Wal-Mart: 50 Years of Gutting America's Middle Class

KimW

12 years ago

I boycott Walmart. Period.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6566719].message }}

johndino16 12 years ago

I boycott Walmart. Period.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6573503].message }}

OnlinePimp

12 years ago

Some of their prices are tempting though lol

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567177].message }}

waterotter 12 years ago

Originally Posted by OnlinePimp

Some of their prices are tempting though lol

Affiliate links in sig files are tempting too, but NOT allowed.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567205].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Manufacturing jobs were killed by NAFTA and free trade with China. Those were political decisions. The people we voted for brought about NAFTA and free trade with China. So in a sense WE are the ones that killed manufacturing jobs.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567267].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Only if you were for NAFTA,which I was not.
North American Free Trade Agreement. What a farce.
But I agree that was part of what destroyed us.
But you know, it also goes along with the saying:
"Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD"
No one forced American companies to do what they did,the did it out of greed.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567282].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Eventually it became a necessity to survive. You can't compete with fair wages when there's people out there that will do the same job for pennies on the dollar. China doesn't have to abide by the same labor laws as we do, so as long as we have free trade with them, we'll never be able to compete on the manufacturing side.

And it is true that Walmart perpetuates some of this. But without NAFTA and free trade with China the manufacturing would have to come from the U.S. like it always has in the past. Those free trade agreements are a very large part of what is still hurting our economy today.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567320].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Gary,
I agree with almost everything you said.
We have laws that need to be changed back to help our country,not other ones.

Edit: But I still won't shop Walmart.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567348].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

I was fully against ALL special trade agreements, INCLUDING NAFTA and GATT! The one time I agreed with almost 100% of the people on the other side of the aisle, and the U*.

Garyv,

Wage/material cost differences are a good reason for DUTIES! It is ALSO a reason for limited immigration too. Kind of ironic. The isolation of allocation of funds makes EXPENSIVE things seem CHEAP. It is like buying stuff on a credit card. Did you know that it is possible now to buy something for like $300,000 and only pay about $750/month? CHEAP! Of course, at SOME point, in the distant future, you will have to pay over about $310K ALL AT ONCE! So you end up paying MORE. That last payment was called a balloon payment, and that is interesting because that is when the dream could POP.

I THOUGHT they got rid of those types of loans in the 70s, when they bankrupted so many families, but they are BACK.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567428].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Steve,
I don't know if they ever got rid of them,I think they just renamed them.
Now they are called ARMs aka adjustable rate mortgages.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567445].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Steve,
I don't know if they ever got rid of them,I think they just renamed them.
Now they are called ARMs aka adjustable rate mortgages.

WRONG! I was talking about one that would be HORRIBLE even if the rate were LOW! The example I gave was 3% FIXED!!!! THIS animal was, and now is, known as an interest only loan. In fact, a person that doesn't think about it may think it is a godsend, and CHEAP! At the end of a relatively short term, they will find that they have only been MAINTAINING the mortgage and have NO equity. It is also possible that they can go negative so they owe even MORE.

The ARMS are bad but often have a window. The hybrids are even WORSE, but STILL have a window. The interest only ones can be BAD! I don't know if the government plans allow them. If they don't, then the interest only plans would be WORSE!

A little known fact is that many WOULD be accepted by the government if they DON'T have prepayment fees outside of a certain window. That means most of them DON'T, as it means there are more after market customers for the debt.

IMAGINE if an interest only loan had a prepayment fee!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6567894].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

I think what they have now is even worse for a lot of the elderly; Reverse mortgage loans..

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569165].message }}

Lori Kelly

12 years ago

Six Walton family members have as much wealth as the bottom 30% of Americans combined.

That's crazy.

Walmart wanted to put a store in Llano. With all the power and money Walmart has, it didn't build a store in Llano. The locals got together and bought the land Walmart wanted to buy. I almost feel a "Don't Mess With Texas" is appropriate after that story.

And with wealth comes power. Wal fart spent $7.6 million for 99 lobbyists in 2011. Through in a little Koch corruption and that just about makes the Waltons royalty.

As far as mortgages, adjustable rate loans are the tip of the iceberg. They should have only been allowed for investors or homeowners who wanted to keep a property for 3-5 years. It's a complex loan product but not even close to the worse.

Take the pick a pay loan that good ol' Countrywide (and many others) steered people into. That resulted in negative amortization. Imagine the person who does not have a good understanding of real estate finance getting a pick a pay and then finding out they owe more than the original amount of their loan.

It's my opinion that a reverse mortgage is only for a person who has no heirs and no money. But I still don't like that mortgage. Instead of a reverse mortgage, it would be ideal to find someone to buy the person's house and lease it back to them until they die.

We live in such a "I want it now!" and a "me, me, me" society that some of the basic fundamentals of life are lost. Whatever happened to the idea of you don't get what you want until you save enough money to buy it?

Although that concept would be difficult in the case of buying a house, it should hold true for anything else we want.

Take a good look at the truth in lending paper for a $300,000 loan at 3% for 30 years. Your privilege of borrowing $300K is going to cost you a fortune. And a balloon at the end? Yikes.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Learn Website Tips, How to Do Keyword Research, & How to Write Killer Content.
Stop Wasting Time.
Start Living Your Dream.
Click Here NOW to Get Your Hands on
One of the Most Valuable Ebooks Ever!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569366].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Walmart has not been the best corporate citizen to say the least.

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569371].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

The auto manufacturers killed a whole segment of the economy - buggy makers, stables, tack suppliers, feed suppliers.

Airlines killed the passenger train.

The world evolves. While a lot of people call WalMart evil, the simple fact is that Sam Walton figured out how to do something more efficiently than everyone else.

If you want to throw the blame somewhere, blame the people who shop there. If WalMart didn't have customers, they wouldn't have stores.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569879].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The auto manufacturers killed a whole segment of the economy - buggy makers, stables, tack suppliers, feed suppliers.

Airlines killed the passenger train.

The world evolves. While a lot of people call WalMart evil, the simple fact is that Sam Walton figured out how to do something more efficiently than everyone else.

If you want to throw the blame somewhere, blame the people who shop there. If WalMart didn't have customers, they wouldn't have stores.

One of the few times we disagree Steve.

While the world does evolve, The Walmart you enter today is not the Walmart Sam Walton created. I've read more than one place his vision was to sell American made goods and employ American citizens.
It is those that took control after him that has made it what it is today.
A company that hires illegal immigrants by the thousands,a company that bribes any and everyone they can, a company that will sell inferior products to that fast buck.

As far as the customers that shop there being to blame,you are only partially right. Many places where Walmart grew were small towns and I am not making excuses but they were not smart enough to see the long term results, that everywhere walmart goes they destroy small businesses and wipe out mom and pop shops and pretty much destroy the middle class.

But as I have said already a few times in this thread ,I refuse to give them any of my money.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6569916].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The auto manufacturers killed a whole segment of the economy - buggy makers, stables, tack suppliers, feed suppliers.

Actually, that is not really true. stables, tack suppliers, feed suppliers STILL exist, much as they did. Buggy makers have suffered, but may still be around. STILL, they are probably making something else. Even if it were true, that is a minor segment of the economy, and people can do OTHER things. Buggy makers, for example, could make seats and seatbelts and dashboards!

Airlines killed the passenger train.

Certainly not true! In fact, the CARS did more to stop THAT than anything. STILL, parts of the US have continued.

The world evolves. While a lot of people call WalMart evil, the simple fact is that Sam Walton figured out how to do something more efficiently than everyone else.

