PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan proposes Social Security Cuts



AzDon
02-26-2004, 07:55 AM
For everybody that doesn't think that the government would consider stealing from the neediest of Americans in order to sustain oversized tax cuts for the wealthy, read what Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman and Republican economic guru, thinks we should do to shrink the deficit!
http://www.nwherald.com/spider/NWH/news/283126566767407.html

Havasu_Dreamin
02-26-2004, 08:01 AM
Get a grip, Social Security is going to go bankrupt with or without the deficit. This is nothing new. The cuts should have been long ago. Or better yet, don't make cuts, how about stop paying for people that never even paid into the system.
Let me give you a little background, on a personal level, of how screwed up the social security system is. My mom passed away in 2001. She worked for 30+ years paying into the "system" and guess what, according to the Social Security Administration the chances of my dad seeing one dime of what she paid in when he retires is almost non-existent, for al intents and purposes! The money that the government took from my mom's paycheck for 30 years "in-trust" is just gone, put back into the system to pay for programs and people that have not paid into it at all! So, don't come whining to me about Social Security! I'm not even going to count on it being there. It's just another social program with good intentions that the government managed to screw up!

Outnumbered
02-26-2004, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Havasu_Dreamin
Get a grip, Social Security is going to go bankrupt with or without the deficit. This is nothing new. The cuts should have been long ago. Or better yet, don't make cuts, how about stop paying for people that never even paid into the system.
Let me give you a little background, on a personal level, of how screwed up the social security system is. My mom passed away in 2001. She worked for 30+ years paying into the "system" and guess what, according to the Social Security Administration the chances of my dad seeing one dime of what she paid in when he retires is almost non-existent, for al intents and purposes! The money that the government took from my mom's paycheck for 30 years "in-trust" is just gone, put back into the system to pay for programs and people that have not paid into it at all! So, don't come whining to me about Social Security! I'm not even going to count on it being there. It's just another social program with good intentions that the government managed to screw up!
Amen,
Just take a trip down to any local Government office and experience the "efficiency" of the operation and then tell me you would trust the Feds to be your investment banker. I could easily double the return for investment if I had the option of keeping all of my social security tax. SS should be an optional program for those who are too stupid or to lazy to invest on their own.
Oh and BTW, those "wealthy" folks are the ones keeping this economy rolling. Helping out the business owners and employers trickles down to all. Bogging them down in overtaxation just slows the economy and hurts everyone but the welfare recipients.
OL

AzDon
02-26-2004, 08:58 AM
I'd be completely okay with having all my Social Security funds refunded to me so I can bank them for myself. If they keep withholding the money from people's paychecks and then just steal the money, then it's nothing more than a paycheck tax.
As far as wealthy folks stimulating the economy by increasing production, hiring people, or opening new businesses, I gotta call BS on this one and here's why:
In a declining consumer economy, no businessperson is going to do any of these things if he percieves that there is soft or non-existent demand for his product or service, REGARDLESS OF HOW BIG A TAX CUT HE GETS!
On the other hand, business creation, hiring, and increased production WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT TAX CUTS if a strong market is percieved for the product! a businessman will borrow the money, if necessary, to service his consumer, and financial institutions and the stock markets will willingly provide the money.
My point is that the economy isn't driven by the rich guy. It is driven by consumer demand!
As the wages of Americans are being driven steadily downward, fewer will be consumers for new boats, automobiles, computers, etc. New houses will continue to be built only as long as there are buyers that can be qualified at their income level to make the payments.
Perhaps you don't have a problem with Taco Bell paying your teenager $5/hr while he/she lives with you and is essentially lifestyle-subsidized by your generosity and living-wage job, but when your employer and his competitors decide to pay Taco Bell wages, or worse, move production to Mexico, I'm bettin' that you won't be buying a new boat even if your taxcut was 50 grand...get it?

sorry dog
02-26-2004, 09:01 AM
I believe the economic classication of Social Security tax would be Tranfers payments. In other words, gov't tranfers some of Peter's money to Paul (I guess because Paul is old and didn't save, or Paul was always poor, or Paul is a bench racing fag or whatever). I guess to justify it to Peter, gov't says when you get to be like Paul, you'll get money too.
I think I got an email similar to this a while back titled Can't lose pyrimid scheme.
Rich folks are a part of Consumer Demand too - as long of the wealth holds out. I wonder what the stats are on wealth accumulation lately?

