:confused:
No Tex you aren't missing something, I left the word never in the place of where always should be. I have corrected it.
If you chose to continue believing that profit levels are ALWAYS adjusted in line with the cost of doing business, that's up to you
Thanks
Peace

[Unchained]

I didn't read all the posts in this thread but to understand the national debt you need to understand the Federal Reserve system.
It's privately owned by 12 member banks.
The main banks are based in Europe and England. They have financed foreign governments for 100+ years. Over the course of many decades they maneuvered themselves into having the authority to print money and loan it to the USA. I've read the statement that there really is no national debt because it is based on printed money.
When the gold standard was abandoned in the early 2oth century
I read all this recently in a book called "Blood, Money, and Greed"
It's disgusting.
Do an internet search under " federal reserve system" and prepare to be shocked.
The one that really stood out to me was the fact that the bank of England financed Hitler during WW2.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Since I don't just update blown472's stupidity, here's yet another return to Ultra John to the bulls-eye.
While I was locked out by the wonderous (heavy sarcasm) ***boats forum computer system, there was a report released from an arm of the Federal Govt, which deserves mention in THIS thread. Since I was unable to do it at the time, and it slipped my mind for a while, here I am, better late than never.
The report was from: ........ The I.R.S.
The report topic: The year 2006 tax reciepts, as of post 17 Apr 2007 (June).
What it said:
The report said 3 things:
1.)_ Tax reciepts (the ammount of money collected by the IRS) were UP, YET AGAIN, which is of course NOT POSSIBLE according to someone who refuses to see that decreasing the tax RATES actually increases the ammount of money collected because people have more money to invest and spend in order to make MORE money, which gets taxed.
2.)_ The budget defecit is now ONLY 1.5% of the annual federal budget, not the 10% that it was 3 or 4 years ago, due to the increasing tax reciepts from the GOOD economy and continued job creation. (cry all you want about the KIND of jobs but, the undeniable FACT is that 130,000 new jobs EVERY SINGLE MONTH (on average) are 130,000 wage earning, tax-paying, non-welfare-leeching JOBS, over 5 or 6 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) That's 60 to 72 months by the way.
3.)_ if the economy is not screwed up by the upcoming (planned) democrat tax INCREASE (ie, if growth continues as it has been), the budget will be a SURPLUS (not a defecit) WITHIN 1 TO 2 YEARS. That is WITH THE WAR AND WITH THE BUSH TAX CUTS.
You're welcome ULTRA. :D

[never_fast_enuf]

Based on every Dem running, their first order of business is ending the war in Iraq. If you cut the cost of the milidary in Iraq by 50%, you reduce spending by 50 bil a year.
The 2 1/2% is a number I suggested. I know of no support for this figure. If it was up to me it would be shared by middle income folks, paying the smalest % and the highest income folks paying the largest %. SS tax increases for all
Please tell me you didn't fall for that. Did you honestly think the dems would end the war? They were playing to their far left base and it worked....they got elected on the backs of suckers.
As for lowering spending, please tell me when a democrat has lowered spending in the last 50 years. It just isn't in their DNA. Not that I am thrilled with the current crop of republicans spending habits but at least they got half of it right when they lowered taxes.