It's quite simple, with this election we have reached the tipping point of more takers than makers. End of story.

Do you not see that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here? In one paragraph you accuse me of protecting the rich so they can "continue to screw us" but in another paragraph you are defending the rights of guys building yahts saying the government has no right to punish someone who wants to buy one with their legally earned money. Which is exactly what is happening with this administration targeting high earners in this country. I, and many others here, are the guys building the yahts who's businesses are being strained because our primary clientele is afraid to spend their legally earned money not knowing what else is coming down the pipeline. Is it going to last forever... no. Are people going to start buying yahts again... yes. But in the mean time it is the small businesses that take the hit... again. The longer it keeps up the more likely we are to end up in the bread line.

Well.... not really that many Americans.... he only got HALF the popular vote. So that doesn't show me much support.

I look at this as a "technical win" rather than a mandated popular "go for it and change whatever you want" win.

What EVERYONE needs to watch for is that their Representative and the Senators from their area gets a strong message regarding how they vote!

That's FAR FAR more important that what the POTUS "wants".

When the government controls the press, they control the truth...

I thought of something while working out this morning....



Remember a famous DEMOCRAT'S speech....


"ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU... BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY".



Somehow they've managed to reverse that... and to me that's where the failure is.

:hail:

They're erasing the fundamental ethics and pride on which this country was founded.

I'm not sure who they are that you're talking about, I presume democrats, and it isn't clear to me where any politician implies that people should be 'takers'.

Is our state filled with takers Greg? People who demand the government do things for them? It seems like we have some of the largest companies in the world, with hundreds of thousands of the most educated and most skilled people, building software and planes and what not. Somehow though republicans have a hard time winning in these areas where all of the Boeing and Microsoft takers are!

As far as the numerous people questioning the intelligence of takers, or the awesome reference to idiocracy (I'd so vote for president camacho), the only commentary I'd have is for you to sort the states by what percentage of their residents have a college degree, and look at what state voted for what candidate. And no, I don't correlate degree with intelligence, but you don't spend all that money to go to college and then sit on welfare right? By definition you're a maker and not a lazy mooch. For the record I didn't go to college, and I am lazy but I'd be considered a maker.

Lastly, just on the business side I read this great article just now about, well to me how much sears sucks but it had an awesome segment in it:

Article

Long story short, guy makes good wrench in the USA, sells through sears. At some point sears doesn't agree to pay the price and turns around and has it manufactured overseas. It sounds like this is standard procedure for sears at this point. Guy sues sears but has to lay off 31 people as a result of all of this.

Company that makes the knock offs and other craftsman tools is being bought... by Bain capital.

My point is merely that while I can see the value in a president having business experience, not all business experience rates as a positive to me.

The sponsors here, making things in the united states, supporting american workers, defying all business logic to offshore their items and make higher profits, that is valuable to me, that's the type of experience that I'd vote for. The non sponsors who chronically knock off and offshore items the sponsors make.. not so much.

Saw or heard something that described the return on stimulus vs. return on tax cuts...... basically showed stimulus had a higher return even though it would cause an "entitlement" society. Has anyone else heard or seen an article like this??? Trying to find it....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/20...SQP/story.html

Here in lies the problem, the Bain Capital boogie man, the Halliburton boogie man, what villain company are we going to look for next, it really discounts any arguement in my opinion. If the feds and state governments were to make this place more buisness freindly, maybe all these companies wouldn't look elsewhere. The first canidate that says he will give companies 100% tax breaks for anyone who manufactures in the states, foreign or domestic, will get my vote. The extra employment leading to income taxes, and removing people from welfare roles, I beleive would more then cover the corporate taxes lost.

The class envy thing is only going to work for so long, once the dept overwhelms us, all treasure will be gone anyway.

