One of the many ways this country is going down the toilet.

Gloom and Doom thinking can and will ruin the country. We need to avoid this thinking. No matter who is president Unemployment pay for a reasonable amount of time is acceptable, welfare for a reasonable amount of time is acceptable. 99weeks of no job and 2nd or 3rd generation welfare that is not acceptable and shouldn't be allowed. People who collect welfare and work under the table if caught should be in jail. If we are going to support them and they break the law they should lose freedom as well. These guaranteed public pensions have out lived their cycle, we just simply cannot afford it anymore. That should also be the case for politicians as well. Unions that support the workers health and well being are great. Unions that continue to drain the economy and companies by demanding un-reasonable terms should be abolished now. If this country does not get its competitive edge back we will go down. We need to get our manufacturing jobs back here and with the current oil and gas booms their is no better time than now. Our government needs to stay out of private sector business and let capitalism work.

OK Coalfire, I apologize for the rude comeback it sounded to me like a personal attack. Your right I don't think the Gov. should have ever gotten into the housing thing & I still don't know how they manage to stay on welfare for generations this stuff didn't just happen. As for some of the other posts here, that's what these Gov. programs should do is help those that need it in tough times but it should be temporary, been on UC quite a bit myself & it kept the wolves from the door but back then it was only 13 weeks & one ext. of 13 that was for a lessor amt. The retraining offered back then was for jobs that didn't exist, things have gotten a lot better since the 80s.
The younz thing is just Pittsburgh slang, like saying youall nothing meant by that Pittsburgh area has a lot of area terms & words like many other areas.

Sam appology accepted , now lets get back to the original question. How can you be so conservative in wanting to cut all these programs, but at the same time defend obama like he is a saint, when he said he wants to give everyone a fair shot. That means take from one and give to another, cause that is the only way you will be able to come up with the money to do that?




Now that one part of your post where you said I insinuate things, I will state this it seems you were suffering from a rare case of samnesia, where you read things and just snap out about them weather its true or not. Don't worry though it is covered under obamacare now that last bit I was razzing you hope we can laugh about it and move on




Eric

CF, giving everyone a fair shot doesn't mean he's going to take from the wealthy & give to the poor. Why is it that the middle class pays what is due with very little in the way of write offs & the wealthy that have a higher % under our system come no where near (for many) paying what is due before all these lobbied write offs, loopholes & subsidies? Don't forget most of our so called law makers fall into that upper range or soon will after elected. Why is it that they make laws for us but leave themselves above them? I think leveling the playing field is the laws should be in effect for everyone, sure they pay a big portion of the taxes but at the same time control a much greater portion of the wealth. They have enjoyed a large tax break for almost twelve years now so how did the country get to this point with all the jobs that those tax breaks were to create? Jobs & wealth may indeed have been created but not in this country.
Heck that's one of the main reasons I voted for the winner, under the losers plan pre existing conditions wouldn't be covered unless you never had a break in coverage.

samhill wrote:CF, giving everyone a fair shot doesn't mean he's going to take from the wealthy & give to the poor. Why is it that the middle class pays what is due with very little in the way of write offs & the wealthy that have a higher % under our system come no where near (for many) paying what is due before all these lobbied write offs, loopholes & subsidies? Don't forget most of our so called law makers fall into that upper range or soon will after elected. Why is it that they make laws for us but leave themselves above them? I think leveling the playing field is the laws should be in effect for everyone, sure they pay a big portion of the taxes but at the same time control a much greater portion of the wealth. They have enjoyed a large tax break for almost twelve years now so how did the country get to this point with all the jobs that those tax breaks were to create? Jobs & wealth may indeed have been created but not in this country.
Heck that's one of the main reasons I voted for the winner, under the losers plan pre existing conditions wouldn't be covered unless you never had a break in coverage.

I think the most fair would be a cap on deductions for personal. Not sure what the # would be. Also lowering the corp tax for small business would surely help. 35% is out of line. Not much left for re-investment.

