Somebody FREAKIN shoot me!!!!

[Sieg]

Originally Posted by realcoray

I dunno, I mean there are roads and bridges right? If your house catches on fire, someone is going to come put their life on the line to put it out right? If you injure yourself you can call 911, and within minutes people come to help.

Please don't play the fire hero card.

Fire and EMT equipment and compensation are one of the better examples of excesses government spending. Yet they are portrayed to be movie stars and hero's by the media. Why isn't their equipment similar to military? The buy and equip their vehicles like the 1 percenter's buying recreational vehicles............why?

The number in our area that have second jobs as contractors and work for cash under the table makes me sick.

Two years ago Eugene had 203 fire department employees, the average wage was $96,000. Police had 193 and averaged $92,000.

Then they respond in these vehicles to attended to longtime drunk who's passed out again.........on a regular basis.

Cost effective?

IMO occupants will most likely die of smoke inhalation before the responders arrive if they can't clear themselves from the structure. In many cases provided you have decent insurance you're better off having your house burn to the ground vs. dealing with smoke and fire damage and having your house filled with the fire departments water. You'll be back under your own roof in less time with a total rebuild vs. repair.

Have you paid for an ambulance ride lately? You can go to a nice driving school for a similar price............unless you're homeless then it's free.

From a motorcyclist's perspective the condition of roads in the Pacific NW are dangerous.

End of rant..............

[Bucketlist2012]

Do we really want to start the blame game ? The Bush blame game.

Because if so, here is your history lesson.. The CRA was started by Jimmy Carter. Then Bill Clinton put it on Steroids...You know to be "fair".

Then although Bush was President, Barney Frank and Company ran with the CRA and pushed the banks to engage in Loans they never wanted to do..

Subprime lending was forced on the Banks by Barney Frank, Chuck Schumner and company to make it "fair" that everyone gets a home loan.

In 2003 , and 2005, Bush and the Right and the Federal Reserve said we are at risk...Barney Frank said we were not at risk..

In 2006, McCain called for tougher regulations...The democrats blocked the effort...Obama voted..

Bush tried several times to stop this ,but he was labeled a racist by the left and by the press.. No one in the media and on the left did their job to save the nation from collapse.

Sure Banks made a lot of money, and Goldman Sachs took the country for a ride.. I did too...I was not going to sit back while it was happening..

Sure there were MBS's that were DDD that got packaged as AAA and sold world wide. But you know what ? Stop trying to be fair and lend to unqualified buyers...It is the mantra on the left to equal the playing field by any means neccessary, even when it makes no financial sense.

And the cry babies about the two wars, blah,blah,blah...Please stop...It was a sub prime mortgage meltdown...And if the left would have left the regulation and the banks alone to stay with old school standards, none of 2008 would have happened.

So I put the meltdown, and the printing and spending that was needed to save the Nation squarely at the feet of the Liberals, because I know what happened.

You see it was easy to see coming...I sold a luxury home in 2006 and went into cash...Waiting. Then in February 2009 I closed on a 55% off peak Home at the bottom for one third my selling price of the other home. Then I rolled the rest into Investments...The opportunity of a lifetime...

And I thought it was only once in a life time. But if we continue on this path, I will get a second shot at putting my portfolio on steroids, because I refuse to let the opportunity pass....

So those that blame Bush for the collapse, are just being.....misinformed, or following the kool aid trail..Because He said something, and the media and the left shut him down...Without 2008 where would we be ? Trillions less in debt, People still in homes. Jobless rate lower, and a stronger economy..Oh and still in two wars..

And I am for Clinton era tax rates.....AFTER true spending cuts are made...The education system is broken...Throwing more money at it will not fix it...You want infastructure done ? Bring the troops home and put them to work on the highways and bridges..The unions would go crazy but what are you going to do with 300,000 troops ? Keep sending them to different nations for a pay check..

Tell the EPA to shove it and trim it's power and fat...Stop trying to force higher fuel prices to mandate green energy...Don't tell me that the President does not set fuel prices...He said on camera and his Energy Czar said on camera that they welcome higher gasoline prices to "force" green energy, even if it means european prices...So he puts policies in place that raise the price to justify going green.

The media is not doing it's job...They worship Obama and the left...They will never tell the truth or expose the lies and corruption...But Bush ? They will run front page articles....There is a price to pay for such hypocracy and silence...

[hifi875]

Your are exactly right on th mortgage meltdown. bush had nothing to do with it. And last i checked there was something called 9/11 that happened. It would be scary to see how obummer would have reacted. We did what we had to do.