carbonmarine
02-26-2004, 09:11 AM
Its just moves to another segment..... if you son has to count on Taco Bell long term ... obviously you didnt spend enough time with him dude.. Shit I worked at Del Taco at 14 yrs old.... taught me to be humble and how to work and what not to do for the rest of my life ...
In So far as Jobs moving around the world....
This is America !
A Captialist Society that has turned into a well fair state...
No one ever said you were guarenteed shit !!! and that needs
to be taught in schools ... and at home. If you have older bros & sisters. The lesson comes quick at dinner time. ** Find away to eat fast or creative way to get yours... or its GONE !
Geeezusss, This society used to be based upon the premise competition, not entitlements and thats what made America kick ass and if ya didnt like it ... You were always free to find away and start you own company and make you own decisions.....
Seems to me, other countries around teh world are being better Americans than us Americans....
just my .02
Rick
:cool:

MagicMtnDan
02-26-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
I'd be completely okay with having all my Social Security funds refunded to me so I can bank them for myself. If they keep withholding the money from people's paychecks and then just steal the money, then it's nothing more than a paycheck tax.
As far as wealthy folks stimulating the economy by increasing production, hiring people, or opening new businesses, I gotta call BS on this one and here's why:
In a declining consumer economy, no businessperson is going to do any of these things if he percieves that there is soft or non-existent demand for his product or service, REGARDLESS OF HOW BIG A TAX CUT HE GETS!
On the other hand, business creation, hiring, and increased production WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT TAX CUTS if a strong market is percieved for the product! a businessman will borrow the money, if necessary, to service his consumer, and financial institutions and the stock markets will willingly provide the money.
My point is that the economy isn't driven by the rich guy. It is driven by consumer demand!
As the wages of Americans are being driven steadily downward, fewer will be consumers for new boats, automobiles, computers, etc. New houses will continue to be built only as long as there are buyers that can be qualified at their income level to make the payments.
Perhaps you don't have a problem with Taco Bell paying your teenager $5/hr while he/she lives with you and is essentially lifestyle-subsidized by your generosity and living-wage job, but when your employer and his competitors decide to pay Taco Bell wages, or worse, move production to Mexico, I'm bettin' that you won't be buying a new boat even if your taxcut was 50 grand...get it?
Don, you're a smart guy, maybe a bit confused at times but you make some good points but they're buried in the other stuff.
Wages aren't "being driven steadily downward." Businesses mature, products become commodities, education levels go up, people are more qualified, low-skill jobs get done for less here and/or abroad and high-skill jobs are available.
As jobs move offshore it helps those countries raise their levels up (earnings, education, income) and they become our customers where they weren't able to before.
This country is never going to be able to compete with India, China and Mexico for labor. It will not no matter how much you want it or fantasize about it. Our country continues to evolve and as it does it helps the rest of the world (a) want to become like us (economically) and (b) become more like us. And as they do it's better for us because they become our "customers" buying products from American companies (blue jeans, computers, cell phones, etc.).
Our challenge as it always has been, is to continue to innovate and develop technologies and from them come businesses and more jobs. We need a highly educated workforce (notice how high school diploma is as valuable as toilet paper in the business world today - college diplomas aren't enough any more - companies want and demand advanced degrees now).
I work at a high-tech startup involved in microdevices - microscopic mechanical devices. There are no jobs from our company moving offshore. In fact, we're almost always looking for talented engineering types.
As this country grows and develps the rest of the world benefits and serves us (by handling the low-skill, low-wage jobs). It's called success, progress, growth, prosperity, and capitalism. No one wants jobs to leave the US but the ones that are leaving can and will help this country in the end. In the meantime we are all challenged to grow and develop. Don't let your kids be satisfied - teach them that their future will be more secure with more education. :)

bigq
02-26-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
then it's nothing more than a paycheck tax.
I have 37 more years till i can receive SS benefits and I don't plan on seeing one dime of it, so yes it is a paycheck tax. I am all for finding a way to pay for the people on it ,but I want to slowly transfer this money back to us, as in a personal retirement account.

