jazzgeek
The Rule Of Thirds.
Agreed. "Extremism", from either side of the aisle, accomplishes nothing.
Of course, the definition for what is "extreme" is left to the individual....which leads to a whole breadth of opinion.
Dale
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Interesting video.......
- Thread starter Rich Z
- Start date
Agreed. "Extremism", from either side of the aisle, accomplishes nothing.
Of course, the definition for what is "extreme" is left to the individual....which leads to a whole breadth of opinion.
Dale
jpccusa
Happy with this new hobby
This is very noble of you, but unfortunately not everyone thinks this way. That is the reason why there are so many people less qualified than I am making tons more of money than I currently am.
As far as Thomas Edison, I saw on Modern Marvels (History Channel) that he actually stole his biggest idea from Nikola Tesla. He also stole a bunch of others from other inventors. You can read some more here: http://www.cracked.com/article_16072_5-famous-inventors-who-stole-their-big-idea.html
I would call that DIRTY MONEY.
The_Thunderer
New member
Sorry, I've been out ALL day... family is in town... and sitting at a computer when family is here and kids need help with homework is NOT a good thing for a "family man!" LOL.
However, I would just like to respond to Jen for now...
I agree with you, Jen (and Jpccusa on this). There ARE those that DO have a hard time and have made every effort to better themselves, but for one reason or another, find themselves unable to "get up!". I understand this and I have met these people and I sympathize with them. Having worked for over 9 years in the Social Service area (some would say that I STILL do), has not "jaded" me to the needs of this segment of the population. We CANNOT eliminate the "net" that would catch these people and help them. That would be inhuman and WRONG. EVERYONE needs / needed help at one point (or several even) in their lives.
Something has to be done, however, to & for those that continue to subsist only on what the government would provide and the "good intentions" of others. I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but when he signed the welfare reform bill, I was elated... alas, it has hardly helped. This "group" continues to grow and is a real burden on society.
Now, I've got "parental duties" to attend to... Don't know if I'll make it on until LATE tonight - and I REALLY should go to bed before 2:30 am! Hope you all and our cornsnake friends are well today!
ghosthousecorns
Well-known member
Thanks for responding. And I know I said I hate political threads but this issue of people who want to work and can't is kind of reality for me. Sure I have my own business and it helps, but if it wasn't for "handouts" I would not be getting the medication I need for high blood pressure. And I also get some help with food. It sucks and I would much rather be working full time for a decent company or organization than having to hustle up what jobs I can and living month to month.
This country's employment situation is BAD. I went to apply for a job the other day, this large company had four jobs available and a one day hiring event. I can guarantee you every applicant there wanted a job, wanted to work. I was handed a piece of paper that read "Thanks for your interest, you are applicant number 637, we will be contacting the applicants chosen for further screening by Friday'. This was at 4 PM and they were accepting apps until 8. Lord knows how many people that needed jobs went there to apply. Lucky four that got jobs, I was not one of them. I have also collected about 30 letters this year that read something along the lines of "Thank you for your interest, we have selected another candidate" and each one is like a kick in the ribs that makes it that much harder to keep trying when it feels so darn hopeless.
I go to the unemployment office and am shocked how crowded it is. It was not this bad before and while there are always going to be those that abuse the system, I hardly feel they are the majority. Maybe in better times when there are jobs out there, the majority of folks on welfare are there by choice. But right now I can say from what I have seen, that MOST people are getting help because they genuinely do need it, because the economy is bad, because jobs are scarce, because finding a job seems like a pipe dream, things have gotten more expensive, and a lot of people are just plain screwed right now.
This country's employment situation is BAD. I went to apply for a job the other day, this large company had four jobs available and a one day hiring event. I can guarantee you every applicant there wanted a job, wanted to work. I was handed a piece of paper that read "Thanks for your interest, you are applicant number 637, we will be contacting the applicants chosen for further screening by Friday'. This was at 4 PM and they were accepting apps until 8. Lord knows how many people that needed jobs went there to apply. Lucky four that got jobs, I was not one of them. I have also collected about 30 letters this year that read something along the lines of "Thank you for your interest, we have selected another candidate" and each one is like a kick in the ribs that makes it that much harder to keep trying when it feels so darn hopeless.