Do ****NOT**** credit sam walton with that! The first to do that died LONG before sam waltons father was ever born. NO, sam walton simply decided to undercut other retailers on a grander scale. Before I ever heard of sam walton. Indeed, before he was *******ANYWHERE******** near my market, I decided to offer computer products at 14% over standard WHOLESALE! I undercut EVERYONE in my area. I didn't pick 14% by random. I determined that I would handily beat EVERYTHING egghead offered who, at the time, offered the lower price.

EVENTUALLY, some companies used their LARGE clout and fraud to beat MY price. And they beat it by SO much, that even the wholesale companies couldn't compete. And NOPE, NONE of them were walmart, and Walmart STILL wasn't in the market!

So walmart was FAR from the first! HECK, WOOLWORTHS started on that principle! SEARS started on that principle! I could go on....

If you want to throw the blame somewhere, blame the people who shop there. If WalMart didn't have customers, they wouldn't have stores.

Well, OTHER stores had to compete, etc... And walmart EASED into their current model. They didn't ALWAYS go abroad for so much. The company I am at had a hand in STARTING much of the US! TODAY, they also use India and China! They recently opened up a plant in china.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6570023].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

One of the few times we disagree Steve.

While the world does evolve, The Walmart you enter today is not the Walmart Sam Walton created. I've read more than one place his vision was to sell American made goods and employ American citizens.
It is those that took control after him that has made it what it is today.
A company that hires illegal immigrants by the thousands,a company that bribes any and everyone they can, a company that will sell inferior products to that fast buck.

As far as the customers that shop there being to blame,you are only partially right. Many places where Walmart grew were small towns and I am not making excuses but they were not smart enough to see the long term results, that everywhere walmart goes they destroy small businesses and wipe out mom and pop shops and pretty much destroy the middle class.

But as I have said already a few times in this thread ,I refuse to give them any of my money.

It's true enough that the WalMart of today isn't the same one that Sam Walton started.

I just can't quite get in bed with laying the destruction of the middle class on WallyWorld, though. While it's true that more than a few home-grown businesses fold in the wake of a walmart opening, there are also a few that thrive, the ones that have the brains and means to reinvent themselves.

Don't take me to be cold-hearted against the people who owned the small businesses, I'm not. But truthfully speaking, they are examples of the age-old adage, "adapt or die".

Originally Posted by seasoned

Actually, that is not really true. stables, tack suppliers, feed suppliers STILL exist, much as they did. Buggy makers have suffered, but may still be around. STILL, they are probably making something else. Even if it were true, that is a minor segment of the economy, and people can do OTHER things. Buggy makers, for example, could make seats and seatbelts and dashboards!

Certainly not true! In fact, the CARS did more to stop THAT than anything. STILL, parts of the US have continued.

Do ****NOT**** credit sam walton with that! The first to do that died LONG before sam waltons father was ever born. NO, sam walton simply decided to undercut other retailers on a grander scale. Before I ever heard of sam walton. Indeed, before he was *******ANYWHERE******** near my market, I decided to offer computer products at 14% over standard WHOLESALE! I undercut EVERYONE in my area. I didn't pick 14% by random. I determined that I would handily beat EVERYTHING egghead offered who, at the time, offered the lower price.

EVENTUALLY, some companies used their LARGE clout and fraud to beat MY price. And they beat it by SO much, that even the wholesale companies couldn't compete. And NOPE, NONE of them were walmart, and Walmart STILL wasn't in the market!

So walmart was FAR from the first! HECK, WOOLWORTHS started on that principle! SEARS started on that principle! I could go on....

Well, OTHER stores had to compete, etc... And walmart EASED into their current model. They didn't ALWAYS go abroad for so much. The company I am at had a hand in STARTING much of the US! TODAY, they also use India and China! They recently opened up a plant in china.

Steve

In the age of the buggy, it was not a 'small segment' of the economy. Thousands of horses needed to be fed, watered, supplied.

Passenger rail service was still THE way to travel long distances until the 50s, when airlines came into their own.

Walton's business philosophy was to offer his customers more for less, which he did by keeping his costs low. Innovations in just-in-time inventory, distribution channeling, and other areas cemented his ability to almost continuously undercut his competition.

Can't really follow the rest of what you wrote, sorry.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6573188].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It's true enough that the WalMart of today isn't the same one that Sam Walton started.

I just can't quite get in bed with laying the destruction of the middle class on WallyWorld, though. While it's true that more than a few home-grown businesses fold in the wake of a walmart opening, there are also a few that thrive, the ones that have the brains and means to reinvent themselves.

You CAN'T "reinvent" yourself! If you make jeans, you can't go to making curtains or rugs, etc... because THOSE can be imported ALSO. And there is only so far you can stray. Going into glass or metal requires a lot for tooling up, etc... Doing that AND becomming a call center will mean throwing out lots of stock. Such MAJOR overhauls are RARE. In fact, have they EVER happened with a formerly successful company that had no transition? "American can" or whatever its name was probably had the biggest changover I ever heard of. But THEY went bankrupt and were bought by someone that was VERY rich! They were basically bought as a shell company. TODAY, even the NAME of the company is different, and the shell is probably gone. That can company morphed into citigroup.

Don't take me to be cold-hearted against the people who owned the small businesses, I'm not. But truthfully speaking, they are examples of the age-old adage, "adapt or die".

So what is your point? That if poison were thrown into the water supply, and the entire city died out, it is just evolution and they deserved it?

In the age of the buggy, it was not a 'small segment' of the economy. Thousands of horses needed to be fed, watered, supplied.

THOUSANDS? TODAY it is thousands! You REALLY don't think animals need to be fed? THEY probably number WELL into the millions. Just a couple days ago I heard HUGE numbers thrown around about how much extra grain and meat needs to be produced. Ever see the inside of a number of older cars, or newer luxury ones, like rolls royces and bentleys? How about ships? Some planes? OH, there is a LOT of metal, and some plastic, but many have fine woods also, etc... The cars may even have INCREASED some of their business for a time. Horses can be expensive. I NEVER OWNED a horse, but thought about it. When I was a little kid, I saw some selling for $5000. That was just the HORSE! You need an area for it, food, caring, etc....

Passenger rail service was still THE way to travel long distances until the 50s, when airlines came into their own.

Various places, like california, saw good public transportation, akin to trains, DIE after te cars hit the scene. There were rumors that the car companies INTENTIONALLY killed it.

Walton's business philosophy was to offer his customers more for less, which he did by keeping his costs low. Innovations in just-in-time inventory, distribution channeling, and other areas cemented his ability to almost continuously undercut his competition.

Woolworth did the SAME! What's your point?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574615].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

What is the argument in this thread?

That an efficient big business should be closed? That people who worked to develop that business don't deserve to be rich?

Taxes paid by people like the Waltons already support the 30% on the bottom financial level. Is the argument that people like the Waltons should be required to give money to people who have less? Isn't that the essence of entitlement thinking and socialism?

Walmart saves people money and time by offering low prices and by putting everything in one place. These days walmart also keeps business moving by some rather tough marketing processes and by undercutting prices. The stores have their weaknesses, too, in not always have the brands you want and sometimes in the quality of the products.

In my area there are several super Walmarts - but also thriving local chain food stores and specialty stores. These are the local stores that got smart and found a way to compete - and it worked. Other small stores didn't change and ended up going out of business. That's how economies work.

It makes no sense for consumers to prevent a business from coming into a town if the only reason is to protect the profit of smaller businesses that charge more. That doesn't serve the needs of the public.

There are areas of the country where Walmart is not welcome - and that's up to the people in that area. In the end, WM is a business and no one is forced to buy there.

There are other reasonable concerns - I have a problem with acres of concrete poured for parking but that's another story.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6574934].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Huh? The bottom 30% are supported by tax payers like the Waltons? Where do you get this idea from? I suppose since the Forbes 400 richest have as much wealth as the bottom 50% their taxes are supporting the bottom 50%? Doesn't make sense. Not everyone in the bottom 30% or 50% is living off the government. There are millions of hard working people among those 30% to 50%.