AzDon
02-26-2004, 10:19 AM
Dan-
There is a whole other side of town from where you apparently live.... It's the side of town where things are being transported, stacked, moved with forklifts and warehoused. It's the high-crime side of town where sanitation workers, waitresses, minorities, housekeepers, factory workers, and non-union tradesmen live. Many who live on this side of town are ex-cons, single parents, drug addicts and other hard-luck types. The test scores in the local schools are not that great and folks here are pretty much written off as useless by folks on your side of town because of all the problems here. Many folks on this side of town are willing to work hard even though they are constantly being disrespected by having their wages cut as fewer available jobs creates an oversupply of labor. These are often folks that lack the smarts to get educated for the cutting edge jobs you talk about. They are simply people that want to live the American dream at a lower tier and have accepted their place in society.
This side of town is growing as your side of town is shrinking creating an increasing challenge to folks on your side of town to find a consumer base with buying ability against this backdrop of declining wages.
It's unfortunate that we have a supremely elected president that has never seen, nor even acknowleges the existence of, the side of town where the folks live that do all the menial things that keep the infrastructure running. He sees no harm in underpaying these folks rather than thanking them for their underpaid contribution. He also has no problem with taxing their crumbs while hand-delivering complete cakes to the folks on the wealthy side of town.
The lesson of world history that the unsympathetic folks on your side of town need to learn is that when severely downtrodden and demoralized folks become a majority, they gravitate to charismatic leaders who overthrow the system through revolution.
In general, we've been able to vent these frustrations through free speech and the ballot box, but the election of 2000 proved that the party in control of the Supreme Court can ultimately bully their way into office after manipulating the polling process in just one state!

mirvin
02-26-2004, 10:33 AM
Uh, SS is not a retirement plan. It was never meant to be a retirement plan. Yes we all pay into it but to depend on it or to assume it's owed back to you is just plain stoopid.
Be smart with your money and plan for your retirement and stop worrying about Social Security. It's nonsense.
I think it should be abolished anyway;)
Mirvin

OGShocker
02-26-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
Dan-
There is a whole other side of town from where you apparently live.... It's the side of town where things are being transported, stacked, moved with forklifts and warehoused. It's the high-crime side of town where sanitation workers, waitresses, minorities, housekeepers, factory workers, and non-union tradesmen live. Many who live on this side of town are ex-cons, single parents, drug addicts and other hard-luck types. The test scores in the local schools are not that great and folks here are pretty much written off as useless by folks on your side of town because of all the problems here. Many folks on this side of town are willing to work hard even though they are constantly being disrespected by having their wages cut as fewer available jobs creates an oversupply of labor. These are often folks that lack the smarts to get educated for the cutting edge jobs you talk about. They are simply people that want to live the American dream at a lower tier and have accepted their place in society.
This side of town is growing as your side of town is shrinking creating an increasing challenge to folks on your side of town to find a consumer base with buying ability against this backdrop of declining wages.
It's unfortunate that we have a supremely elected president that has never seen, nor even acknowleges the existence of, the side of town where the folks live that do all the menial things that keep the infrastructure running. He sees no harm in underpaying these folks rather than thanking them for their underpaid contribution. He also has no problem with taxing their crumbs while hand-delivering complete cakes to the folks on the wealthy side of town.
The lesson of world history that the unsympathetic folks on your side of town need to learn is that when severely downtrodden and demoralized folks become a majority, they gravitate to charismatic leaders who overthrow the system through revolution.
In general, we've been able to vent these frustrations through free speech and the ballot box, but the election of 2000 proved that the party in control of the Supreme Court can ultimately bully their way into office after manipulating the polling process in just one state!
Occupation: bulk chemical transport logistics technician. You really need to stop drinking the samples at work.
Everytime you start this leftist BS your words look like Charlie Browns teacher sounds... Wha wha whawha wha whaaaa. :rolleyes:

HavasuDreamin'
02-26-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
but the election of 2000 proved that the party in control of the Supreme Court can ultimately bully their way into office after manipulating the polling process in just one state!
Still bitter that Gore lost fair and square?

