Great Depression of 2016

[frenchblackcopper]

Govt. implemented policies manytimes do more harm than good. It is now very,very difficult in Illinois to get a full-time job of 40 hours or more because of the states unemployment and workers comp insurance rates employers must pay into quarterly.Now with Oslama care we know many places that offer jobs with only 20-30 hours per week MAX!! So to compensate people now must have two part time jobs,that equals out to more hours than a 40 hour work week.More gasoline to buy,more babysitting to hire,and less and less time at home.This of course refers to the few honest people in society not relying on govt handouts.
And the class of applicants for these part time jobs is not the cream of the crop either.we now have so many high school dropouts,,not capable of even adding 2+2=4. This new age group entering the workforce is what our Govt helps create.They raise the cost of living a paltry amount for social security,but then also raise medicare to take that paltry cost of living raise.What was gained except we the people think our govt has our hearts in their best interest,while they have a over $100k a year salary,,after 4 years in office they will get a retirement amount equal to their pay while in office and they have the best healthcare there is,,all at our expense.Politicians and the corruption,and waay above average benefits they recieve is really a burr in my butt. This country has been sculpted by greed and money,,not the hard working,sweat equity citizens who deserves all the credit.
Waste in Govt is another big burr in my butt. It cost us over $10 million for O'bama and crew to go get in the limelight with Mandela's passing.Why should my taxdollars or anyone elses be used for this? Oh,I forget,it wasn't taxpayer money,just freshly printed worthless paper money the US Dept of the treasury cranks out daily,,no noticable loss ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet!
When you go to school,there is rules,,,when your hired for a job,there is rules,,,and I think it's time for "rules" to go right along with all govt officials,,they are there to do a job,,,not make behind door deals,,fly all over the world for funerals,and hand shaking,,,unless they want to pay 100% for the trip out of their $100-$200k a year salaries.If they had to pay for these out of their own wages,you can bet they would stop.

 

[Rosa moschata]

It's ironic that when I say "set the tax rates back to how they were during the prosperous 1950s" that the knee-jerk reflex responses about how bad communism and socialism are then pop-up. Funny, I thought that the 1950s was all about being scared of secret communists and socialists infiltrating the US. And how do you fail to see the correlation with increasing income disparity as a result of continuing to lower taxes on the upper 1%, with their wealth increasing each decade, while that of the middle class has remained stagnant? The data is undeniable, if you choose to look at it. Why is it that countries with the highest standards of living, education, health care, etc. follow the model we left behind when we began slashing tax rates for the rich after the 1950s?

I look around through the posts here, and it seems many of those with some kind of "arousal" for doomsday are speaking first-hand about how times are tough where they live. It is also interesting that these "tough times" keep getting blamed on the left, yet most of these "tough times" areas seem to be red states. If the republicans do such a great job of getting the economy going, and keeping people financially fit, then why is there such a strong correlation between a state being overwhelmingly republican and its receiving of federal support funding? Why are the economic power-house states (those contributing more to the federal government than they receive) overwhelmingly democrat? If republicans are so fiscally conservative, then why has every republican president after Eisenhower left office with a greater federal deficit than he had when he took office, with the only deficit reductions occurring during a democrat's term? Why is it "a sin" for the working-poor to receive assistance, but not "a sin" that their employers get away with paying wages so low? If so many Walmart employees have to receive welfare to get by, isn't it Walmart who's really getting the government assistance (via subsidized wages)?

It seems that so many of you are willingly gullible enough to continue believing the undelivered promises of the right, who keep saying that their policies will make things better. I guess as the number of people who actually do benefit from republican policies keeps shrinking, they need to scramble for votes from those who are easy to convince to vote against their economic self-interests -- by pandering to social issues, scapegoating, subsidized fear-mongering (i.e. Fox News), etc. But, carry on blaming "lefty" states like mine (NY) -- we'll keep footing your bills.

 

[Rosa moschata]

Tell me one good reason that because someone makes more they should have to pay a higher tax rate.

Then tell me why when 2 people make the same amount the person with 1 child will have to pay more taxes then the person with 4 children.

The thing is, people who make the most pay LOWER tax rates -- if you live off investments, you pay 15%. If you live off wages, you pay 35%. So tell me one good reason why we punish people who work for a living, but make it easier for those who don't need to work to keep even more of the money they make, even if they have not one paid employee?

Well, if 2 people are making the same amount, but one has one dependent and the other has four dependents, it means that less of the other's income remains after paying for necessities. Income tax is meant for what's left over after basic needs are met. And this is why tax rates should increase with income -- a person making $1million per year has a higher percentage of income left over after living costs than a person making $50K per year.

The point of my previous post is that tax rates should favor the consumers, not the producers, in a capitalistic economy. What good is giving tax breaks to big corporations if consumers aren't making enough to buy their goods? If corporations were taxed like they used to be, they'd STILL continue to produce, to meet the increasing demand created by more consumers with more money to spend. That's how it worked when before. But saying "hey, let's try that again" is being called communist or socialist? Straw man fallacy much?

 

[rufus]

And just who are the so called wealthy? Besides a few famous millionaires and ball players, I can't think of any others? If we confiscated all of their wealth, we still would not make a dent in the national debt.

Taxing corporations just passes the cost on to the consumer. Tax enough, and the company leaves the USA for a more friendly country taking all of the jobs with them. Between excessive government regulations, oppressive taxation and union actions, we have pretty much lost our industrial base.

