Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Economics Options · View
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:56:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Generally we in the USA have a lot happening in the Economy, we had a drop into negative territory in our GDP. Our Unemployment has been above 7.8 percent for the last 49 months. Our new National Debt is 16.5 Trillion and going up a Trillion a Year. USDA runs a food program that helps to feed over 47,525,329 and is adding 11,133 New Recipients a Day. More people are going onto the Social Security Disability each month that are finding work. The last item is that the US Labor Participation Rate is near 30 year lows.

So from here how do we get this thing turn around. We in the USA voted to Spend 8.5 Trillion on stimulus in the last four years.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 2:41:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
This is a tough one to answer. There really isn't an easy solution at this point. So many different things have combined to create this situation, many of which are still ongoing problems. Fixing one of them creates a bigger problem somewhere else. The US needs to cut its deficit, but if it cuts its spending now, it will cause more unemployment, which is already a problem. So the other way to cut the deficit is to increase taxes, but depending on the tax, that can impede economic growth as well.

Personally, the first thing I would do is cut military spending in half. It might be a harsh reality check, but the United States of America can no longer afford to have a military which is generations ahead of other countries. Reducing from spending more than all other countries combined, to spending more than any one country, would free up billions of dollars which could be used elsewhere.

The second thing I would do is increase infrastructure spending through a stimulus program. This was a very effective way for the government of Canada to stimulate the economy, and it would work in the US as well. The Canadian model called for communities to submit proposals to the federal government, and the approved projects received funding to upgrade infrastructure they hadn't been able to upgrade previously. Upgrades to bridges, highways, sewer systems, power and communications lines, and many other major projects are often put off due to a lack of funds. Giving money to local governments for these projects not only creates employment for the people doing the upgrades, but also creates business for the companies in the area who will supply the materials, tools, and administrative services for these ventures. It also creates more people in the community with money to spend on food, new clothes, cars, and other personal items. Plus, these are not just "make work" projects. Upgraded infrastructure benefits the society for years, decades, in some cases. Long after the economy has recovered and the stimulus is no longer needed.

The third thing I would do is increase income tax on anyone earning over $100,000 per year. The people of the US have had over 4 years since the crash in 2008 to show that low taxes can spur the economy, and its clear that is not working. Increasing income tax on those who can afford it allows the government to be able to afford to help the less fortunate in society.

And the fourth thing I would do is implement a national health program. This program would cover the cost of regular visits to health care professionals, health care treatment (including a program to reduce the cost of medications for consumers), and addiction treatment while also including programs encouraging healthier lifestyles for everyone. If you can't afford to pay a doctor to heal you, you can't work. Or, worse than that, you show up to work every day and spread the disease to everyone else at work. And if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. If you are strung out on meth, you can't work. And again, if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. Maintaining a healthy population is critical to effective production.

After that, the suggestions get into things that are more complicated to outline. More stringent regulations for financial companies. More spending on green energy to cut down on rising fuel costs that cripple so many small companies. Tighter environmental regulations which ensure long term health of communities. Better labour laws to ensure a higher minimum wage for workers. Complete overhaul of the drug enforcement system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment through incarceration which is extremely expensive.

That's a start.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:11:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Personally, the first thing I would do is cut military spending in half." I agree, pull our war fighters out of South Korea and all of the Middle East.

I would allow those that have 401 k plans and are underwater in their homes to be allowed tax free to tap those funds and get right with their mortgages.

I would drop the requirement of minimum distributions from IRA's, today our older people are forced to take money out of these retirement plans once they reach 70 1/2.

I would drop the US Corp tax, currently the highest in the Industrialized Nations.


Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:22:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Canada the best country in the world to do business, citing its dropping tax rate..."

Seems that part of the Canadian model is lowering of job creating taxes .
Investment

Invest in Canada. You can immigrate to Canada if you start a business there. The immigrant is expected to invest at least $400,000 in Canadian money ($367,000 U.S. in 2009) in the business venture. An immigrant may be self- employed, invest in an existing business or buy an existing business from a Canadian citizen. The entrepreneur must have at least two years of experience managing a business, have legally obtained the assets, and liabilities must not exceed the investment. Anyone applying under this program will still have to meet certain age limits and prove they are free from serious medical issues such as contagious disease. Investors must have a net worth of at least $800,000 Canadian. The investment will be managed by Canadian authorities and returned to the investor without interest after five years have passed.