Sam they are wealthy cause alot know how to make money. More power to them. Your fearless leader could pay more in taxes anytime he wants. I doubt he does that, no we have to make them do it.


So your plan is to get the rich to pay more to give to the loser in this clip I hate to tell you sam taxing the rich is in no way going to help the middle class, it will just burden them more as the cost to the rich will get passed on. and the middle class is to hard working to milk the system like this clown in the clip.

By taking more from the rich when we can't manage the money we have now, how will that help.


Eric

Flyer5 wrote:

samhill wrote:CF, giving everyone a fair shot doesn't mean he's going to take from the wealthy & give to the poor. Why is it that the middle class pays what is due with very little in the way of write offs & the wealthy that have a higher % under our system come no where near (for many) paying what is due before all these lobbied write offs, loopholes & subsidies? Don't forget most of our so called law makers fall into that upper range or soon will after elected. Why is it that they make laws for us but leave themselves above them? I think leveling the playing field is the laws should be in effect for everyone, sure they pay a big portion of the taxes but at the same time control a much greater portion of the wealth. They have enjoyed a large tax break for almost twelve years now so how did the country get to this point with all the jobs that those tax breaks were to create? Jobs & wealth may indeed have been created but not in this country.
Heck that's one of the main reasons I voted for the winner, under the losers plan pre existing conditions wouldn't be covered unless you never had a break in coverage.

I think the most fair would be a cap on deductions for personal. Not sure what the # would be. Also lowering the corp tax for small business would surely help. 35% is out of line. Not much left for re-investment.

Since the days of nearly 90% tax I think 35% is a bargain considering I pay 22%....If these tax breaks over the past 12 years have been to create jobs...I can't see where they have been created....trickle down economics does NOT WORK.....if it did we would not be where we are at today! I think there needs to be a stipulation; if the corporation takes the tax break...they should show where they have created jobs with it instead of "pocketing" the money!

CF if you want to continue to pay while others more fortunate than you pay less then more power to you, I for one don't mind paying my share but I think everyone else should do the same. Years ago I had a B-I-L that was making well into the six figures way back then, he was complaining about the amt. he had to pay & I said give me half of what you made & I'll give you all of what I made & pay both our taxes & walk away smiling, he shut up. A middle income person spends just about every dime he makes but a wealthy man soon has everything & just saves for lack of want or need, the problem we have now is the average man doesn't have it to spend & the rich man isn't spending or investing so the money just sits.

samhill wrote:CF if you want to continue to pay while others more fortunate than you pay less then more power to you, I for one don't mind paying my share but I think everyone else should do the same. Years ago I had a B-I-L that was making well into the six figures way back then, he was complaining about the amt. he had to pay & I said give me half of what you made & I'll give you all of what I made & pay both our taxes & walk away smiling, he shut up. A middle income person spends just about every dime he makes but a wealthy man soon has everything & just saves for lack of want or need, the problem we have now is the average man doesn't have it to spend & the rich man isn't spending or investing so the money just sits.

and that comes right back to this, if the government gets all this extra revenue from taxes what are they going to do with the money, you think they are going to lower the middle classes cost of living


That is one of the most comical things I've heard in a while

No the government is going to start more programs so more become dependent, again like this guy in the clip Has your man in office started to pay his fair share No, and I would assume he is not going to be on obamacare either.

Sam have a great evening I am done with this conversation with you


Eric

Northern Maine wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:

samhill wrote:CF, giving everyone a fair shot doesn't mean he's going to take from the wealthy & give to the poor. Why is it that the middle class pays what is due with very little in the way of write offs & the wealthy that have a higher % under our system come no where near (for many) paying what is due before all these lobbied write offs, loopholes & subsidies? Don't forget most of our so called law makers fall into that upper range or soon will after elected. Why is it that they make laws for us but leave themselves above them? I think leveling the playing field is the laws should be in effect for everyone, sure they pay a big portion of the taxes but at the same time control a much greater portion of the wealth. They have enjoyed a large tax break for almost twelve years now so how did the country get to this point with all the jobs that those tax breaks were to create? Jobs & wealth may indeed have been created but not in this country.
Heck that's one of the main reasons I voted for the winner, under the losers plan pre existing conditions wouldn't be covered unless you never had a break in coverage.

