All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Good luck with that.
my point with this is that peoples will to work is being eroded. if people can get enough assistance to not work or work very little what is the motivation to work harder? many times you work harder and the payoff isnt immediate. its quicker to have the government do things for you. this stumps that persons ability/drive to do better. hence it is eroding the american work drive. im not saying its killing it
...yet.
Obviously one can reach a point where that's true. OTOH, there are countries in northern Europe that are much, much more welfare states than America is, and have been for a long time, yet they continue to be highly productive nations with high standards of living and happy citizens.
At the other end of the scale, you could look at a country like Japan, where there's an almost pathological work ethic, and their economy's been in the crapper for, what, nearly 10 years now?
I've been looking for this article for a while now and finally came back across it... It's a good read and points out in much less words than I ever could some of the "problems" with our current "capitalism"...
Now don't get me wrong... I'm not insinuating that I think a full out socialist system would be better for us, but I DO (As the author of that article states) think that there are so many that argue about our great "capitalist" system that fail to see that it only seems to be capitalist for everyone but the "elite"...
"Capitalism unchecked has given us Big Oil, Blood Diamonds, Enron and Halliburton. They have given us Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and the Wall of Death on the U.S.-Mexico border."
"Today, the United States is the leader in a number of shameful statistics: the highest percentage and total numbers of its population in prison, the highest consumption of the world's natural resources, the only industrialized nation without universal health care, the biggest military budget. It seems that the greatest product that the United States is capable of producing today is war, and this makes us a very dangerous country. Our primary role in the global community is as a mercenary army in the interests of big business."
"And while we're at it, let's just be clear that the free market capitalism we have seen in the United States is by no means "free." In reality, the U.S. economy functions as a form of socialism for the rich. Taxpayers have bailed out the savings and loan industry, banks and airlines. We finance at least two federal social security programs: the one to which most of us contribute through each paycheck, and the one for United Airlines employees (since that company no longer pays its pension obligations). We give huge government contracts to the prison and military industrial complexes, and increasingly to private education and health care companies."
"Today, the United States is the leader in a number of shameful statistics: the highest percentage and total numbers of its population in prison, the highest consumption of the world's natural resources, the only industrialized nation without universal health care, the biggest military budget. It seems that the greatest product that the United States is capable of producing today is war, and this makes us a very dangerous country. Our primary role in the global community is as a mercenary army in the interests of big business."
there are more than a few issues with this. we have the higest total number of people in prison. thats true. there are a few reasons for that. 1) we have a large population. 2)we have the nicest prison system in the world. and by that i mean most humane. we dont chop off hands, heads, testicles, other assorted body parts. we also dont kill that many prisoners. If a criminal gets caught they dont have as much fear as some other places. not all. but some. percentage wise... yeah, that does kinda suck. dont get me wrong im not saying we NEED to do those brutal practices, they just deter people more. and liking inmates quickly reduces the population.
the highest consumption of the worlds natural resources.... i once read that we consume 1/4 of the resources being used in the world but our popilation is only something like 1/10 of the world (maybe smaller) yeah, that sounds bad, but we are the most productive nation in the world. I would like to see a number of what percentage of the total world output is from the US. ...and no matter how you look at it the world economy depends greatly and pretty much hinges on the US economy. what is shamefull about us using so much? nothing because it creates so much good for so many people worldwide. the only nation without universal health care... hmmm thats true. we also have some of the most advanced medicines, tools, and research teams in the world. we also have fewer number and percentage of people crossing out boarders to get medical attention in other countries. the biggest military budget: yes we also have arguably the most advanced army. and the big one: our citizens feel safe from outside attacks. the security in the US is almost unmatched. few, if any, countries would be able to beat us in a war. this may be what keeps us from being invaded. peace through power. i hardly find that shameful.
