Having 1T less debt and 2 less ongoing wars would make dealing with ANY problem on a national level much easier. Having spending stuffed into military appropriations bills during wartime makes things much harder to manage. What I am saying is, had we not been in Iraq wasting billions of dollars putting American lives at risk... we would have been better able to focus on the crash and would have worked more cohesively with the EU and others to address it. A massive fuck up the size of the Iraq war has far reaching implications that muddy the waters and make every other part of governing more difficult.

Senator Byrd, who had been in the Senate longer than anyone else led a filibuster against the resolution granting W. Bush power to wage a "preemptive" war against Iraq, but he could not get even a majority of his own party to vote against cloture. When his attempt failed he rightly said: "Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination." That sort of climate makes dealing with an international banking meltdown much more difficult. So does 1T more debt and the 'distraction' of two ongoing wars.

Let's make the point more simple... do you think having the war in Iraq made dealing with the banking crisis easier? Do you really think it had no affect on the way our government operated or the way other matters were handled? Clearly it made things harder. :2 cents:

1. I'm still in shock that you and many people in this country want other people to pay taxes. Especially when the lions share of the money is going to the military to kill people. When I was younger...people did not trust the govt. and didn't want to pay one penny more than they had too. We are living in strange times indeed.

2. I've pointed this out over and over and over...but here goes one more time: Capital gains taxes will NAIL the elderly who have retired and are invested with their 401K plans and will kick the shit out of EVERY American who is invested in the stock market.
Taxing investment even more, is a sure fire way to remove one of the reasons to invest your money.
Why would you be in favor of handing a bunch of crooks in Washington D.C. even MORE money while making it less attractive for investment?

Remember...Washington is spending 10 billion dollars a day!!!! They spend all of Mitt Romney's entire worth in about 29 minutes. They spend all of Warren Buffets entire worth in less than 4 days.
They don't need more money. They need to stop spending so much.

I think the war was a huge mistake.

I don't think it had ANY effect in any way at all on "dealing with the banking crisis".
Bush decided to bail them out. Congress approved it. It was done faster than I've ever seen anything else done in Washington (go figure).

What you're saying is just not true.
Yes, the wars drove up our national debt. The debt WILL bite us in the ass before it's all over.

But had ZERO to do with anything that happened to our economy in 2008/2009 and the response by the Federal Reserve and Congress to try to "fix" it.

2 things:

1) You don't really think we had the $1T+ on hand, do you? It was all borrowed.

2) For perspective, the total price tag for the financial crisis has been estimated at over $12T+. 12>>>>>1

Goldman Sachs reportedly paid 2% in taxes one year. If they paid 5% instead they would raise the price on what exactly? If they paid 20% they would contribute what differently? The notion that a factory employing hundreds of people and producing actual products which add equity to our economy and a hedge fund manager who pushes paper across a desk while day-trading derivatives are somehow the same thing is ridiculous.

The reason a small business owner pays 10x the percentage in taxes that a financial services company pays has nothing to do with their respective value to the economy. It has solely to do with which one has more to invest in lobbying for specific tax loopholes to be enacted. When you go to your accountant he tries to figure out the best way to state your income for tax purposes. When General Electric has a meeting in their tax planning division they discuss which committee chairman to call and what specific wording they would like to have added to the tax code.

Producers have value at the high and low end of an economy, parasites are parasites whether they earn $30.00 or 300M in a year.

If you borrow $10 on Tuesday, you have $10 on hand and $10 in debt on Wednesday. We did not need to spend 1T+ in Iraq. Had we not done that, we would either have had 1T of borrowed money on hand to deal with massive liquidity problems that existed OR we would have borrowed 1T less. Either was better than spending it in Iraq. The financial crisis will cost us much more than 12T. Let's assume you are correct... you are saying that saving 1/12th the amount spent on the meltdown by not going to war would have had no effect on our economy - let alone all the other benefits of not unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation?