By the way, I don't think we need to close Wallmarts down, but what ever happened to people who made great money paying a decent tax rate? That isn't socialism, that's just common sense, and the way we did things in the US for many decades. Anyone who can't see the huge problems with the unequal income distribution in this country has been watching Fox news too long.

Originally Posted by Kay King

Taxes paid by people like the Waltons already support the 30% on the bottom financial level. Is the argument that people like the Waltons should be required to give money to people who have less? Isn't that the essence of entitlement thinking and socialism?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6575834].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Anyone who can't see the huge problems with the unequal income distribution in this country has been watching Fox news too long.

And WHERE did fox news get it? And what about people like ME that felt that way BEFORE they saw fox. HECK, I felt that way BEFORE we had cable. We were lucky to get 7 channels!

As I said, a level playing field. If one takes risks and has to use skills to do a job, they SHOULD get paid more than someone that does NOTHING or pulls parts. Do YOU really want to make minimum wage? HECK, maybe you ARE. But NOTHING is stopping THOSE people from doing better! If you think EVERYONE can be a millionaire, in the sense that it is meant NOW, YOU ARE DREAMING! Want proof? HECK, a millionaire NOW is not anything like it was even a few decades ago.

Some companies have started with GREAT risk. If those that first stepped out didn't have the chance to make so much, a lot of that would NOT have happened. THINK ABOUT IT! DOCTORS take a LOT of risk. If during surgery, they nick their hands with a contaminated knife, they could get AIDS! Some have DIED even doing AUTOPSIES! GRANTED some are altruistic, but even THAT could wear down.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576100].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

What is the argument in this thread?

That an efficient big business should be closed? That people who worked to develop that business don't deserve to be rich?

Taxes paid by people like the Waltons already support the 30% on the bottom financial level. Is the argument that people like the Waltons should be required to give money to people who have less? Isn't that the essence of entitlement thinking and socialism?

Walmart saves people money and time by offering low prices and by putting everything in one place. These days walmart also keeps business moving by some rather tough marketing processes and by undercutting prices. The stores have their weaknesses, too, in not always have the brands you want and sometimes in the quality of the products.

In my area there are several super Walmarts - but also thriving local chain food stores and specialty stores. These are the local stores that got smart and found a way to compete - and it worked. Other small stores didn't change and ended up going out of business. That's how economies work.

It makes no sense for consumers to prevent a business from coming into a town if the only reason is to protect the profit of smaller businesses that charge more. That doesn't serve the needs of the public.

There are areas of the country where Walmart is not welcome - and that's up to the people in that area. In the end, WM is a business and no one is forced to buy there.

There are other reasonable concerns - I have a problem with acres of concrete poured for parking but that's another story.

MY point IS, and ALWAYS has been, that people, states, countries should be on an EQUAL playing field. THAT means that you should work AGAINST the slavery, anti IP, mindset of china, and use legislation and duties to counter it. It ALSO means that unfair guilds shouldn't be setup, etc... When I decided I couldn't compete, and left, I found a company CLAIMING to fight that and uncovered lies THERE! There was also a chinese and a persian group that discriminated. GIVE ME A BREAK! My liberal return policies, a really STUPID customer, and the collusion forced me to close my company with over $3000 in inventory.

And YEAH, we ARE forced to buy from the concept being so narrowly defined as walmart here. I GUARANTEE that 100% of ALL people happening across this forum have! WHY? Because companies must compete and thus must buy from the same type of companies!

Have you bought peanuts from your local mom and pop store around the corner? Look at where they came from! Did you buy beef jerky lately? How about clothing? SHOES? HECK, even BANANAS! Did you know we have a state that probably would NOT exist as a state if not for BANANAS? Yet many bananas may come from elsewhere.

Have you bought ANY electronics? It doesn't matter if it is a calculator you got for free, or a million dollar computer system!

The US CREATED a lot of stuff! The microprocessor, probably the current day capacitor, the PC board, jeans, etc.... It was a leader in SO many things and now most of the things it is a leader in are things I DON'T WANT!

Steve

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6575979].message }}

TimPhelan 12 years ago

By the way, just to give that one stat a different perspective, those 7 Walton family members, all of whom inherited their wealth as far as I know, have more wealth than the combined wealth of over 100,000,000 Americans! And these people lobby congress with millions of dollars to lower estate/inheritance/capital gains taxes all the while working to pay the lowest possible wages with the fewest benefits possible and using cheap slave labor in China to kill jobs here in the US. These guys give capitalism a bad name.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576043].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

"Taxes paid by people like the Waltons already support the 30% on the bottom financial level."

Yes,sorry but I have trouble with this.
Do you have any proof?

And I have no problem with any company making money legally and ethically.
But walmart hires illegal aliens,they have had many lawsuits about breaking labor laws, we have had threads in the forum before about how they were caught bribing officials in Mexico, which really made me surprised when so many people here basically said "so what?". :rolleyes:
The list goes on and on about how they operate contrary to the laws.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6575937].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

"Taxes paid by people like the Waltons already support the 30% on the bottom financial level."

Yes,sorry but I have trouble with this.
Do you have any proof?

And I have no problem with any company making money legally and ethically.
But walmart hires illegal aliens,they have had many lawsuits about breaking labor laws, we have had threads in the forum before about how they were caught bribing officials in Mexico, which really made me surprised when so many people here basically said "so what?". :rolleyes:
The list goes on and on about how they operate contrary to the laws.

It doesn't matter if the waltons paid 100% of the tax, they still really don't pay ANY! You see, they make money through nickle and diming manufacturers and customers. They go to the CHEAPEST manufacturers, and cut a deal for an even LOWER price. They THEN lowball competitors and sell to customers that may need a lower price to stay competitive with other employers that have done the same. All those people go into debt buying still more and, feeling that there is so much, create more waste. That increases the need which feeds walmart. SO, if walmart didn't exist, prices MIGHT be higher, but the taxes would STILL get paid and the country might get more money over all. More people would likely be employed, etc...

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576023].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Dammit Tim, I'm forced to give you two thanks in one day.
I think I hear Twilight Zone music in the background........

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576059].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by KimW

Dammit Tim, I'm forced to give you two thanks in one day.
I think I hear Twilight Zone music in the background........

How do you think I feel? That last one I can agree with. HECK, I came into this thread saying much the same.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6576109].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Update: That 30% figure is actually old news. Now, it is estimated that these six people's net worth is equal to the combined worth of 41% of US families! That's increase happened in only three years time! 8/

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6630239].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

I think this is buying into the recent "class warfare" mentality. Yes, they are filthy rich - yes, quite a bit of their wealth was inherited but they have also increased it. Workers are not highly paid - but the jobs at WM are in the low end retail business where income is at minimum wage or slightly above. Where I live, WM jobs pay the same as retail jobs in local malls - and the dress and experience requirements are lower.

What I notice in threads like this is the wealth is always compared to the "bottom 41%" or in another thread it was the "lowest 30% of income earners".

The bottom 41% pays no income tax in the U.S. - that's a fact. Most of that group collects checks from govt subsidies paid for by taxes on wealthier citizens.

Walmart tried offering "made in USA" products and it couldn't be done. There weren't enough US-made products and the prices couldn't compete in the market WalMart aimed to fill.

I know of no other pharmacy here who offers the vast number of $4 prescriptions that WalMart provides - and I have friends who rely on those prices to obtain their medications.

The Waltons have also contributed hundreds of millions to charities and the arts and that is seldom mentioned. When it does get some press it's presented as if "it's not enough". Such as $800 million in 2011 from one Walton family member - while another who died left her entire fortune to charitable foundations. The response from sources like NPR was that the money didn't go to causes they would choose....but it's not NPR's money to give away.

