So, If Obama Is Successful In Bankrupting the System....

super_aloha

Michael Peterson status
Jan 11, 2006
2,343
0
0
You know, that is not very nice.
You are a dirty, dirty bird.
oh come now
you've been pissing all over this website for years
and ppl have to put up w/it


You don't like the taste of my pizz? try another mouthfull.
Whiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!
Roll it aorund in your mouth a little, pissbiscuit

Taste that astringent aftertaste? What about the light
mouthfeel? Kinda remindz me of mexi beer...
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
 

fcs

Billy Hamilton status
Nov 5, 2006
1,443
0
0
$250,000 and up wage earners who aren't willing to help get us out of this dangerous situation are the worst kind of crybabies. Yeah yeah socialism-communism-welfare-govt is bad whaaaaaaa whaaa whaaa put a sock in it you privileged fortunate sons. Job losses are mounting in this country and people need to get back to work to feed their families. We know sharing was never easy for you, but try to look beyond your own situation for a while.
 

Kento

Duke status
Jan 11, 2002
68,691
20,897
113
The Bar
You'll just need to find alternate sources of income and a good plan to get it:


One of the funniest movie scenes (I'd been looking for this vid on youtube for a while) of all time... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
seriously, what's wrong with placing some requirements on those receiving the fruits of other people's labor which has been forcibly taken from them by a giant and powerful federal gov't bureacracy?

if you are going to steal money from people who've worked hard to earn it and give it to others that have not, its the least you could do to make sure that they aren't just partying away at other's expense.
You mean like when the big 3 went to ask for a bailout in
their private jets?

Or like when the banks got a bailout from the taxpayers so
they could pay their fat bonuses?

wuz that some corporate "aloha"?
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
hey, go back and look at what i had to say about that...i'm not in favor of obama's continuing the bush bailout plan, which he's doing, in spades!!!

i don't care about the corp jets, but pelosi sure doesn't need a private jet!

free market capitalism must allow for failure. its the only way to keep the market functioning and healthy.

the agglommeration of worthless assets within the financials was a function of many self-serving interests, most of which can be traced to gov't intervention in free markets in order for political interest gain.

i believe in NO bailouts, not for individuals, not for corporations, not for financial institutions, because it just perpetuates and compounds the scope of the eventual failure.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
$250,000 and up wage earners who aren't willing to help get us out of this dangerous situation are the worst kind of crybabies. Yeah yeah socialism-communism-welfare-govt is bad whaaaaaaa whaaa whaaa put a sock in it you privileged fortunate sons. Job losses are mounting in this country and people need to get back to work to feed their families. We know sharing was never easy for you, but try to look beyond your own situation for a while.
why is it so difficult for you to understand that most people work for the very people you want to tax more, which is just going to eliminate jobs, stifle job creation, and reduce business investment for existing businesses and for start-ups?

good luck with your dreams if you have a great idea and the plan to start a business as the capital pools dry up.

you don't understand that business growth is good for everyone, and that because of the rate of business failure, capital needs to remain in the private sector in order for investors to be able to invest in start-ups, whether its an artist trying to get funding, a guy who wants to open up an auto repair shop, a single mother who dreams of opening a flower shop, a construction worker who wants to own his own contracting business and needs to invest in equipment, etc...

the gov't has a terrible record in distributing capital, and it just removes it from those that would invest THEIR dollars according to their best analyses.
 

fcs

Billy Hamilton status
Nov 5, 2006
1,443
0
0
HT: "free market capitalism must allow for failure. its the only way to keep the market functioning and healthy."

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the biggest banks and mortgage brokers would have gone under. We would be in the midst of a financial COLLAPSE. You have no idea what that means.

Stick to selling boards in the classified section, and whatever else it is that you do for income.

Just f'n Ridiculous.
 

Norm'

Duke status
Jan 31, 2003
23,911
872
113
Lovetron
"why is it so difficult for you to understand that most people work for the very people you want to tax more, which is just going to eliminate jobs, stifle job creation, and reduce business investment for existing businesses and for start-ups?"


Because it just doesn't make sense. Employers don't hire someone, just because they have the money to do it, they hire because they have a position that needs to be filled. They hire new people because they're growing, and they grow because people are spending money on what they offer. If what they offer is something that only people making $250,000+ per year use, then yes, taxing that group might effect their hiring. If what they offer is something that those making less and more than $250,000/year, use, then no, the tax alone shouldn't effect their hiring.
 

royallen

Michael Peterson status
Jan 30, 2009
2,183
1
38
the swamp
"why is it so difficult for you to understand that most people work for the very people you want to tax more, which is just going to eliminate jobs, stifle job creation, and reduce business investment for existing businesses and for start-ups?"


Because it just doesn't make sense. Employers don't hire someone, just because they have the money to do it, they hire because they have a position that needs to be filled. They hire new people because they're growing, and they grow because people are spending money on what they offer. If what they offer is something that only people making $250,000+ per year use, then yes, taxing that group might effect their hiring. If what they offer is something that those making less and more than $250,000/year, use, then no, the tax alone shouldn't effect their hiring.
OK Norm, where do these people get the money to invest in growth if they have to send it to Obama?