Robbie,

As an analogy... Getting divorced has little to do with running a business. Running a business while going through a nasty divorce is harder than running one without having to go through a nasty divorce. If you go out of business, it's unlikely the divorce was the cause but it's also easy to see how a nasty divorce might make it harder to stay in business.

If you don't see it that way, we simply disagree.

While you make points, they aren't correct. Robbie is right.

of course not. but last i checked, 12 is 12x greater than 1.

You left insulting people about 15 posts back.
Whether you were flaming me or 12clicks, you were out of line.

You should really listen to your employer, he clearly is a smart man.

We need to lower spending and raise revenue. They do need more money unless we want to carry the debt forever.

We need to drive over the fiscal cliff. If we keep putting it off another year then nothing will ever change.

We are really fucked up financially. There has to be pain. Spending has to be cut and revenue needs to be raised.

Imagine for a second...that military spending is cut in half. We bring home the troops from around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Also, the US is taking in more revenue than ever before in history. They don't need more money...they'll just waste it.

That's like me going on a spending binge way past what I actually earn. And continuing to do so no matter what happens. You would tell me to STOP spending.
Unless...unless, I had a way to bring in more money like magic!

And that would be the federal govt.
EDIT: I do enjoy discussing this with you guys. Thank God Paul Markham isn't in here fucking it all up. lol

I have adapted, we have purchased welding robots, CNC machinery, lasers and numerous other pieces of automation. We are very close to pulling the trigger on a plastics molding system that is completely automated. Lights off 24/7.

This is what the future is for manufactuing. Margins are so thin because of unfair Chinese trade. You see the downside of your adapt or die comment. Business continues to adapt at the expense of US labor. Business has to try and compete on a global basis with people that are happy working for a small percentage of the cost we have to pay.

And driving those cheap prices are the consumers who only care about buying as cheap as possible. All this talk about business getting such cush deals from the government is overblown. A handful of the largest companies get good deals. The rest of us get nothing.
We get OSHA inspections, EPA audits,EEOC investigations,Homeland Security inspections.

We only get tax breaks for rapid depreciation when we invest in capital equipment. When you read about all these breaks that manufacturing gets, realize it's the fortune 100 and then believe about half of what you read.

would you care to point out where i insulted either you or 12clicks?

If my stating that you think you're rich, am i wrong in that assumption?

why would you find that offensive?

:)

I think the # of toilets in the Pentagon is a really important point of discussion. Unfortunately, only Paul can comment intelligently on this :(

Ok then what happens with all those newly out of work troops? Also gov spending is not the same as a company or household.

Retraining. Between the GI Bill etc and (hopefully) stimulus money to start rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, i can see a 'glide path' for them.

Oh I didn't know you were talking about your own manufacturing company in particular. I thought you were just lambasting the people going for the cheapest shit in general... even though it's just that... cheap shit.

You should be pissed at the mega corps, too. They have unfair advantages and drive the little man out of business. And let's admit it, while you do very very well, you're still the little man in the grand scheme of things.

People want the cheapest shit from China and they get it because the likes of WalMart can bring it into the country so cheaply and easily.

I think what a lot of people assume in these threads is that the middle class wants the upper class to carry more of the burden. They just want them to pay their fair share based on the system we have and have always had.

Until the day we get a flat tax, it should be that way. If wealthy people don't want to pay 32% of their income in taxes then they should be lobbying for flat tax. I don't see that happening. Why? Because the current system can be easily abused by those with means and anyone with common sense knows that. No smart person pays anywhere near close to what the system intended them to pay.

That would make sense but he wants to cut all spending. So no stimulus for that, I had heard to its so old and fucked up that to bring the infrastructure to a b+ would cost 5 trillion dollars. Now that would spur a boom lol.

Offensive no..insulting yes.
What do I say to a comment like this and not appear to be arrogant. If I were truly arrogant would I waste 25 seconds responding to a smart smouth kid?

*I think I am rich*... I know that Bill Gates can own me as many times over as I can own you. So do the math and you decide whether I am rich, or just reasonably comfortable.

