Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Who said they didnt...that isnt even what I said I said they wont put money into the economy. I never even said they were wrong about not doing it let alone being cold heartless ****. If you dont want people to go off topic on your comments maybe you should try reading what other people type

IF they donate to build hospital wings or whatever, how is that not putting money into the economy? Isn't that a shovel ready job Obama waxed poetic about?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Listen to this crazy wingnut Republican talk about not raising the debt ceiling:


Oh, that was Barack Obama in 2006, voting against raising the limit. My mistake.

The funny thing is I have no problem with that diatribe. And I have no problem with a Republican saying the same thing. I do however have a problem with anyone who plays "chicken" with the full faith and credit of the United States. And that's what's going to happen.

The time to change this crap isn't when it's at the ceiling. The time to change it is before the ceiling ever is reached.

Still trying to understand why my Republicans friends won't agree to a straight percentage for taxes at the Federal Level.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The rich dont care about America, they care about staying rich...and why wouldnt they, I would too and so would you.

I missed your point then. Sorry about that.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

IF they donate to build hospital wings or whatever, how is that not putting money into the economy? Isn't that a shovel ready job Obama waxed poetic about?

Dont ask me, find Rover I am sure he knows

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I said it wrong but the point is that there is only so much wealth to go around.

The sum total of all economic activity in the world is in the many tens of trillions of dollars annually. So while it is finite, it's a very large number. Even shrinking it down to US economic activity, we're still talking about a number somewhere in the neighborhood of $13-14 trillion. And again, that's just gross domestic product. If you start factoring in accumulated wealth, the number becomes many times larger than that. So there's plenty of opportunity for people to work their way up and become rich.

However, due to widely different abilities, circumstances, and motivation, most people won't become rich.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The sum total of all economic activity in the world is in the many tens of trillions of dollars annually. So while it is finite, it's a very large number. Even shrinking it down to US economic activity, we're still talking about a number somewhere in the neighborhood of $13-14 trillion. And again, that's just gross domestic product. If you start factoring in accumulated wealth, the number becomes many times larger than that. So there's plenty of opportunity for people to work their way up and become rich.

However, due to widely different abilities, circumstances, and motivation, most people won't become rich.

Of course, if most people became rich, it wouldn't be "rich."

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The sum total of all economic activity in the world is in the many tens of trillions of dollars annually. So while it is finite, it's a very large number. Even shrinking it down to US economic activity, we're still talking about a number somewhere in the neighborhood of $13-14 trillion. And again, that's just gross domestic product. If you start factoring in accumulated wealth, the number becomes many times larger than that. So there's plenty of opportunity for people to work their way up and become rich.

However, due to widely different abilities, circumstances, and motivation, most people won't become rich.

While all men are created equal in the eyes of god, when it comes to getting into MIT, or becoming a partner at 26 or starting your own internet company...everybody isn't equal.

Everyone should be treated fairly and everyone should have equal opportunity but the results won't be equal...you aren't saying this but so many people today confuse fair with equal and if the phrase "life isn't fair" is accurate, you can't count on that either.

I have never had the illusion that it was always fair or ever equal.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Hey, remember when signing statements were an unspeakable evil?

Never mind.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Of course, if most people became rich, it wouldn't be "rich."

It's all a question of who you are comparing yourself to - compared to professional athletes, CEOs, dumb*** heiresses, et al, none of us is rich. However, compared to basically every person living in a third world country, even the middle class in the US is unimaginably wealthy.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Hey, remember when signing statements were an unspeakable evil?

Never mind.

Signing statements themselves have been used by every president. Obama pledged not to use them as his predecessor did and he has kept that pledge. That said, I don't like the use of signing statements. It's essentially a line item veto and circumvents the Constitution. It all boils down to the Unitary Executive Theory, which in my view is one step short of a Dictatorship. It doesn't matter to me if it is used by President Bush, President Obama or President Priceless (perish the thought) - it is still wrong. Right now there are three, maybe four, votes on SCOTUS that would support the idea of a Unitary Executive (read: dictator) and his ability to usurp control from Congress. Basically, the Executive branch takes power away from the Legislative with the approval of the Judicial. As long as the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue agrees with you, that's hunky-Dorey; but when he doesn't it becomes unspeakable evil.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So, let me get this straight. I flat out offer to pay the same percentage in taxes across the board at the federal level as the richest Americans and MinnFan has a problem with that? Why? Is that unfrair?

I don't understand.

Its because you're talking apples and oranges. If you want to have a flat income tax I'm all for that. But when you try to roll SS in with it its guananteed failure. You haven't fixed anything. Youl've just redistributed more money and kicked the can down the road.

If we were to let people opt out it would go a long way toward fixing the problem. If someone making $40K/yr at the age of 30 were allowed to opt out and then invested that money on their own they would retire at 65 with $1.8M. And that doens't account for any increases in wages. SS can't compete with that.

There is even a real world example of what happens when people are allowed to keep their SS contribution. *You have to click on the pdf.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If we were to let people opt out it would go a long way toward fixing the problem. If someone making $40K/yr at the age of 30 were allowed to opt out and then invested that money on their own they would retire at 65 with $1.8M. And that doens't account for any increases in wages. SS can't compete with that.

How many of those financial wizards would invest it on their own? They might spend it on luxuries like rent and food.
The stock market does go down, you know. Ask teachers who had their pensions wiped out three years ago how wonderful investments are.
Finally, the idea that the average 30 year old worker earns $40K/year is laughable.

