i agree with sam that Vermont is the greatest state in our nation.

Sam's commentary on how sheep bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes was quite insightful.

"For some reason I think it is a good idea that we don not allow the gap between the rich and poor to continue to increase. But I guess that is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives are just more selfish."

Selfish? If only 2% of the country is "rich", then why does the GOP ever win an election? It appears that you think all Republicans selfishly want to protect their amazing wealth, which means you generalize by thinking all Republicans are wealthy. We aren't.

It does not benefit me for some lazy schmuck to live off the government most or all of his life. It would benefit me if he got a job or went to school. It would benefit me if he taught his kids to grow up to be a little better than he is, but that usually doesn't happen either. It would benefit me to see the government check up on why the guy living in Section 8 housing can afford to own a tricked out Lexus. It would benefit me to have a cap on the amount of children a single mother can have that doesn't have a job. (Can't wait for responses on that one)

It DOES benefit me when a rich man opens a new branch of his business in my area and employs 100 people. It DOES benefit me when the college degree I've earned allows me to choose from thousands of available jobs thanks to companies hiring and expanding everywhere.

I guess I'm just a greedy fucktard. It's silly of me to hope that if I bust my ass all my life that I can actually keep what I've earned. It would be easier to just join the entitlement bunch and live off the government.

I feel like for the sake of perspective i should just throw this out there.

There are perfectly reasonable liberals, conservatives, socialists, communists, and even monarchists. There is however no such thing as a reasonable scientologist. That's neither here nor there though. The point i am not making is that liberals like the government t control as much as possible, conservatives like the government to only provide the basics.

"But Yodel called his ideas, which are my ideas socialist, twice. Furthermore Rob has called Obama socialist before in other threads."
I'm neither Yodel nor Rob. We're all independent people here, no? If you wouldn't mind I'd like it if you didn't just throw all the people that disagree with you into one category.

"'Of course the true unemployment rate is much higher- I wouldn't be surprised if it were closer to 18%. 'Discouraged workers' don't count in the government's measure. I would expect that the number of unemployed people who do not collect benefits are underestimated as well (though not by a lot- they use a huge sample).'
No one disagrees with that, the point is Bush took us from a relatively good place to a relatively bad place. Whereas Obama saved us from going to a very very bad place. "
Please read what I said- wish made a comment about the unemployment rate to which I responded. At no point in that statement did I reference Bush or Obama.

"I'm still waiting for you to point out mistakes he made. You still haven't named any. I could name a few Bush made if you'd like."
Your arguments so far:
"I'm glad you said that thraxle, because now I can show you this:
[chart showing private sector job growth dec 07- sept 10]"
"Rob the point isn't that Obama is somehow amazing at creating jobs, the point is that Bush completely ruined the economy which poses a stark contrast to what Obama has done."
"Obama inherited a recession, Bush inherited the strongest economy we had ever had... in history. There's something to be said about the directions both presidents took us."
"The Bush administration's economic policies were faltering (or at least they weren't as effective as Clinton and Reagan's) so in order to boost the economy they created the insecure mortgages that eventually lead to the housing market crash. That and a few other tricks... this however was unmaintainable and eventually lead the the recession we are in now. "
"How have Bush's tax cuts helped America's economy since they were implemented in 2001?"
"Congress is never looked upon favorably, but Congress's agenda is set by the President. The President decides what the issues of our day are, along with the media. Ultimately this results in what laws congress produces or enacts and ultimately this was my qualm with Bush. "
The rest has been concerning ideology and not concerned Bush or Obama specifically and thus doesn't apply to my point.

"Rob's point wasn't about people starting new businesses now... it was about businesses that are already successful not reinvesting the cash they now have on hand into more employees, equipment, or facilities because of uncertainty of what will happen to their taxes and they may need that cash on hand if tax rates go up."
Actually it was about new business, it was about new businesses and old businesses expanding (i.e. what you do when you're not a recession). My point was that jobs aren't being created because we are in a recession. I will direct you obviously didn'read very thoroughly:
"Furthermore a *successful* business is going to make the decision to expand or downsize in an effort to become more viable regardless of a 4% change in income tax. Fixing our economy by taxing the rich and spending money is the only way to get us back on the right track. And once we're on the right track our economy will begin to boom again and jobs will be created."
To quote from Rob:
"I said nothing of entrepreneurs starting out on their quest for the American dream......I'm talking about the super rich that employ a large portion of Americans."
Please let me know who isn't reading thoroughly. Rob's point was clearly about large, successful businesses. You're the one that brought entrepeneurs into the equation:
"A 4% change in the highest marginal tax rate isn't what's scaring potential entrepreneurs and current business owners from expanding their businesses. Keep in mind the debate has always been if we keep the tax cuts for the highest marginal tax rate, not the lower marginal tax rates. Aspiring entrepreneurs are not scared of starting businesses because they *might* end up very successful and then have to pay higher taxes. They're not starting business or creating jobs because of the fiscal situation the country and the world is in."
I didn't agree or disagree with what you said about the tax rate. All I did was restate what Rob said and point out that you are adding in random inferences.