I go to the unemployment office and am shocked how crowded it is. It was not this bad before and while there are always going to be those that abuse the system, I hardly feel they are the majority. Maybe in better times when there are jobs out there, the majority of folks on welfare are there by choice. But right now I can say from what I have seen, that MOST people are getting help because they genuinely do need it, because the economy is bad, because jobs are scarce, because finding a job seems like a pipe dream, things have gotten more expensive, and a lot of people are just plain screwed right now.
jpccusa
Happy with this new hobby
But still you think redistribution of wealth is not the answer... I understand and respect your point of people abusing the system, but in my opinion the solution is to prevent the system from being abused (somehow) while still giving a helping hand for those in need.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
LOL. He's the man, hilarious! franken hilarious!
jenneses
Confuzzled
I just wanted to say, I am so proud of all the most recent contributors to this thread. This has turned into an interesting and insightful display of gracious debating. Now, if we can only teach the politicians how to do it...
I, personally, feel that social responsibility is a necessary quality. And if everyone had it, the need for social services would be nil. Because people would recognize that if they were in a better situation they should spread some of their good fortune on those less fortunate. And those who don't need it, wouldn't take advantage. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many reasons. I can see both sides of this debate (re: social services and socialism) quite clearly, and even agree with both sides to a point. I tend to lean more towards the socialism side of it because I feel that we need to force people who don't have social responsibility to help take care of those who are in bad situations through no fault of their own.
Yes, people do take advantage, but honestly, I think it's the minority (maybe, I'm naive). I think an overhaul is needed to make sure those who would like to better themselves do so, while also creating some more stringent rules to eliminate those who just want the handout.
Maybe extending welfare/unemployment for those who are enrolled in a college program and getting 3.0 or higher? They are making an attempt to improve their situation. Allow supplemental welfare for those working full-time and yet still cannot afford the average cost of living for their area. They too are trying. But if you're going to sit on your keister and never make an attempt, well, too bad. Cut it off after 90 days.
I used unemployment, and in CT, not sure if it's everywhere, it ends after 6 months. I was lucky that I found a job, but some people aren't. Does unemployment take into consideration the current job market?
I, personally, feel that social responsibility is a necessary quality. And if everyone had it, the need for social services would be nil. Because people would recognize that if they were in a better situation they should spread some of their good fortune on those less fortunate. And those who don't need it, wouldn't take advantage. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many reasons. I can see both sides of this debate (re: social services and socialism) quite clearly, and even agree with both sides to a point. I tend to lean more towards the socialism side of it because I feel that we need to force people who don't have social responsibility to help take care of those who are in bad situations through no fault of their own.
Yes, people do take advantage, but honestly, I think it's the minority (maybe, I'm naive). I think an overhaul is needed to make sure those who would like to better themselves do so, while also creating some more stringent rules to eliminate those who just want the handout.
Maybe extending welfare/unemployment for those who are enrolled in a college program and getting 3.0 or higher? They are making an attempt to improve their situation. Allow supplemental welfare for those working full-time and yet still cannot afford the average cost of living for their area. They too are trying. But if you're going to sit on your keister and never make an attempt, well, too bad. Cut it off after 90 days.
I used unemployment, and in CT, not sure if it's everywhere, it ends after 6 months. I was lucky that I found a job, but some people aren't. Does unemployment take into consideration the current job market?
Absolutely!
Personally, I think the way it really should be done is for the government to do a budget based on projected expenses, which will tell them how much income they need in order to remain solvent. Then do a census to determine how many citizens there are in the country. That gives you your income base. Divide the budget by the number of the income base and that tells you how much you need to get from each citizen. Get the money FIRST, then spend it on the budget. Funny, that's how BUSINESSES are supposed to be run.......
First and foremost this deficit spending crap HAS to cease or it will completely destroy the economy of this country and, like dominoes falling, the rest of the world economy along with it. That is why inflation is eating us alive. In order to pay the bills, the government HAS to print up money, which makes every dollar you have in your pocket worth less. Things don't REALLY cost more these days, it's just that the money we use to buy stuff is worth MUCH less.
