Yeah, it's just a shame that he inherited America at the start of a recession and with a huge budget deficit.lowing wrote:
Yeah after re-reading it I can see where that is what he meant.
I gotta tell ya though, this bailout, govt. intervention bullshit is a Pandora's Box. I am not hopeful for our future, once the rock star gets done with us. Only problem is, we can't change our name to Cuba, it is already taken.
Yes he did, but since when did it become logical to get outta debt by creating more debt?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Yeah, it's just a shame that he inherited America at the start of a recession and with a huge budget deficit.lowing wrote:
Yeah after re-reading it I can see where that is what he meant.
I gotta tell ya though, this bailout, govt. intervention bullshit is a Pandora's Box. I am not hopeful for our future, once the rock star gets done with us. Only problem is, we can't change our name to Cuba, it is already taken.
Getting out of a recession =\= getting out of national debt.lowing wrote:
Yes he did, but since when did it become logical to get outta debt by creating more debt?
You let people keep their money so they can spend it. This will start the economic engine. Nothing elseTheAussieReaper wrote:
Getting out of a recession =\= getting out of national debt.lowing wrote:
Yes he did, but since when did it become logical to get outta debt by creating more debt?
Banks collapsing doesn't let people keep their money let alone spend it. Businesses failing doesn't let people keep their money let alone jobs. Handouts give people money to spend. Tax breaks give them even more etc. Sitting back and doing nothing achieves no less (or more) than nothing. lollowing wrote:
You let people keep their money so they can spend it. This will start the economic engine. Nothing elseTheAussieReaper wrote:
Getting out of a recession =\= getting out of national debt.lowing wrote:
Yes he did, but since when did it become logical to get outta debt by creating more debt?
I do not suppose when you say "hand outs", you are talking about handing out my money back to me are ya? You mean "HANDOUT" my money to someone who has not earned it to spend.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Banks collapsing doesn't let people keep their money let alone spend it. Businesses failing doesn't let people keep their money let alone jobs. Handouts give people money to spend. Tax breaks give them even more etc. Sitting back and doing nothing achieves no less (or more) than nothing. lollowing wrote:
You let people keep their money so they can spend it. This will start the economic engine. Nothing elseTheAussieReaper wrote:
Getting out of a recession =\= getting out of national debt.
Would you rather the government keep all your money than give it to someone else? What's the point in that? What about no taxes?lowing wrote:
I do not suppose when you say "hand outs", you are talking about handing out my money back to me are ya? You mean "HANDOUT" my money to someone who has not earned it to spend.
Why not just let me have MY money back? I am quite capable of spending it on ME. Ya know, since I am the one who worked for it.
I understand about taxes, I am not talking permenantly. But if the govt. is going to "handout" 900 billion dollars, they might as wll hand it back out to those that gave it to them in the first place. I am saying do this as their stimulous bill.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Would you rather the government keep all your money than give it to someone else? What's the point in that? What about no taxes?lowing wrote:
I do not suppose when you say "hand outs", you are talking about handing out my money back to me are ya? You mean "HANDOUT" my money to someone who has not earned it to spend.
Why not just let me have MY money back? I am quite capable of spending it on ME. Ya know, since I am the one who worked for it.
If your for zero taxes I can tell you now there would be no infrastructure left to run the country at all. There isn't a profit in everything, which is why the govt. should spend your money on things like schools, hospitals, roads. If it were all privatised everything would be raised to the point it brings in a profit and nothing would be affordable.
Let's say we do take your proposal of giving your money back, what are you going to do with it exactly that helps the economy? The last time your country was so desperate for funding, you know what it did? Issue war bonds for people to buy. Maybe that's the solution to your problem now. Because the govt. can't be trusted and Americans are too lazy (you've said so yourself).
If I understand it correctly though, Taiwan has a major trade surplus. America has a major trade deficit.Cybargs wrote:
Stimulus packages work very very effectively. In Taiwan the Gov gave around 100USD worth of shopping vouchers to be used by any stores. It was a trickled down effect when stores gave massive discounts if you used all of the vouchers. For example, Bob's computers says you spend all of the vouchers in their store, they give you free shit. Sometimes larger department stores will give store vouchers and shit. There are shitload of people buying stuff, and now people getting paid.
You do realize that the same people in govt. that are trying to end private executive perks and pay, fly around on private jets, and can make millions of dollars a year don't you? When Obama gives up his 747 ( hey these are tough times and we are on the verge of a disaster just ask him) and Polosi gives up her 757 I will then say hey, they are leading by example. Try taking the pay and perks away from them and see what happens. When congress passed a law to automatically give themselves a raise unless voted against, all with tax apyer money, they have little room to slam what a CEO makes with PRIVATE money.Kmarion wrote:
In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay at large companies to that of the president of the United States was about 2 to 1.
