Catch-22

2

Comments

  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    spyguy wrote:
    he has promised to cut spending. will it be enough? no. will he even do that? I dont know, I hope so.

    obama, however, has promised to raise spending.


    I hear ya...it's a tough decision.

    I'm not sure why people find it so hard to understand that cutting spending should come first...not raising taxes.

    If you don't have enough $ at the end of the month, do you reduce your spending, or do you go and take more money from your boss?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    it doesnt strike fewar, it strikes anger.



    socialism doesnt work



    you should take a closer look.



    and you think raising taxes will help?

    Tax stimulus checks and gas tax holidays don't help either.

    We can't all own oil and utility companies, or sell pharmaceuticals or peddle necessities at extreme profits. Looks like capitalism isn't working either. I've been offered to transfer my farm to a conglomerate, which has become quite the trend here lately. So in actuallity the current economy is socializing the American farmer. I can't afford gas so I have to make do with growing crops, rising costs and less $ because I can't compete with the mega farms. It's kinda like when Wal-Mart moves into your neighborhood and fucks the local economy.

    Then you apply for assistance... What a joke!!! The futures market kills us and the banks want 10+% on your next 30 years.


    I guess we could sell our 100+ years of lifestyle out to the mega farms for 1/3 the value. We can stay in our home and still work our land. But then we'd have to still pay rent on a floating agreement. But hey at least we don't have to pay for diesel...

    Yeah, the current situation works great for me... Let's keep it!!!!
    the Minions
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    the bottom line is...
    If someone makes $1,000,000 they can afford to pay more taxes, and should.

    People that make $25,000 are poor, and still pay taxes...
    a little more at the bottom and a little less at the top is a better situation for everyone...

    and it doesn't hurt the economy...
    the Minions
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    the bottom line is...
    If someone makes $1,000,000 they can afford to pay more taxes, and should.

    People that make $25,000 are poor, and still pay taxes...
    a little more at the bottom and a little less at the top is a better situation for everyone...

    and it doesn't hurt the economy...

    wow. they should??? why? - if anything please tell me WHY.


    look at it this way, that person who makes a million a year mostly likely owns his/her own business. would you rather raise that persons taxes or allow that person to invest his own money back into his business and hire more people.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    wow. they should??? why? - if anything please tell me WHY.


    look at it this way, that person who makes a million a year mostly likely owns his/her own business. would you rather raise that persons taxes or allow that person to invest his own money back into his business and hire more people.

    No way.... those business owners are going to spend $25,000 to put a marble floor in their bathroom or buy a house on the lake way before they consider putting their profits back into their business or hiring more people...
    the Minions
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    No way.... those business owners are going to spend $25,000 to put a marble floor in their bathroom or buy a house on the lake way before they consider putting their profits back into their business or hiring more people...

    thats simply not true. do you have prove to back this up? of course not. but you didnt answer my question. why should they pay more?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    cincybearcat wrote:
    I hear ya...it's a tough decision.

    I'm not sure why people find it so hard to understand that cutting spending should come first...not raising taxes.

    If you don't have enough $ at the end of the month, do you reduce your spending, or do you go and take more money from your boss?

    #1 spending is defitely on "defense" ... will a republican ever cut spending in that department? ... so, in all likelihood - mccain will cut spending on things like education or health care or something of that nature ...

    is that a good thing overall for the country?
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    thats simply not true. do you have prove to back this up? of course not. but you didnt answer my question. why should they pay more?

    Yeah, I'm a business owner myself, most of my friends and aquaintences as well as family are all business owners... Farms, real esate, insurance, hotels etc.

    We're all looking back at the gravy years wishing we'd have done a little more for our business.. If I had the $60000 I used 6 years ago to dig an inground swimming pool that we hardly use things might have been different...

    So back to your tax question...

    I'm a small farmer, that means I still have to have a million dollars a year to keep the farm going... Very hard to do when I'm taxed the same as corporate farm X who can out produce me 100 to 1 in my area... Therefore they can undercut me on everything at market... If I paid less taxes I could make it... If they paid more then possibly they couldn't continue to grow exponentially yearly and continue to squeeze me out...

    I'm trying to do everything right... I only hire on local hands, never migrant workers.... This is aseperate issue but it ass rapes me as well...

    What's your solution...? I'd like to hear it.
    the Minions
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Yeah, I'm a business owner myself, most of my friends and aquaintences as well as family are all business owners... Farms, real esate, insurance, hotels etc.

    We're all looking back at the gravy years wishing we'd have done a little more for our business.. If I had the $60000 I used 6 years ago to dig an inground swimming pool that we hardly use things might have been different...