Want to see something interesting? These are German postage stamps from 1923. Do you think in 1920 the German people KNEW they would be paying 200,000,000 marks for a postage stamp in three years? Think it can't happen to the USA as well? What's stopping it? You? Me? The government?
Attachments
I agree with much of that Rich. Which brings me to something I am unhappy about with both candidates.
I would not feel that bad about paying more taxes to be honest. (I know I'm going to lose some people on that, LOL) While I know that for either of them to suggest it would end his campaign, how many people would feel that bad about paying slightly higher taxes if the candidate could satisfy you that he was also cutting spending?
One thing you NEVER see candidates asking the people to sacrifice in order to help the nation as a whole. Obama is 'asking' the rich to sacrifice more (which, don't get me wrong, I believe is a good start) but I wouldn't mind giving a little more if I trusted what they were going to do with it. Heck I'm paying NO taxes currently, just my self employment tax (which is a self employed persons contribution to social security)...
I would not feel that bad about paying more taxes to be honest. (I know I'm going to lose some people on that, LOL) While I know that for either of them to suggest it would end his campaign, how many people would feel that bad about paying slightly higher taxes if the candidate could satisfy you that he was also cutting spending?
One thing you NEVER see candidates asking the people to sacrifice in order to help the nation as a whole. Obama is 'asking' the rich to sacrifice more (which, don't get me wrong, I believe is a good start) but I wouldn't mind giving a little more if I trusted what they were going to do with it. Heck I'm paying NO taxes currently, just my self employment tax (which is a self employed persons contribution to social security)...
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
Yes very true! What happened to "victory gardens"? Our trade centers get bombed to smithereeens and what does Bush ask us to give up? Nothing! He asks us to carry on and spend, spend ,spend....look where that got us!
The_Thunderer
New member
Jen, I hope you know that I would in no way have meant to offend you with my previous comments. If I did, I apologize now. I probably should learn to keep my mouth shut.
As for your predicament and this thread... I must say, I have no answers at all. I just have my opinions and my way of seeing things... people can agree with me or they're free to disagree. My feeling is this... The plan to tax businesses and the "rich" can only hurt people in your situation. If businesses are taxed more because they earn more, they have no incentive to grow. No growth, no new jobs. No new jobs, no hired people, no hired people, higher unemployment. Businesses can then either move out of state or overseas or go bankrupt and out of business. One of the reasons that I believe that many businesses have "outsourced" jobs to overseas areas is because of the tax burden here in the US. Take California for example... a couple decades ago, California was BOOMING. Silicone Valley was flourishing and businesses popped up everywhere. Now look at it. Governor Schwarzenegger is having ads played here in AZ practically begging people and businesses to come back. Problem... over-taxing businesses... too many restrictions on businesses... therefore, no growth and a rush to relocate. Name the "growing" states now... Nevada, AZ, Utah, Texas, Idaho, North Carolina & Georgia... states that are typically "red" states that would thus put less tax burdens on businesses.
What states are losing people? California, New York, New Jersey... typically "blue" states with "blue" philosophies.
I do not advocate eliminating the "safety net" that people in difficult situations are using. I think that it needs to be streamlined so that people, like you, who are trying and making an effort are able to receive the aid you need, while the abusers are dealt with in other ways (no answer here, but we cannot just let them starve in the streets either). I agree that something needs to be done... I just believe that continued & oppressive taxation is NOT the answer.
I agree with the sentiment in the bold. Something has to be done to wean the system of its abusers. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer. (Perhaps my Thomas Edison example was simply a "bad example").
Here's an over-simplified example... We have 2 students... One who is hard-working, gets his homework done and is just an excellent student. The other is a slacker... no motivation, doesn't work at it, doesn't bother with homework. When grading time comes along, the teacher gives them both C's. Why? Because the "good" student doesn't need more than a C to pass, so the rest of his grade was given to the other student so that student can also pass.
Is this fair? Is it right? Replace students and grades with breeders and corns... Should snakes be taken from those who work hard to develop the quality animals and morphs and simply be "given" to those that don't so that both can sell and make a living? Is it fair? Is it right?