If they're investing it in growth, then its not taxable now is it?

Maybe for a little while, put more money into your growth and less into your personal draw or pay.

If you're a wage earner and make over 250K per year, then you are one of the captains of the corporate world. Time to act like one and earn you wage by taking care of the future beyond next quarter's bonus.
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
OK Norm, where do these people get the money to invest in growth if they have to send it to Obama?

I love it when people make it sound like these people will be in ruins because they have to pay their fair tax share. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />

Not only that they will be in financial ruins but they won't be motivated to do anything any longer or hire any staff. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />


<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hah.gif" alt="" />

 

Fairmont

OTF status
Mar 4, 2002
239
0
0
None of your business
Waterezdge, you are the typical democrat asz clown.
Bush this and Bush that.
You are outraged by a Bush deficit but cheer on a new president who is going to double it.
You believe that sunshine and lollipops magically fall pour out of the new president's arse end but you can't even understand the pending legislation that is so full of claw back taxes that the bullsht line of "95% of Americans will be better off" is hilarious.
You conveniently forgot to protest the globalization initiatives under the other democrat president and then you pisz and moan and biatch and whine when outsourcing to the 3rd world happens.
You actually believe that it is good for the economy to declare bankruptcy so a federal judge can value your home and assets and then order taxpayers to bail out your sorry asz.
You believe that someone who hasn't bothered to look for a job is going to other people's wealth re-distributed to them.
You want more government in your life, rather than less because you life is fckd and you need some federal bail out assistance to get you out of the problems you are facing.
Pathetic.
Let me guess. You are one of the ones who believes that legalizing pot is going to solve the world's economic problems...
Do you think that sht up all by yourself or did you simply run out of rolling papers and decide to type something to fill the time until you can get enough motivation to walk to the liquor store when it opens and buy some?
Uh oh, the Fishkiller is on a roll.


Tex and FK are Bush devotees. Not one complaint in the last eight years against Bush. Not one.

Obama hasn't done anything economically that hasn't already been going on for eight years.


The difference is that Obama is actually honest with his budget, while Bush hid spending and didn't put Iraq or Afghanistan (two total wastes of time) into the budget.
 

fcs

Billy Hamilton status
Nov 5, 2006
1,443
0
0
Obama is resetting the tax levels to the Clinton years for 250k and up. All of their money is now suddenly not going to disappear. They'll just have less disposable income to play with. Guess what, we are in some deep sh!t right now, and even though the gov't is not the most efficient, we need to help our staggering debt and totally frozen credit markets.

If you make 250,000 a year, please to stop whining about paying another $10-20,000 to the IRS. Think about where we are at this point in time, and think about how being unselfish may get us out a very dangerous financial predicament.

BTW about starting a small business, if you want to start a business and need a loan, your best bet is to wait..banks haven't been giving out loans for about 5 months now. Credit markets are frozen until better news arrives. 2009 is not the year to ask banks for a line of credit.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
"why is it so difficult for you to understand that most people work for the very people you want to tax more, which is just going to eliminate jobs, stifle job creation, and reduce business investment for existing businesses and for start-ups?"


Because it just doesn't make sense. Employers don't hire someone, just because they have the money to do it, they hire because they have a position that needs to be filled. They hire new people because they're growing, and they grow because people are spending money on what they offer. If what they offer is something that only people making $250,000+ per year use, then yes, taxing that group might effect their hiring. If what they offer is something that those making less and more than $250,000/year, use, then no, the tax alone shouldn't effect their hiring.
dude, i don't think you understand how much it costs to open a position, even part-time, especially given all the gov't requirements.

it is almost NEVER a function of current cash flow or income or sales or profits, but a projection based on a return from the planned expansion and necessity for more workers.

so, for a privately held, small business to expand, it takes somebody willing to extend credit based on the business model and plan, just to have the cash flow available to make payroll until the business owner starts to see a return on the investment.

usually, the creation of new jobs (positions) is hand-in-hand with a broader expansion plan, and so its not just cash for payroll, but also a credit line or capital investment (such as building expansion, increased warehousing, increased purchase of raw materials, etc.).

this money does NOT come from the gov't, it comes from banks and lending institutions who use the savings and investments of mostly higher income people to lend out, in exchange for a return over time.

rich people don't hoarde their money under the mattress, unless the gov't threatens to take it! they put it into investment vehicles, and these vehicles are the capital pools that small businesses draw from to expand, or open, or create jobs, or even promote their current employees.

if this money is confiscated by the gov't, its effectiveness is gobbled up in transfer costs and poor allocation.

come on, its not that difficult.
 

super_aloha

Michael Peterson status
Jan 11, 2006
2,343
0
0
i believe in NO bailouts, not for individuals, not for corporations, not for financial institutions, because it just perpetuates and compounds the scope of the eventual failure.
what planet do you live on?
it's sounds like a cool place to visit!
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
 

fetch

Gerry Lopez status
Jan 14, 2009
1,012
0
0
quote of the day

Political expediency is butting heads with the demons of Wall Street. Unfortunately, those demons are responsible for the mechanisms that generate economic growth and the worldwide work force.
 

fcs

Billy Hamilton status
Nov 5, 2006
1,443
0
0
Another Quote of the day by HT:
"rich people don't hoarde their money under the mattress, unless the gov't threatens to take it! they put it into investment vehicles, and these vehicles are the capital pools that small businesses draw from to expand, or open, or create jobs, or even promote their current employees."