I think the most fair would be a cap on deductions for personal. Not sure what the # would be. Also lowering the corp tax for small business would surely help. 35% is out of line. Not much left for re-investment.

Since the days of nearly 90% tax I think 35% is a bargain considering I pay 22%....If these tax breaks over the past 12 years have been to create jobs...I can't see where they have been created....trickle down economics does NOT WORK.....if it did we would not be where we are at today! I think there needs to be a stipulation; if the corporation takes the tax break...they should show where they have created jobs with it instead of "pocketing" the money!

When were businesses taxed at 90% . You are forgetting there are all sizes of corporations the mom and pop type all the way up. I see my property taxes go up every year. My wife works as well as me, because of that we pay additional every tax season on top of what comes out of our paychecks we are far from wealthy. We do not get any refunds. I don't have many write offs personally, and because I have been responsible my whole life I get the short end. Our system caters to the lazy and irresponsible. Why is 35% a bargain because you pay 21%. More taxes on business or the wealthy are not the answer to our growing problem. You are correct trickle down economics does not work because it does not exist. It gets stuck at the top. Simply we cannot continue with all the perks, entitlements and guarantees our officials receive. Our public unions are crushing us. I am not saying we should just stop what has already been promised as far as pensions and retirement for the people already in that program. But new people coming in should have a different and sustainable program. It happens all the time in the private sector. The public sector needs to start paying to the health plans they also need to do away with guaranteed pensions supported by taxpayers at least for new people coming in to the systems. If private companies want to guarantee there pensions, that should be their own risk. Your money and my money is being mishandled badly eventually the waste will not be able to be sustained we are almost there now but it can be corrected before it is too late.

From 1951 to 1963 the tax rate for those making $400,000 or more was at 91% except for 1953 and 54 it was at 92%. In 2012 its 35% for those that are making $388,350 or more. All these tax estimates show that taxes on the rich are the lowest they have been in half a century. But what about before 1960? Well, we know that the top marginal tax rate was even higher in the 40s and 50s than in the 60s; and it was very high by modern standards through much of the 30s too. So I think it’s safe to say that taxes on the rich are currently lower than they have been for not 50 but 80 years. Have these people invested in America via job creation...I think not. Are they going too...I think not, at least history has not shown this.

Welfare spending comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Honestly...does anyone believe that we can have a balanced budget by completely cutting $235 billion from our current budget? I can't make those numbers work! However, I do think there is much waste in these programs and for that matter ever program the govt. has had waste that could be trimmed. Adding salt to the wound is the $300 billion per year costs in corporate welfare....need I say more!

The reason public (state and local) pension plans are headed toward financial disaster is simple. Ever-expanding public-sector unions have flexed their political muscle and larded up with lavish benefits to be be paid out decades from now.In a properly run,private-sector business, future retirement benefits are paid for using present-day contributions. This is not the case when lawmakers have the power to boost public-employee benefit packages while using accounting gimmicks to conceal and pass on the debt to future generations. I don't see this in the federal sector with my current job....in fact...out of the 16% of what I contribute to my retirement....the govt. only kicks in 2%. I have not had a raise in 2 years...because our govt. believes we can balance the budget by not doing so. And, in my humble opinion....I earn every cent that I make!

Northern Maine wrote:From 1951 to 1963 the tax rate for those making $400,000 or more was at 91% except for 1953 and 54 it was at 92%. In 2012 its 35% for those that are making $388,350 or more. All these tax estimates show that taxes on the rich are the lowest they have been in half a century. But what about before 1960? Well, we know that the top marginal tax rate was even higher in the 40s and 50s than in the 60s; and it was very high by modern standards through much of the 30s too. So I think it’s safe to say that taxes on the rich are currently lower than they have been for not 50 but 80 years. Have these people invested in America via job creation...I think not. Are they going too...I think not, at least history has not shown this.