OGShocker
02-26-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by HavasuDreamin'
Still bitter that Gore lost fare and square?
Thank God for the Florida 500!

flat broke
02-26-2004, 10:41 AM
I'm not going to get into the labor side of the debate. When I saw Greenspan's statements on CNN Money yesterday, I was enraged. As a 1099 individual, I have to pay ALL of the social security witholdings at the end of the year. Since I was about 13, it was clear that I would never see a dime of what I paid into the system. But at least the Gov't was still telling everyone we would get our fair share.
I have watched my grandparents who didn't pay into the system anywhere near the amount that I will have by the time I'm their age, utilize their Social Security as mad money because they provided for their own retirement. I have absolutely no problem with that. What I do have a problem with are those individuals who have never contributed to the system, or contributed very little to the system, draining it before I can get a crack at the $$ I've already paid in. You have plenty of low income types that will use their children's poor performance in school to qualify them with a learning disability and then apply to start pulling the Social Security on their kids, before their child has ever paid a dime into the system.
Now here I am, I will pay my part into social security, and members of the Federal Government are openly discussing how they are foreseably going to have to cut benefits. I never banked on it being there, but someone somewhere has some of my hard earned $$. We're not talking an expectation of entitlement; I paid into a system, and the funds I paid in are not going to be accessible to me, let alone any interest that supposedly should have acrued. The Government is openly stealing from the middle and upper classes ( I know, what else is new, but it is on the threshold of being blatant).
Now for the question that has been burning in the back of my mind on several issues. How long will the core of the American people tolerate this kind of treatment before they stand up and put a gun in someone's face to change it? With my rights to bear arms continuously being diminished to the point where I cannot defend myself from a domestic enemy, unchecked illegal imigration eroding the core belief system that was the basis of this nation, and no accountability of our representatives in legislature; how far will we as a society be pushed before a measurable insurgence is seen?
I'm not a nut job militia type. I enjoy the stability our government affords me in my daily life. But things are going to hell in a hand basket and I personally feel that our current political system has gotten so far out of the hands of the people, that I doubt conventional means will rectify anything to a measureable degree. How far do the sensible people of America let things go before they remember the hows and why's of our national orrigins? Will any resistance effort merely be viewed as a small band of "gun toting wackos, or is there a larger collective of middle class Americans that wonder if they may have to participate in a massive civil conflict during their lifetime?
My faith is dwindling, and the more reading I do, the worse it gets.
Chris

mirvin
02-26-2004, 10:53 AM
That's right Chris. It's not Social Security, it's Social Welfare! Would it be right to make it so you only got it if you needed it? I'm just asking.
My folks are in the same boat. They planned for their retirement and are in great shape and don't need the SS but get it anyway because as has been stated in above posts "they paid into it and therefore they deserve it". I'm concerned that this is the kind of thing that puts a drag on the system.
So the question is, if you don't NEED it should you still GET IT?
Problem is that is the anser is no, then it's really become WELFARE!!!
Mirvin

OGShocker
02-26-2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by mirvin
So the question is, if you don't NEED it should you still GET IT?
Mirvin
My question would be, If you don't need it should you be forced to pay into it?
Do members of congress pay into it?
I know employees of 501 C3 "not for profits" are not forced to pay into SSI. They may however receive SS benfits when they hit that magic age is they ever paid into the system.