I agree completely that I am a small business owner. We have a ways to go before we reach the fortune 500. Yet the majority of employers in the US are small business owners. And these tax increases, then in a year obamacare will hurt small businesses. It will force us to continue to adapt of die. And like most of the business people I know,we are survivors. We will continue to invest in technology and automation. The divide between the owners and the workers will continue to expand.

I read a Vonnegut book years ago, Player Piano. I remember reading it and laughing...sure. that will never happen. And now 30 years later it is happening. The future might be better than the present or it might be worse. I know for sure it will be different.

it needs to be taxed less because:
a. to stimulate investment
b. it's not necessarily income, for example: today you buy a bike for $100, 10 years later you sell it for $150... naive person would think that they have made $50 profit...

but you actually didn't make shit, cause in 10 years all bikes will cost $150 (due to inflation), so you didn't actually become any wealthier... and you actually lost wealth, cause you started with enough "wealth" to buy a bike, but after you pay capital gains taxes on the $50 "profit" you will no longer be able to afford a bike... :2 cents:

As i've said a million times: history has show that austerity in tough economic times is always a disaster. If you can borrow at 0% (more like -2% adjusted for inflation) to stimulate the economy, you fucking do it. Obviously you can't do that forever, but now is not the time for austerity.

And yeah Tony, it absolutely would spur a boom. More people making more money = more tax revenue to pay down the debt. win-win.

For 99% of manufacturing that is the eventuality in any case no? Lower tax rates forstall it only until the price of installation and maintenance drops enough to make it a smarter play anyway. The price of automation will always decline compared to the price of labor over time. No matter how we analyze the symptoms, the actual problem remains the same. A growing segment of society that can best be described as 'extra people.' People capable of work, willing to work, but not nearly as precise or cheap as automation can be. It's a problem that isn't going to go away on its own.

There is no question that you are correct. The times they are a changin'

So what by page 12 or so the prob should be solved and we can just sub the whole thread to the gov right?

See I think this is far more interesting than the fiscal cliff BS. (btw aren't they currently talking cutting four times the spending for each dollar of new revenue? Seems more than fair. I see it as ridiculous arguments over small shades of grey.)

I'm a solid proponent of enlightened self interest and also have financial planning qualifications. Most beneficence I show in regards to the majority of people (tax and entitlement wise) stem from my desire that they have the money to buy my products, generally stimulate the economy enough that they don't screw with my share portfolio too much and not steal my car, (also of course having a functioning society where my children can go to good local schools and not get spat on by deranged street people). I'm also never going to worry about a 2-3% tax hike... it will take much more than that to stop me doing what I want to do.

But there are bigger issues in the pipeline.. local retail is going to be decimated by online retail. Online retail is going to be decimated by Amazon and the like worldwide. Lots of local joblessness. Manufacturing is completely uncompetitive but the average American has mostly only seen a rise in their living standards because of imported deflation through cheap Chinese products as wages have largely been stagnant taking inflation into account. They can't NOT buy cheap Chinese shit. The only silver lining here is that wages are now getting so low in America that once shipping etc are taken into account some low skill manufacturing is starting to become cost competitive again and America will have it's own "China's" in West Virginia etc. Also maybe in a while Peak oil will have some sort of effect making long distance world trade less viable if it's not mitigated by unconventional production and the kite-sails they're starting to put on ships.

Logic dictates we all start selling Chinese goods to local populations but at some point it's possible for them to cut out the middle man online (already happening on Alibaba). I've spoken to town planners that are starting to plan for lack of a main street. To Mall builders that are beginning to focus on "destination malls" that are more about proper restaurants, cinemas, theme/water parks etc and less about retail (and shitty food courts). So is it really a case of making as much as we can now taking part in the decline (this shift is inevitable) and then as global citizens chase the growth investments from country to country?

No, I don't want to cut all spending Tony.