Read more: Ways to Become a Canadian Citizen | eHow.com #ixzz2KFqgXDNt
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:41:36 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
Buc wrote:
Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Canada the best country in the world to do business, citing its dropping tax rate..."

Seems that part of the Canadian model is lowering of job creating taxes .
Investment

Invest in Canada. You can immigrate to Canada if you start a business there. The immigrant is expected to invest at least $400,000 in Canadian money ($367,000 U.S. in 2009) in the business venture. An immigrant may be self- employed, invest in an existing business or buy an existing business from a Canadian citizen. The entrepreneur must have at least two years of experience managing a business, have legally obtained the assets, and liabilities must not exceed the investment. Anyone applying under this program will still have to meet certain age limits and prove they are free from serious medical issues such as contagious disease. Investors must have a net worth of at least $800,000 Canadian. The investment will be managed by Canadian authorities and returned to the investor without interest after five years have passed.


Read more: Ways to Become a Canadian Citizen | eHow.com #ixzz2KFqgXDNt


Damn. Sounds pretty good. If only it weren't so cold there.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:01:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
LadyX wrote:


Damn. Sounds pretty good. If only it weren't so cold there.



OH CANADA..... sing with me darlin'

They want to invest billions in the USA and create jobs in the USA. I want them to, I wanted them to do it 6 months ago and yet we are told not for at least another 6 months as John Kerry , now studies the issue.

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:06:54 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
What I want are for good jobs to open up in Jamaica, or even better, St. Thomas. If Canada invests there instead of the US, I'll definitely mull it over.
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:56:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Rembacher wrote:
This is a tough one to answer. There really isn't an easy solution at this point. So many different things have combined to create this situation, many of which are still ongoing problems. Fixing one of them creates a bigger problem somewhere else. The US needs to cut its deficit, but if it cuts its spending now, it will cause more unemployment, which is already a problem. So the other way to cut the deficit is to increase taxes, but depending on the tax, that can impede economic growth as well.

Personally, the first thing I would do is cut military spending in half. It might be a harsh reality check, but the United States of America can no longer afford to have a military which is generations ahead of other countries. Reducing from spending more than all other countries combined, to spending more than any one country, would free up billions of dollars which could be used elsewhere.

The second thing I would do is increase infrastructure spending through a stimulus program. This was a very effective way for the government of Canada to stimulate the economy, and it would work in the US as well. The Canadian model called for communities to submit proposals to the federal government, and the approved projects received funding to upgrade infrastructure they hadn't been able to upgrade previously. Upgrades to bridges, highways, sewer systems, power and communications lines, and many other major projects are often put off due to a lack of funds. Giving money to local governments for these projects not only creates employment for the people doing the upgrades, but also creates business for the companies in the area who will supply the materials, tools, and administrative services for these ventures. It also creates more people in the community with money to spend on food, new clothes, cars, and other personal items. Plus, these are not just "make work" projects. Upgraded infrastructure benefits the society for years, decades, in some cases. Long after the economy has recovered and the stimulus is no longer needed.

The third thing I would do is increase income tax on anyone earning over $100,000 per year. The people of the US have had over 4 years since the crash in 2008 to show that low taxes can spur the economy, and its clear that is not working. Increasing income tax on those who can afford it allows the government to be able to afford to help the less fortunate in society.

And the fourth thing I would do is implement a national health program. This program would cover the cost of regular visits to health care professionals, health care treatment (including a program to reduce the cost of medications for consumers), and addiction treatment while also including programs encouraging healthier lifestyles for everyone. If you can't afford to pay a doctor to heal you, you can't work. Or, worse than that, you show up to work every day and spread the disease to everyone else at work. And if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. If you are strung out on meth, you can't work. And again, if you can't work, you can't pay taxes to help cover the cost of running the country. Maintaining a healthy population is critical to effective production.

After that, the suggestions get into things that are more complicated to outline. More stringent regulations for financial companies. More spending on green energy to cut down on rising fuel costs that cripple so many small companies. Tighter environmental regulations which ensure long term health of communities. Better labour laws to ensure a higher minimum wage for workers. Complete overhaul of the drug enforcement system to focus on prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment through incarceration which is extremely expensive.

That's a start.