When companies becomes unprofitable, they get sold off to investors abroad. They buy these companies to provide employment for their own people. The product still has an American sounding name; it still looks the same, but it is made in China or India. Before you buy something, look to see where it is made.

It is better to buy something in the second hand store than to buy something new that was made abroad. The product in the second hand may be foreign, but they got us on the first sale, but they will not get us on the resale.

As for assisting the non working class, that is about to come to an end. The US treasury is selling bonds to the Fed for fresh printed dollars. That can only last so long. This will eventually ruin the member banks. Without collecting taxes to cover the cost of social programs this becomes a route to massive inflation.

I am afraid it will happen sooner than later. Be prepared.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I get a little tired of the same stories about elected officials compensation and retirement benefits. They do not 100% of their final salary, the do not get it if they have only served 4 years, etc...here it is in black and white:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E,*PLC8"@

As for Obama going for Mandela's funeral...that is what presidents and vice presidents do. All of them travel, and they often travel for state funerals of world leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_of_the_United_States

 

[frenchblackcopper]

If we are all left to fend for ourselves because of an economic collapse,what type of govt would be best to get us back on track again? Since it's elected officials that we supposedly put into office,be they democrat or republican,they all have contributed negatively in one way-vote or another.Allowing huge corporations to buy out others,thus eliminating competition,bailing out car manufacturers at the taxpayers expense,,bailing out the banking industry because of their flawed rules of lending,,free trade agreements,,,and the list goes on and on. History repeats itself but if nothing is changed to prevent the same elements from occuring again,what have we gained?
If the financial debackle does occur,,noone will need to worry about investing,or taxes,cause noone will have money to invest. There are many "corrections" that are overdue when it comes to prices alone,,the theory of charge what the public is willing to pay has went on long enough. I believe many of these companies that think their products are golden and can charge what they want will easily learn just how fast things can change and I hope they are the first to go down the tubes. Cell phone manufacturers develope their products here,then have them manufactured in China for pennies,yet charge hundreds of dollars for a device you can hold in one hand. They are all geared to profits and Wall Street. Wall Streeters know they are riding on a bubble soon to burst and have been for a few years now. This is another correction long overdue.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: When you invest money there is the chance you could lose the money, and without investments then the economy would collapse, that is why the pay less. But I would have no problem raising to what ever everyone else pays.

So if we went to a 10% flat tax on earnings with no deductions you wouldn't like that ? So because a person has more kids then they can afford someone else has to pay more ? What happened to paying their fair share ?
So if one person earns $20,000 and pays a tax rate of 10% they would pay $2,000 and someone that earns $200,000 at 10% they would pay $20,000 and if someone earned $2,000,000 they would pay $200,000. So what would be unfair about that.

Do you realize that corporations don't really pay taxes ? They only collect extra money from consumers to pass on to the government. So isn't it the consumer that's paying the tax ?

I missed the part where I said anything about communist or socialist, can you point that out to me please ?

 

[frenchblackcopper]

mom'sfolly,,please also show me the contributions that lobbyists makes to politicians to sit on their board of directors after they are out of office? And what that pay is please? Please also show me insider knowledge politicians gets on investments noone else does.And what did Mandela do for you,or me or this country?? Everyone seems to forget what this guy was really like a long time ago,,yet now he is reveled as a hero for democracy?? Boy,I must have taken a long nap under a rock for decades to only hear the good for mankind this guy did.

 

[hemet dennis]

mom'sfolly,,please also show me the contributions that lobbyists makes to politicians to sit on their board of directors after they are out of office? And what that pay is please? Please also show me insider knowledge politicians gets on investments noone else does.And what did Mandela do for you,or me or this country?? Everyone seems to forget what this guy was really like a long time ago,,yet now he is reveled as a hero for democracy?? Boy,I must have taken a long nap under a rock for decades to only hear the good for mankind this guy did.

I think she was addressing the lies some state about there taxpayer funded compensation.

 

[Rosa moschata]

When you invest money there is the chance you could lose the money, and without investments then the economy would collapse, that is why the pay less. But I would have no problem raising to what ever everyone else pays.

So if we went to a 10% flat tax on earnings with no deductions you wouldn't like that ? So because a person has more kids then they can afford someone else has to pay more ? What happened to paying their fair share ?
So if one person earns $20,000 and pays a tax rate of 10% they would pay $2,000 and someone that earns $200,000 at 10% they would pay $20,000 and if someone earned $2,000,000 they would pay $200,000. So what would be unfair about that.

Do you realize that corporations don't really pay taxes ? They only collect extra money from consumers to pass on to the government. So isn't it the consumer that's paying the tax ?

I missed the part where I said anything about communist or socialist, can you point that out to me please ?

Love it when the "pro-life" right is all about keeping every fetus safe -- until birth. Then, they're on their own -- no tax breaks for the parents, no welfare from the taxpayers.

Flat-tax rates for all would be a boon for the wealthy, and a bane for the poor, again because there is a general minimum needed from income to just survive. It may sound like a great idea to the average uninformed middle-class, but in reality, it's just another way the rich want to slip by paying less.

Corporations do pay taxes -- on profits. The "extra money" from consumers is sales tax. There are other taxes out there.

And my response about the knee-jerk communism/socialism remarks was in general to the thread, not specific to you. Right after I entered the thread with my post, the next few posts (from others) was all about the evils of communism/socialism.