I'm certainly not a cheerleader for WalMart - and I go there only for a few items that are priced lower there. However, it's easy to target the WM as a big, bad wolf while ignoring other companies who do the same thing. Apple pays its people better - but those 41% can get jobs at WM but wouldn't qualify for a job at Apple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/bu...pagewanted=all

Outsourcing was seen as a "solution" in the 70s and it was a bad idea then. The theory was that Americans shouldn't have to do the "dirty jobs" so we would send those nasty assembly line jobs to other countries where the workers didn't mind the work - and we would take on the "service" and white collar jobs. We're living with those decisions now.

[ 5 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6630703].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Interesting study about how Walmart wages drive down wages locally.

Empirical evidence suggests that employees at Wal-Mart earn lower average wages and receive less
generous benefits than workers employed by many other large retailers. But controversy has persisted on the question of Wal-Mart’s effect on local pay scales. Our research finds that Wal-Mart store
openings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart’s entry also
drives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores.

Looking at the period between 1992 and 2000, we find that the opening of a single Wal-Mart store in
a county lowered average retail wages in that county by between 0.5 and 0.9 percent. In the general
merchandise sector, wages fell by 1 percent for each new Wal-Mart. And for grocery store employees,
the effect of a single new Wal-Mart was a 1.5 percent reduction in earnings.

When Wal-Mart entered a county, the total wage bill declined along with the average wage. Factoring
in both the impact on wages and jobs, the total amount of retail earnings in a county fell by 1.5
percent for every new Wal-Mart store. Similar effects appeared at the state level.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/reta...ard_push07.pdf

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6631940].message }}

TimPhelan 12 years ago

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
― Warren Buffett
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6631944].message }}
- seasoned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
  ― Warren Buffett
  
  If he were telling the truth, do you think he would ACTUALLY say it? YOU ARE BEING PLAYED!
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6634741].message }}
seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Interesting study about how Walmart wages drive down wages locally.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/reta...ard_push07.pdf

The size of a retailer has *****NO***** relation to wages! Some VERY small retailers pay VERY high "wages" on few sales because they are large ticket items, or specialized in some way. A place like krogers probably pays lower wages because the effort to maintain inventory, and have sales is so high. You HAVE to have more diverse stock(lower relative turnover) and more employees(less income per capita).

So don't go by the garbage that if walmart is BIG that they can pay high wages or that they should pay as high a wage as a regular department store to all their employees.

And does walmart provide commission, straight wage, or hybrid? My father worked on a hybrid wage. I don't know HIS history at that, though he quit that job. ANOTHER person worked at that job also. He was paid a LOT because he was such a great salesperson. Well, he was going to get a clawback of sorts, and QUIT to start his own company. HIS name? Ross Perot. YEP, a BIG company selling BIG and EXPENSIVE computers, and they TOOK BACK income!

BTW if Warren buffett REALLY wants to pay more taxes, here is my challenge!

WARREN! STOP treating berkshire hathaway class B shareholders as second class citizens! Give them 1:30 voting rights of Class A(The price is kept at 1/30th of the class a, and they get 1:150 voting rights!) and give THEM 30:1 B->A conversion rights(They have NO conversion rights, but class A can be converted to class B! ), *******NOW******* and RETROACTIVELY!

BELIEVE ME GUYS, He would NEVER do that! I see his little trick there! Run the numbers, and YOU will figure it out!

ALSO WARREN! *****YOU***** pay even 50% on ALL INCOME, INCLUDING ACCRUED ON STOCK HELD!

OK GUYS, I'll expose a nasty secret, just to REALLY drive home a nasty thing that NOBODY seems to know even though you can EASILY find it out, etc...... In fact, I will make it BLATENTLY obvious! It will change your opinion of Warren!

WARREN! I'll leak a little "secret" since nobody ELSE will. You have said that the reason why your stock value is so high is because YOU DON'T PAY DIVIDENDS! I know, and maybe others here now will learn..... You DO NOT PAY TAXES ON STOCK unless dividends are paid or you make a net gain on the SALE. This means you can make MILLIONS of dollars on a MERE 10 shares of BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, and pay NO TAXES! OK WARREN..... PAY THE TAXES ON THE NET GAIN!

SO TIM, I have exposed a number of tricks your friend plays. That last one has been mentioned dozens of times publicly, and is OBVIOUS by a glance at the history. It is WORLD FAMOUS FOR THAT! ANYONE that has studied the tax code will know that what I said there has been true for DECADES, and is true TODAY! The rest you can find by looking at the prospectus!

MAYBE, just MAYBE, you can see how sneaky he is.

BTW I haven't even mentioned the REAL dirt. THAT stuff isn't really public.

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6634804].message }}
- AprilCT 12 years ago
  
  I rarely go into Walmart unless my mother is visiting, and then she always wants to stop. I sometimes buy some generic tylenol, bread or produce, but otherwise really never shop there on my own.
  
  While there with my mother, I've looked at some of their goods. Their clothing isn't so great and their sizes seem strange to me, way too much stuff made for the height-challenged. I'd much prefer going to Macy's (who seem way overpriced at normal retail prices) when they have huge sales on seasonal items. The clothing there is definitely a cut above if you can catch something that is really on a good sale.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6635217].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The bottom 41% pays no income tax in the U.S. - that's a fact. Most of that group collects checks from govt subsidies paid for by taxes on wealthier citizens.

That first sentence is true although misleading. The second statement is not true at all. Here's some facts to back me up:

First, why the first statement is misleading. It infers that 50% ( usually the figure presented in these arguments ) of households don't pay federal taxes, whereas the truth is only about 14% to 17% don't pay federal taxes. Actually the percentage is likely lower.

Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year. In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

Also, it's interesting to note that lower income workers actually pay a much larger percentage in federal payroll taxes than do people in the upper incomes:

Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution.

Here's a good graph showing this fact:

Now, why the second statement is false. Payroll taxes pay for most of the "subsidies" you claim "most" of the 41% of house holds get. ( By the way, I do question the statement that most of the 41% lower income households get checks from the government but that's not why I think the statement is not true. ) What makes the statement untrue is that the lower income workers, not the rich to super rich, overwhelmingly pay for these subsidies:

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17...out_taxes.html

Another interesting stat is that the low income households pay a larger percentage of their income in state and local taxes than others.

Low-income families also pay substantial state and local taxes. Most state and local
taxes are regressive, meaning that low-income families pay a larger share of their incomes in these taxes than wealthier households do. The bottom fifth of taxpayers paid 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). That was well above the 7.9 percent average rate that the top 1 percent of households paid.

Also, if you take the combined federal, state and local taxes each income bracket pays a fairly close percentage of what they earn to what the total tax amount is which pretty much destroys the argument that the rich are heavily burdened by the tax laws:

In fact when all taxes are considered, the share of taxes that each fifth of households pays is similar to its share of the nation’s total income. ITEP data show that in 2011, the bottom fifth of households received 3.4 percent of the total income in the nation and paid 2.1 percent of the total taxes. The middle fifth of households received 11.4 percent of income and paid 10.3 percent of taxes. The top 1 percent of households received 21.0 percent of income and paid 21.6 percent of taxes. The tax system as a whole is only mildly progressive

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

So, the idea that the lower income households are not carrying enough of the tax burden is wrong. So is the idea that the rich are carrying too much of the burden. Some would like to increase taxes on the lower income households in this country while lowering them on the upper income households because of this misconception. If we need to increase the revenues coming in, and we certainly do, and want to raise taxes to do so, it makes more sense and to tax those who are doing better in this economy, who actually have wealth.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6632603].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Maybe you didn't quite catch my point Ken. The point was more about IF we are going to raise taxes it shouldn't be on the lower income households which is implied when someone brings up the current talking point meme that 50% of households don't pay federal income taxes. There are many who are suggesting that the tax base should be broadened or widened, which means to start taxing the lower income families. I thought I made a good case of why this shouldn't be considered. I hope you agree.