I endorse you.
But a very important aspect that is missed is to continous improvement in the education and skills.
USA is the super power not because merely it has the largest army, the most powerful on earth.
USA is THE SUPER POWER as it leads the World in technological fields and led the World in innovation.
If USA fails in this field and our lead in technology is narrowed down, the export potential of our economy will continue to decline.
So to me, most important is to INVEST MORE IN IMPROVING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AND EDUCATION SPECIALLY HIGHER EDUCATION.
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 08, 2013 7:28:21 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
So to me, most important is to INVEST MORE IN IMPROVING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AND EDUCATION SPECIALLY HIGHER EDUCATION. "

Ok, with who's dollars?

Surely not more Public spending of Tax dollars.
nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, February 09, 2013 4:46:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Buc wrote:
So to me, most important is to INVEST MORE IN IMPROVING SKILLS, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENT AND EDUCATION SPECIALLY HIGHER EDUCATION. "

Ok, with who's dollars?

Surely not more Public spending of Tax dollars.

This is a long term investment which is bound to bring in long term dividends.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 09, 2013 6:31:06 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Again I ask, is it your idea to use public tax dollars?
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, February 09, 2013 12:38:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
That's how the state school system works, and yes, they could use more, and benefit more people.
Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, February 09, 2013 4:18:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
Buc wrote:
Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Canada the best country in the world to do business, citing its dropping tax rate..."

Seems that part of the Canadian model is lowering of job creating taxes .
Investment

Invest in Canada. You can immigrate to Canada if you start a business there. The immigrant is expected to invest at least $400,000 in Canadian money ($367,000 U.S. in 2009) in the business venture. An immigrant may be self- employed, invest in an existing business or buy an existing business from a Canadian citizen. The entrepreneur must have at least two years of experience managing a business, have legally obtained the assets, and liabilities must not exceed the investment. Anyone applying under this program will still have to meet certain age limits and prove they are free from serious medical issues such as contagious disease. Investors must have a net worth of at least $800,000 Canadian. The investment will be managed by Canadian authorities and returned to the investor without interest after five years have passed.


Read more: Ways to Become a Canadian Citizen | eHow.com #ixzz2KFqgXDNt


Your link doesn't seem to work. But I looked into the low tax claim. And you are right, Canada currently has a very low corporate tax rate, which has been the plan of our Finance Minister Jim Flaherty since he took the position in 2006. While the low tax rates may be partially responsible for sustaining the economy post-2008 meltdown, they weren't low enough, or in effect long enough at the time of the 2008 crisis to really have an effect on that. It was our strict banking regulations which helped us escape the worst of the crisis. And in fact, the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, claims that Canadian corporations are sitting on about $500 Billion in "dead money" which is not helping the economy.

Quote:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, against opposition criticism, has pushed lowering corporate rates since coming to office in early 2006, arguing that the more money left in company hands, the greater the benefits in terms of investment and job creation.

Critics argue that Canada has now reached a level of diminishing returns. Even Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney has taken the corporate community to task for sitting on about $500 billion of "dead money," when the country needs firms to invest on efficiencies and expand.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/12/03/corporate-tax.html

If the corporations won't spend the money, then one has to ask, how are they helping the recovery? It makes much more sense to have a substantial, but fair, tax rate in order to give the government the ability to spend both on regular social programs, as well as extra money for major infrastructure projects when the economy slows down.

When the Conservatives took office Canada was running a large budget surplus. But rather than continuing the Liberal strategy of using that surplus to pay down the deficit, they took the short sighted approach of cutting the national sales tax by one percent, then again by another one percent, dropping it from 7% to 5%. This worked while the economy was running strong, but once the economy faltered they suddenly had to start cutting spending, and still have record levels of deficits.

Low taxes just don't help society as a whole. They always lead to lower levels of service from our government.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, February 09, 2013 6:30:35 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Jeb? Can I ask a question? What's the percentage of tax taken out of a regular working Canadian citizen paycheck? We have Social Security, Federal Tax, and a couple others I can't think of at the moment. I understand you pay a flat tax rate out of your paychecks and that covers everything, including of course, healthcare.

Then your sales tax is added on when you purchase products from say, the store for food or clothing. Right? The GST?
nazhinaz
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:28:29 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
Buc wrote:
Again I ask, is it your idea to use public tax dollars?