Of those individuals with income who were older than 25 years of age, over 42% had incomes below $25,000

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

How many of those financial wizards would invest it on their own? They might spend it on luxuries like rent and food.
The stock market does go down, you know. Ask teachers who had their pensions wiped out three years ago how wonderful investments are.
Finally, the idea that the average 30 year old worker earns $40K/year is laughable.

Ok, so those that make $25K will only wind up with $1.15M if they never get a pay raise.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Ok, so those that make $25K will only wind up with $1.15M if they never get a pay raise.

Again, assuming that the stock market only goes up and that they invest wisely and not squander the extra money on food and shelter.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Again, assuming that the stock market only goes up and that they invest wisely and not squander the extra money on food and shelter.

Over the course of 35 years it is pretty much assured that the market will go up (it averages 12%/yr over time). Those people who retired right after the crash who'd been saving most of their lives were still far better off than if they'd gotten the same rate of return as SS.

This is money they already don't have for food and shelter so you can put that card away. And heaven forbid people are responsible for their own future. When there is a consequence for people if they waste their money its amazing how much more responsible they become. If you're that concerned with them squandering it they could be forced to put into into something like the TSA (Military 401K) where they'd be given the option of 5 index funds. Their money would go directly into those accounts and they'd never touch it until retirement. The big difference being that they, not the gov't, would own the money.

Also, there is nothing saying that people couldn't stay in the old system and have their gov't guarantee.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

How many of those financial wizards would invest it on their own? They might spend it on luxuries like rent and food.
The stock market does go down, you know. Ask teachers who had their pensions wiped out three years ago how wonderful investments are.
Finally, the idea that the average 30 year old worker earns $40K/year is laughable.

To the first question... maybe 10% would invest it. As for what they would spend it on...I presume they are already eating and living somewhere today, so they will spend it on {insert list of stupid consumer choices here}.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Signing statements themselves have been used by every president. Obama pledged not to use them as his predecessor did and he has kept that pledge. That said, I don't like the use of signing statements. It's essentially a line item veto and circumvents the Constitution. It all boils down to the Unitary Executive Theory, which in my view is one step short of a Dictatorship. It doesn't matter to me if it is used by President Bush, President Obama or President Priceless (perish the thought) - it is still wrong. Right now there are three, maybe four, votes on SCOTUS that would support the idea of a Unitary Executive (read: dictator) and his ability to usurp control from Congress. Basically, the Executive branch takes power away from the Legislative with the approval of the Judicial. As long as the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue agrees with you, that's hunky-Dorey; but when he doesn't it becomes unspeakable evil.

I am very uncomfortable agreeing with you on something. Please chance the topic immediately.

Those three-to-four votes are, I assume, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and (maybe) Thomas? I don't think it is unreasonable to point out who appointed all of those justices when thinking about who to vote for.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Over the course of 35 years it is pretty much assured that the market will go up (it averages 12%/yr over time). Those people who retired right after the crash who'd been saving most of their lives were still far better off than if they'd gotten the same rate of return as SS.

And heaven forbid people are responsible for their own future. When there is a consequence for people if they waste their money its amazing how much more responsible they become. Also, there is nothing saying that people couldn't stay in the old system and have their gov't guarantee.

But people don't see the negative consequence for their behavior 35 years later. We live in a world where money must be spent NOW - even if we have to borrow it. Save for the future? Don't be absurd. People in this country do not save; most carry a debt. And you're still assuming people will invest that money instead of using it on necessities. It's the same idea as health insurance: If someone gambles and loses society does not decide they deserve to die - we treat them anyway. If people spend the money they should have been investing are we going to allow them to live in cardboard shacks, or will we rescue them? I don't know about you, but I'm personally opposed to a chunk of the population living in Hoovervilles again. Taking the money, investing it in Social Security, and giving it back when they retire is a better idea than a generational bailout. Of course, the government is taking the money and spending it instead of investing it...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

While all men are created equal in the eyes of god, when it comes to getting into MIT, or becoming a partner at 26 or starting your own internet company...everybody isn't equal.

Everyone should be treated fairly and everyone should have equal opportunity but the results won't be equal...you aren't saying this but so many people today confuse fair with equal and if the phrase "life isn't fair" is accurate, you can't count on that either.

I have never had the illusion that it was always fair or ever equal.

This is kind of a false argument, however, because nobody (or nobody this side of Engels) is arguing for equality of result. The devil is in the details of what one considers equality of opportunity.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But people don't see the negative consequence for their behavior 35 years later. We live in a world where money must be spent NOW - even if we have to borrow it. Save for the future? Don't be absurd. People in this country do not save; most carry a debt. And you're still assuming people will invest that money instead of using it on necessities. It's the same idea as health insurance: If someone gambles and loses society does not decide they deserve to die - we treat them anyway. If people spend the money they should have been investing are we going to allow them to live in cardboard shacks, or will we rescue them? I don't know about you, but I'm personally opposed to a chunk of the population living in Hoovervilles again. Taking the money, investing it in Social Security, and giving it back when they retire is a better idea than a generational bailout. Of course, the government is taking the money and spending it instead of investing it...

"If you're that concerned with them squandering it they could be forced to put into into something like the TSA (Military 401K) where they'd be given the option of 5 index funds. Their money would go directly into those accounts and they'd never touch it until retirement. The big difference being that they, not the gov't, would own the money.

Also, there is nothing saying that people couldn't stay in the old system and have their gov't guarantee."

*my edit was a bit too late

- Given the track we're on its probably high time that people start to see/feel the negative consequences or we're going to continue on an unsustainable track.