I think the return on stimulus would be better simply because it's more direct. If you remember the original bush era stimulus where we all got checks in the mail the explicit goal was that you go out and spend that money. The last stimulus was slightly more abstract in that it was the government basically spending it, but with the same idea, that money in = jobs out, which in turn of course the government taxes their incomes netting some return.

The funny part about tax cuts to me, along with the discussion here about luxury boats is that rich people as a group aren't rich because they are buying boats all the time or really, spending all their money. Buying boats and ferraris in bulk is how rich people become poor people (see: Professional Athletes).

If you give me a tax cut, there certainly is a chance that I'd spend it, but there's a near equal chance that I'll do something that has 0 economic affect like putting it into my savings account. If I made twice as much, that wouldn't change and I can't imagine Greg for example getting a tax cut and then going and blowing it on stuff. On an absolute basis rich people spend more than poor people, but as a percentage, I'm going to say that poor people spend more, out of necessity or in some cases out of stupidity (aka, that's why they are poor).

That isn't me saying take from the rich savers to give to the poor spenders, but just saying that a 1$ tax cut for people even moderately successful people, is probably less in terms of trickle down than some people want to believe.

I guess I should have put sarcasm in brackets or something. That's what the roll eyes was meant to indicate. Sorry you missed it. I know sarcasm doesn't come across well with words on a screen. I should have done more to make it obvious.

That comment right there shows your lack of understanding of how the economy in this country works. Putting money into a savings account is not letting it sit idle. It has a huge affect on the economy. There is not a vault in a bank with your cash in it just waiting for you to come take it out. It's being used for investments and loans. It is generating wealth for people.

You should read more on Austrian Economic principles, mises.org is a good start, and read more on Hayeck. It will better explain how and why capitalism works with history and facts unlike those extremely intelligent and perfect academic theories that just never seem to work for some reason proposed by Keynsians. That last part is me being sarcastic again. Sorry, but I am not going to listen or follow anyone's theories when one of them is that it would help the economy if the government buried money and then paid someone to dig it up. That's stupid. That's Keynes for you.

We need Andrew in this thread.

You are correct in terms of math with your example. A few dollars won't matter even though we are talking a lot more than a few dollars in the real world. However, psychological effects must be considered as well. That's why when tax rates are lowered, tax revenue goes up and stays up. It's not just the $1 that the rich are getting to save that makes the revenue go up. It's the feeling that they aren't being punished that matters.

If you're in the top tax bracket in this country, you're being tax almost 50% of your income by state and federal. The majority is federal. You have to make arguments and provide proof to keep more than that. Personally, that's a huge downer to me. Especially, when you go to the grocery store and the person in front of you buy food on food stamps and then hops into a car that costs more than the one you own. The number one vehicle of millionaires for a number of years was the F150. The Honda Civic was on the list too.

Couple that with the fact that nearly 50% of the people in this country who work pay no Federal income taxes. None not one red cent! That's people who make up to nearly 50k a year that supposedly can not even pay $100 to the funding of this government. That's just over $8 per month or 27 cents per day that they can't be burdened to pay. Yet, we are told the rich need to pay their fair share? Huge psychological downer on those of us that work very hard for our money.

Not all of the spending government does is justifiable and necessary. The majority of people, including those supposedly crazy Tea Partiers, are not trying to stop government spending. People just want it under control. Is it too much to ask that duplicate programs or programs that don't work be reformed and have their costs amended?

Also, keep in mind government employees do not pay taxes. As more of the work force becomes government employed, the burden of paying them fails on private sector companies. A private sector that also has to pay its own employees and supply them with benefits in many cases while keeping costs low enough to compete against other countries that have lower standards of living, where employees are paid less, and where corporate income taxes are less. We have the highest corporate income taxes in the world.

I think the tax issue is one of personal perspective. Most people look at their neighbor and think "they" must be rich or have a better job - etc. People tend to think everyone is better off than they are.

Here's my TAX perspective.