The question has been answered by another.
But my formulation is improvement human resources is a step in the right direction to improve economy in future.
I am sure this would be much better invertment than what we spend on securing thousands of ATOMIC WEAPONS across the country.
Unless we have better skilled and resouceful human resources, the potential of improving and enhancing the edge of exporting technology and hgh valued products will continue to diminish.
Education and improvement is human resources is one of the basic tasks of any State's liabilities.
Rembacher
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:16:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
chefkathleen wrote:
Jeb? Can I ask a question? What's the percentage of tax taken out of a regular working Canadian citizen paycheck? We have Social Security, Federal Tax, and a couple others I can't think of at the moment. I understand you pay a flat tax rate out of your paychecks and that covers everything, including of course, healthcare.

Then your sales tax is added on when you purchase products from say, the store for food or clothing. Right? The GST?


It's a little bit more complicated than that, and varies depending on province, but I will use Ontario as an example to try and answer this. There is the GST, (Goods and Services Tax) which right now is 5%, and PST, (Provincial Sales Tax) which in Ontario is 8%. Recently they combined the two into HST, or Harmonized Sales Tax. There used to be certain items where only GST applied, and I'm not exactly sure how that works now. But in general, the tax is applied to all consumer items with the exception of grocery items and children's clothing, and a few other items I can't think of right now.

On top of that, there are the taxes on gasoline:

Quote:
As the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association points out in a news release, Natural Resources Canada says the average price of gasoline in Toronto from October 11 to November 1 was $1.229 a litre. Thirty-two per cent of that, or 38.8 cents, went straight to the federal and provincial governments. A third of the price of a litre of gas goes into general tax revenue at the provincial and federal level.

Here’s the breakdown in Ontario:

14.7 per cent provincial Gasoline Tax;
10 cent Federal Excise Tax;
5 per cent federal Goods and Services Tax (GST); and
8 per cent provincial Sales Tax
Here’s something you may not have considered: with the HST being applied on the full price of gasoline, notes TADA, you are being double taxed. That is, you are taxed on the 14.7 per cent Gasoline Tax and the 10 cent Federal Excise Tax.


http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/driving-it-home/ontario-drivers-pay-taxes-lots-and-lots-and-lots-of-taxes/article2246486/?service=mobile

For the Americans who aren't aware, an approximate conversion would be 4 litres to your gallon.

There used to be a separate tax for booze too, but that was dropped when HST was brought in.

On your paycheck, there are three main deductions. Your Canadian Pension Plan deduction; the Federal Income Tax; and the Provincial Income Tax.

The Federal Rate is as follows:
Quote:
15% on the first $43,561 of taxable income, +
22% on the next $43,562 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $43,561 up to $87,123), +
26% on the next $47,931 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $87,123 up to $135,054), +
29% of taxable income over $135,054.


And the Ontario Provincial Rate:
Quote:
5.05% on the first $39,723 of taxable income, +
9.15% on the next $39,725, +
11.16% on the next $429,552, +
13.16 % on the amount over $509,000


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

And yes, that covers everything. Or is supposed to, at least.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:28:25 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Thanks for that Jeb. Interesting post.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:21:38 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Nearly 1,100 employed and unemployed Americans participated in the survey from Jan. 9 to Jan. 16. The survey’s lead researcher Mark Szeltner joined The Daily Ticker to discuss the data and what it reveals about the national psyche.

Here are some of the survey’s key findings:

Eight in 10 Americans are skeptical that career and employment opportunities will be better for the next generation.
More than half of Americans say the economy will not fully recover from the 2007-2009 recession for another six years; 29% believe the economy will never fully recover.
73% of Americans were directly impacted by the recession: individuals surveyed had either lost a job themselves or a family member/close relative had been out work because of the economic downturn.
The majority of survey participants said college would become unaffordable for most young Americans.
56% reported having fewer savings than before the recession.
More than half of those who were laid off or lost a job said they cut back on medical treatment or doctor visits.
40% of Americans have borrowed money from family or friends.
Nearly 25% of participants said they have sought professional help for stress or depression."

Fours and 8.5 Trillion more dollars in National Debt and Americans are just not felling the GlowBama Effect.



I hear that the Liberals want to spend 1 trillion on a NEW can't miss (this time) Stimulus Plan.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:39:05 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Canadian Pension Plan "

Is it in the same sad shape as the US Social Security Plan?

And If i can pick your brain further do you have a legal right to the money you pay in, in the US Social Security Plan the individual and employer have no right to the money that flows to the plan. None.