"Our primary role in the global community is as a mercenary army in the interests of big business." do you think that if the iraq war was really about oil we wouldnt already have it? we woulda gone in there, wiped out everything as fast as we could built oil rigs and we would have gas below $1. now lest go back in time to other major conflicts. The first Gulf war: we didnt take over Iraq then either. we did help Kuait at their request. was oil involved? yes. most wars do start due to land and resources. did we steal them? no. do we use them? yes. it there something wrong with trying to maintain our lifestyle and economy? no.
Vietnam... yea, that was all about oil. it was all about stopping the advance of communism.
Korea: the same
WWII... uh, stopping Hitler and Imperialist Japan?
that entire quote was just a load of American Hate yes, there are problems with the system. no system ever is perfect. but that system has made the US one of the greatest, most powerful,
successful, most coveted nations in the world with people trying to get here by the millions illegally if they have to. If you like the European style social system then go there.
"And while we're at it, let's just be clear that the free market capitalism we have seen in the United States is by no means "free." In reality, the U.S. economy functions as a form of socialism for the rich. Taxpayers have bailed out the savings and loan industry, banks and airlines. We finance at least two federal social security programs: the one to which most of us contribute through each paycheck, and the one for United Airlines employees (since that company no longer pays its pension obligations). We give huge government contracts to the prison and military industrial complexes, and increasingly to private education and health care companies."
this is sadly true. i dont want any more socialism. the country is already in too much debt. when will it end?
yeah, that sounds bad, but we are the most productive nation in the world.
All good points... However, I still find myself pondering this... If we are in fact that most productive nation in the world (and by all means I'm not arguing for a moment that we aren't) then why is it that our wealth distribution is the way it is? It's not the 1% that do all the production...
kuzi16:
do you think that if the iraq war was really about oil we wouldnt already have it? we woulda gone in there, wiped out everything as fast as we could built oil rigs and we would have gas below $1.
Just because the entire country hasn't been converted into one big oil rig SO FAR doesn't mean it isn't on the agenda...
If the war wasn't about oil what WAS it about? WMD? Seriously???
I recall seeing some information about a US Energy report Cheney made like 6 months BEFORE the invasion ..... lemme see if I can find it....
Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary.
The US document recommends using UN weapons inspectors as a means of controlling Iraqi oil. On one hand, ‘military intervention’ is supported; but the report also backs ‘de-fanging’ Saddam through weapons inspectors and then moving in to take control of Iraqi oil.
From THIS ARTICLE which is a pretty darn good read...
And I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective... I don't think the war was so much about getting the PEOPLE of the US $1 per gallon oil as it was lining the pockets of the oil companies and those who have huge investments in that industry (*ahem* *cough* Bush *cough*)
Before 2003 what were the profits of the oil companies? What have they been since? How much gain have those markets saw???
Want more proof? How about the law that's getting ready to pass in iraq? The one that will practically hand over the profits of iraqs oil to the big oil companies? Lemme see if I can find a reference....
Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.
Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.
"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues.
And just how much oil will those agreements bring? Only 17 of iraqs 80 oil fields have ever been tapped...
With 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves,
Iraq could potentially produce far more oil than has been realized in its history. Given a
stable security situation, very large amounts of capital investment, and the involvement
of one or more large oil companies, it would be realistic to suggest potential output
ramping up to 5 or 6 million barrels per day over a period of several years.
With the "help" of the big oil companies stepping in, Iraq could EASILY step right up there side by side with Saudi Arabia...
Still think the war in Iraq wasn't about oil?!?
kuzi16:
this is sadly true. i dont want any more socialism. the country is already in too much debt. when will it end?
I just found these... I've heard a lot of talk lately about the Obama tax raises for the rich and how it'll affect our country... Have a look...
First have a look at this... The top and bottom tax brackets for the last 100 years or so...
Before WWII the low tax bracket was around what 5%? The for the war it jumped about 15% to about 20% while the high bracket jumped about 10% from 80% to about 90%...
Understandable... trying to pay for the war...
