A debt crisis looms and to me this has the appearances of a battle going on between the ultra-upper class and the rest of Americans: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43516656/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy Super rich want what they already have and the rest of Americans do not want ( can't afford?? ) to give up what services they already have either. Make no mistake.....both are entitled to what they already have but something has to give. Let's see......I say take what you have to from those that can afford it and cut the hell out of everything not critically needed and get the friggin hell out of these expensive wars we are embroiled in.
I didn't read the article, but I think many have already posted that if you taxed the "ultra-rich" 100% it would not be enough to fund all the entitlements.
Dave, Entitlement has moved us to where we are today. Nobody is entitled to take what I have. NOBODY. You can try to do it through legislation. Try do do it by coming to my house and taking it and you would have rather have continued talking about the Gators with the wise guy listening in.
And everybody does feel that way. I didn't realize that you were in that tax bracket that would have to worry.......congratulations. Of course I think there is a great misconception out there in the voting GOP masses that the upper class has 200 million Americans as members..... :wink: Good point on the wiseguy/Gator talk scenarion....bad idea either case eh? Terry......no one item is going to solve this but it looks like we had better start to add up the sum of the parts to the whole solution real soon.
Looms? We are a tad under $15 Trillion in debt. We are already crushed. Dead broke. I wish people would spend as much time getting the politicians to stop spending as they do trying to screw each other out of tax dollars. Taxes should be cut. Spending should be slashed. The class warfare is something that was cultivated by Obama and his willing press corp of lackeys.
I don't believe that at all.....I don't believe that anybody is entitled to anything but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For example, I, for damn sure, don't believe that they are entitled to reach into my wallet and force me to pay for a cell phone and minutes for welfare recipients..... This kind of entitlement society risks - if it has not done so already - destroying the social fabric or our country and the rugged individualism and self-determination that made it the society with the greatest opportunities for its citizens that the world has ever known......now look at what we've got...... Everybody thinks the government owes them something.....the government has nothing. The only things the government has it has to forcibly take from somebody that earned it.....too much of that and a society cannot sustain itself..... We've gotten to the point that we have nurtured an long-term entitlement society....the unemployment rate for minorities 16-19 is approaching 50%! Fully half of the kids have now grown up believing that you don't have to work to subsist....that you needn't contribute to society in order to take from it.....that it's entirely OK to receive from society without first having to make some positive contribution.....the sad news is that that percentage of our society is growing more rapidly than the remainder......it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a recipe for disaster...... I'm not certain what the answer is, but I am certain that it doesn't begin by giving them more...... http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/18/government-welfare-cell-phones-for-the-poor/
I say let people die in the streets waiting in long lines as they show up personally for food stamps. etc. because they could't handle anything on a cell phone we are going to take away. Seriously.....I don't believe for a second in just giving people things because they don't think they have to earn it. But I disagree that 50% of our youth think that is way it should be done and I do agree with those that think sometimes there are people out there who have fallen on extra hard times and have tried to improve their plight but have been unable to for various legit reasons. I think those legit people should be assisted in their time of need.....not just rounded up and made into Soylent Green to feed the rest of us.
I don't believe the number to be as high as 50%....but I do believe that we have created a segment of our society that does believe that they are entitled to receive benefits from the government for so long as they may want them without any preconditions nor contribution to society on their part..... this mindset is tearing a hole into the fabric that created our society and have nobody to blame but ourselves for allowing it, imho...... I don't believe there is any reason why 50% of any demographic segment should be unemployed if they are actively engaged in pursuing work......
A segment is a segment is a segment.......that obviously leaves out millions upon millions who are decent people fallen on hard times. On the 50% number I have read that the highest unemployment is in that teen to age 25 type group. But 50% seems quite high and I'll bet as you do that in that group there are plenty who would collect unemployment rather than work the menial jobs that group is most likely going to get. But I'll also bet that while many in that group are in fact unemployed there are not all that many doing it ( staying unemployed ) just to collect unemployment.
If you have menial skills and/or menial knowledge, menial jobs is all you deserve.....or just not work and get cell phones while they are at it......all the while many in Congress and elsewhere are seeking to take more money out of the private sector economy to continue the freeroll I'm sorry but I just don't believe this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned......sure the do-gooders believe they are lending a helping hand to a few of the have-nots and take the pulpit of the moral high ground without any appreciation of the societal destruction they have caused in the standard of living for future generations for years to come..... [/list]
Correct me if I am wrong. I have not collected unemployment before. Don't you collect unemployment based upon the jobs you have already worked? Isn't the amount based upon a maximum calculated from the amount you were making in previous employment? This "group", if only qualified for menial jobs, could not have a good basis from which to collect. Unemployment is a temporary safety net for those that lose jobs unexpectedly... Not an alternative to work.