    So back to your tax question...

    I'm a small farmer, that means I still have to have a million dollars a year to keep the farm going... Very hard to do when I'm taxed the same as corporate farm X who can out produce me 100 to 1 in my area... Therefore they can undercut me on everything at market... If I paid less taxes I could make it... If they paid more then possibly they couldn't continue to grow exponentially yearly and continue to squeeze me out...

    I'm trying to do everything right... I only hire on local hands, never migrant workers.... This is aseperate issue but it ass rapes me as well...

    What's your solution...? I'd like to hear it.

    I'm confused. you make a million a year? if you paid less taxes u could make it? so why are u ok with higher taxes?
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    nope.
    for the first time in a long time, i am hopeful.
    a-ok many don't see it the same, i just hope that hope wins out.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    polaris wrote:
    #1 spending is defitely on "defense" ... will a republican ever cut spending in that department? ... so, in all likelihood - mccain will cut spending on things like education or health care or something of that nature ...

    is that a good thing overall for the country?


    Yes.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    I'm confused. you make a million a year? if you paid less taxes u could make it? so why are u ok with higher taxes?

    No, we don't make a million $ a year profit, but we have 2000+ acres and it takes a million $ per year to make it work...the past four years we have been operating at a loss... this year looks better :)


    I'm sorry you can't relate.

    If we make a profit of over $75000 we are taxed the same as corporate farms that bring in millions.

    I'm saying they have more advantages because they make more money than I do. If I don't make $200,000 (living income) this year I may have to apply for assistance again this year or be forced to make other career changes.

    If you are wealthy in this country you really have to screw the pooch not to stay wealthy. Every program is designed to help the wealthy stay wealthy in this country.

    Two years ago after hurricane Katrina, we applied for soybean rust aid and got a $10000 relief check. That didn't even cover but 400 acres out of 5000 acres we had problems in. We were told the money wasn't there and we were fortunate to get what we did. Corporate farms X nationwide got over $63,000,000 (that's 63 million) for soybean rust assistance from the hurricane. That's how your tax dollars work... mostly helping the wealthy and not the poor.... my farms could dry up and no one cares it's a drop in the bucket.... but let the big farms go down and it's a national crisis (I understand this) but if they go to market with 200 million bushels they're going to operate at quite a substantially less profit margin than I can therefore they can essentially put me out of business over the course of a few years. Since they already hire cheap and sometimes illegal labor that they don't pay taxes for I don't think they should be given tax breaks that places them at a distinct advantage over me. Point is the Corporations should pay more taxes OR be accountable for being more fiscally responsible in the market in a fairness to all scenarion (which of course will never happen) and they need to be held accountable for pissing all over monopoly and other trade laws.

    ...just sayin
    the Minions
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Obama and McCain are different. even if both their foreign policies suck, think domestically. The president appoints DOJ members, Supreme Court Justices, judges, etc... right now, the law in the U.S. is being incredibly abused by members of the DOJ, the attorney generals were/are all insane... atleast Obama will significantly change domestic law.
  • decides2dream
    decides2dream Posts: 14,977
    _outlaw wrote:
    Obama and McCain are different. even if both their foreign policies suck, think domestically. The president appoints DOJ members, Supreme Court Justices, judges, etc... right now, the law in the U.S. is being incredibly abused by members of the DOJ, the attorney generals were/are all insane... atleast Obama will significantly change domestic law.


    :eek:
    what i want to know is who in the hell took over outlaw's username?! ;)





    seriously, while i may not agree on all points per se....i agree overall, in theory. just shocked to see a nader supporter so clearly and definitively....and finally ;) acknowledge the differences, and the importance of such.



    carry on...........
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    spyguy wrote:
    thats simply not true. do you have prove to back this up? of course not. but you didnt answer my question. why should they pay more?

    the proof is the 1980's. it amazes me that people still think reagan's trickle down economics bullshit is sound economics.

    the fact is, american capitalism as we know it is dying. we cannot compete with foreign markets anymore. wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth. the middle and lower classes are being gutted as the money goes UP, not trickles down. we're headed for catastrophe if we cling to this belief that somehow not taxing INDIVIDUAL income (those rich people use their personal income for stock investment, not job expansion in their companies) will resurrect or maintain our economy. the current approach to taxes is just like a store burning through inventory before closing. we're just cutting our losses and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    No, we don't make a million $ a year profit, but we have 20000+ acres and it takes a million $ per year to make it work...the past four years we have been operating at a loss... this year looks better :)


    I'm sorry you can't relate.

    If we make a profit of over $75000 we are taxed the same as corporate farms that bring in millions.