Lakeshow
02-26-2004, 11:01 AM
What a great discussion for the Hot Boat website.
"In general, we've been able to vent these frustrations through free speech and the ballot box, but the election of 2000 proved that the party in control of the Supreme Court can ultimately bully their way into office after manipulating the polling process in just one state!"
Give me a freaking break. Your other left wing, entitlement sucking, my side of the tracks need a hand out, quasi socialistic line of crap aside. This hanging chad and the Supreme Court stole the election rant might fly among your fellow left wing, the sky is falling whiners but not here.
George W. Bush won the State of Florida - get over it. The left is simply angry and can't get over the fact that the Liberal Courts in Florida weren't allowed to ignore Florida election statutes and force Al Gore down our throats. Frankly, there is an argument that can been made that had the liberal media not prematurely called Florida an Al Gore state that there are a tremendous number of voters that may have actually gone to the voting booths and voted for Bush instead of thinking the election was over thus swinging Unbelievably close popular vote.
I know that is all hard to swallow and believe it or not I am pretty open minded but just because the DNC says it is this way or that way it doesn't make it so.
There are a whole lot of us out here that believe that working hard, making some good choices and making a good living and even perhaps getting wealthy doesn't mean we have to take a beating at the hands of those simply looking for a hand out.
None of this means that I don't have respect for person driving a truck, digging a ditch, or even guy helping me by waxing my boat for a couple of hundred bucks is looking for a hand out. These are hard working folks that are the back bone of our economy and society.
We all have choices to make and some are made for us but for the most part the choices are ours. Free Speech is a wonderful thing!
Last but not least, when I have money I usually do things with it like invest, buy property/develop, and occasionally boats and engine upgrades - I think that means the money is going back into the economy which in turn is creating and supporting jobs, etc. Even adding to this crazy logic is the "theory" that if I have more cash because my tax rate is lower I have more money to spend - FAR OUT!
Happy Boating!

Havasu Cig
02-26-2004, 11:02 AM
I love it when the liberals talk about tax cuts for the "wealthy". Have you seen the numbers on what is considered "wealthy"???
Two income houshold in Southern California making 100k a year is considered "wealty"!! Give me a break. You have to make 100k a year just to be able to afford a house, kids, vehicles ect...
And for the top 1% that are paying the majority of the taxes, they deserve a break. Why should they be penalized just because they make more $$$.
This is America, wealth re-distribution should not happen.

Havasu_Dreamin
02-26-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
Perhaps you don't have a problem with Taco Bell paying your teenager $5/hr while he/she lives with you and is essentially lifestyle-subsidized by your generosity and living-wage job, but when your employer and his competitors decide to pay Taco Bell wages, or worse, move production to Mexico, I'm bettin' that you won't be buying a new boat even if your taxcut was 50 grand...get it?
No, I won't have a problem with that. It'll teach them that nothing get handed to you, you earn it. You want to make more money, do something to better yourself so that you can become more marketable, get a higher paying job and earn more. Don't expct the government to pay for you because you have no skills. We all start out the same, we only end up in different places because of our own choices!

haulina29
02-26-2004, 11:31 AM
Az don what is wrong with giving a tax break to the wealthy ? who pays it in ? not the poor im sure youve heard of earned income tax credits do the wealthy get those hell no but the poor do infact they get back even if they dont pay , This country was rockin when they gave tax breaks to the wealthy , were does it say the wealthy has to pay for the poor please show me . The single moms should have kept there legs shut ! **** the poor, as long as you give these paracites something for free they expect it . As far as social security goes drive to to your local office today and see who s in there it sure isnt full of old white people 65 and over you might just be surprised if you go, but be prepared to be frisked . I actually went there this week and was floored with what i saw un ****in real . as far as jobs leaving this country try and hire a young american today who will show up 5 days in a row not high or without court date or parole meetings young guys today are seriously ****ed up . Can you really blame a company for not wanting to be sued daily by crack head s for some lame ass excuse and with the courts allowing this to happen workers comp has gone thru the roof " thank the left for that " ,police your own before you bag on the wealthy librealisim is a cancer that is taking this once productive country by storm .

mirvin
02-26-2004, 11:43 AM
haulina29, i got a frosty one for ya, and it ain't no handout!!!
Mirvin:D

sorry dog
02-26-2004, 11:58 AM
Maybe yall should just think of Social Security as Old **** Insurance.
Should you be unfortunate enough to become old then you will receive a small sum of money as concellation.