Sure, if by reducing spending alone we can pay down the debt and have a balanced budget I am all for that. I am highly sceptical that the debt can be dealt with on spending cuts alone however and do think increasing revenue in some way is needed. I agree with your view of cutting back on the military, cutting subsidies to businesses that don't need them,and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy.

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Why does the government need more money? Perhaps they should stop spending what they have foolishly and be responsible for what they take from us. I don't think we need any more aircraft carriers, farm subsidies or bureaucrats. People who have paid nothing into social security should receive nothing from it.

Helping the poor does not mean creating a permanent underclass. Helping someone to get on his or her feet is one thing. Keeping them down with subsistence payments is quite another.

Education is not the answer. You're not going to train someone who works on an assembly line to be a technocrat. We've thrown billions into education while we watched our public education system degenerate into near chaos.

There's nothing desirable about taxes on anyone.

Harping on the rich to pay more taxes is barking up the wrong tree.

We need to solve problems, not count on a corporate-controlled congress to solve them for us.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638475].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Sure, if by reducing spending alone we can pay down the debt and have a balanced budget I am all for that. I am highly sceptical that the debt can be dealt with on spending cuts alone however and do think increasing revenue in some way is needed. I agree with your view of cutting back on the military, cutting subsidies to businesses that don't need them,and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy.

Considering the fact that our expenditures are made up entirely of spending (that sounded redundant) then I know that the entirety of our debt can be over come with spending cuts.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638804].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Update: That 30% figure is actually old news. Now, it is estimated that these six people's net worth is equal to the combined worth of 41% of US families! That's increase happened in only three years time! 8/

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

That change is NOT meaningful! HECK, it may even be interpreted as a DROP! Between inflation, loss of employment, etc.... This means that walmart is MORE likely to have money, and others are less. Somehow, I would think the spread is MORE than 30%, and 30% would explain the 11% change.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6634700].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Update: That 30% figure is actually old news. Now, it is estimated that these six people's net worth is equal to the combined worth of 41% of US families! That's increase happened in only three years time! 8/

Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 40 Percent Of Americans In 2010: Analysis

To put this number into perspective - The actual percentage of people unemployed right now is close to 20% - So even I am worth more than 20% of US families. Now if you consider the fact that over 50% of Americans hold some form of debt, then just as a matter of math we can conclude that anyone without debt has a worth more than the Bottom 50%.

Sorry, but those numbers to me just point out bad economic policy - not a group of greedy people.

I'm sorry, but I'd like to think that if I work hard, I might have big numbers some day. I'd lose all motivation if I worked hard and then had to split my money with a bunch of lazy people at the end of the day.

If you are one of those jealous of the Walton numbers, then get off of your lazy ASS and get to work! (sorry for the cursing - but the entitlement mentality going on in our world today pisses me off.)

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6637823].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Wrong. That's not what worth means Gary.

Also, nobody's talking about jealousy. It's more of a matter of historic income inequality. I wonder how high that percentage will have to get before some of you think there just might be a problem? When 7 people have as much wealth as 50% of the rest of the country combined? or 60%? 80%? Unbelievable!

Originally Posted by garyv

To put this number into perspective - The actual percentage of people unemployed right now is close to 20% - So even I am worth more than 20% of US families.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638069].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Wrong. That's not what worth means Gary.

Also, nobody's talking about jealousy. It's more of a matter of historic income inequality. I wonder how high that percentage will have to get before some of you think there just might be a problem? When 7 people have as much wealth as 50% of the rest of the country combined? or 60%? 80%? Unbelievable!

I know what worth means. It's a calculation of assets minus debt. Right now 1/4 of all mortgages are underwater and 20% of all Americans are out of work So right now if you have a penny in your pocket and have no mortgage or are not under water, then chances are very good that you are worth more than 1/4 of all Americans.

By the way, if you taxed the Waltons 100% - you would pay off well less than 1% of our National debt. And if you just flat gave out 100% of the Waltons wealth, Americans would only be $265 richer. And that $265 would be worth a lot less because Walmart would no longer be around.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638758].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

I'm glad you spent a couple minutes and googled that to find out, because you didn't seem to know what it was before.

Originally Posted by garyv

I know what worth means. It's a calculation of assets minus debt.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640456].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I'm glad you spent a couple minutes and googled that to find out, because you didn't seem to know what it was before.

Your condescending quips still don't cover up the fact that your argument falls flat.

Just because you don't think I know what "worth" is, the fact still remains that someone without a mortgage and a dollar in his pocket is "worth" more than the bottom 25% of Americans combined. And raising the Waltons' taxes will not help at all.

Here's a good video that points out the absurdity of trying to cover our debt by increasing taxes on the rich....

Excellent Video on the Tax-the-Rich Mentality.flv...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640700].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Here's yet another "fact" that is only fact in your mind. This is not a fact at all. I can list many examples of why it isn't one. Geesh.

Originally Posted by garyv

the fact still remains that someone without a mortgage and a dollar in his pocket is "worth" more than the bottom 25% of Americans combined.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640751].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's yet another "fact" that is only fact in your mind. This is not a fact at all. I can list many examples of why it isn't one. Geesh.

Actually that one's a fact - lol It's from the Economic Policy Institute. It says that 24.8% of Americans have 0 or negative worth - and that number was from 2009. I'm sure it's higher now...

The Great Recession exacerbated existing wealth disparities in U.S. | Economic Policy Institute

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640851].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Well, no. In your example, the person with a dollar in their pocket would be considered among the 24.8%. Do you think those people among the 24.8% don't have a dollars worth of change in their pocket?

By the way, I've heard the very weak argument you presented "if you tax these billionaires this much it hardly makes a dent in the debt" many times. It's funny, these same people who present this argument, that increasing revenues by hundreds of billions doesn't do anything, will waste precious time on the floor of congress arguing for days on end to cut programs that will only save tens of millions or less. It's really a laughable argument. Hypocritical of the politicians who keep putting it forward also. It just shows they are not really serious about dealing with the debt.

Originally Posted by garyv

Actually that one's a fact - lol It's from the Economic Policy Institute. It says that 24.8% of Americans have 0 or negative worth - and that number was from 2009. I'm sure it's higher now...

The Great Recession exacerbated existing wealth disparities in U.S. | Economic Policy Institute

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6642306].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, no. In your example, the person with a dollar in their pocket would be considered among the 24.8%. Do you think those people among the 24.8% don't have a dollars worth of change in their pocket?

No - the Economic Policy Institute says that 24.8% has 0 or negative net worth. Meaning, it doesn't matter if those 24.8 % have dollars in their pocket, because their debt is more than whatever assets they have - that includes any money in their pocket. (Remember the whole worth definition that I googled earlier?

)

So if you have no debt and a dollar in your pocket, you have more worth.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6644123].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Haha. Come on. You are being silly now. Pocket change isn't considered an asset.

Originally Posted by garyv

No - the Economic Policy Institute says that 24.8% has 0 or negative net worth. Meaning, it doesn't matter if those 24.8 % have dollars in their pocket, because their debt is more than whatever assets they have - that includes any money in their pocket. (Remember the whole worth definition that I googled earlier?

)

So if you have no debt and a dollar in your pocket, you have more worth.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6653243].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Haha. Come on. You are being silly now. Pocket change isn't considered an asset.

Not sure if you're kidding here... you forgot the wink w/ your smile...

But just in case - (yes I googled another definition) wikipedia says that cash itself is also an asset.