In 2007, it was more than 20 to 1.
In 1980, executives at large companies made about 40 times what the average worker made.
Last year, CEOs made about 360 times more than the average worker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02794.html
I agree with you here to a certain extent lowing but two wrongs don't make a right. Our Taoiseach makes more money than Obama and yet our Government are talking about the Irish people having to tighten their belts and accept that tough times and many cuts lie ahead. Recently a politician in Mayo who was elected as an independent rejoined her old party (who were back in Government) and so she was claiming two wages! She only ceased claiming her second wage after much public uproar. I agree with you that the politicians we have these days are fat, rich hypocrites but that doesn't mean we should have to simply accept that these CEO fat cats in the private sector are giving out bonuses and gargantuan wages while tax payer's money keep the entire economic system afloat... two wrongs don't make a right.lowing wrote:
You do realize that the same people in govt. that are trying to end private executive perks and pay, fly around on private jets, and can make millions of dollars a year don't you? When Obama gives up his 747 ( hey these are tough times and we are on the verge of a disaster just ask him) and Polosi gives up her 757 I will then say hey, they are leading by example. Try taking the pay and perks away from them and see what happens. When congress passed a law to automatically give themselves a raise unless voted against, all with tax apyer money, they have little room to slam what a CEO makes with PRIVATE money.Kmarion wrote:
In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay at large companies to that of the president of the United States was about 2 to 1.
In 2007, it was more than 20 to 1.
In 1980, executives at large companies made about 40 times what the average worker made.
Last year, CEOs made about 360 times more than the average worker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02794.html
You do realize what you are saying has always been? Whereas the actual portion of actual income has changed drastically. What they make "flying around in those evil ~eeew scary~ private jets" has remained a constant. Do you make it a point to miss the big picture in my post? (As in holy shit we have a disappearing middle class) You ignored the second part which was pertinent to understanding my point. Your replies to me are mind boggling when you consider 99% of my post are critical of government spending.lowing wrote:
You do realize that the same people in govt. that are trying to end private executive perks and pay, fly around on private jets, and can make millions of dollars a year don't you? When Obama gives up his 747 ( hey these are tough times and we are on the verge of a disaster just ask him) and Polosi gives up her 757 I will then say hey, they are leading by example. Try taking the pay and perks away from them and see what happens. When congress passed a law to automatically give themselves a raise unless voted against, all with tax apyer money, they have little room to slam what a CEO makes with PRIVATE money.Kmarion wrote:
In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay at large companies to that of the president of the United States was about 2 to 1.
In 2007, it was more than 20 to 1.
In 1980, executives at large companies made about 40 times what the average worker made.
Last year, CEOs made about 360 times more than the average worker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02794.html
Sort of...Ridir wrote:
Kmarion is right here. We do have a disappearing Middle Class, it is in effect what happened when the Roman Empire split and collapsed. It is not identical in nature but in effect the economic system is failing and the the state and its people are falling short on money. So what happens is that the Rich take advantage and buy more assets that allow them to pad themselves from the turbulence and take the now growing lower/working class under them to produce more product. It will balance out again in about a few hundred years if history is any example.
regardless as to what the CEO's make, the standard of living among the rest of us has increased compared to our fathers and grand fathers. How do you account for that?Kmarion wrote:
You do realize what you are saying has always been? Whereas the actual portion of actual income has changed drastically. What they make "flying around in those evil ~eeew scary~ private jets" has remained a constant. Do you make it a point to miss the big picture in my post? (As in holy shit we have a disappearing middle class) You ignored the second part which was pertinent to understanding my point. Your replies to me are mind boggling when you consider 99% of my post are critical of government spending.lowing wrote:
You do realize that the same people in govt. that are trying to end private executive perks and pay, fly around on private jets, and can make millions of dollars a year don't you? When Obama gives up his 747 ( hey these are tough times and we are on the verge of a disaster just ask him) and Polosi gives up her 757 I will then say hey, they are leading by example. Try taking the pay and perks away from them and see what happens. When congress passed a law to automatically give themselves a raise unless voted against, all with tax apyer money, they have little room to slam what a CEO makes with PRIVATE money.Kmarion wrote:
In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay at large companies to that of the president of the United States was about 2 to 1.
In 2007, it was more than 20 to 1.
In 1980, executives at large companies made about 40 times what the average worker made.