AzDon
02-26-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by haulina29
Az don what is wrong with giving a tax break to the wealthy ? who pays it in ? not the poor im sure youve heard of earned income tax credits do the wealthy get those hell no but the poor do infact they get back even if they dont pay , This country was rockin when they gave tax breaks to the wealthy , were does it say the wealthy has to pay for the poor please show me . The single moms should have kept there legs shut ! **** the poor, as long as you give these paracites something for free they expect it . As far as social security goes drive to to your local office today and see who s in there it sure isnt full of old white people 65 and over you might just be surprised if you go, but be prepared to be frisked . I actually went there this week and was floored with what i saw un ****in real . as far as jobs leaving this country try and hire a young american today who will show up 5 days in a row not high or without court date or parole meetings young guys today are seriously ****ed up . Can you really blame a company for not wanting to be sued daily by crack head s for some lame ass excuse and with the courts allowing this to happen workers comp has gone thru the roof " thank the left for that " ,police your own before you bag on the wealthy librealisim is a cancer that is taking this once productive country by storm .
For the record: My household income puts me WAY above the threshold of poverty. I'm not depending on Social Security... I'd actually prefer to get a refund and bank my own money.
Having said that, your entire post makes my point about insensitivity towards the level of society that provides the menial services that we would really miss.... While they suffer in silence financially!
Do you know what earned income credit is? A WORKER qualifies for EIC when the paycheck he recieves for his contribution to society fails to equal "poverty" level. While it is "free" money, it is not what anybody would consider a "situation altering" amount and I'd bet almost all gets spent on basic necessities. What this means is that taxpayers compensate this guy because he was legally exploited by an employer that paid him less than our society defines as "cost". Instead of animosity towards this poor EIC recipient, we should be directing this "hate" toward the legality of providing "below cost" wages for any kind of labor.
If a person's labor doesn't economically justify a living wage, then employers should be deprived of that labor until they have adjusted their pricing to allow them to pay for their needed help. Until we require employers to be socially responsible in the wages that they pay, we will continue to subsidize them , as taxpayers through programs like EIC

OGShocker
02-26-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by AzDon
employers should be deprived of that labor until they have adjusted their pricing to allow them to pay for their needed help. Until we require employers to be socially responsible in the wages that they pay, we will continue to subsidize them , as taxpayers through programs like EIC
What fu*king country do you live in? That is such backward socialist BS. Have you ever owned a business? NO. I do not think you have.
You want to kick homosexuals in the junk, you make fun of the mentaly challenged and deprive employeers of laborers? Damn Don, I can put up with a lot of stuff but, damn.

AzDon
02-26-2004, 12:30 PM
I owned a subcontracting business where the General, because of the competitive marketplace, sold my services below the cost at which I could provide them. He was fat and happy because he was raking off 35 percent of the gross. He was really pissed when I quit! I provided transportation services. Most people consider transportation to be a necessary and justifiable service, yet the marketplace demands below cost service in this sector. Nobody is required to show profitability, so transportation is a sector that is constantly staffed and financed by newcomers, IPO's, con artists, and mutinationals looking for losses.
If an employer doesn't need an employee bad enough to pay him a living wage, and his business model doesn't justify it and further, he is unable to operate without this employee, then his business is economically irrelevant because the employee's life is actually being subsidized by someone else... either a spouse, a parent, or taxpayers!
As an owner/operator, I had an annual income of ZERO (actually ZERO MINUS 6 GRAND!) while I provided valuable services BELOW COST. I qualified for and recieved EIC (about 2 grand) and am not ashamed because I worked harder in those years than most folks here have woked in their entire lives! I quit providing below-cost services before it took me BK, but there was no shortage of others to replace me... the stuff still gets hauled cheap!

totenhosen
02-26-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by haulina29
as far as jobs leaving this country try and hire a young american today who will show up 5 days in a row not high or without court date or parole meetings young guys today are seriously ****ed up .
Interesting coming from a guy who lives in Weed, CA. rolleyes: Talk about stereotyping every single young person. If you trully believe that than you are pathetic or you rely on losers for your employees so you don't have to pay them anything beyond minimum wage.