Welfare spending comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Honestly...does anyone believe that we can have a balanced budget by completely cutting $235 billion from our current budget? I can't make those numbers work! However, I do think there is much waste in these programs and for that matter ever program the govt. has had waste that could be trimmed. Adding salt to the wound is the $300 billion per year costs in corporate welfare....need I say more!

The reason public (state and local) pension plans are headed toward financial disaster is simple. Ever-expanding public-sector unions have flexed their political muscle and larded up with lavish benefits to be be paid out decades from now.In a properly run,private-sector business, future retirement benefits are paid for using present-day contributions. This is not the case when lawmakers have the power to boost public-employee benefit packages while using accounting gimmicks to conceal and pass on the debt to future generations. I don't see this in the federal sector with my current job....in fact...out of the 16% of what I contribute to my retirement....the govt. only kicks in 2%. I have not had a raise in 2 years...because our govt. believes we can balance the budget by not doing so. And, in my humble opinion....I earn every cent that I make!

So what you are saying is if you made $400,000 back in 1951 you got to keep roughly $40,000. I am not buying that. So companies like P&G and Ford ect have not invested in new jobs since 1960. What made this country great was desperation and inspiration. People were self supporting and worked at what needed to get done. Now we are breeding a pansy society that cant get along without government intervention. Now you hear I cant work because I cant get my work schedule to fit my schedule of playing with my I pad. I don't want to see people starve and suffer because they cant work. But I do want to see people that can work try to work or be helped with some type of training. $235 billion is just the Federal costs for welfare then you get the state level programs that also get subsidized by the fed in one way or another. Besides it is a start. when trying to balance your budget you need to start with even the smallest expenditures then work your way to get out of debt. But if you keep paying of credit with more credit it simply doesn't work. They need to look at every program.
Corporate welfare is another area that needs to be addressed. Lobbyist's need to go. Government does not belong in the bail out business. They also need to shrink federal and local agencies. That can be done through sharing of duties and merging agencies. Get rid of the wasteful grant programs for useless studies like figuring what direction a bug farts when its a full moon. My point is get rid of waste no matter how small it all adds up. Your observation of 10% or what ever percentage that can be cut of $235 billion will not do anything to help our budget is the same type of thinking that has us in this mess. No offense none of this is meant to be personal.
Public worker pension plans and health plans should be structured just like the private workers not guaranteed by the tax payers and should be based on contribution for their own healthcare with options as well for what you could afford or need. From the fed level to the local level.
By the way. I have not had a raise in 4 yrs being self employed I actually make less/ hr than when I worked in private industry. My health insurance is no where near what fed and state workers get and I pay for it. As far as pension what ever I can put aside for retirement will be my pension. But I enjoy my job and am grateful for it.

Flyer5 wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:From 1951 to 1963 the tax rate for those making $400,000 or more was at 91% except for 1953 and 54 it was at 92%. In 2012 its 35% for those that are making $388,350 or more. All these tax estimates show that taxes on the rich are the lowest they have been in half a century. But what about before 1960? Well, we know that the top marginal tax rate was even higher in the 40s and 50s than in the 60s; and it was very high by modern standards through much of the 30s too. So I think it’s safe to say that taxes on the rich are currently lower than they have been for not 50 but 80 years. Have these people invested in America via job creation...I think not. Are they going too...I think not, at least history has not shown this.

Welfare spending comes to about $235 billion, the bulk of which is SNAP (formerly food stamps) and about one-third of Medicaid. That's 12 percent of all federal welfare spending and about 6 percent of the whole federal budget. Honestly...does anyone believe that we can have a balanced budget by completely cutting $235 billion from our current budget? I can't make those numbers work! However, I do think there is much waste in these programs and for that matter ever program the govt. has had waste that could be trimmed. Adding salt to the wound is the $300 billion per year costs in corporate welfare....need I say more!