But even after the end of the war things stayed the same till around '65? Where the top bracket dropped 20% down to 70% while the lower bracket dropped only about 5% down to 15%...
Then in '81 we see ANOTHER 20% drop for the top tax bracket and maybe 3-4% drop for the lowest...
Then enter '87 or '88... The top bracket was dropped almost 25% while the low bracket was raised almost 5%...
Top bracket then raised 3-4% followed by another 8-9%....
Then came bush dropping the top bracket almost 5%...
The first question I ask myself when looking at this chart is... Obama wants to raise that top bracket by almost 5%? And he's being called socialist for it???
The top tax bracket has continued to come down and our lowest bracket has climbed...
And to go along with it, let's have a look at this...
I dunno... to me it seems pretty damn obvious what needs to be done...
Truth is, there's a substantial number of years there where the top tax bracket was 70-90%... And our country and it's industry did just fine...
Every time a raise to that bracket is mentioned all of a sudden the "S" word get's thrown around... I'm sorry but the money isn't being "Taken from the rich and given to the poor"... It's not being given to the people in those lower tax brackets... The people in that lower tax bracket are GIVING money away to the government too... That money is being used to pay the interest on our national debt and government expenditures... A big difference I'd argue...
Yes I know, universal health care and all that jazz... but we ALL benefit from that, not just the poor...
i have been known to argue points (here and other places) for the sake of.
my personal belief about why we went to Iraq is as follows:
sure, oil had something to do with it. WMDs had something to do with it, Saddam himself had something to do with it, terrorism had something to do with it, a personal grudge had something to do with it, money had something to do with it, pressure from the US people to "do something" has something to do with it, the UN inspectors had something to do with it.
some of those may or may not actually be reasons or good reasons to go to war, but i refuse to believe that the was as ONLY about oil. it is far to complex a situation to come down to that. side note on that... if the US wants more oil why dont we go after OUR OWN oil where we wouldnt have to go to war to get it and the US people in poll after poll have shown to want it? we are the only country in the world that does not let their own people go after their own resources. seems like a bit of a disconnect.
as far as taxes go, you know that i am very much a capitalist. the problem isnt the five percentage points, but that this isnt where it is going to stop. ...in my opinion. ... i mean we cant predict the future. we can debate all we want what the future holds and why we think that but only time and reality will tell. the taxes will go up and we will see what comes of it.
You know, one thing that I have not heard any info on, maybe you or someone else has, is what about extra income? I mean okay, you say the top tax bracket has a 40%, which I gather you feel is unfair. Well for me, I don't know how much exactly I get taxed for 80 hours worth of work, but when I make overtime, say 40 hours or more, HALF if not MORE is taken from that!!!!! Now that is F'd up. I work my butt off, over my 80 hours and get a broom up my butt. So anyone who makes over 100+ thousand, and millions can stick it if they complain. I know the more money I make the more I don't want to loose too, so i can see both sides, but either way I think just increasing the top 10 percent isn't the only answer. I would say 20-25% tax for a annual income under 200 thousand, then jump it up to 35% for over. And just tax extra income at the same amount, be it overtime/bonus's..
I agree with that, Feebs... Income is income is income... If you feel the need to differentiate, make a distinction between earned income vs. investment income, but I tend to disagree even with this. My bailout-bonus is going to be severely taxed, and dangit I'll be angry
EDIT: Before y'all get carried away, that last sentence was sarcasm -- attempt to get people riled up or give them a good ribbing. The first two sentences are the way I really feel.
I always understood it to be the case that the higher withholding rate on overtime and bonus income was an artifact of how withholding is calculated. That is, for each pay period, your employer has to calculate your withholding rate on the assumption that you would get the amount on that check every pay period.
So when you've got a chunk of extra income on one check, to the payroll system it looks like you got a big, fat raise, and it adjusts your withholding accordingly.