Asset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6653510].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

I was serious. Hey, try going to a bank and asking for a loan and when they ask for a list of your assets say "Well, let me check for loose change in my pocket." :/

Originally Posted by garyv

Not sure if you're kidding here... you forgot the wink w/ your smile...

But just in case - (yes I googled another definition) wikipedia says that cash itself is also an asset.

Asset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655585].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I was serious. Hey, try going to a bank and asking for a loan and when they ask for a list of your assets say "Well, let me check for loose change in my pocket." :/

That's true... but it's an asset none the less. You'd get the same reaction if you came in and tried to get a loan with a rust bucket car that had a low blue-book value. And it still holds up my point - that the change in your pocket is worth more than nothing in your pocket. And if you have no debt it makes you worth more than a man with $100 in his pocket, but is $200 in debt.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6659608].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Well, no. In your example, the person with a dollar in their pocket would be considered among the 24.8%. Do you think those people among the 24.8% don't have a dollars worth of change in their pocket?

By the way, I've heard the very weak argument you presented "if you tax these billionaires this much it hardly makes a dent in the debt" many times. It's funny, these same people who present this argument, that increasing revenues by hundreds of billions doesn't do anything, will waste precious time on the floor of congress arguing for days on end to cut programs that will only save tens of millions or less. It's really a laughable argument. Hypocritical of the politicians who keep putting it forward also. It just shows they are not really serious about dealing with the debt.

Some programs that people want to cut are important programs that are relatively CHEAP! ALSO, people tack on worthless garbage to bills so that THEY will be defeated, or the wortless item will pass! That trick is SO common that it was part of the class on government that I had before I left highschool. And SOME programs that some people won't touch are ones that may cost many HUNDREDS of billions that are garbage THEMSELVES!

If a thief steals $1000 from me, and offers to pay $10 back, I will NOT consider that a valid gesture! HELL, if he offers to pay me $10 for 120 months I wouldn't consider it valid, even though that is a 20% future profit over current dollars. So WHY should the US? So WHY should the thief talk with me about small amounts when s/he KNOWS the negotiations should START at $1000?

Your argument is baseless ANYWAY! SUPPOSE the guy in that video were wrong, and we could pay off TWO years! That is STILL not enough! He wasn't talking about the amount to pay the debt! He was talking about the amount to MAINTAIN IT!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6645330].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

By the way, I've heard the very weak argument you presented "if you tax these billionaires this much it hardly makes a dent in the debt" many times.

It's only "weak" because you disagree. People on both sides cherry pick numbers to prove "points" - and they prove nothing except they have blinders on.

If ever there was a time when people needed to start thinking for themselves and looking for real solutions - it's now. I don't see that happening.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6648577].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Not really. I agree there should be cuts in spending and also increases in revenue. The weak part of the argument is that doing anything really won't have much of an effect. Can you imagine if whenever a cut to spending is proposed, by either side, someone would argue that "it only makes a small dent in the debt"? It's a ridiculous argument. We might as well just give up trying to reduce the deficit then. I don't see that argument being made on the side of spending cuts, only on the side of increasing revenue.

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's only "weak" because you disagree.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6653277].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't see that argument being made on the side of spending cuts, only on the side of increasing revenue.

That's because the entire debt is made up of things we spend money on. Our Government spending tactics are completely backwards from reality. You spend according to your revenue - you do not try to raise revenue to match your spending.

If I'm saving up to go on vacation, it often means that I'll have to cut back in other areas to be able to afford it. But I wouldn't go to the boss and say "Hey - Johnny over there is making more than me - can you divert some of his money into my paycheck? I can't afford a vacation and I need extra money."

If you can't afford a vacation, then that means you make sacrifices. And that's what we as Americans - And OUR government needs to do.

Social Security and National Defense take up 2/3 of our total spending. We definitely could take a huge chunk out of our deficit by reforming the spending for both of theses. And it could easily be bilateral, because both of those programs are usually supported by opposite sides of the aisle.

But we have to quit using scare tactics like showing pictures of atomic bombs going off - or pushing an old person over the cliff.

At this point the hatred between both sides is making impossible to get anything done. I hope soon we have a real leader (democrat or republican - or other) that isn't so bent on pushing their own sides agenda that they can't make the other side comfortable with making a compromise.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6653567].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

That's because the entire debt is made up of things we spend money on. Our Government spending tactics are completely backwards from reality. You spend according to your revenue - you do not try to raise revenue to match your spending.

I have to admit - I have raised my revenue to match my spending in the past. Although, I worked for it - I didn't get it from anyone else

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6653812].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

That's because the entire debt is made up of things we spend money on. Our Government spending tactics are completely backwards from reality. You spend according to your revenue - you do not try to raise revenue to match your spending.

If I'm saving up to go on vacation, it often means that I'll have to cut back in other areas to be able to afford it. But I wouldn't go to the boss and say "Hey - Johnny over there is making more than me - can you divert some of his money into my paycheck? I can't afford a vacation and I need extra money."

If you can't afford a vacation, then that means you make sacrifices. And that's what we as Americans - And OUR government needs to do.

I disagree with this...I often try to increase my earnings so I can increase my spending.

Social Security and National Defense take up 2/3 of our total spending. We definitely could take a huge chunk out of our deficit by reforming the spending for both of theses. And it could easily be bilateral, because both of those programs are usually supported by opposite sides of the aisle.

But we have to quit using scare tactics like showing pictures of atomic bombs going off - or pushing an old person over the cliff.

At this point the hatred between both sides is making impossible to get anything done. I hope soon we have a real leader (democrat or republican - or other) that isn't so bent on pushing their own sides agenda that they can't make the other side comfortable with making a compromise.

Good points and good post. It wasn't that long ago that Clinton blurred the lines between left and right. Rovian politics is to divide the two sides and demonize. We need to go back to the way it was before.

Back when Regan was in office, Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House. During the day, he'd spout the most partisian rhetoric you ever heard. But at night, he'd be seen around DC bars having beers with his "adversaries", who were actually friends with different points of view. The next day, they'd have a deal worked out.

Some want term limits. I want good experienced politicians who know how the system works and that compromise is often the best policy. IMO, it's the inexperience people in office now that haven't learned how to compromise and how politics really work.

For example, Social Security...It really isn't in as bad as shape as everyone claims. It's 100% paid for the next 15 years (or so) and 80% paid after that.

We need one side to agree to raise the income limits a bit and the other side to increase the retirement age a bit. When FDR created SS, the 62 age was based on the life expectancy at the time, which was 62.

SS was never intended to have someone work for 40 years, then have 20 years of benefits. Keep the age limit the same for people over 55. Up the age limit a bit, starting with age 63 for those about my age (53), and gradually increase it for younger people, who have more time to prepare.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6654981].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I disagree with this...I often try to increase my earnings so I can increase my spending.

Good points and good post. It wasn't that long ago that Clinton blurred the lines between left and right. Rovian politics is to divide the two sides and demonize. We need to go back to the way it was before.

Back when Regan was in office, Tip O'Neil was Speaker of the House. During the day, he'd spout the most partisian rhetoric you ever heard. But at night, he'd be seen around DC bars having beers with his "adversaries", who were actually friends with different points of view. The next day, they'd have a deal worked out.

Some want term limits. I want good experienced politicians who know how the system works and that compromise is often the best policy. IMO, it's the inexperience people in office now that haven't learned how to compromise and how politics really work.

For example, Social Security...It really isn't in as bad as shape as everyone claims. It's 100% paid for the next 15 years (or so) and 80% paid after that.

We need one side to agree to raise the income limits a bit and the other side to increase the retirement age a bit. When FDR created SS, the 62 age was based on the life expectancy at the time, which was 62.