The reason public (state and local) pension plans are headed toward financial disaster is simple. Ever-expanding public-sector unions have flexed their political muscle and larded up with lavish benefits to be be paid out decades from now.In a properly run,private-sector business, future retirement benefits are paid for using present-day contributions. This is not the case when lawmakers have the power to boost public-employee benefit packages while using accounting gimmicks to conceal and pass on the debt to future generations. I don't see this in the federal sector with my current job....in fact...out of the 16% of what I contribute to my retirement....the govt. only kicks in 2%. I have not had a raise in 2 years...because our govt. believes we can balance the budget by not doing so. And, in my humble opinion....I earn every cent that I make!

So what you are saying is if you made $400,000 back in 1951 you got to keep roughly $40,000. I am not buying that. So companies like P&G and Ford ect have not invested in new jobs since 1960. What made this country great was desperation and inspiration. People were self supporting and worked at what needed to get done. Now we are breeding a pansy society that cant get along without government intervention. Now you hear I cant work because I cant get my work schedule to fit my schedule of playing with my I pad. I don't want to see people starve and suffer because they cant work. But I do want to see people that can work try to work or be helped with some type of training. $235 billion is just the Federal costs for welfare then you get the state level programs that also get subsidized by the fed in one way or another. Besides it is a start. when trying to balance your budget you need to start with even the smallest expenditures then work your way to get out of debt. But if you keep paying of credit with more credit it simply doesn't work. They need to look at every program.
Corporate welfare is another area that needs to be addressed. Lobbyist's need to go. Government does not belong in the bail out business. They also need to shrink federal and local agencies. That can be done through sharing of duties and merging agencies. Get rid of the wasteful grant programs for useless studies like figuring what direction a bug farts when its a full moon. My point is get rid of waste no matter how small it all adds up. Your observation of 10% or what ever percentage that can be cut of $235 billion will not do anything to help our budget is the same type of thinking that has us in this mess. No offense none of this is meant to be personal.
Public worker pension plans and health plans should be structured just like the private workers not guaranteed by the tax payers and should be based on contribution for their own healthcare with options as well for what you could afford or need. From the fed level to the local level.
By the way. I have not had a raise in 4 yrs being self employed I actually make less/ hr than when I worked in private industry. My health insurance is no where near what fed and state workers get and I pay for it. As far as pension what ever I can put aside for retirement will be my pension. But I enjoy my job and am grateful for it.

Im not saying that they only made 40 grand out of the 400 grand they made....I'M SURE they took advantage of tax loopholes then as they do now. I take no offense to your post whatsoever...I believe the same as you regarding wasteful spending both in welfare for the "less fortunate" and the corporate welfare that this country has allowed forever. Health insurance is not all that affordable for a family of 3 in my boat....but I pay it; $450 a month. However, I do know those that are self employed as well a pay nearly double that...so, I understand where your coming from! I am equally thankful for my job! I whole heartedly agree that we should be shrinking our federal/state govt., but over the past 10 years I have seen in my job alone, layers upon layers of management added when we operated just as well without all those layers.

Just like businesses that have a great many employees get a break on HC Ins. the same will be true for the Gov. plan except there will be millions in it, the more enrolled the better it will be unless some continue to refuse & fight on the side of the lobbyist paid for by the (Guess Who) Ins. Industry. The only reason the HC plan isn't better is because concessions were made on both sides to protect those that because of their greed for more & more profit were the largest cause of run away HC costs, Congress put protections in to keep the cause making money simply because sooner or later everyone needs HC.

samhill wrote:Just like businesses that have a great many employees get a break on HC Ins. the same will be true for the Gov. plan except there will be millions in it, the more enrolled the better it will be unless some continue to refuse & fight on the side of the lobbyist paid for by the (Guess Who) Ins. Industry. The only reason the HC plan isn't better is because concessions were made on both sides to protect those that because of their greed for more & more profit were the largest cause of run away HC costs, Congress put protections in to keep the cause making money simply because sooner or later everyone needs HC.

Hence Welfare Capitalism!