You and others may say that there is no comparison... but isn't the redistribution of wealth as seen through this prism something that we really want? I would think not...
My eldest daughter goes to a public school. She's currently excelling. So we gave her an incentive to continue to do better by giving her money for grades. My eldest son is home-schooled (for personal reasons & he did NOT do well in public school). Yet he has no motivation, needs constant supervision, and takes whatever opportunity he gets to play video games... even during "school hours". He thinks it "unfair" that his younger sister gets more money than he does. Should we than take from her - redistributing wealth - (and eliminate the incentive to do well) and give to him to equal things out? I think not. If I did, I'd probably end up with TWO kids who lack motivation.
I know things are not so "cut and dry," but what makes this so "complicated"?
I love the "Robin Hood" stories just like the next man. However, just because we all side with Robin Hood against Prince John, doesn't mean that the story holds true in our very real society as well.
I look forward to reading the responses... but for right now, I'm going to bed!!! :boring: (sleepy - NOT boring). LOL. Goodnight!!!!
Last edited:
ghosthousecorns
Well-known member
No you haven't offended me. But let me ask you since you are using your home state as an example, how is the economy doing there? Because my personal feeling is that this whole country is in trouble not just the "blue" states. How is the unemployment rate? Maybe I should move there to look for work. (Can I crash at your place and pay in corn snakes? lol )
Call me cynical, but I think a big business with few regulations is not going to hire someone like me. They will use nepotism, and have cheap labor to make a bigger profit. Of course they are going to go overseas because they can get away with unfair practices there. But let's not make that OK in America just to get them back. In short I just don't trust people to do the right thing about fair hiring and paying fair wages and good benefits if nobody MAKES them do so, otherwise it's just rich people getting richer off the labor of others.
I'm all for any plan that makes it easier for the hordes of unemployed to find work. Remember what FDR did in the great depression which was a big success, he started a new government program called the CCC. I think we need something like this now. First link is a brief description, second article goes more in depth and is scary in the similarities of what they went through then and what we are going through now. Yes, another government program which some may hate, just because it's a goverment program. But I'd much rather my taxes go to something like this than to fund a war I disagree with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/oden/cccfin.htm
Call me cynical, but I think a big business with few regulations is not going to hire someone like me. They will use nepotism, and have cheap labor to make a bigger profit. Of course they are going to go overseas because they can get away with unfair practices there. But let's not make that OK in America just to get them back. In short I just don't trust people to do the right thing about fair hiring and paying fair wages and good benefits if nobody MAKES them do so, otherwise it's just rich people getting richer off the labor of others.
I'm all for any plan that makes it easier for the hordes of unemployed to find work. Remember what FDR did in the great depression which was a big success, he started a new government program called the CCC. I think we need something like this now. First link is a brief description, second article goes more in depth and is scary in the similarities of what they went through then and what we are going through now. Yes, another government program which some may hate, just because it's a goverment program. But I'd much rather my taxes go to something like this than to fund a war I disagree with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps
http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/oden/cccfin.htm
wade
Save The Humans
Tom, I agree. I hate to see any one group singled out and asked to pay more. I'd be glad to pay more to reduce the deficit if I thought it really would help. The problem is getting the government to reduce spending. Why should I pay more for more of the same? It's getting old.
The_Thunderer
New member
Thought I'd have a chance to respond to you too... sorry for what might be a double post.
I too have at least 2 decades before I move into the "retirement phase" of my life. I have faith that the market will rebound and that things will stabilize and that those who are in it for the long term will see adequate returns on their investment... returns that will be much more than what SS will give me (if it still exists). We all know that there will be "hiccups" or, in this case "BURPS" like this, but history has shown that the market really is a "safe" place to put your money... as long as you diversify so as not to put all your "eggs" in either low risk or high risk areas.
Yes, they are... and some taxes are a necessity. RAMPANT taxing, however, is not.
I hear what you are saying, Tom and, perhaps, that is the way to go... Why not have those who wish to pay more step to the front of the line? Seems right to me as long as there is no "stigma" on those that decide NOT to.