I'm the 1% guy that everyone hates... Too bad. In 2011 I bought almost a million dollars worth of cars - In Washington I pay 9.9% sales tax on those purchases. That's 100K to the state just in car tax alone.... forget the license fees etc.

I just bought a big truck - I paid 24K in FEDERAL excise tax and 20K in state tax - plus license fees.

This is the problem that people don't understand.... people spending money... is what makes an "economy"..... People NOT spending money creates a recession. If there is a recession... I will still live GREAT! But I might not spend as much money because I just don't have to, and or, I just don't feel like it. Who does that affect? It affects how much sales tax I pay -- it affects all the people that MIGHT have made money off me - thru commissions... profits... etc.

I don't mind paying taxes at all... I pay HUGE taxes (dollar wise).... I don't mind it. What I mind is people paying nothing - then bitching that their lives aren't good enough... that it's someone else's fault that their lives suck... and that the "government" should do more for them.

2/3rds of the Federal budget is now SOCIAL PROGRAMS.... it used to be 1/3rd of the budget. I would like to see that reversed so that we can get back to spending money on building and maintaining roads - improve our education system - national defense etc. In other words - I'd be HAPPY if I thought Obama was going to increase my taxes to build stuff - create stuff - etc. But his agenda is to take from me - and spend even more on "social programs". We have so many of them now we can't afford to pay our bills. I think that is what half the country is fed up with. The other half (according to the popular vote) seem to have their hands out...

Greg, you're a lot smarter than you look.

Could not agree more with you. Pay the minimum legal taxes you can (call it creative, calling it using the tax code, whatever) and use the savings to consume and invest and stimulate! :thumbsup:

Certainly. Outside of burying money in my yard, anything I do with it benefits the economy to some degree.

Take a step back though from questioning my intelligence and consider what was going on in 2008. Consumers, aka people buying things, slowed down buying things. Rich consumers, poor consumers, everyone was freaked out and started saving more and spending less.

My company saw it, our customers are not poor people, they are businesses and they stopped spending money. I presume they were saving money where they could but the reality of them not spending money is that other businesses slowed, and had to slow their spending or start to lay people off

Consumer spending dropped, and the saving rate skyrocketed, and yet the economy kept falling. You could argue that banks weren't lending that extra money being saved and that is certainly true, but at my company business dropped and people don't take out loans to buy our products, so the banks had zero impact in terms of us having a bad year.

Any honest person with a business saw demand drop, and many businesses closed as a result. Certainly some places got jammed up because some banks didn't loan, and their customers used loans to buy their products, but in general? It was because everyone started saving money.

I agree pretty much completely about spending being what helps the economy and that we clearly cannot just keep spending as a nation like we have been. Functionally the increase in social programs has a lot to do with things that Obama has no control over.

For example, Old people! With more and more baby boomers retiring, that is far more spending on medicare, and social security. In terms of the other aspects like welfare and food stamps, unemployment, I can certainly see them all being higher than usual due to the recession in general.

What people forget about fixing all of this is that Obama and Boehner were very close to a deal that would have made cuts to these programs, and had some additional tax revenue. They both should shoulder the blame for it not happening and putting us into the current fiscal cliff situation but I think that they will most likely come into agreement on a balanced package of cuts and revenue increases (maybe taxes maybe not).

I don't think it's an us versus them, makers vs takers thing, you can't tax your way out of debt, and you can't cut your way out either. We all got some benefit out of the deficit spending, it's time we all got a little pain to pay for it and I feel like that's what is going to happen.

.... And I don't mind people being on welfare etc... or getting unemployment..


What I DO care about is that someone isn't LOOKING for a job - of any kind...

Being out of work - or being out of/down on your luck... I'm okay with that... but you'd better be trying to do something to change that. 'Cause sitting around doing nothing is what I get pissed about.