Of fucking COURSE we were already heading into a recession pre-9/11. &whose fault is that?
Did YOU read the article you posted? Bottom of the first page: "Thus, it can be argued, timely action contained the short run economic effects of 9/11 on the overall economy. Over the longer run 9/11 will adversely affect US productivity growth..."
Veta: "Secondly, I urge you to ask yourself: How have Bush's tax cuts helped America"s economy since they were implemented in 2001? Remember, that they have not been repealed, and that they are currently still active. If these tax cuts were so fantastic, wouldn't their benefit have been proven in 9 years since their implementation? "
Rob: "The economy was amazingly strong during the mid-2000's despite 9/11's effect on our country (and the world). It wasn't till the real estate bubble burst that things started going downhill. "
The point here wasn't that 9/11 could have caused a recession- it was that 9/11 didn't help things, and that Bush's tax cuts showed their merit through the mid-2000s.

""When you give the poor more money, or take less money from them, they spend it."
This is true... but if you stop taking money from the wealthy they're likely to spend that too.
Actually no, that's not true because we haven't been taking their money for the past 9 years and they still aren't spending it. I don't understand what's so hard about reading my posts? "
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K5M020100721
http://www.amnavigator.com/blog/2010/11/28/black-friday-2010-online-16-percent-consumer-spending-increase/
http://www.clickz.com/clickz/stats/1930083/cyber-monday-spending-percent-2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/139619/Frugality-Fatigue-Upper-Income-Spending-Surges.aspx
Spending is increasing among the rich- admittedly it has not been at its highest levels in recent history. If another 4% of my income were being taken from me, I wouldn't keep increasing my spending.
I don't understand what's so hard about reading MY posts- I have stated repeatedly that BUSINESSES are not reinvesting.

Veta: The rich, as you just said it yourself, aren't spending money.
Me: Successful businesses aren't reinvesting. Not the same thing.
Veta: That's not what I was referring to sweetey, I was referring to people that argue the rich will spend the tax cut they're getting. If they aren't spending the money they're getting from these tax cuts now what makes anyone think they will do it after we extend the cuts? And once again you wouldn't even have said this if you just read my post.
Again, to quote Rob: "I didn't say they weren't spending, I said they weren't reinvesting. Investing the money in jobs/equipment is far more valuable than the lowest 10% buying groceries."
Also- Don't call me 'sweetey', 'my dear', or any variation thereof.

"As far as free riders are concerned, most states limit welfare to a certain amount of time."
As Rob stated, unemployment benefits were just extended again. I'm sure it isn't preferable, and not everyone collects them (my dad's been out of a job for 13 months and hasn't filed for benefits), but the fact remains that it is possible to have as much disposable income when making minimum wage as when making 60k a year- which is ridiculous.

Me: Twenty five percent of students from my high school were on free and reduced lunch prices while I was there. Median income in this geographical area at that time was the second (and sixth, because this district covers more than one city/county) highest in the nation. Very very few people from my high school had a cell phone- so why were so many people getting free/especially cheap food?
Veta: I don't see what you're disagreeing with Chloe, if there's an issue of efficacy then that can be resolved but it seems to me like you agree with the leftist notion of subsidizing the poor.
Pretty bad typo- that should say didn't have a cell phone. My point was that there is no way ALL of those kids should qualify for free/reduced lunch prices and a huge number of people are working the system. Per capita income in this area is nearly double the national average. There's no reason a quarter of the kids at my school would need free or reduced lunch prices beyond what is already subsidized for everyone.

Post 87 Continued.
4: I am now done with finals
5: People with wealth tend to invest that wealth
6: the threat of less incoming wealth in the future makes keeping some liquid assets more appealing to more cautious people.
7: The jobs created by the private sector are much more numerous then those created by the public sector.
8: Jobs get outsourced because it is cheaper to do certain things in other countries.