Rich people go to cash when the market is in trouble. Unfortunately there's nowhere to invest right now, so they are playing the waiting game just like everybody else.

If you think rich people are aggressively reinvesting in their business right now you are on another planet. Not one bit of evidence of that happening. If you have something to back up your claim (for the situation we're in right now), let's see it. Not even Warren Buffet is spending $ on his enterprises.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
Another Quote of the day by HT:
"rich people don't hoarde their money under the mattress, unless the gov't threatens to take it! they put it into investment vehicles, and these vehicles are the capital pools that small businesses draw from to expand, or open, or create jobs, or even promote their current employees."

Rich people go to cash when the market is in trouble. Unfortunately there's nowhere to invest right now, so they are playing the waiting game just like everybody else.

If you think rich people are aggressively reinvesting in their business right now you are on another planet. Not one bit of evidence of that happening. If you have something to back up your claim (for the situation we're in right now), let's see it. Not even Warren Buffet is spending $ on his enterprises.
dude, you are making my point for me!!!

the gov't is threatening to confiscate, and so excess liquidity is being held in cash!

nobody is investing because they are concerned about liquidity and returns, especially given the direction obama has signaled!

this is dangerous for two reasons: one, it reduces current capital availability, and two, it increases future inflationary pressure.

we are on the verge of a currency collapse, and obama and the democrats are hell-bent on bringing it about, following right up on what bush, pelosi, and reid started, but at a faster rate!!!

this is insanity.

again, good luck finding funding if you are an individual with dreams about maximizing your talents and ambitions.

capitalism works, if you let it.

right now, the whole concept has been mangled by political interests.
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
again, good luck finding funding if you are an individual with dreams about maximizing your talents and ambitions.
I have more work than I can handle this year. If you are Rick Santelli and not making anything with your own two hands, but speculating and playing with monopoly money, you are fücked. Good.

capitalism works, if you let it.
Yeah, we've never tried that before. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />
 

fcs

Billy Hamilton status
Nov 5, 2006
1,443
0
0
Gov't is not "confiscating" anyone's money. The have's and have more's are going to have to help with a economic emergency, because they are financially able.

Nothing I have read indicates we're in a currency meltdown. Good use of buzzwords. Not working.
 

toreador

Phil Edwards status
Apr 1, 2006
6,052
0
0
socal beachbreak barrels
Gov't is not "confiscating" anyone's money. The have's and have more's are going to have to help with a economic emergency, because they are financially able.

Nothing I have read indicates we're in a currency meltdown. Good use of buzzwords. Not working.
that's exactly what taxes are, by definition; a confiscation of earnings!!!

otherwise, i agree 100%, and this is why gov't should not be confiscating their money for political programs and agendas (which only erodes the value of the money and its ability to spur production) and instead should let them know that they are free to invest their money in our economy, suffering the failure of bad investments, but making up for it with the good.

gov't has no right to take money from the productive in order to hand it over to individuals or groups or businesses that cannot get the money on the merits of the business plan or products it wants to produce.

this is just political cronyism and a waste of hard-earned dollars.

your perspective is that the fundamental purpose of our lives is to fund a gov't, and that the gov't has the right to your hard work and the fruits of your labor in order to fund its vast network of programs and bureacracies.

my perspective is the real, constitutional vision of america, which values the individual and protects the individual and the states above what is supposed to be a very limited federal system, for the express purpose of preserving individual liberty and freedom.

finally, you should look at what causes currency collapses from a historical perspective, and then try to figure out how we are well down the well-established path of such an event.

is it inevitable? no. is it becoming increasingly likely? yes. what are the chances? impossible to gauge, but there is unbelievable amounts of cash just sitting out there, and as soon as markets start to rebound well, and as durable goods and capital equipment orders start coming in after a long period of over-extension of current equipment, we will see BIGTIME inflation.

it is hard to guage, but an economic recovery spurring runaway inflation is close to inevitable.

if it hits a critical mass, and if in the interim our monetary base increases (for a host of reasons, including debt, deficit, and calls) then we will have a currency collapse.

obama's plan to increase the debt and deficit to unprecedented levels since WWII is insanity squared!

this is why he intends for it to happen, or rather, doesn't care, in order to bring about an anti, or counter-revolution that increases the federal gov'ts power irrevocably.

only idiots want an uber-powerful fed.
 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
that's exactly what taxes are, by definition; a confiscation of earnings!!!
Glad that you don't mind your insurance and mortgage companies "confiscating" your earnings every month. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/foreheadslap.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

You are paying for a service dumbo. If you don't like it, buy a deserted island and live on your own. See how well off you'd be without the society you so hate to contribute back to. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/00000054.gif" alt="" />