Personally - I'd like to see us return to a more WPA style program. If you're getting a "pay check" -- then you are "on the payroll" -- either the state or the county or the fed is sending you a check and taking care of your needs. IF that is the case --- then you need to "DO SOMETHING" for that check. You need to mow grass or rake leaves - or sweep streets - clean graffiti off - paint a government building - help the cooks at the public schools..... SOMETHING. If you're incapable - incapacitated - "slow" - etc.... then you should probably get more because we need to take care of those that can't take care of themselves. I'm totally for that. But if you can get out of bed in the morning... and walk and talk... then we have plenty of work that needs to be done. Doesn't have to be hard work - there's plenty of "hands"... but ya gotta do something.

Gregg....clap clap clap clap!! Spot on!! ALL of it!!:cheers:

As several have echoed, I don't mind helping my fellow person.

The thing that gets me is we feed a person a day (food stamps, other social programs) verses teaching them how to be self sufficient. What's that old saying:

"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to sell fish and he eats steak."

I have been in several industries where it simply became unprofitable to work there. The first was an engineer fixing broken electronics. Tech changed and it's cheaper to throw things out and get the latest verses handing it to me to fix.

I transitioned into another area (programming) and worked there for a while. Many of the jobs were off-shored and there was another transition.

So, now I'm doing solution architecture.

Bottom line is I have to keep learning, many times paying for my own training, to keep my skills sharp and competitive with the market.

We need the government to incentivize people to learn, grow and adapt to an ever changing world.

Handing someone money (remember how you spent your tax rebate check of 2008) is usually used to pay for short term pleasure. Instead, how about giving employers a break to bring on more interns (no matter their age) or fostering a mentoring program?

I just hate the government taking my hard earned money only to see others waist it.

Just saying....

:cheers:

Pain isn't necessary for anybody. The best solution is to 'grow the economy'.

Instead of people bltching about the size of the slice of their pie you bake a bigger pie.

What kind of effect would there be on the Treasury if we put 10 million people back to work in the private sector so that they are paying taxes?

FWIW:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEM4NKXK-iA

:cheers:

Good stuff Greg, its good to put it out there and show what it is all about. You should hang out with Peter Schiff at them protests to set the record straight.

The only thing you missed here is that if you put these people to work mowing or street sweeping you can bet your ass that the union municipal workers will bitch that their work is being taken away. I like the way you are thinking though.

You just make the current employees -- "supervisors".... and give them 5 or 6 helpers. :D

I've always said the same thing Greg. If you are collecting government assistance, you should either be working to improve society or indebted to the US Treasury. Meaning, you have to pay it back. Whether it's taking tax refunds to minor windfalls through garnishment. Of course a drug test should be mandatory every month.

But hey, I'm not a politician and could never get elected. You have to lie through your teeth to get in office. I'd rather tell it how it is......

It's never going to change. There will always be those that do and those that don't. There are getting to be a lot less doers so I'll juse forget about it. :lol:

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon on 04.28.2010.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

I read that In an email yesterday but it didn't state the source. Very true synopsis!

Ron --

Good post! And that really is what worries the people like "us" the most. It's not that Obama is a bad man (I personally like him and voted for him the first time) ===== what I dislike is the DIRECTION the voters seem to want to head. And that there seems to be more and more "government will fix all my problems" type thinkers. Rather than the USA I grew up in which was "get your sorry azz out of bed - get a job - pay your bills - work hard and MAYBE things will be better for you down the road - note the MAYBE". In other words -- YOU rely on yourself. :cheers:

I think it's extremely simplistic to just generalize any set of voters into these giant buckets. The conservative view seems to be that all of the takers, aka anyone dependent on the government will vote democratic, including anyone on social security, having medicare, unemployment, welfare etc.

The liberal view is that anyone who votes republican is either a super rich person, an old person, or virtually anyone from the south, who they feel is too stupid to know better.

There is certainly elements of truth to these just like most generalizations but it's naive to believe it and apply it the way you guys are. Old people for example are in both buckets!

