Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I was directing that at Welfare and generalized handout programs.

You mean food for starving children living in poverty? You mean Medicaid for the permanently disabled and sick who can never work? You mean a couple hundred dollars a week so someone can live in roach-infested public housing?

Yeah, some of us want to contribute to making America better, for helping those in need, in poverty, in trouble.

You're bitter and whining and complaining about the theft of pennies of your riches. You want all the benefits of this great country, all the first-world freebies like highways and running water and no fear of invasion, without donating a thing to the cause of society as a whole. That's selfish and lazy and self-centered.

Guess what? The Supreme Court long ago ruled that what's good for one, is good for all (being dismantled by the upper class, but that's another problem) So contribute your taxes, be happy you were fortunate enough to be born in America, and try working to make this country better, not trying actively to take away from the least among us who are not as fortunate as we.

Screw that. Move to another country. Maybe one where getting $100 a week is vast riches and you could appreciate the need.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, some of us want to contribute to making America better, for helping those in need, in poverty, in trouble.

Ever hear of charities? Get the gun out of everybody else's back. The things paid for by taxation should be few. National defense, law enforcement, and the court system. A few others. The bloated gigantic government must be slashed to the bone. We can't afford it any longer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Ever hear of charities? Get the gun out of everybody else's back. The things paid for by taxation should be few. National defense, law enforcement, and the court system. A few others. The bloated gigantic government must be slashed to the bone. We can't afford it any longer.

Well, guess what? You are living in the wrong country. Your vision of changing America to adhere to your destruction of our society will never happen.

Try elsewhere. But most of the other first world countries collect more taxes than we do, and offer terrible things like 6 weeks vacation time, socialized medicine, government loans for business start ups, etc.

Guess you'll have to move to a second or third world country. Try South America.

And I don't know what ridiculous financial advice you are listening to, but our deficit is not our main problem right now.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Ever hear of charities? Get the gun out of everybody else's back. The things paid for by taxation should be few. National defense, law enforcement, and the court system. A few others. The bloated gigantic government must be slashed to the bone. We can't afford it any longer.

I think national parks should be kept through taxes also.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think national parks should be kept through taxes also.

Living in a land of national parks, I have no real issue with them charging admission.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think national parks should be kept through taxes also.

It wasn't an expansive list. You see where I was going - you need an element by element review of what is being spent on and whether that's legitimate or not.

You know - like a "budget" is - everywhere else in the world but Washington D.C.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It wasn't an expansive list. You see where I was going - you need an element by element review of what is being spent on and whether that's legitimate or not.

You know - like a "budget" is - everywhere else in the world but Washington D.C.

discretionary spending is not the issue, and is not what is needed to fix the problems.

the biggest issue confronting the federal govt and the budget is their entitlement spending. ss, medicare and medicaid-the big three. they are eating up a major portion of the budget, and will only continue to grow. ignoring them is ignoring the biggest problem.
there must be reform-there needs to be changes made immediately. the # of credits required to be fully vested must be raised, the amount of money paid in isn't enough, pricing needs to be addressed, the age requirements to get full ss needs to change, the amount paid to people who retire before age 67 needs to be lowered, and people in a higher income bracket need to have their benefits reduced. if you retire before age 65 or 67 your money received should be reduced drastically. many people don't wait til age 65 to retire, or age 67, as there isn't much of a penalty if they retire earlier. brutal to some? perhaps? necessary to keep us going off a cliff? yes.
the current life expectancy is 74 for males, 81 for females. it's risen recently to those #'s, thus full retirement should be adjusted as well. there should be automatic increases built in to adjust any time expectancies go up.


also, keep in mind that when ss was begun, there weren't pension plans and 401ks, annuities and iras available. people are becoming more and more aware of aiding themselves in retirement. there needs to be a real investigation into just how much the ss portion of entitlements is still needed...will retirement income become less of a concern to coincide with the rising cost of medical needs? aren't we becoming more able to handle retirement income now and in future?


btw, anyone who bought life insurance before '08 needs to see their agent. your premiums should be adjusted to meet the new expectancies. but i'm sure they won't be calling you to discuss that!