Last year, CEOs made about 360 times more than the average worker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02794.html
The rest of us? By which you mean? It's no secret that the middle class has disappearing here lowing. .. at least over the last 15 years or so.lowing wrote:
regardless as to what the CEO's make, the standard of living among the rest of us has increased compared to our fathers and grand fathers. How do you account for that?Kmarion wrote:
You do realize what you are saying has always been? Whereas the actual portion of actual income has changed drastically. What they make "flying around in those evil ~eeew scary~ private jets" has remained a constant. Do you make it a point to miss the big picture in my post? (As in holy shit we have a disappearing middle class) You ignored the second part which was pertinent to understanding my point. Your replies to me are mind boggling when you consider 99% of my post are critical of government spending.lowing wrote:
You do realize that the same people in govt. that are trying to end private executive perks and pay, fly around on private jets, and can make millions of dollars a year don't you? When Obama gives up his 747 ( hey these are tough times and we are on the verge of a disaster just ask him) and Polosi gives up her 757 I will then say hey, they are leading by example. Try taking the pay and perks away from them and see what happens. When congress passed a law to automatically give themselves a raise unless voted against, all with tax apyer money, they have little room to slam what a CEO makes with PRIVATE money.
I am middle class, and I ain't going anywhere. I am responsible. If people indebted themselves into the lower class how do you blame anyone other than themselves for it?Kmarion wrote:
The rest of us? By which you mean? It's no secret that the middle class has disappearing here lowing. .. at least over the last 15 years or so.lowing wrote:
regardless as to what the CEO's make, the standard of living among the rest of us has increased compared to our fathers and grand fathers. How do you account for that?Kmarion wrote:
You do realize what you are saying has always been? Whereas the actual portion of actual income has changed drastically. What they make "flying around in those evil ~eeew scary~ private jets" has remained a constant. Do you make it a point to miss the big picture in my post? (As in holy shit we have a disappearing middle class) You ignored the second part which was pertinent to understanding my point. Your replies to me are mind boggling when you consider 99% of my post are critical of government spending.
I'm talking about the effects of having a weak middle class on an economy. You, in your supreme understanding of responsibility, are just looking to blame. As usual.lowing wrote:
I am middle class, and I ain't going anywhere. I am responsible. If people indebted themselves into the lower class how do you blame anyone other than themselves for it?Kmarion wrote:
The rest of us? By which you mean? It's no secret that the middle class has disappearing here lowing. .. at least over the last 15 years or so.lowing wrote:
regardless as to what the CEO's make, the standard of living among the rest of us has increased compared to our fathers and grand fathers. How do you account for that?
regardless of economic status of our country, anyone who buries themselves in debt is going to fail. It just so happens a bunxh of them got caught all at once. Tough shit.
I am not looking to blame, I know who is to blame for personal financial irresponsibiltiy, and it ain't Bush. My supreme understanding of responsibility has seen me through every one of my kicks in the balls by life. I endured without blaming anyone. I endured by owning up to my mistakes and correcting them. I guess I am an asshole for that, but I felt I would get farther ahead taking care of myself instead of waiting to elect a socialist to take care of me for me. What a dumb ass I am. I shoulda waited. Who knew.Kmarion wrote:
I'm talking about the effects of having a weak middle class on an economy. You, in your supreme understanding of responsibility, are just looking to blame. As usual.lowing wrote:
I am middle class, and I ain't going anywhere. I am responsible. If people indebted themselves into the lower class how do you blame anyone other than themselves for it?Kmarion wrote:
The rest of us? By which you mean? It's no secret that the middle class has disappearing here lowing. .. at least over the last 15 years or so.
regardless of economic status of our country, anyone who buries themselves in debt is going to fail. It just so happens a bunxh of them got caught all at once. Tough shit.
No your not an asshole.. no offense but your just not that special neither. Millions have "endured", millions have admitted and reacted to their mistakes, millions have taken to personal responsibility. If they hadn't how could ... the standard of living among the rest of us has increased compared to our fathers and grand fathers..? So drop the "I am a dumb ass" routine and step down off of your pedestal. It's not that impressive.lowing wrote:
I am not looking to blame, I know who is to blame for personal financial irresponsibiltiy, and it ain't Bush. My supreme understanding of responsibility has seen me through every one of my kicks in the balls by life. I endured without blaming anyone. I endured by owning up to my mistakes and correcting them. I guess I am an asshole for that, but I felt I would get farther ahead taking care of myself instead of waiting to elect a socialist to take care of me for me. What a dumb ass I am. I shoulda waited. Who knew.Kmarion wrote:
I'm talking about the effects of having a weak middle class on an economy. You, in your supreme understanding of responsibility, are just looking to blame. As usual.lowing wrote:
I am middle class, and I ain't going anywhere. I am responsible. If people indebted themselves into the lower class how do you blame anyone other than themselves for it?
regardless of economic status of our country, anyone who buries themselves in debt is going to fail. It just so happens a bunxh of them got caught all at once. Tough shit.