    I'm saying they have more advantages because they make more money than I do. If I don't make $200,000 (living income) this year I may have to apply for assistance again this year or be forced to make other career changes.

    If you are wealthy in this country you really have to screw the pooch not to stay wealthy. Every program is designed to help the wealthy stay wealthy in this country.

    Two years ago after hurricane Katrina, we applied for soybean rust aid and got a $10000 relief check. That didn't even cover but 400 acres out of 5000 acres we had problems in. We were told the money wasn't there and we were fortunate to get what we did. Corporate farms X nationwide got over $63,000,000 (that's 63 million) for soybean rust assistance from the hurricane. That's how your tax dollars work... mostly helping the wealthy and not the poor.... my farms could dry up and no one cares it's a drop in the bucket.... but let the big farms go down and it's a national crisis (I understand this) but if they go to market with 200 million bushels they're going to operate at quite a substantially less profit margin than I can therefore they can essentially put me out of business over the course of a few years. Since they already hire cheap and sometimes illegal labor that they don't pay taxes for I don't think they should be given tax breaks that places them at a distinct advantage over me. Point is the Corporations should pay more taxes OR be accountable for being more fiscally responsible in the market in a fairness to all scenarion (which of course will never happen) and they need to be held accountable for pissing all over monopoly and other trade laws.

    ...just sayin

    I can relate, I just didnt understand what u meant at first, now I do. thank you for clarifying.

    but a farm that makes a million a year does pay more in taxes then you. by % and by dollar amount. does it not?
  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    harrymanback wrote:
    Catch-22 is simply a no win situation -- and i think in my case (like the movie) there is circular logic as i want the pres to not be a rebulican, but the one who speaks about change has no experience, but the one with experience does not know where he is when he lands, so i go with the other option, but he will hurt my wallet, so i go with the rebublican, and we start all over again.

    as for not voting for either of them, i am in jersey, so that is an option since my vote is practically meaningless.

    the book is SO much better than the movie!
    and like that... he's gone.
  • spyguy
    spyguy Posts: 613
    catch22 wrote:
    the proof is the 1980's. it amazes me that people still think reagan's trickle down economics bullshit is sound economics.

    the fact is, american capitalism as we know it is dying. we cannot compete with foreign markets anymore. wage gaps over the last 8 years have been increasing at alarming rates. this is dangerous. we are dependent on a service economy, and that means we need a wide base of consumers. that means we need broad wealth. the middle and lower classes are being gutted as the money goes UP, not trickles down. we're headed for catastrophe if we cling to this belief that somehow not taxing INDIVIDUAL income (those rich people use their personal income for stock investment, not job expansion in their companies) will resurrect or maintain our economy. the current approach to taxes is just like a store burning through inventory before closing. we're just cutting our losses and anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.

    and when has tax and spend worked? I'm not saying trickle down ploicy is the answer. I'm not here promoting McCain's tax ideas. he has promised to not raise taxes and cut spending. do I think he will? probably not. I do know however that Obama will raise taxes for the rich and increase spending. an utter disaster IMO
  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    spyguy wrote:
    and when has tax and spend worked? I'm not saying trickle down ploicy is the answer. I'm not here promoting McCain's tax ideas. he has promised to not raise taxes and cut spending. do I think he will? probably not. I do know however that Obama will raise taxes for the rich and increase spending. an utter disaster IMO

    "tax and spend" worked ok for clinton. shit, he managed a balanced budget when he had the help of republicans who actually knew how to address spending. the line item veto should never have been overruled. but he wasn't exactly axing important federal programs to do it.

    i've not heard the specifics of obama's plans, but i'm wondering how much increased spending we're talking versus taxes. i also suspect some of the "increased" spending is simply going to be moving some funding from defense to education and the like. unless you're talking about universal health care, which i'm sure will never get off the ground.

    in any case, i'm all for the prospect that maybe we'll take in as much as we spend regardless of the wisdom of high spending, a balanced budget is better than crippling debt. and i know for a fact spending will increase on mccain's watch as much as ever. i prefer a real attempt to balance a budget to more republican bullshit pipe dreams like "we'll reduce spending, i swear! just vote for this huge tax cut for the top 5% first!"
    and like that... he's gone.
  • Strangest Tribe
    Strangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    I can relate, I just didnt understand what u meant at first, now I do. thank you for clarifying.

    but a farm that makes a million a year does pay more in taxes then you. by % and by dollar amount. does it not?

    Yes they pay more $$$ but the % has been the same or less since 2002, plus naturally they don't tax federal assistance or such huge windfalls... this goes for most corporate government handouts
    the Minions

Categories