Lakeshow
02-26-2004, 12:52 PM
I am confused - You owned a subcontracting business and did work for a general contractor who sold YOUR services for less than your cost and the general made 35% on these services.
Are you saying that you knew you were losing money on the work the general contractor hired you to perform and you CHOSE to do the work anyway?
Setting aside for the moment that you and I disagree on the issue in this thread. You come accross as having an above average intellect yet your choice to do work for someone at a financial loss to you, assuming that I have read this correctly, is, pardon me, F!@#ing stupid and no one elses fault but your own.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

AzDon
02-26-2004, 01:12 PM
Yes-
It is fu**ing stoopid if you know, going in that you will lose money. Owning and operating a truck is more involved than just providing labor. You are responsible for the truck, all it's mechanical ills and maintenance, tires, licensing, permits, insurance, Workers comp. etc. You are also responsible for all loading and unloading and get paid nothing extra when problems or weather put you behind schedule. The primary carrier takes a percentage (15% to 35%) but is not obligated to keep you busy or sell the services you provide for "above cost" rates. They also pay you NOTHING for the miles you run to pick-up the load!
Anybody who thinks they are going to buy a truck and lease to a carrier at a "per-mile" average of less than $2 had better check the details more carefully before thinkin that the scheme won't exploit them without wages and eventually bankrupt them!

91nordic29
02-26-2004, 03:29 PM
boy, just when i think i know where people stand, BAM! this is interesting.

SoCalOffshore
02-26-2004, 07:37 PM
Obviously all the truckers in this country that are earning a living are lucky they were not exploited like you. The fact is you either learn new skills and adapt or you are left behind and make sqaut. It is all our own responsibility to figure this out and act accordingly. Those "have nots" better not cross the tracks and come over to my side of town. :D

ROZ
02-26-2004, 08:31 PM
AzDon,
After prop 56 passes, move to California and see how the Democratrats run our state into debt. Then tell me how the counrty should be run...

dc96819
02-27-2004, 01:53 AM
Since the Goverment couldent make money with the Social Security, they will let you make the investement then tax the hell out of you.

AzDon
02-27-2004, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by ROZ
AzDon,
After prop 56 passes, move to California and see how the Democratrats run our state into debt. Then tell me how the counrty should be run...
After 8 years with a Democratic Prez, we had a large surplus. ON THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION everything started going to hell and we are now what? 3 trillion in debt? Yeah, Your Guy GWB is a great example of republican fiscal responsibility!

flat broke
02-27-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by AzDon
After 8 years with a Democratic Prez, we had a large surplus. ON THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION everything started going to hell and we are now what? 3 trillion in debt? Yeah, Your Guy GWB is a great example of republican fiscal responsibility!
Don,
You are smarter than this. The very fact that things started a downturn so quickly after the election PROVES that GWB is not the culprit, but a victim of the Democratic propaganda machine. Christ, he wasn't even in sworn into office, and he gets the blame. Seems to me that the Democrats need to work on their story board and timeline a little more. A man can't be guilty of a crime if he first appears at the scene of the crime months after it occured. Even 10th grade economics students learn that economic cycles don't change over night, and that the causes of economic fluctuations transpire long before the effects are seen. Look at every large market collapse and you'll see that the "problem" started while things were good, not the day the market tanked.
Chris

Havasu Cig
02-27-2004, 10:37 AM
Exactly...You can add 09-11 into the mix as well.

totenhosen
02-27-2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by flat broke
Don,
You are smarter than this. The very fact that things started a downturn so quickly after the election PROVES that GWB is not the culprit, but a victim of the Democratic propaganda machine. Christ, he wasn't even in sworn into office, and he gets the blame. Seems to me that the Democrats need to work on their story board and timeline a little more. A man can't be guilty of a crime if he first appears at the scene of the crime months after it occured. Even 10th grade economics students learn that economic cycles don't change over night, and that the causes of economic fluctuations transpire long before the effects are seen. Look at every large market collapse and you'll see that the "problem" started while things were good, not the day the market tanked.
Chris
So than was it Bush's military that performed so well in Afghanistan and Iraq or Clinton's? We all know a military can't be built up and perform efficiently over night as well. (Just playing devil's advocate here)

Havasu Cig
02-27-2004, 10:59 AM
No actually it was the remnants of Reagans Military.
I fought in the first Gulf War, and we were able to fight it so well because of the build up that Reagan did.
Clinton downsized the Miltary, and crippled the CIA. That is why you hear people talking about the Military being spread so thin now.
Since the Soviet Union fell we have been able to withdraw our forces from Germany. If not for that we would not have the man power that we have today.