SS was never intended to have someone work for 40 years, then have 20 years of benefits. Keep the age limit the same for people over 55. Up the age limit a bit, starting with age 63 for those about my age (53), and gradually increase it for younger people, who have more time to prepare.

I agree Kurt... I think that Clinton was very good at getting his way without making the other side feel like idiots if he didn't get his way. We could do without the Roves and Axelrods for sure.

- I also agree that we could increase revenue - but increasing tax revenues should keep pace with what we as American's earn. So in other words the tax rate should be a constant. And then tax revenues will fluctuate with our own earnings. And thus we should budget and make cuts accordingly

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655040].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I agree Kurt... I think that Clinton was very good at getting his way without making the other side feel like idiots if he didn't get his way. We could do without the Roves and Axelrods for sure.

Whether you agree with Clinton's policies or not, he was a very good politician.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655053].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Hmm. Actually, I almost agreed with this. It totally depends at what rate we start at. I would pick the Clinton years rates. If you agree, we got a deal.

Originally Posted by garyv

- I also agree that we could increase revenue - but increasing tax revenues should keep pace with what we as American's earn. So in other words the tax rate should be a constant. And then tax revenues will fluctuate with our own earnings. And thus we should budget and make cuts accordingly

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655561].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

For example, Social Security...It really isn't in as bad as shape as everyone claims. It's 100% paid for the next 15 years (or so) and 80% paid after that.

It actually IS as bad as people think it is - because the money, cash money, isn't in the trust fund coffers. What is there are US Government bonds, because the government already looted all of the cash. In accounting terms, the fund is fine - the problem is going to come when the fund needs CASH to write the checks to pay people.

[ 3 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655517].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

"In accounting terms" is all that matters in regards to SS. People have paid into the system for decades. They will be paid. What matters is that SS is self sufficient which was Kurt's point.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It actually IS as bad as people think it is - because the money, cash money, isn't in the trust fund coffers. What is there are US Government bonds, because the government already looted all of the cash. In accounting terms, the fund is fine - the problem is going to come when the fund needs CASH to write the checks to pay people.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655609].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It actually IS as bad as people think it is - because the money, cash money, isn't in the trust fund coffers. What is there are US Government bonds, because the government already looted all of the cash. In accounting terms, the fund is fine - the problem is going to come when the fund needs CASH to write the checks to pay people.

The Chicken Little theory is only valid if we are to assume the US gov won't collect any more SSI/payroll taxes in the future.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6659745].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It actually IS as bad as people think it is - because the money, cash money, isn't in the trust fund coffers. What is there are US Government bonds, because the government already looted all of the cash. In accounting terms, the fund is fine - the problem is going to come when the fund needs CASH to write the checks to pay people.

We actually have more people paying into SS now than we did a generation ago. All the baby boomers had kids and the population has increased threefold. So there is money going in.

The problem is that we have politicians who believe that we are nothing but walking ATM cards. They've gotten the idea that they have the right to force us to pay for any damned thing they want to spend on -- look at the money they spend on their own luxury from our taxes. Those little trips Michelle Obama takes around the world could fund some very important projects. We have leaders who believe they are royalty and are dead set on living large with us picking up the tab. Until we get a congress who doesn't act like a bunch of thieving thugs, there isn't going to be enough money for anything but them.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6664259].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Here's yet another "fact" that is only fact in your mind. This is not a fact at all. I can list many examples of why it isn't one. Geesh.

SORRY, but he is RIGHT! I see worth in people as four things. One is really no good without SOMETHING in the other three. And one with any in the other two will likely NOT be on welfare for long. In fact, the CULTURAL poor that are poverty stricken through generations almost always lack the other 2. So that leaves the FOURTH! And WHAT is the fourth? People call it "net worth". Now NOTE, I am NOT saying that it is the whole worth of a person, ONLY that it is really the only tangible and easily compared item to indicate worth and is CALLED "NET WORTH".

On THAT basis, Gary V is RIGHT! SORRY!

And WHAT is SO hard to understand about the video he put up? Are people SO set on vengeance that they will ignore all that is said and endanger the viability of a nation?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6641438].message }}

R Hagel

12 years ago

I'm not getting into this debate, but I just wanted to say that the following is also not entirely accurate:

Originally Posted by garyv

Now if you consider the fact that over 50% of Americans hold some form of debt, then just as a matter of math we can conclude that anyone without debt has a worth more than the Bottom 50%.

For example:

Guy #1 has $1000 worth of debt and $2000 in the bank.

Guy #2 has zero debt and zero money in the bank.

Just because someone doesn't carry debt doesn't mean they're worth more than the bottom 50%.

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. (Also entirely possible.)

Becky

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638231].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Correct Becky. Pretty simple concept to understand really. Maybe Ken has a point about our education system after all. haha. :/

Originally Posted by R Hagel

I'm not getting into this debate, but I just wanted to say that the following is also not entirely accurate:

For example:

Guy #1 has $1000 worth of debt and $2000 in the bank.

Guy #2 has zero debt and zero money in the bank.

Just because someone doesn't carry debt doesn't mean they're worth more than the bottom 50%.

Unless I misunderstood what you were saying. (Also entirely possible.)

Becky

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6638346].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Sorry,
I still refuse to shop there.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6632081].message }}

kevinmartinjr

12 years ago

Walmart is definitely one of the BEST stores in the world. Great place for employment and awesome prices too

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6633399].message }}

MissTerraK 12 years ago

Originally Posted by kevinmartinjr

Walmart is definitely one of the BEST stores in the world. Great place for employment and awesome prices too

Huh?

I'm not sure if you're being serious or facetious.

Terra
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6633949].message }}
- MoneyMagnetMagnate 12 years ago
  
  If they can't "Make it There"...I guess they will have to "Make it Everywhere" ...
  It's up to you, New York...New York...
  
  Back to giving little towns the "Little Town Blues"...
  
  Wal-Mart Chief Writes Off New York*
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/bu...erland&emc=rss
  
  There are no Walmarts in New York City due to intense opposition from local unions and politicians?
  And I thought it was the parking
  
  (*fyi: this story Published: March 28, 2007)
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6633990].message }}

magicunicorn

12 years ago

I stopped shopping there after I saw the documentary walmart the high cost of low price. Too many unbelievable facts about wal mart and the waltons greed to count. We the consumer have the power, we have to hit them in their profits to change anything.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6635931].message }}

KimW

12 years ago

Originally Posted by magicunicorn

I stopped shopping there after I saw the documentary walmart the high cost of low price. Too many unbelievable facts about wal mart and the waltons greed to count. We the consumer have the power, we have to hit them in their profits to change anything.

This was also a factor in my deciding to boycott walmart, along with the bribery scandals.

Thanks

Signature

Read A Post.
Subscribe to a Newsletter
KimWinfrey.Com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6654217].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

So what happens when we take the Walton family fortune, divide it by 100 million and give everyone their "fair share?"

We can all go out and buy a little weed and forget about all these problems - at least until the weed runs out...

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640460].message }}

TimPhelan 12 years ago

Finally someone talking sense! Dude.

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

We can all go out and buy a little weed and forget about all these problems - at least until the weed runs out...
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6640557].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Hmmm. I'm still wondering why anyone actually thinks Waltons pay taxes. People that rich are partially that rich because they have learned all the loopholes so they don't have to pay anything. Once you start making enough to secure the ability to use the loopholes, your future wealth is pretty much assured if you know how to use them.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6654574].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Hmmm. I'm still wondering why anyone actually thinks Waltons pay taxes. People that rich are partially that rich because they have learned all the loopholes so they don't have to pay anything. Once you start making enough to secure the ability to use the loopholes, your future wealth is pretty much assured if you know how to use them.