[Danzig]

found this, but keep in mind this was all figured on the bush tax decreases expirig at the end of '10-so the scenarios would be that much worse.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc...ter1.4.1.shtml

The Federal Budget Outlook Over the Long Run

Assessing the nation’s fiscal condition requires not only considering the current economic and budgetary circumstances but also analyzing what might happen over the long term if current laws and policies remained in place. Toward that end, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared budgetary projections through 2080 under two different sets of assumptions about federal laws and policies. Those projections indicate that, under either set of assumptions, federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.

Although long-term budget projections are highly uncertain, under any plausible scenario rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits and accumulating debt. To keep deficits and debt from reaching levels that could cause substantial harm to the economy, policymakers will need to increase revenues significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), decrease projected spending sharply, or implement some combination of the two.

and further down:

Returning the Budget to a Sustainable Path

How much would policies have to change to avoid unsustainable increases in government debt? A useful answer comes from looking at the so-called fiscal gap. The gap measures the immediate change in spending or revenues that would be necessary to produce the same debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of a given period as prevailed at the beginning of the period. Under the extended-baseline scenario, the fiscal gap would amount to 2.1 percent of GDP over the next 25 years and 3.2 percent of GDP over the next 75 years. In other words, under that scenario (ignoring the effects of debt on economic growth), an immediate and permanent reduction in spending or an immediate and permanent increase in revenues equal to 3.2 percent of GDP would be needed to create a sustainable fiscal path for the next three-quarters of a century. If the policy change was not immediate, the required percentage would be greater. The fiscal gap is much larger under the alternative fiscal scenario: 5.4 percent of GDP over the next 25 years and 8.1 percent over the next 75 years. (For information about how CBO makes those estimates, see Box 1-1.)


and so now, the change needs to be greater, as the tax cuts were extended. the longer we wait to take our medicine, the sicker we will be. if they don't want to increase those 'revenue enhancements' then the corrolating changes to outlays must be equal to that loss of revenue, else the problem continues to grow. if you have cancer, would you want your doctor to only cure half of it? what good would that do?

[Danzig]

more from the link above, but i hope anyone interested in this issue will read over the whole paper:


Long-term budget projections require a stable economic backdrop. For these projections, CBO assumed that even a large increase in federal debt would not affect economic growth or real rates of interest after the first 10 years.3 However, if debt actually increased as projected under either scenario, interest rates would be higher than otherwise and economic growth would be slower. The rising debt would reduce the size of the domestic capital stock (businesses’ equipment and structures as well as housing) and decrease U.S. ownership of assets in other countries while increasing foreign ownership of assets in the United States. Those changes would slow the growth of gross national product (GNP) and, as the debt burden rose, could eventually lead to a decline in economic output.4 The effects would be most striking under the alternative fiscal scenario. In CBO’s estimation, the increase in debt under that scenario would reduce the capital stock by more than 20 percent and real GNP by 9 percent in 2035, compared with the levels that would occur if the debt remained roughly at its current size relative to the economy. Under the extended-baseline scenario, federal debt would be less threatening in the near term but would lead to significant economic harm in the long run. Those economic effects mean that actual fiscal pressures under current laws and policies would be even greater than CBO’s long-term budget projections suggest, because slower growth would limit revenues and a smaller capital stock would imply higher interest rates on government debt and other financial instruments.

Holding down the spiraling levels of debt projected under either scenario could therefore result in significant economic benefits. However, accomplishing that goal would require some combination of substantial revenue increases and substantial spending decreases relative to current law. Those changes would have their own economic and social costs.

~again, this was from '09-so now the situation is even more dire, as we're two years past the point, the tax breaks didn't expire, and we're two years further into a sick economy.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean food for starving children living in poverty? You mean Medicaid for the permanently disabled and sick who can never work? You mean a couple hundred dollars a week so someone can live in roach-infested public housing?

Yeah, some of us want to contribute to making America better, for helping those in need, in poverty, in trouble.

You're bitter and whining and complaining about the theft of pennies of your riches. You want all the benefits of this great country, all the first-world freebies like highways and running water and no fear of invasion, without donating a thing to the cause of society as a whole. That's selfish and lazy and self-centered.