True Tom....that is what my take is on qualifying methods used for unemployment payments. If you haven't earned much you don't get much so that sort of shoots holes in the theory of that age group taking advantage of the system on a widespread basis doesn't it?
Just shoots holes in the theory of that age group being the majority of the problem. I would think that it is the worker that has had a taste of the higher paying jobs that thinks he/she is too good to flip burgers and would rather take a hand out.
... and, if you have a legitimate job available, even two or three lower paying jobs, then unemployment IS a handout.
I think I discussed this a couple of years ago when it was relevant to me. If I had stopped looking for a decent paying......survivable job and just took the very low paying jobs that might have been available.....if they were......then that would have been all she wrote for my life. I couldn't imagine trying to find a better job in this tough employment market while working at my present job for instance. My job commands my full attention and interest I am willing to bet a low paying job boss doesn't have much sympathy for a worker trying to find a different job while on the clock. When I was laid off finding a new job when unemployment numbers were going through the roof and climbing every month was a very difficult task......but I succeeded and wouldn't have if I had elected to work in a Publix deli for instance.
Here's a perfect example of today's "entitlement" society http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43091952/ns/us_news-life/t/million-lottery-winner-still-gets-food-stamps/
I don't believe that age group is the majority of the problem, just the sheer magnitude of the 50% number at that age was startling to me and suggested to me the institutionalization of an entitlement mentality amongst the generations....also as Gip highlighted with the lottery winner, I believe the issue is actually larger in the area of welfare and food stamp entitlements where public income assistance is simply a way of life for generations..... Any increase in the tax burden on the private sector has a negative impact on us all regardless of bracket.....it shrinks the economy by reducing consumption and lowering aggregate demand, depriving it of investment capital, increasing its costs and lowering its availability to fund incremental growth opportunities.....to think otherwise is just liberal rhetoric..... I defy any rational human to prove to me that you can make something grow more rapidly by shrinking its access to that which is a necessary prerequisite for its growth......
It's hard to see where a "recovery" is going to come from anywhere soon. The Boomers, nearing retirement, having been hit with a double gut shot in seeing their 401Ks crippled and their housing values slashed are no longer spending and are trying to survive in retirement. Young college grads can no longer begin careers, start families and fuel the economy. They find themselves unemployed and smothered by educational loans. So here's how we're going to fix the economy. Will piss away billions supporting the jobs of union governement workers who contribute to Democratic politicians from union dues. We'll get the money by uping taxes on the rich who usually give their money to Republicans. Now this won't create one job (except for maybe another czar or two) but we'll stay in power and the average Democratic voter will think that spreading misery is as good as spreading wealth.
Amen to that..... On the other......do you really think that the upper 5% of the population can outspend the other 95%? These rich guys are fueling the economy at Wall Mart, Home Depot, Sears and Applebees??? Come on....for them it's European getaways.....Porsches........artsy collectibles......rare rugs.....and still only one washer and dryer per household. In fact.....a tax hit to the ole wallet might force these guys into the aforementioned heart of America establishments like never before..... :idea:
We've had this discussion countless times before and you obviously don't get it..... No, of course they don't spend 100% of their discretionary income in Europe but even if they did, they would have to travel there from a domestic airport, more likely than not travelling on a domestic carrier thereby increasing income for the airline industry/workers and once they arrive and increase consumption in Europe, the Euro's would then experience an increase in national income and would no doubt a part of their increase in consumption would be imported from US manufacturers, thereby increasing demand for domestic goods thereby requiring an increase in capacity and labor thereby adding jobs, etc, etc, etc No, of course they don't spend 100% of their discretionary income buying Porsches but even if they did, the local Porsche dealership would experience an increase in income and all those related to the Porsche dealership would no doubt celebrate their good fortune by taking their sweetie out to dinner and a movie, which would help the restaraunt owner, wait-staff, busboys, dishwashers, food suppliers, truck drivers for the food distributors, warehouse workers loading said trucks, etc, etc, etc some of whom no doubt shop at Wal-Mart, Sears, et al No, of course they don't spend 100% of their discretionary income buying artsy collectibles and rare rugs but if they did, the gallery owner/workers including the truck drivers, frame makers, importers, cleaning staff would experience an increase in income and subsequent consumption, including but not limited to those of whom that shop at Wal-Mart, Sears, et al Perhaps they don't spend any of it but choose instead to invest it - banks, bonds, stocks, bonds, real estate, venture capital, etc - increasing the supply of investment capital, decreasing its cost and making its availabilty more readily accessible for greater investment to expand capacity and create jobs including but not limited to those of whom that shop at Wal-Mart...... Keep in mind that the reverse is also true.....if you reduce their discretionary income by increasing the tax burden, you will in fact reduce incomes of many including but not limited to those of whom that shop at Wal-Mart..... If you don't get it now, you're just not trying or simply blindly reading the socialist talking points coming from the liberal blogs