The thing is, some of you same people calling out the president for dividing people up, and us vs them, you then go on to divide people up into makers vs takers, fools vs non fools etc. What is it, are we one America or are we split up along some mysterious line?

You have reasons for wanting a different president, and some of you are able to express why and I can see how that is an entirely valid viewpoint. Few people here seem willing or capable of understanding why someone would vote for Obama.

Right now the doers are OK with being bent over by the government, until that changes, there will be no change.

Foodstamps Surge By Most In One Year To New All Time Record, In Delayed Release
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...elayed-release

The animosities and complications of mutually respecting others values and rights and agreeing to cooperate for betterment of a given region region appears to be lost in the large metro areas among those with higher levels of education and wealth.

Fortunately I have numerous friends established in many smaller farm and ranch communities all around the state of Oregon. When I need to decompress and get back to the core fundamentals and values, those communities are where I chose to spend my vacation time. IMO the "solutions" of compromise are much simpler than what the micro-managing "well educated metro's" have nurtured.

I'm not throwing stones, that's just what works for me and my family and I feel very fortunate to have those genuine relationships. :thumbsup:

:lateral:

Congress ultimatley decides what gets done in this country. They have way more influence that the President by himself. Until the democrats and republicans in congress can work together, nothing positive will ever get done.

They all need to stop fighting against each others views and policies just because the plan or policy came form the "other team", and do what is right for the country....until that happens, we are all screwed no matter who holds the presidency.

I voted for Obama the first time.....he has unquestionably let me down.... the presidency was prime for the taking....a lob pitch across the plate.....and the best that the Republican could do was Mitt Romney? You guys want to point fingers, then point it at the Republican party for not having a candidate that could win the Presidency when it was prime for the taking....

I like Schiff and have read his books but man he gets a little extreme sometimes.

Absolutely, Ned. Same here. I voted for the lesser of 2 disasters. None of the above was the obvious choice to anyone paying attention. :unibrow:

Not only a lob across the plate ONCE.... BUT in the LAST TWO elections!!



And I couldn't agree with you more about CONGRESS (House and Senate). People in the USA just don't understand that this is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT VOTE than for the POTUS.

THAT is why our education system needs an overhaul! We teach all manor of STUFF -- but people can't do or understand BASICS.

I see half the guys on this board using "their" (as in THEMSELVES) - "there" (as in a PLACE) and "they're" (as in THEY ARE) wrong daily! And "to" (going somewhere?) and "too" (too big, too small, too few cubic inches - me too, as in also).... :lol: :rolleyes:

Well sticking my neck out, I would say the proper choice was Ron Paul...But the corruption runs too deep in Washington and neither party wanted their meal tickets taken away.

True change and a clean up would have happened, but I knew it would never happen.

Really Hard to get the Truth when the Media is controlled....We are one station away from the media being totally controlled..When that is controlled, the Truth is also controlled...I wish we were in the middle, but both sides seem to think that the extreme left or right is where they should be...Not where I want to be.

If both sides were to ignore their base and begin to moderate from the center, we could get out of this mess...

U wont see me trying to lobb your neck off!
his view on what goverments position in our lives should be are on point for me
but with the. Way the partys are you gotta be black or white, there is no gray...:rolleyes:

This is the truth. The issue for republicans is that to even get the nomination, you have to go so far to the right, that by the time the election comes, you have to swing so far back that people can't be sure what they are going to get.

McCain for example, he was a moderate and someone who I was terribly dissapointed that he changed his views on many issues in order to get the nomination. The exact same with Mitt Romney. He was a moderate but then he was an extreme conservative before trying to be moderate again. I feel like a lot of people probably aren't happy with Obama, but they know exactly what they are going to get and would rather not gamble on these things and hope the other guy is who is saying at that point in time.

I will be very curious who comes out in the 2016 race for both parties. It's way early but I could definitely see myself voting for someone like Chris Christie if he doesn't do the republican extreme view shift.