Since you didn't get a big, fat raise (unless you're Scramz), but just a one-time bonus payment or irregular overtime payment, your tax rate at tax time will be the lower one reflected on your normal-sized checks, which means the extra withholding on bonus/OT checks was excess withholding, which means it should offset the amount of tax you owe (or add to your refund). IOW, you get the money back.
Now that I think about it, Urby, you're correct. Think about when you do your taxes at the end of the year. You don't record regular pay separately from overtime pay. You simply record your pay. Therefore, if it is unfairly taxed at a higher rate, you get that back in your refund. Bonus income, however, is (I believe) taxed at a higher rate as it falls under a separate category of income.
I always understood it to be the case that the higher withholding rate on overtime and bonus income was an artifact of how withholding is calculated. That is, for each pay period, your employer has to calculate your withholding rate on the assumption that you would get the amount on that check every pay period.
So when you've got a chunk of extra income on one check, to the payroll system it looks like you got a big, fat raise, and it adjusts your withholding accordingly.
Since you didn't get a big, fat raise (unless you're Scramz), but just a one-time bonus payment or irregular overtime payment, your tax rate at tax time will be the lower one reflected on your normal-sized checks, which means the extra withholding on bonus/OT checks was excess withholding, which means it should offset the amount of tax you owe (or add to your refund). IOW, you get the money back.
Not so?
thats how i thought it worked too.
rusirius:
kuzi16:
i feel that we dont talk about the other half of the debt problem enough... spending.
how about instead of taxing more, we spend less?
Ohh believe me you won't get an argument out of me on that point!
speaking of spending less/irresponsibly... anyone see this ?
bait and switch? this isnt what the people we voted for voted for. i wasnt for the bailout when we were told what it was about. Im even more unhappy about it when i dont know what to expect out of it.
on this line of worry/fear/hope/whateverotheremotionthefuturecanhold where do you all think the bottom will be? when how why and how are we getting out?
i gotta admit, my wife and i have been having a bunch of "wort case" talks.
Urby, what you said makes sense, though if it was the case I would have got well over 3 grand back from my taxes last year, but no... So therefore I would think your wrong, or at least you could be right and I'm missing something in the filing process.
I dunno what to tell you, Feebs. I'm about as far from a tax expert as one can get, but I'm virtually certain that's how it has worked for me in the not too remote past.
I hear ya, kuz. It's unsettling for them to be changing strategies like this. Looks like the stock market didn't much appreciate it, either. Plus there's that whole GM thing. I really, really hate the idea of bailing them out. OTOH, if it's a choice between a short-term cash payout to them, or a real cratering of the economy (people keep talking about 3 million jobs), I guess I'd take the former (through gritted teeth and with a strong desire to visit Detroit and punch some people in the neck). OTOOH, that's what they told us about the last bailout -- that if we didn't approve the $700bn immediately, the economy would crater -- and that doesn't seem to have been the case. It makes a man suspicious.
Kuzi, do you get the feeling we're right in the middle of a big used car dealership? Every day we're getting news on how the bailout funds are being shifted, how they're going to be used, etc... I don't understand how this all works, but it sounds like we've given Hank Paulson a big check for a shopping spree, and he's just wandering around trying to decide where to spend it. It's sickening.
Phobes - Perhaps you should talk to an accountant about your particular situation. If your overtime is being incorrectly categorized as supplemental wages, your withholdings would be similar to those of bonuses, commissions, stock options, etc. However, when it's all said and done, and you do your year-end taxes, it's still all just income. If you aren't seeing a massive windfall from the excessive withholdings, then it is likely that you are not withholding enough on your regular periodic pay. I'm not an accountant. I don't think anybody else on here is, either. So maybe get it sorted with an expert.
Kuzi, do you get the feeling we're right in the middle of a big used car dealership? Every day we're getting news on how the bailout funds are being shifted, how they're going to be used, etc... I don't understand how this all works, but it sounds like we've given Hank Paulson a big check for a shopping spree, and he's just wandering around trying to decide where to spend it. It's sickening.
