" It happened because through mandates and regulation we started making having employees more of a liability than an asset."
obviously you don't care about worker safety and product safety which AGAIN private companies have prove time and time again that they cannot regulate themselves, hence THE NEED for regulation by a RESPONSIBLE society... the choices are either to allow companies to operate without regard to their workers, costumers and enviropnment, to regulat or to national them... and ignorance isn't an option so which of the later two would you prefer regulatuion or nationalization as they are the ONLY responsible options... though i doubt you care about responsibility given your arguements.
sure it is,, the profit margin might have to go from 30% to 25% but it will still be perfectly viable... this is why i said save those arguements for someone who IS ignorant.
B) gain i never said readical tax increase i said TAXES INCREAS AND THEY DID... ITS A FACT... deal with it... the economy did and was better off for it... and thats also a fact you can ignore fact all you want but they don't seize to be fact because you don't like them or even ignore them altogether.
C) "If gold is always worth the same (at least in relation to inflation) then the price of it would be stable, which it is not. The price of gold has historically been all over the chart." no again gold is the same value its always been... the dollar which is the currency gold is bought is near constantly goes down, ahence the DOLLAR value of gold flucuates... if you can't understand this than its no wonder you can't grasp the economy, you can even grasp the economy of thousands of wears when gold was the primar currency, again for the reason i mentioned which you believe to be wrong.
"Cavemen: None of the caveman drawings in existence show gold or other things we today consider valuable"
again the concepty of hyperbole is completely lost on you,,, that or you only read a small part of what i wrote and responded (again indicative of ignorance)
"Raising taxes is a fact of life. Unfortunately, it's not going to work. (See Laffer Curve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve) If your taxes go up, is your employer going to give you more money to pay them? Mine won't be. What will happen is that I will stop spending money elsewhere in the economy and other people will lose their jobs and stop paying taxes. "
again proof youer nor comprehending what being said... TAXES ON THE RICH would go up and not nearly to what they used to be (again a fact you ignore because then you'd have to admit the economy was better under higher taxes and that jobs actually left the country faster when taxes were going down which prove your arguement wrong, not surprising since reagonomics clearly never worked andthat is what you support, infact you seem to support a most extreme version of reaganomics that reagan did as even he had to raise taxes (once or twice (and lower them to get re-elected) to keep the economy from crumbling completely since much like the current leadership and all leadership since and even prior to reagan have refused to cut the military budget again NECESSITATING higher taxes, unless of course you plan to borrow money until the end of time (which is the legacy of reaganomics as they couldn't afford taxes as low as they were hence the national debt has skyrocketed since.. i'm sure you'll deny this but its the sad reality.
". At some point, I'm going to realize that it's not worth it for me to work so hard if the bulk of that work goes to taxes, and the government will collect even less. "
aagain save that arguement for someone whom IS ignorant... or atleast not workering their ass off for minimum wage just so his fat cat employers can maximize their profit so they can sit a a fortune of wealth while the people actually doing work can barely afford to live... so save that for the ignorant... because again i was talking (and EXPLICITLY outlined) it was needed to have higher tax rate on the rich via higher tax brackets.. if your goign to reply atleast know what and the context of what you're replying to, as every response if only making you look more ignorant esspecially as increasing its appearing that your flat out not comprehending what is being said.
"Raising taxes does not equate with more revenue. That's been proven time and time again."
actually that's EXACTLY what it does it increase PUBLIC (tax) revenue thats where the revenue comes from th the first place... do you have any idea how dumb that comment was?
i agree spending is the problem, namely military spending (as i've mention atleast twice before already, infact i even cited it as a way to pay for this) hence why taxes have to go up, because spennding ISN'T going down, at at the moment the stimulas is propping up the economy above what it actually would be because at the moment public (governemnt) spending is what keeping the economy on the tracks and even those wheels are goign to be grinding to a halt, esspecially with the unemployment benifit extension program being shot down by republicans.
and your right about ione thing you'll never be able to catch up in the current paradiam, however again you refuse to admit that its because taxes are simply too low for the spending... instead you think taxes are already too high which once you learn the historical context (which again i provided) is completely laughable and it only used by people that frankly don't know what their talking about, as again taxes up the wealtheist corporation USED TO BE 92% they are only 35% now... so anyone that thinks current taxes are the problem simply doesn't understand economics and are unable to think of the simple solution to outsourcing (harsh tariffs).
"I think there should be no taxes on income. Only consumption. This is for several reasons: To encourage productivity. To discourage consumption."
well thats nice, you live in your dream world, i on the other hand have to live and deal with reality... taxes are a reality required to run a country much less each district of each state, many of whom currently already don't have enough tax revenue for current spending. yet most people are complaining about harsh taxation (which might i add is non-exist in the US since the 50's and 60's and even then (again )the economy was thriving nothing experience death throes.
BTW, i used to share the same opionion in this respect but then i realized societies cannot operate on consumption tax alone unless that tax was so crippling that the poor couldn't afford to eat,which is already increasing becomming a reality as outsourcing is allowed to continue unabated.
"But the biggest reason is because we are now state where less than half of the country pays income taxes at all."
because most workers are getting less (after inflation) then they were when the tax rates were 70-90%, hence they make so little that they fall below the tax bracket... if they have a job at all (as a result of unpunished outsourcing).... and of course (again as already been mentioned) the rich often get out of paying taxes (sometime completely) via exploiting tax loopholes which often requiring retaining a tax lawyer to find and exploit.... oddly enough all are arguement for a higher tax rate, not a lower tax rate, and certianly not the elimination of income tax.