Rembacher
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:59:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
Buc wrote:
Nearly 1,100 employed and unemployed Americans participated in the survey from Jan. 9 to Jan. 16. The survey’s lead researcher Mark Szeltner joined The Daily Ticker to discuss the data and what it reveals about the national psyche.

Here are some of the survey’s key findings:

Eight in 10 Americans are skeptical that career and employment opportunities will be better for the next generation.
More than half of Americans say the economy will not fully recover from the 2007-2009 recession for another six years; 29% believe the economy will never fully recover.
73% of Americans were directly impacted by the recession: individuals surveyed had either lost a job themselves or a family member/close relative had been out work because of the economic downturn.
The majority of survey participants said college would become unaffordable for most young Americans.
56% reported having fewer savings than before the recession.
More than half of those who were laid off or lost a job said they cut back on medical treatment or doctor visits.
40% of Americans have borrowed money from family or friends.
Nearly 25% of participants said they have sought professional help for stress or depression."

Fours and 8.5 Trillion more dollars in National Debt and Americans are just not felling the GlowBama Effect.



I hear that the Liberals want to spend 1 trillion on a NEW can't miss (this time) Stimulus Plan.

Wasn't the original stimulus package Bush's plan? If memory serves, Obama came to office after the plan had already been implemented, and simply oversaw the payments.

Your stats would indicate to me that the government does indeed need to spend more money. If the people don't believe the economy is improving then tax cuts won't increase spending no matter what the economic situation actually is. I read a study that said 70% of small business owners in the US felt the economy was either flatlined or recessing, despite relatively positive economic numbers over the past two years. Until that perception is changed, the government needs to spend. And as I said above, to be able to afford that, it needs to cut military spending.

Cut military spending in half and you can afford a national health care program, and infrastructure investments to jumpstart the economy.

As for CPP, I'm not sure what the legal rights are to it, but I know the government had to push back the age of retirement because the baby boom generation was at risk of bankrupting it.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:45:31 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
If memory serves, Obama came to office after the plan had already been implemented, and simply oversaw the payments."

Obama's first stimuless was a 782 Billion (now with interests is over 1 trillion) plan that "invested" in failed or failing green pixie dust companies and other failed ideals.
"The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:

$288 billion in tax cuts.
$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans."

We are in the Fifth Year of Obamanomics, we as a Nation have added 8.5 Trillion dollars to the US Debt, that is UN-Patriot of this President.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:06:09 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Cut military spending in half and you can afford a national health care program, and infrastructure investments to jumpstart the economy."

Just wondering IF you have the fingures from the 4th Quarter spending by the US Federal Government on Defense. And in the US Constitution the National Defense is one of the very few things the US Federal Government was given the power by the people to do.
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 9:09:44 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
As for CPP, I'm not sure what the legal rights are to it, but I know the government had to push back the age of retirement because the baby boom generation was at risk of bankrupting it. "

lol,,,, now that is funny, your plan like Socialist InSecurity of the US are both so poorly designed that both are failing to be able to pay those "boomers" that paid in for 40 plus years. IN the case of the US Socialist inSecurity the plan as designed by FDR was that most people died before or shortly after age 65, therefor "saving" the funds and not paying them out.

Rembacher
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:34:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
Buc wrote:
As for CPP, I'm not sure what the legal rights are to it, but I know the government had to push back the age of retirement because the baby boom generation was at risk of bankrupting it. "

lol,,,, now that is funny, your plan like Socialist InSecurity of the US are both so poorly designed that both are failing to be able to pay those "boomers" that paid in for 40 plus years. IN the case of the US Socialist inSecurity the plan as designed by FDR was that most people died before or shortly after age 65, therefor "saving" the funds and not paying them out.



What they failed to plan for was a growth in life expectancy. There's no shame in that. The government has promised that everyone who paid in will be covered from retirement age until death. Even if they need to cut from elsewhere to do so. Your question wasn't whether they would be paid. It was whether they had the right to be paid. And I can't answer that without a little more research.

Think about it. If you worked from the age of 25 until 65 putting $100 a month aside as a pension payment, and then lived until you were 95, you would be drawing a pension for 3/4 of the length of time you spent contributing to it. No pension plan is designed to be effective for that length of time, so we will always depend on the people paying in now, to cover those who are retired. Immigration is helping to ease the burden on the next generation, but its really only a temporary problem which will pass in about 30 years, and certainly not one large enough to bankrupt the nation.
Rembacher
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:44:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
Buc wrote:
If memory serves, Obama came to office after the plan had already been implemented, and simply oversaw the payments."