Yet are there any of us that TRUELY didn't expect it? Remember the quote I posted about it long before it ever passed that I said summed up my feelings?
"Trying to solve a problem caused by lack of regulation with a plan that has no regulation is pretty ridiculous"
I can't imagine I'm alone here??? From day 1 when this thing was passed I knew full well that just about every drop of that money would go to fattening the already fat wallets of the bank execs... Okay, sure one could argue that it hasn't gotten to that point yet, but hasn't it? It sure hasn't (in my opinion) went to the uses it was SUPPOSED to go to... I'm sure none of what's left will either...
What I can't understand is why so many people rallied for it when in general most everybody (at least that I've talked to) didn't want it to pass in the first place... Yet the day after it didn't pass the first time there was a huge fallout of people who supposedly were pissed off that it didn't pass... ???
Kuzi, do you get the feeling we're right in the middle of a big used car dealership? Every day we're getting news on how the bailout funds are being shifted, how they're going to be used, etc... I don't understand how this all works, but it sounds like we've given Hank Paulson a big check for a shopping spree, and he's just wandering around trying to decide where to spend it. It's sickening.
Yet are there any of us that TRUELY didn't expect it? Remember the quote I posted about it long before it ever passed that I said summed up my feelings?
"Trying to solve a problem caused by lack of regulation with a plan that has no regulation is pretty ridiculous"
I can't imagine I'm alone here??? From day 1 when this thing was passed I knew full well that just about every drop of that money would go to fattening the already fat wallets of the bank execs... Okay, sure one could argue that it hasn't gotten to that point yet, but hasn't it? It sure hasn't (in my opinion) went to the uses it was SUPPOSED to go to... I'm sure none of what's left will either...
What I can't understand is why so many people rallied for it when in general most everybody (at least that I've talked to) didn't want it to pass in the first place... Yet the day after it didn't pass the first time there was a huge fallout of people who supposedly were pissed off that it didn't pass... ???
I'm with you on this, I think AIG should have just had to deal with the problem themselves, and hey, if it f'd up then it should pay just like everyone else. I say that nothing is too big to fall and by keeping it alive only will make the problem come back. The thing is, the money was suppose to stabilize the companies/banks to make them be able to keep loans going, not to invest, and to hoard the funds. Well like any greedy bast**d, they did. There was a great little ad here in portland, something like when was the last time banks helped you out when you needed it? Hmmm, NEVER so I say let them fall, something will always come from the ashes. It's like a child, if you keep rewarding them when they screw up or keep bailing them out of trouble they will never learn. Puro talked about obama socializing, well using tax dollars to fund large corporations for making bad investments I would say is much more socialistic than what obama will do. Especially with such loose rules. I don't even think there was ever a plan on how to handle this.. I would love a few billion to spend.
"Trying to solve a problem caused by lack of regulation with a plan that has no regulation is pretty ridiculous"
i understand the point on this. my only retort is: the government needs to be regulated way more than the market system (generally speaking). oh! thats what the constitution is for!
...to bad it is slowly being cut up into tiny little bits...
"Trying to solve a problem caused by lack of regulation with a plan that has no regulation is pretty ridiculous"
i understand the point on this. my only retort is: the government needs to be regulated way more than the market system (generally speaking). oh! thats what the constitution is for!
...to bad it is slowly being cut up into tiny little bits...
But the market system (money) IS the government in a manner of speaking...
And at the same time the bailout money is being spent without anybody asking where it's going or what for, the Fed has made $2 trillion in loans, under authority it already had, and has refused to report who's getting the loans. (linky link)
All I was saying was that if you're trying to stimulate the economy, there are much better ways for the gov't to spend than on defense.
how about if the government doesnt take the money from the the people in the first place?
Well, like I said, "if you're trying to stimulate the economy..."
kuzi16:
im gunna stop working. i can get everything for fee anyway.