I'm saying that IF we took and cut the military spending in half...we could take 1/4 of the enormous amount of money and re-train them and help the poor in our country.

We don't need all that military. Look at that link I posted and the chart to the right of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

That money is mostly being spent on foreign military bases and huge amounts to defense contractors. The actual amount of PEOPLE in the military that are in uniform isn't too great that we couldn't get them involved in the private sector.

Also...don't think of all of them as just grunt workers.
Who knows how many men are in the military that might be leaders of industry if they were in the private sector?
How many of them might be developing a cure for cancer?
Or might be the next Jimi Hendrix?

We don't know because they are in the military fighting our big enemy: Oh, that's right, we don't have a big enemy. Look at that chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

I'm with you Tony... we do need to help people. But taxing people and giving MORE money to the govt. (that will go to the military) is not the answer. The govt. needs to be shrunk and the power needs to come back to the people.

World total 1,735
United States 711.0


US is almost half of world total.. :1orglaugh :error

Social Security hasn't added :2 cents: to the debt. It's a separate tax.

Thank you.

http://www.bartcop.com/taxes-not-swimming.jpg

NEWS FLASH.... OBAMA WON...He is a democrat.
The fixation you two boys have on what the republicans would or would not do is creepy.
Why don't you fellows go find another thread to play in. You are adding absolutely nothing to this one.

Angry Democrats.

They "won" the Presidential election.

They are supposed to be "liberal".

But I've never seen such pure hatred and vitriol. And such slavish devotion to big govt. that spends so much money killing people worldwide.

These are neo-liberals for sure. Not the kind I grew up with. As I said earlier: Me and Bob Dylan don't trust no stinkin' govt.
They wiretap people, kill people worldwide, invade countries, occupy countries, perform "experiments" on people...and yet somehow they have brainwashed an entire group of people into thinking they are "liberal" and to scream for higher taxes so they can pull even MORE shit.

Sad. :disgust

and what profession are you in that town planners and mall developers are engaging you in conversations?

it pains me to think that in the interests of protecting your, er, interests, you're supporting a political system that, systematically, works entirely at taking said interests away from you. If i had a company worth millions, as suggested, i'd be very curious on why companies like GE are being paid 1.1 billion per year in 'taxes'.. but hey, keep trolling the republican line.

So potentially, you may be able to 'own' me (whatever that means lol), you're what.. 50+? The equivalent metaphor here would be my comparing my bicep to that of a 9 year old child, all the while thinking i am in some way superior.

Richard...why should any of us be "curious" about what GE pays in taxes?

It's not our business or Minte's or yours. Hell, I applaud them for figuring out ways to keep more of THEIR money that THEY earned and not hand it over to the greedy U.S. govt.

I want everybody to be able to keep their own money without lifetime career bureaucrats in Washington D.C. getting their grubby hands on it.

Not saying the Feds don't need revenue, but they are already bringing in more revenue than at any time in history...and yet they still manage to spend almost double what they bring in.

Raising taxes a few percentage points isn't going to help anything.
The Federal govt. needs to stop the excessive spending.

10 billion dollars A DAY.
GE made a net profit of 14.07 billion dollars in 2011.

That means the U.S. govt. spends more in 1 1/2 days than GE profits all YEAR.

Think about that for a minute.

We should be curious because that sort of behaviour obviously doesn't stop there.

I never said anything about raising taxes, and i certainly agree with excess federal spending done by both our governments, but that is mostly centred on military spending. We can do a lot more with a lot less money and that has been proven in the last few, ah, conflicts. Sailing around billion dollar targets strikes me as a very bad idea

What sort of "behaviour" are you thinking GE does?

They take advantage of every legal tax deduction that they can. That's smart business. I do that too. And so does everyone I know.

I'm unaware of anybody who deliberately doesn't take deductions. Taxes are the number one cost of business (the actual taxes: federal, state, local, property, matching funds for employees PLUS accounting fees, corporate licensing, etc.).
If GE didn't do everything they could, they wouldn't have existed all these decades.