Obama's first stimuless was a 782 Billion (now with interests is over 1 trillion) plan that "invested" in failed or failing green pixie dust companies and other failed ideals.
"The $787 billion economic stimulus package was approved by Congress in February, 2009. The package was designed to quickly jumpstart economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs. The package allocated funds as follows:

$288 billion in tax cuts.
$224 billion in extended unemployment benefits, education and health care.
$275 billion for job creation using federal contracts, grants and loans."

We are in the Fifth Year of Obamanomics, we as a Nation have added 8.5 Trillion dollars to the US Debt, that is UN-Patriot of this President.


Your math seems to be about 7.5 Trillion short. The rest of which I attribute to a continuation of Bush's economic policies, and a political system which is absolutely fucked and doesn't seem to allow for any cooperation between parties. For whatever reason, the Republican party seems more intent on destroying Obama than working to find a solution to the economic crisis.

As for the "green pixie dust" companies, if you are referring to the green energy program, subsidizing fledgling industry is an extremely common way for a country to allow a new industry to develop within its border, rather than being forced to rely on foreign companies. The United States are being left in the dust behind leaders such as Germany, China, and India when it comes to green energy. Which will continue to mean more money flowing out of the country, and more jobs leaving the country. Plus higher energy costs due to reliance on the ever more expensive fossil fuels.
Monocle
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:53:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
Buc wrote:
UN-Patriot of this President.

You and your histrionics and lies. You have no interest in solutions or dialog. You've come to slag, and that's all you're doing. You should at least be honest about that.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:56:32 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:

You and your histrionics and lies. You have no interest in solutions or dialog. You've come to slag, and that's all you're doing. You should at least be honest about that.


Hey, take it easy on him. So you and I don't always get his brand of comedy (though some of the things he says are hilarious!). Different strokes for different folks.

Now, if I were to find out that this wasn't all a bit for entertainment, then I guess I'd have to surmise that he has no other outlets for his brainless recitation of hateful talking points. Surely he's smarter than he lets on, though. He can't be serious. We'll let him clear it up for us, yeah?
Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:01:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Monocle wrote:

You and your histrionics and lies. You have no interest in solutions or dialog. You've come to slag, and that's all you're doing. You should at least be honest about that.


here is the quote and the author, sorry, I do love your rant AND the support you gained for LADY X, now will you all feel the same after you see who issued those words?

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." Then Senator Obamalaughing6



Guest
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:11:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Corporate tax freedom day continues to get earlier with each passing year thanks to generous government tax cuts, the Canadian Labour Congress says in a report issued Tuesday.

While most individual Canadians don't earn enough to pay off their taxes until sometime in late June, the labour group says the country's businesses will have reaped sufficient revenue to pay their year's share by Jan. 30.

The calculation is for 2011, but the CLC says that was two days earlier than in 2010 when it came on Feb. 1, and notes that it was not long ago when so-called "corporate tax freedom day" came much later in February."


Rembacher, seems to me that you all have it well in hand, I do believe your National Debt has been dropping as well. good on ya.
Monocle
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:15:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
LadyX wrote:
Now, if I were to find out that this wasn't all a bit for entertainment, then I guess I'd have to surmise that he has no other outlets for his brainless recitation of hateful talking points. Surely he's smarter than he lets on, though. He can't be serious. We'll let him clear it up for us, yeah?


I wish I could believe that. Shit like what Buc writes is part and parcel of the increasing ideological extremism that shuts down the ability to find a middle road and get things done. He talks about patriotism, when it's his type of attitude that actually threatens the country.

Buc, you're being a disingenuous prick. Again. The quote you gave from Obama was from July 3, 2008 months before the meltdown that caused the Great Recession. If you honestly think the game was same on July 3, 2008 and November 3, 2008 you're far less smart than I'd like to give you credit for.

China owns less than 10% of our debt. We own about half of our own debt. And we own significant amounts of other country's debts. The debt is something to reduce, and a strong economy will do that. Trying to reduce the debt while recovering from the Great Recession throttles and threatens the recovery.

Bush drove up the debt to pay for two wars and tax breaks for the wealthy. Obama's debt has been trying to undo the damage Bush did.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.