Good luck with that.
my point with this is that peoples will to work is being eroded. if people can get enough assistance to not work or work very little what is the motivation to work harder? many times you work harder and the payoff isnt immediate. its quicker to have the government do things for you. this stumps that persons ability/drive to do better. hence it is eroding the american work drive. im not saying its killing it
...yet.
Obviously one can reach a point where that's true. OTOH, there are countries in northern Europe that are much, much more welfare states than America is, and have been for a long time, yet they continue to be highly productive nations with high standards of living and happy citizens.
At the other end of the scale, you could look at a country like Japan, where there's an almost pathological work ethic, and their economy's been in the crapper for, what, nearly 10 years now?
I hate to change the subj here, but I was reading a news story and this conversation popped into my mind... the line
"At the other end of the scale, you could look at a country like Japan, where there's an almost pathological work ethic, and their economy's been in the crapper for, what, nearly 10 years now?"
That line came to mind when I read :
TOKYO — Japan's economy slid into a recession for the first time since 2001, the government said Monday, as companies sharply cut back on spending in the third quarter amid the unfolding global financial crisis.
The world's second-largest economy contracted at an annual pace of 0.4 percent in the July-September period after a declining an annualized 3.7 percent in the second quarter. That means Japan, along with the 15-nation euro-zone, is now technically in a recession, defined as two straight quarters of contraction.
That hardly sounds like and economy that has been in the crapper for the past 10 years... First recession since 2001 and they are the 2nd largest economy in the world... Not bad for a little island we nuked the living *** out of! haha
Comments
At the other end of the scale, you could look at a country like Japan, where there's an almost pathological work ethic, and their economy's been in the crapper for, what, nearly 10 years now?
Now don't get me wrong... I'm not insinuating that I think a full out socialist system would be better for us, but I DO (As the author of that article states) think that there are so many that argue about our great "capitalist" system that fail to see that it only seems to be capitalist for everyone but the "elite"...
http://www.alternet.org/story/92426/the_u.s._economy_is_socialism_for_the_rich/
1) we have a large population.
2)we have the nicest prison system in the world. and by that i mean most humane. we dont chop off hands, heads, testicles, other assorted body parts. we also dont kill that many prisoners. If a criminal gets caught they dont have as much fear as some other places. not all. but some. percentage wise... yeah, that does kinda suck. dont get me wrong im not saying we NEED to do those brutal practices, they just deter people more. and liking inmates quickly reduces the population.
the highest consumption of the worlds natural resources....
i once read that we consume 1/4 of the resources being used in the world but our popilation is only something like 1/10 of the world (maybe smaller) yeah, that sounds bad, but we are the most productive nation in the world. I would like to see a number of what percentage of the total world output is from the US. ...and no matter how you look at it the world economy depends greatly and pretty much hinges on the US economy. what is shamefull about us using so much? nothing because it creates so much good for so many people worldwide.
the only nation without universal health care... hmmm thats true. we also have some of the most advanced medicines, tools, and research teams in the world. we also have fewer number and percentage of people crossing out boarders to get medical attention in other countries.
the biggest military budget: yes we also have arguably the most advanced army. and the big one: our citizens feel safe from outside attacks. the security in the US is almost unmatched. few, if any, countries would be able to beat us in a war. this may be what keeps us from being invaded. peace through power. i hardly find that shameful.
"Our primary role in the global community is as a mercenary army in the interests of big business." do you think that if the iraq war was really about oil we wouldnt already have it? we woulda gone in there, wiped out everything as fast as we could built oil rigs and we would have gas below $1. now lest go back in time to other major conflicts. The first Gulf war: we didnt take over Iraq then either. we did help Kuait at their request. was oil involved? yes. most wars do start due to land and resources. did we steal them? no. do we use them? yes. it there something wrong with trying to maintain our lifestyle and economy? no.
Vietnam... yea, that was all about oil. it was all about stopping the advance of communism.