In my opinion we should be lowering their rates and stopping some of the regulations that burden them from doing business in the U.S.
I saw them on the news last year showing the GE jet engine plant...in South America!!!
That should be in the United States.

But it makes better business sense for them to build it down there.
We should be figuring out ways to attract them back to build things like that in the United States.

When capital gains were treated like regular income there was just as much investment. So that argument is moot.

As for your second point, if you don't like capital gains being income lobby to have the definition of income changed.

While you're at it, lobby so that if you make $100 per year and spend $95 that the following year you should only pay taxes on $5 because you're really just getting back the money you invested in the economy with your purchases.

Dude, that only happened from 1913 to 1921. And there was nowhere near the investment back then as there is now.

At that time only the elite invested in stocks and bonds.

In 2012 a huge percentage of "ordinary" Americans are invested with their retirement accounts.

Which is a very bad thing in a market dominated by high volume momentum trades, rampant fraud, a toothless SEC, banks too big to fail, P/E ratios that make no sense and derivative markets that are still so far off book that many 'investment instruments' aren't fully understood by the people buying, selling or rating them. Atlantic City is a more stable place to put your retirement account these days. Low capital gains rates or Romney's suggestion of no capital gains rate on smaller investors is just a new way insiders want to chum the water to bring in fresh fish they can gut. Society gets no benefit from subsidizing Nasdaq Casino gambling. The market is no longer used to generate capital investment... Companies can borrow for next to nothing and startups go to VCs or kickstarter. The market is a rigged game controlled by after hours trades by people with a seat on the exchange... And retiree investment is no different than a bus load of seniors going to play the slots all weekend.

Oh God, I expect to wake up to the headline in the newspaper

PRESIDENT MEETS WITH PORNOGRAPHERS: NATION'S PROBLEMS SOLVED

Then what do you suggest that people do to have a retirement plan?

What should the average person...who is already having funds taken out of his paycheck for a 401K plan supposed to do?

You do realize that ordinary employee type people get tax deferments on their retirement investments, and their employers are required to match those retirement funds as well.

Playing the slots? You obviously have never been here in Vegas and played the slots. lol

A 401K account has always historically gained in value as the years go by. A person at 35 who retires at 65 is going to come out WAY ahead...especially with the tax deferment, matching funds, and lower tax rate on capital gains (it should be ZERO, the govt. has no business putting their greedy paws on that money).

But you are advocating RAISING capital gains taxes?

Now...Mitt Romney (the EVIL Mitt Romney) actually proposed as part of his tax plan that capital gains taxes be left where they are for millionaires...and reduced to ZERO for people making less than a million dollars a year.

But he lost.

Surely it's not that weird to know people in those positions and talk to them about things that might provide you with opportunities or otherwise guide your investments?... Is it?

People at the very bottom of society explaining that their betters should pay more while the bottom pays nothing is laughable.
More laughable is their cheering on the government as if the government won't one day come for THEM with their hand out.
Funny shit from the unintelligent, unaccomplished.

400% higher taxes :)

He's really showing his true colors now isn't he?

if you want to know where your tax money goes look up "double irish with a dutch sandwich"

and i dont get why still many people - even business owners who pay a lot of taxes - defend big corps who are able to legally lower their taxes to like 2% with these constructions.

one reason is that it's not clear why corporations should pay taxes in the first place...
corporations pay taxes, then people who own these corporations pay taxes on the same income again...

it's ridiculous that corporation should pay 35% on it's income, and then person receiving dividends from that corporation should get taxed again and pay another 43%... no?

so either dividends should not be taxed OR corporations shouldn't be taxed... otherwise same income is getting taxed twice...

that is completely irrelevant to what i wrote.

The question is: Why should Minte pay 35% while Google legally can only pay 2%?

That both pay zero will never happen anyways so any discussion about that is a waste of time - i dont live in dream worlds.

so wouldnt it make more sense to cooperate worldwide so that everyone pays 20% for example?