Guess what? The Supreme Court long ago ruled that what's good for one, is good for all (being dismantled by the upper class, but that's another problem) So contribute your taxes, be happy you were fortunate enough to be born in America, and try working to make this country better, not trying actively to take away from the least among us who are not as fortunate as we.

Screw that. Move to another country. Maybe one where getting $100 a week is vast riches and you could appreciate the need.

What, specifically are you doing to make this country better?
Besides this forum of course.

[Riot]

[quote=Clip-Clop;798677]What, specifically are you doing to make this country better?
Besides this forum of course.[/QUOTE

I pay my taxes, I contribute to charities home and abroad, I vote, and I have my own business. I share what I have earned. I am grateful to this country and do not begrudge it one cent to help my fellow Americans.

What specifically are YOU doing, other than providing jobs to illegal undocumented workers and taking jobs from Americans, while accusing your fellow citizens of living off handouts and being lazy?

[Antitrust32]

[quote=Riot;798690]

Originally Posted by Riot

What specifically are YOU doing, other than providing jobs to illegal undocumented workers and taking jobs from Americans, while accusing your fellow citizens of living off handouts and being lazy?

[Clip-Clop]

[quote=Riot;798690]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

What, specifically are you doing to make this country better?
Besides this forum of course.[/QUOTE

I pay my taxes, I contribute to charities home and abroad, I vote, and I have my own business. I share what I have earned. I am grateful to this country and do not begrudge it one cent to help my fellow Americans.

What specifically are YOU doing, other than providing jobs to illegal undocumented workers and taking jobs from Americans, while accusing your fellow citizens of living off handouts and being lazy?

While this diatribe really does not deserve a response I will go ahead any way.
I pay my taxes too, and my matching portion of the taxes of my 1,2,3,4,5 American college graduate employees. I provide healthcare for them and their families. I donate a great deal of money, time and equipment to charity. I build smart home technologies into homes for wounded soldiers returning from combat so they can have a sense of independence. I also volunteer my "free time" to our local no-kill animal shelter.
I, however, will never be wealthy enough to be a liberal. I am though, very happy with my life and my work and hope to continue to be successful. I deserve it. I earned it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

While this diatribe really does not deserve a response I will go ahead any way.
I pay my taxes too, and my matching portion of the taxes of my 1,2,3,4,5 American college graduate employees. I provide healthcare for them and their families. I donate a great deal of money, time and equipment to charity. I build smart home technologies into homes for wounded soldiers returning from combat so they can have a sense of independence. I also volunteer my "free time" to our local no-kill animal shelter.

Good. So what was the point of your bringing it up? Do you have a scoring system? What is it? What counts as "making this country better" on an individual basis?

I, however, will never be wealthy enough to be a liberal. I am though, very happy with my life and my work and hope to continue to be successful. I deserve it. I earned it.

Interestingly, of the top 400 richest people in America, just under half consider themselves "liberal", and just under half "conservative". Seems that "liberals" value hard, independent work, and self-made success, just as much as "conservatives". But they seem to believe more in the Golden Rule, and helping others who are less fortunate than themselves.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good. So what was the point of your bringing it up? Do you have a scoring system? What is it? What counts as "making this country better" on an individual basis?



Interestingly, of the top 400 richest people in America, just under half consider themselves "liberal", and just under half "conservative". Seems that "liberals" value hard, independent work, and self-made success, just as much as "conservatives". But they seem to believe more in the Golden Rule, and helping others who are less fortunate than themselves.

A. You brought up chipping in to make this country better, I was curious if you just offered the minimum required of you government or were proactive in any way.
B. They do follow the golden rule, as long as the help comes at the expense of us "wealthy" people. I have said it before, I will say it again, $250,000.00 is not a lot of money anymore.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

A. You brought up chipping in to make this country better, I was curious if you just offered the minimum required of you government or were proactive in any way.
B. They do follow the golden rule, as long as the help comes at the expense of us "wealthy" people. I have said it before, I will say it again, $250,000.00 is not a lot of money anymore.

no, but it is a lot more than most ever make.

perhaps more tax brackets are called for? and every time they mention tax increases, people start in about small businesses being affected. surely there is a way to differentiate between income tax and business?