Well, the bulk of the money walmart has could be stored in another country. Given the situation now, they really have to do that ANYWAY! And they have money EVERYWHERE. HECK, if I had that many billion, I could thnk of some great ways to hide it.

And I ALREADY listed one way that Warren Buffet hides HIS money! I once got in an argument with a coworker. HE said that BH was a FUND! I said it was a stock. Admittedly, the distinction IS hard to make. The stock DOES cover a collection of companies and some DO change. So it looks like a fund, but is officially considered a stock. Stocks THEMSELVES often contain assets that amount to funds. Some car companies buy interest in their competitors, as do airlines, etc... I hope the IRS finds out! WHY? Well, the IRS found that the way funds worked was such that they often NEVER got paid! NEVER!!!!!!!! You see, they get paid on sales and dividends. And many mutual funds used to work like BH does today!

What did the IRS do? They mandated that ALL mutual funds distribute at least 80% of their gains as a dividend, or THEY must pay tax on it! So they distribute the gains, and many purchasers must then declare the dividend. BH doesn't issue a dividend, so WBs assets skyrocket with NO taxes!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6654850].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

SS was NEVER paid for! THAT is why they pay so little, and they keep raising the retirement age, etc....

MY generation paid enough, assuming little inflation, but the prevous one DIDN'T, even with NO inflation. So MY generation is paying theirs, and MY generation is supposed to be the largest. When WE retire, the youngest likely won't get anything back. SOME have actually suggested raising the retirement age to NINETY!

I ALWAYS wondered how those idiots could talk of a SS surplus when they don't have the details of what is needed. That requires knowing the inflation rates, and net increase of population for the next x years, where is the end of the program to now.
So WHAT does surplus mean? It is the amount that they are paid NOW minus the amount they must pay NOW! The amount they pay NOW should use what they were paid before they retired. Taking from later payers to pay earlier investors is known as a PONZI SCHEME! If WE did it, we would be thrown in jail, like Madoff was!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655573].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

BTW!

Spanish crisis pushes nation to brink of default - CBS News

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6655582].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Assuming all those now retired die, it looks like the number may only triple in the next 17 years or so. I guess they could start paying all the retirees $300/month now, and assuming that enough people work, social security could be "saved". How much do you think $300/month can pay for in 17 years? TODAY, it can't generally pay for an apartment. I guess you COULD buy a cheap second hand car and get insurance, but NOT gas.

Of course, they COULD triple the social security tax. It would be interesting to see what happens with THAT one. Of course, many employers would cut back on hiring.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6660589].message }}

Kurt

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Assuming all those now retired die, it looks like the number may only triple in the next 13 years or so. I guess they could start paying all the retirees $300/month now, and assuming that enough people work, social security could be "saved". How much do you think $300/month can pay for in 13 years? TODAY, it can't generally pay for an apartment. I guess you COULD buy a cheap second hand car and get insurance, but NOT gas.

Of course, they COULD triple the social security tax. It would be interesting to see what happens with THAT one. Of course, many employers would cut back on hiring.

Steve

Not if they had customers.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6660600].message }}

seasoned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Not if they had customers.

You REALLY think they would happily pay another 12-24% for all their employees? I DOUBT it!
And raising prices can COST customers!

Steve
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6660621].message }}
- Kurt 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by seasoned
  
  You REALLY think they would happily pay another 12-24% for all their employees? I DOUBT it!
  And raising prices can COST customers!
  
  Steve
  
  You really think employers will turn down profit? I doubt it!
  
  And more customers can also mean higher wages!
  
  BTW, who said "happily"? Why are you making things up again?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6660652].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

More customers don't usually mean higher wages - it usually means that if the business wants to keep those customers, they hire more people to take care of them. Unless, of course, the cost of the employee is higher than the worth of the customer. If net profit goes down on increased sales, what is the sense in having increased sales? The privilege of paying the government more money?

I've known several small business people, mainly in the trades, turn down new business because they'd end up making less money in the end - hardly the idea of being in business.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6663073].message }}

Doran Peck

12 years ago

There are many types of taxes that are collected. The revenue from those taxes goes to fund government programs and services.

With the exception of Income Tax. None of it goes to the government.

If you want to know what happens to it you can read the findings of The Grace Commission, which was formed by President Ronald Reagan.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6663526].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Doran Peck

There are many types of taxes that are collected. The revenue from those taxes goes to fund government programs and services.

With the exception of Income Tax. None of it goes to the government.

If you want to know what happens to it you can read the findings of The Grace Commission, which was formed by President Ronald Reagan.

WOW! So toll, sales, business, corpration, fuel, duty, etc... taxes DON'T go to the government?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6663900].message }}

Doran Peck

12 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

WOW! So toll, sales, business, corpration, fuel, duty, etc... taxes DON'T go to the government?

Steve

No, those taxes DO go to the government. Your income tax does not, nor has it ever.

The Grace Commission discovered that 2/3rds of the income tax is lost or wasted, and the other third goes to the Federal Reserve as interest.

"lost or wasted" is a polite way of saying that its fraudulently confiscated.

Its easily done too....thats why the goverment shows such expenditures as a $400 hammer...of course we all get in an uproar that the government baught a $400 hammer....what really happens...they pay $12 for the hammer...and pocket the rest.

As for the third going to the Fed....well we all know what an unnecessary waste that is.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6664474].message }}

TimPhelan

12 years ago

Thus, the Commission first claimed that one-third of income tax revenue is wasted by the government. Another third, the Commission claimed, is not collected because of underreporting of income. Then the Commission said that, with one-third of income tax wasted and another third not collected, the result is that all income tax is absorbed by interest on the national debt and transfer payments.

So even accepting the Commission's word as gospel, the Commission didn't say that all income tax goes to interest. The Commission said it goes to interest and transfer payments. "Transfer payments" are payments for programs such as welfare. You may or may not like welfare programs, but many people regard them as an important government function. So there's a big difference between saying that all income tax goes to interest and saying it all goes to interest and transfer payments.

Moreover, the Commission put its statement in a misleading way. In the last quoted paragraph, the Commission said that "all" income tax goes to interest and transfer payments, but the prior paragraphs show that the Commission meant "all the income tax left over after the part we regard as wasted." The Commission wrote off 1/3 of income tax as wasted. That's obviously pretty contestible. Moreover, because the Commission regarded 1/3 of income tax as "not collected," the 1/3 of income taxes that the Commission regarded as wasted represents 1/2 of all collected income taxes.

So what the Commission really said is "half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare." Again, even accepting the Commission's word, that's pretty different from "all income taxes go to interest."

So the statement that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt is completely wrong.

Income Tax Page

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6664792].message }}

garyv

12 years ago

I think that we should give our representatives a set time period from the time of the election to come up with an agreeable - or at least a majority voted on budget. And then if that time period passes without a budget being passed, then a budget proposal from the CBO becomes automatic. The CBO has some decent ideas on how to reduce our spending and increase our revenue in many areas, but they're not popular politically.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6663682].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I think that we should give our representatives a set time period from the time of the election to come up with an agreeable - or at least a majority voted on budget. And then if that time period passes without a budget being passed, then a budget proposal from the CBO becomes automatic. The CBO has some decent ideas on how to reduce our spending and increase our revenue in many areas, but they're not popular politically.

I think NS should be a portion of the non NS budget, and the rest should use existing amounts set in 1969 as a basis and representatiives should have to explain EVERY PENNY outside of that amount. Anyone caught misallocating funds should be thrown into a regular jail for 40 years as a TRAITOR!

HEY so many claim that there is no corruption, and inflation is non existant, or meaningless, so none of those can complain.

Budgets HAVE been mandated. I believe they were supposed to have one by october of 2007. They STILL don't have one.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6663951].message }}

Wal-Mart: 50 Years of Gutting America's Middle Class

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?