As far as Obama "asking" the "rich" to sacrifice more... that whole statement bugs me because of its outright falsehood. But you know that! LOL. Kinda like Biden saying that the "patriotic" thing to do is pay more taxes. Let them lead by example and pay their "bit for king and coutry" first!!! LOL.
jpccusa
Happy with this new hobby
Maybe corns will become a type of currency since the dollar is losing its value so fast!
(Well, at least a cornsnake.com type of currency...)As far as the redistribution of wealth, I feel that nowadays the opposite is happening. The poor have less and less, while the wealthy keep growing their fortune. Take for example the gas companies... When gas was approaching $5 here in CA, I was angry to read about Exxon's, Mobil's, etc. monthly profits.
A good analogy of wealthy vs. poor comes from Hollywood. During red carpet events, actors and actresses are GIVEN gowns, jewlery, everyone wants to do their hair and make up, they are invited for tons of parties, etc. Those actors and actresses are already millionaires. They could afford all that! Go ask Oscar de La Renta for one of his gowns (for your wife's b-day or something) to see how much he would charge YOU for it.
My point is that the only reason they are given so much is because there are incentives to do so. If gas companies were not so rich, car manufacturers would create engines that would burn gas much more efficiently.
I think I wasn't clear about something.. I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying higher percentage in taxes than the rest of us, (on their last dollars) I just think we should all pay more than we do when we need to. Remember that a millionaire doesn't technically pay more taxes than I do. Well, you'd have to give me a million dollars to find out. The structure does work so that everyone pays the same. The millionaire and I pay equally on our first 20,000, we pay equally on the next, and when he reaches a bracket that higher than I have, I'd pay as much there too if I had it, lol. How is that unfair? It's not that I'm not a millionaire out of a lack of incentive, I just haven't done it yet, lol.
As for the rich losing incentive to be rich, I think you're leaving out the main incentive to be rich! One upping each other and impressing the opposite sex. That's just the biological necessity, I don't see how your tax rate can effect it.
As far as taxing the wealthy and seeing them leave california for instance, I would argue that a couple ways..
1. First if we're talking about state taxes- yes some people (mainly retired who don't "trickle" much of anything down since they are no longer hiring, lol) do leave California because of our tax rate, but not many businesses. That's the price to pay in the big game. We're like 15% of the nations GDP, and our own GDP would rate us something like the 7th richest nation if we were measured individually!! No, businesses can't afford NOT to be here.. Our economy is hurting because we do what the nation does: Spend more than we have!!
2. But anyway the state tax model doesn't apply, since we're talking about federal taxes that you can't escape by leaving the state. They may leave the country right? But Obama is talking about better tax rates for businesses that keep their work here. Anyone can take their money and head for Mexico.. But then they have to live in Mexico.
Sorry for the double post..
Right, I understand diversification, but in a market like this, it's either losing, or it's a glorified mattress (as in to stuff your cash in, lol) .. I'm glad people have retirements and savings ASIDE from social security, but there's lots of folks retiring right now, who are going to be happy they weren't able to do away with it. You diversify for security, and there's nothing more secure than SS. Why don't we just divide that pool of money up and give it to people to do what they want with it? Because if we do, and they lose it in the market, we will have to support them. Who's really looking out for the taxpayer here?
Last edited:
The_Thunderer
New member
Well, you're right... everyone is hurting now what with the "bail out" (which I HATE) and the erratic market right now... Some states more than others... Even AZ is in a downspin. But, a year ago (I think... have to check) things were much better, but they probably weren't in Washington State or Oregon... let me know. For us, out in the streets, things have been okay... haven't been "hurting" per se. Worried about things (and NOT just the election)... BUT, my brother visiting from CA has just told me that he hasn't felt "the pinch" either and we know how things are there. Unemployment rate in CA = 6.9%. Current unemployment rate in Oregon = 5.5%. Current unemployment rate in AZ = 4.8% (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/).
I understand this point of view... and to be honest, I don't know how to respond. I do think that a business with less money is less likely to hire as well.
I would have no problem with this... as long as it was well defined and had definite ending dates or "exit strategies" - to coin a phrase.