"You're clearly occupy the "envy" part of the argument. I'm not surprised. Sad, on multiple levels."
no i don't envy the rich,,, i simply think they should be forced to pay their fair share back to the system, which frankly when spending is as high as it is is MUCH more the 35% esspecially after all the tax breaks and loopholes... i'm clearly not a greedy a person as you, i'd be happing just being comfortable in life for a change rather thasn always skidding by no matter how hard or how many hours i work, sometimes i wonder why i should even bother when i'm not ever being paid a fair wage, just so rich people can continually get rich at the expense of people like myself.
"You solution to the "strike" problem is laughable."
you think so eh? but if they go on strike that is IMMEDIATE, UNREFUTABLE grounds from their dismal, personally i just fire them all and fire back new ones, and they would be retainign their extortionary wage increases either, their wage would instead be directly link to minimum wage hence their wage can only go up when minimum wage goes up which should be a given on all level of public jobs and public office, instead they get an exhorbant wage paid for by cheating their workers by paying them the lowest amount that is legal to be paid.
and FYI, that was also my solution to the NHL strike... i'm all for collective bargining, but mor often than not they are intrestined in collective bargin but rather extortion through the ignorant belief that they can't be replaced, which they can, often in less than 24 hours time, esspecially in the current economy.
"Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Reagan for firing the illegally striking air traffic controllers in '81"
well score one for reagan... its still about 1000:1, but atleast he's got one good point...lol... i didn't know about that one (was before my time), but i damn sure support it in retrospect.
"It would be wonderful if the bulk of our taxes paid for the things you seem to think they do."
oh i know alot of it is waste... like military spending (that culd be cut down by 2/3's and still be higher than any other nation and that doesn't even cover "discretionary spending", currently military spending is the biggest source of spending at 23% of the federal budget.) socialized medicine eats up a fair bit (19%) but does cover nearly 100 million people even before the latest healthcare bill (and in fairness the US is spending up to 100% for for healthcare per person than other countries, and most of that wasted money if from doctor running as many tests as possible rather than only as many as needed in order to drive up their profit and hence drive up the cost of socialized healthcare in the US (which most other countries don't have a problem with), like TARRP (which would have been better spent just giving all that money directly to the people with the debt with the stipulation that their portion MUST be used solely again their debt, becasue with the way TARRP worked, now they still have the debt (and have probably since lost their house and possibly their vehicle to) and bank still aren't lending which would spur the economy, 2009's TARRP portion was 4%. 5% of the federal spending goes to intrest (thank the unconstitutional federal reserve act for that; and canada has the same problem with respect to intrest payments), whereas if they used the framework for national borrowing outlined by the constitution which explicitly given the right to printing and control of the money supply to the federal governemnt not a private bank (the federal reserve; as federally associated as Fedex) no intrest would EVER be paid hence saving the US $187 billion (a figure which increase virtually every years (aside from the last 3 years of clinton, at which it slightly went down from where it was the years before)... so right there the US could EASILY cut 20% from its spending, but of course even then taxes would probably still have to go up just to be stable... much less to pay back the national debt which will NEVER happen unless spending drops atleast 50% for a few decade at the current GDP and tax rate or unless taxes go up significantly on the rich, or moderately on everyone (keep in mind that under obama 95% of people are paying less tax than they were before, yet the 5% want it to seems as if everyone's taxes have gone up and its just crippling them).
"No, I'd be much better off paying for my own health care and retirement. And in fact, I am."
well than obviously your well off... most people aren't, and this is increasing becomming true... and btw, paying for your own rather into a large pool is ALWAYS the lesast efficent way to do anything, that why socialized healthcare is much cheaper than private healthcare, and while national retirement fund and more stable than personal retiremewnt fund, even social security in the US..
its always good to have a backup plan for healthcare and retirement, and frankly i would want to rely on a least economical, least stable method possibly... and frankly people like me who make minimum wage (probably, not definately as i don't know what you do for work) will never be able to afford private healthcare or a retirement plan that can replace that national (or provincial in the case of healthcare for me) plan.. and i'd rather have the public plan than nothing even IF the private plan was superior to the public plan dollar for dollar, which it never is.... infact, i wish they go the one step further can nationalize healthcare outright not just "basic care" and only on the provincial level (when is more expensive than it would be on the federal level).
and no your not better off paying for your own... you just fell better off... its call the illusion of security...ithat how private insurance companies get rich, by selling the illusion of security. and just remeber than unless that healthcare bill has already went into effect your insurance company can cancel you possible at any time just for you getting sick or injured... they probably wont... but it has already happened to tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people... again its only an illusion.... feel free to pay more for less and feel better about it, but at the end of the day your still paying more for less dollar for dollar, so in reality you really aren't any better off... you just feel better, and maybe that feeling is worth the extra money, to me i'm too poor feel better about being screwed at much more, just so someone that barely works and contributes nothing to the betterment or the production of society can stay high on the hog.
California is a state slated for extremely ambitious high-speed rail development. However, the state is also a raucous one, with many different and vocal interest groups. So it’s no surprise that the debate on the viability of bullet trains within the Golden State has begun to heat up in a big way.
For its part, CALPIRG points out that “high-speed rail systems in other nations have dramatically reduced air travel and significantly reduced intercity car travel.” According to the report, California could likewise see a reduction in congestion on the roads and at airports.