[realcoray]

Originally Posted by 57hemicuda

Its funny we had police and fire protection, a military etc. in the 60's and still kept a tax rate below 20%. What has changed??, oh yeah social spending. I'm all for making the military live within its means, along with all the all the other corporate welfare that needs to be stopped. But, the real fiscal problem right now, is direct payments to individuals. You can choose not to except that, but it doesn't change the fact that it will end up crushing us. The fall of Rome.

Again, tax rates are not radically higher than they were in the 60s.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog...y-income-group

Note how for virtually everyone except for the top 1%, tax rates are basically where they were in the 1960s. That's probably a large reason why most of the gains made in terms of wealth over the last decade, have pretty much been for that set of people. That of course doesn't include state/local taxes which have almost certainly tended to increase.

I don't know that I'd be so dramatic as to compare it to the fall of Rome, but I agree that we should be cutting spending in all areas. It logically makes sense that entitlement spending would increase during a serious recession, but again, we could certainly find efficiencies and ways to make the dollars go farther.

My thinking is that any change should be phased in over time. While I think going over the fiscal cliff would not be as bad as people think, it would be clearly superior to cut 2% a year over 5 years (and increase taxes 0.5% a year over 5), than to cut 10%, and raise taxes 5% at the exact same time.

[Beegs]

Originally Posted by Sieg

Please don't play the fire hero card.

Fire and EMT equipment and compensation are one of the better examples of excesses government spending. Yet they are portrayed to be movie stars and hero's by the media. Why isn't their equipment similar to military? The buy and equip their vehicles like the 1 percenter's buying recreational vehicles............why?

The number in our area that have second jobs as contractors and work for cash under the table makes me sick.

Two years ago Eugene had 203 fire department employees, the average wage was $96,000. Police had 193 and averaged $92,000.

Then they respond in these vehicles to attended to longtime drunk who's passed out again.........on a regular basis.

Cost effective?


End of rant..............

Yup...

[hifi875]

If you taxed the 1% at 100%, it still wouldn't put a dent in our debt. that isn't the problem. its the spending. the 1% put alot of the 99% to work. Alot of poeple. they shouldn't be unfairly singled out when they already pay 80% of the taxes anyway. if their taxes go up a little, i wouldn't be the end of the world, but spending needs to be reigned in to match. In the real world you spend what you have and live withing your means, or you go broke.

[GregWeld]

*** Willing to concede -- but in order to get something in return: Relatedly, the Washington Post reports that Republican centrists and even some conservatives are calling on Boehner “to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.” More: “‘I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,’ said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio). But he stressed that this must be part of a package that slows federal borrowing and reduces the debt by $4 trillion to $5 trillion. ‘Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them,’ said LaTourette, a close Boehner ally who is retiring in January.”




The real Dem vs Repub argument is We will pay more taxes but we want spending reduced.

I think that is a FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH.... It's a RESPONSIBLE approach.


Let's not argue about who started what and who's to blame.... Let's just get busy and SOLVE the problems.

Like my old desk sign used to ask.... "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution".

[GregWeld]

AND........ WE need more like this!!



http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-ceo-cook-says

[hifi875]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

*** Willing to concede -- but in order to get something in return: Relatedly, the Washington Post reports that Republican centrists and even some conservatives are calling on Boehner “to concede on rates now, while he still has some leverage to demand something in return. Republicans are eager to win changes to fast-growing safety-net programs, such as raising the eligibility age for Medicare and applying a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security benefits.” More: “‘I and some others are advocating giving the president what he wants,’ said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio). But he stressed that this must be part of a package that slows federal borrowing and reduces the debt by $4 trillion to $5 trillion. ‘Quite frankly, some people in this 2 percent who call me, they’re more worried about the fiscal cliff than about the rates going up a couple points. That has bigger risk for them,’ said LaTourette, a close Boehner ally who is retiring in January.”




The real Dem vs Repub argument is We will pay more taxes but we want spending reduced.

I think that is a FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH.... It's a RESPONSIBLE approach.


Let's not argue about who started what and who's to blame.... Let's just get busy and SOLVE the problems.

Like my old desk sign used to ask.... "Are you part of the problem or part of the solution".

Dont get me wrong. I don't want taxes for you 2% to go up either. it affects my paycheck! Like you said they are probly going to go up, but like you said a balanced approach would be nice.

[Sieg]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

AND........ WE need more like this!!



http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-ceo-cook-says

Amen!

And IMO more emphasis on tech degrees vs. college degrees to support those manufacturing efforts.