Korea: the same
WWII... uh, stopping Hitler and Imperialist Japan?
that entire quote was just a load of American Hate
yes, there are problems with the system. no system ever is perfect. but that system has made the US one of the greatest, most powerful, successful, most coveted nations in the world with people trying to get here by the millions illegally if they have to. If you like the European style social system then go there.
this is sadly true. i dont want any more socialism. the country is already in too much debt. when will it end?
If the war wasn't about oil what WAS it about? WMD? Seriously???
I recall seeing some information about a US Energy report Cheney made like 6 months BEFORE the invasion ..... lemme see if I can find it.... From here From THIS ARTICLE which is a pretty darn good read...
And I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective... I don't think the war was so much about getting the PEOPLE of the US $1 per gallon oil as it was lining the pockets of the oil companies and those who have huge investments in that industry (*ahem* *cough* Bush *cough*)
Before 2003 what were the profits of the oil companies? What have they been since? How much gain have those markets saw???
Want more proof? How about the law that's getting ready to pass in iraq? The one that will practically hand over the profits of iraqs oil to the big oil companies? Lemme see if I can find a reference.... From THIS ARTICLE
And just how much oil will those agreements bring? Only 17 of iraqs 80 oil fields have ever been tapped... From THIS CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS
With the "help" of the big oil companies stepping in, Iraq could EASILY step right up there side by side with Saudi Arabia...
Still think the war in Iraq wasn't about oil?!?
I just found these... I've heard a lot of talk lately about the Obama tax raises for the rich and how it'll affect our country... Have a look...
First have a look at this... The top and bottom tax brackets for the last 100 years or so...
Before WWII the low tax bracket was around what 5%? The for the war it jumped about 15% to about 20% while the high bracket jumped about 10% from 80% to about 90%...
Understandable... trying to pay for the war...
But even after the end of the war things stayed the same till around '65? Where the top bracket dropped 20% down to 70% while the lower bracket dropped only about 5% down to 15%...
Then in '81 we see ANOTHER 20% drop for the top tax bracket and maybe 3-4% drop for the lowest...
Then enter '87 or '88... The top bracket was dropped almost 25% while the low bracket was raised almost 5%...
Top bracket then raised 3-4% followed by another 8-9%....
Then came bush dropping the top bracket almost 5%...
The first question I ask myself when looking at this chart is... Obama wants to raise that top bracket by almost 5%? And he's being called socialist for it???
The top tax bracket has continued to come down and our lowest bracket has climbed...
And to go along with it, let's have a look at this...
I dunno... to me it seems pretty damn obvious what needs to be done...
Every time a raise to that bracket is mentioned all of a sudden the "S" word get's thrown around... I'm sorry but the money isn't being "Taken from the rich and given to the poor"... It's not being given to the people in those lower tax brackets... The people in that lower tax bracket are GIVING money away to the government too... That money is being used to pay the interest on our national debt and government expenditures... A big difference I'd argue...
Yes I know, universal health care and all that jazz... but we ALL benefit from that, not just the poor...
my personal belief about why we went to Iraq is as follows:
sure, oil had something to do with it. WMDs had something to do with it, Saddam himself had something to do with it, terrorism had something to do with it, a personal grudge had something to do with it, money had something to do with it, pressure from the US people to "do something" has something to do with it, the UN inspectors had something to do with it.
some of those may or may not actually be reasons or good reasons to go to war, but i refuse to believe that the was as ONLY about oil. it is far to complex a situation to come down to that.
side note on that...
if the US wants more oil why dont we go after OUR OWN oil where we wouldnt have to go to war to get it and the US people in poll after poll have shown to want it? we are the only country in the world that does not let their own people go after their own resources. seems like a bit of a disconnect.
as far as taxes go, you know that i am very much a capitalist. the problem isnt the five percentage points, but that this isnt where it is going to stop. ...in my opinion. ... i mean we cant predict the future. we can debate all we want what the future holds and why we think that but only time and reality will tell. the taxes will go up and we will see what comes of it.
i feel that we dont talk about the other half of the debt problem enough... spending.
how about instead of taxing more, we spend less?