Ok this give me a pretty good baseline to work with. Lets look at some possible affects of taxing our wealthier citizens more heavily.
First off lets say I am super wealthy and i make 10,000,000 a year. If my tax rate gets bumped up by say 7% that is 673,845 dollars extra that I will pay in federal taxes. Now this is is where it is going to get interesting. I now know that I am going to come up ~700k short this year and all subsequent years, so as a precaution I am going to start tucking away say an extra 3% of my income into something I perceive as "safe" IE precious metal bonds, or an interest earning bank account. My reasoning is that if something drastic happened with my investments before, I would have that extra 700k the following year to fall back on. Now I don't, so I need to increase my windfall funds. The point being that now there is roughly 1 million dollars that the fed have kept me from investing per year. Now granted that 1 million isn't a total wash. If i put my windfall in a bank, then that money will probably largely be invested in the form of loans (although probably not as well invested as if i had done it myself). Of the money leached by the Fed, 24% well go to the defense budget, 22% will go to health care (wasted money) 15% well go to welfare (using that 15% for fire starter would be better use of that money), 21% will go to pensions (yeah ok not a total waste), and the remainder goes into all kinds of shit {1}.
Now as far as getting money to where it is "supposed" to be I think we can agree that the private sector is way more efficient. So lets look at the 15% spent on welfare. that would be about 100k dollars that goes into check for the needy. now lets look at what happens if i am allowed to invest that money instead.
I had a friend of mine walk me through what it would take monetarily speaking to get another 4 man crew of tree trimmers equipped and started (In Oregon there is a big market for these, the damned trees keep growing and shit). Basically you would need money to buy the crew a truck, a boom truck, a wood chipper, chainsaws, safety equipment, fuel, and a bunch of minor stuff. You are looking at a custom job for the truck so about 35,000 (going with a F 350 superduty) figure another 15,000 in saws, climbing gear, safety gear, and fire gear. A boom truck usually runs around 70k, and the chipper will cost you an additional 15K. Plus you will probably have to figure on about a month of training for the 4 new employees that they aren't even worth there own wages so figure you lose about another 10k there (typically they will each make between 10-18/hr but I am figuring that they actually do some useful work so it not a complete wash on the first months wages). So your startup cost for expanding by 1 4 man crew is around 145k dollars. Meaning if I invest 145k dollars in your company then you could employ 4 new employees who are making well above minimum wage. The rest of the money you well spend on the crew for wages, fuel, repairs to vehicles and equipment, medical bills, repairs to roofs, and whatnot for the rest of the year will be covered by the money you get from your new contract that you got. You just needed the 145k to get the crew started. Most likely, if you are competent, I will make a good return on my investment. So at the cost of 145K dollars we have created 4 jobs. Those 4 people are now providing a useful service that will generate revenue in the future and well be self sustaining for the company. Look at the case of welfare now. for 145K you can cut 7 lazy slobs a check every month. They are going to spend that money yes, but they are not providing any service and thus not producing any new wealth. This is not sustainable. They are essentially dead weight that we are carrying on our backs.

Now moving on to a different issue. The cost of producing a product in the states. I will be brief here. Our minimum wage is way too high. I should be lowered to something more along the lines of about $3/hr. Yes there would be drawbacks, but there would be benefits as well. Coupled with some deregulation it would bring manufacturing jobs back into the country. Yeah $3/hr is not a lot of money, but ffs swallow your pride it is better then being unemployed. Further more if you work hard you get payed more money. I have worked as a tree trimmer, construction worker, and a hazardous materials cleanup worker, I have yet to work a job were i have not gotten a raise because i work hard and do a good job. Here are my starting and finishing wages at each job. Tree trimmer start: 10/hr finish 14.50/hr Construction first time around start: 9.00/hr finish 13.00/hr second time start 15/hr finish 18.50/hr hazmat start 15/hr finish 18.50/hr. the construction jobs don't count the prevailing wage sites i was on since that would severely skew the statistics (finish at 36/hr). Lowering minimum wage would also decrease the incentive for our southern border hopping friends to come here/ stay here illegally. This in turn opens up more jobs that they are no longer filling. This further decreases unemployment. The point is that if you want jobs to be created, then allow the wealthy to invest their money and make it more appealing to open shop in the states. The wealthy are in the game for themselves, so they are likely going to invest in ventures that are more likely to succeed and thus produce more wealth and capital in the future, thus making more jobs so on and so forth.

forgot to list my source on the federal spending

1. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a

both suck elect Ralph Nader

Greens Unite!

99

100! ruined your thread with double post thrax!
suck it!