totenhosen
02-27-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Havasu Cig
No actually it was the remnants of Reagans Military.
I fought in the first Gulf War, and we were able to fight it so well because of the build up that Reagan did.
Clinton downsized the Miltary, and crippled the CIA. That is why you hear people talking about the Military being spread so thin now.
Since the Soviet Union fell we have been able to withdraw our forces from Germany. If not for that we would not have the man power that we have today.
But did the military not perform as it should have? So even with the downsizing they got the job done. It's funny but you guys can't have both. You can't say that the economy was Clinton's fault but the military perfomed so well because of Reagan. It's pretty narrow minded. You can't pick and choose the good things and ignore the bad. If the economy was Clinton's fault what has Bush done in the time he was in office to correct it? Our economy should be the number one priority and not FCC guidelines and gay marriage.

Freak
02-27-2004, 01:18 PM
Hows this for saving a few bucks - they don't pay out to people that do not pay into the system in the first place. :rolleyes:

flat broke
02-27-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by totenhosen
But did the military not perform as it should have? So even with the downsizing they got the job done. It's funny but you guys can't have both. You can't say that the economy was Clinton's fault but the military perfomed so well because of Reagan. It's pretty narrow minded. You can't pick and choose the good things and ignore the bad. If the economy was Clinton's fault what has Bush done in the time he was in office to correct it? Our economy should be the number one priority and not FCC guidelines and gay marriage.
Totenhosen,
There is one variable you are not addressing. AZDon and other Demos claim that Clinton made our economy strong, AND that Bush weakened it. My previous argument leverages the point that the economy doesn't turn on a dime and that the bad we now reap is related to decsisions made not by Bush Jr, but by Clinton during his reign.
In respect to the military, Cig has it pinned. The technology, troops, infrastructure used in Iraq are what was left over from the Reagan/Bush Sr. era after Clinton made his cuts. Clinton didn't do anything proactive for our military. He used it as a source of budget funds by cutting federal funding to support other freebie welfare programs. Think of how quickly the issue might have been resolved with the increased manpower present during Bush Sr.'s administration. Let alone the fact that perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have happend if the funding for the CIA hadn't been absorbed by Clinton's social welfare programs during his administration.
I'm not making a two sided argument, just stating facts. It's always easiest to play the devils advocate, as you only have to bring up opposing information; many times out of context to deflate another's argument in the eyes of the ill-informed. However, to utilize that information to draw a coherent and well founded conclusion is a whole other issue. Luckily for the Democratic party, they cater to the TV-educated populous who swallow their half baked rhetoric as quick as the government cheese that shows up in the mail once a month.
Chris

totenhosen
02-27-2004, 01:45 PM
Thats the thing, I wouldn't call myself a Dem or republican. I just like having good discussions. Plain and simple they are both crooks and both have some inherent problems. Each side is always pointing the finger at the other party while the issues go unresolved. Time for a viable third party.

AzDon
02-27-2004, 02:21 PM
The economy was "talked down" for a year before the election. The "big Money" investors chose to keep their confidence in the stock market until the day after the election. Granted it was six weeks before the Supreme declared a winner, but the turning point was election day plus one. Investors vote their confidence with their checkbooks, so what does this say about their confidence in George II ? Especially telling to me is the fact that most of these guys are probably republicans!
P.S. The reality is that I probably agree with you guys on more subjects than we disagree on, but if I didn't challenge you guys to consider the other side and dredge up reasonable counterpoints, this place would be boring! We're probably never going to agree on politics, but at least maybe we can develop an understanding of opposing viewpoints. Since I think the polarization of America is pushing more people to my side of the debate, you guys are going to need more understanding as you become a minority!

Havasu Cig
02-27-2004, 02:21 PM
Yes our Military has been great but why do you think the Reserves and National Guard are being used so much? It is because the active duty Military has been downsized so much.
I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day that just got back from a year tour in Iraq. He is in the marine reserves, and said that a lot of guys are leaving his unit because if these deployments.
He said that they don't mind serving, but if they wanted to be gone as much as they are they would have stayed on active duty. he has been back a couple of months and his unit has already been notified that they might be going back.
Say what you want, but it is hard to be gon that long and still have a career, business whatever to come back to.