EDIT: Before y'all get carried away, that last sentence was sarcasm -- attempt to get people riled up or give them a good ribbing. The first two sentences are the way I really feel.
So when you've got a chunk of extra income on one check, to the payroll system it looks like you got a big, fat raise, and it adjusts your withholding accordingly.
Since you didn't get a big, fat raise (unless you're Scramz), but just a one-time bonus payment or irregular overtime payment, your tax rate at tax time will be the lower one reflected on your normal-sized checks, which means the extra withholding on bonus/OT checks was excess withholding, which means it should offset the amount of tax you owe (or add to your refund). IOW, you get the money back.
Not so?
anyone see this ?
bait and switch?
this isnt what the people we voted for voted for. i wasnt for the bailout when we were told what it was about. Im even more unhappy about it when i dont know what to expect out of it.
on this line of worry/fear/hope/whateverotheremotionthefuturecanhold
where do you all think the bottom will be? when how why and how are we getting out?
i gotta admit, my wife and i have been having a bunch of "wort case" talks.
I hear ya, kuz. It's unsettling for them to be changing strategies like this. Looks like the stock market didn't much appreciate it, either. Plus there's that whole GM thing. I really, really hate the idea of bailing them out. OTOH, if it's a choice between a short-term cash payout to them, or a real cratering of the economy (people keep talking about 3 million jobs), I guess I'd take the former (through gritted teeth and with a strong desire to visit Detroit and punch some people in the neck). OTOOH, that's what they told us about the last bailout -- that if we didn't approve the $700bn immediately, the economy would crater -- and that doesn't seem to have been the case. It makes a man suspicious.
Phobes - Perhaps you should talk to an accountant about your particular situation. If your overtime is being incorrectly categorized as supplemental wages, your withholdings would be similar to those of bonuses, commissions, stock options, etc. However, when it's all said and done, and you do your year-end taxes, it's still all just income. If you aren't seeing a massive windfall from the excessive withholdings, then it is likely that you are not withholding enough on your regular periodic pay. I'm not an accountant. I don't think anybody else on here is, either. So maybe get it sorted with an expert.
"Trying to solve a problem caused by lack of regulation with a plan that has no regulation is pretty ridiculous"
I can't imagine I'm alone here??? From day 1 when this thing was passed I knew full well that just about every drop of that money would go to fattening the already fat wallets of the bank execs... Okay, sure one could argue that it hasn't gotten to that point yet, but hasn't it? It sure hasn't (in my opinion) went to the uses it was SUPPOSED to go to... I'm sure none of what's left will either...
What I can't understand is why so many people rallied for it when in general most everybody (at least that I've talked to) didn't want it to pass in the first place... Yet the day after it didn't pass the first time there was a huge fallout of people who supposedly were pissed off that it didn't pass... ???
the government needs to be regulated way more than the market system (generally speaking).
oh! thats what the constitution is for!
...to bad it is slowly being cut up into tiny little bits...
Who do these fuckers think they are?
Government Dumping Money Down a Huge Hole
... so funny i cried.
"At the other end of the scale, you could look at a country like Japan, where there's an almost pathological work ethic, and their economy's been in the crapper for, what, nearly 10 years now?"
That line came to mind when I read :
TOKYO — Japan's economy slid into a recession for the first time since 2001, the government said Monday, as companies sharply cut back on spending in the third quarter amid the unfolding global financial crisis.
The world's second-largest economy contracted at an annual pace of 0.4 percent in the July-September period after a declining an annualized 3.7 percent in the second quarter. That means Japan, along with the 15-nation euro-zone, is now technically in a recession, defined as two straight quarters of contraction.
That hardly sounds like and economy that has been in the crapper for the past 10 years... First recession since 2001 and they are the 2nd largest economy in the world... Not bad for a little island we nuked the living *** out of! haha
thanks for the info.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452985,00.html