<p>"Clinton knocks Obama plan she’d consider "</p>
<p>Just another example of Clinton trying to be on both (all?) sides of the fence at the same time. Yesterday, when confronted about her vote in favor of the stricter bankrupcy rules, she said that she was “happy that it never became law”. So, why vote for a bill that you don’t want to become law?</p>
<p>Not one of Clinton’s or Edwards’ better moments.</p>
<p>Bernenke talked in front of the house budget committee today. I watched this and it became clear. Many of the people on this committee don’t know what they are doing.</p>
<p>No wonder we are in a mess.</p>
<p>Nobody cares with what might happen to social security taxes?</p>
<p>The people in this country have been paying more money into social security than has been taken out every year for at least 30 years (I think it is every year social security has been in existence). </p>
<p>We are still paying more than we take out and I think this is going to be true for another 9 years. </p>
<p>Yet, after all these years of overfunding, the taxpayers are expected to pay even more into social security.</p>
<p>Let’s keep overfunding social security, forever.</p>
<p>Thank god for that. I’m all for gridlock. Sometines doing nothing is better than the unintended consequences of trying to do something. Most people have adapted to the status quo and are happy (according to surveys).</p>
<p>“do you think that because wealthy people who earn for example $ 500,000 a year, as compared to a person that earns $ 50,000 a year receives more from the government in terms of services and infrastructure ?”</p>
<p>Much, much, much more. How do you think the goods and services get to the rich? For whose interests are the shipping lanes protected? For whose benefit are NAFTA, WTO, and World Bank created and supported? </p>
<p>For whom do we iinvade and aggressively and hostily occupy other sovereign nations? </p>
<p>“Sorry, I don’t agree . You want major tax increases and it must fall upon the wealthy. Sounds like you like the idea of socialism.”</p>
<p>I think we already HAVE socialism. Corporate socialism. The rich have united in their class interests to control the means of production and the government to serve their class interests. It is the very essence of socialism.</p>
<p>“When you are president, who will be defined as rich?”</p>
<p>You. (and me). Actually (and with exceptions of course), those who a-hem earn the majority of their income (over a certain point) from things other than working. You can figure it out for yourself.</p>
<p>“You. (and me). Actually (and with exceptions of course), those who a-hem earn the majority of their income (over a certain point) from things other than working. You can figure it out for yourself.”</p>
<p>Well that ain’t me Mini. I make a lot because I work a lot. Many people could do the same and choose not to. Imagine what a great world it would be where people worked hard and took care of themselves.</p>
<p>lje62, Romney destroyed the public schools in Massachusetts in a number of ways. By cutting the state budget in the manner in which he did it, cutting aid from the state to localities, he simply shifted the costs of schools from the state to the local level. This was done so that he could say that he never raised taxes. So local cities & towns were forced either to cut their own school budgets or to raise property taxes (which is how schools are funded in MA). But there’s a state law which provides that cities & towns can’t raise property taxes over a certain amount without voter approval (it’s called Proposition 2 1/2). Now the school budgets get pitted against the police and firefighters and other local needs in special elections to allow for property tax increases. Families with children (“we need good schools”) were fighting with senior citizens (“we already raised our kids and don’t have any in school”). Either local citizens voted to raise their property taxes(while Romney could tout all day that he never raised taxes and the state ran just fine, thank you), or they allowed school and other local budgets to be decimated. After all, the money has to come from somewhere. In our own school district every non-tenured teacher is handed a pink slip in March, because school districts cannot count on how much state aid they might get. The hope is that the teachers can be rehired, but who knows? And if you’re a teacher, do you really want to go through that? And our school district is not alone.</p>
<p>As far as higher education is concerned, Romney cut state spending on colleges & universities. Then he raised their costs by raising “fees”; tuition is still low, but counts for less than 20% of the costs of attending UMass Amherst, for example. The infrastructure is aging, many teaching positions are filled by part-time adjunct professors, class sizes are increasing, etc.</p>
<p>Chevda, that was a nice explanation of what Romney did, and also it was a great explanation of the USA economic policies of the last couple of decades.</p>
<p>The US government doesn’t stop spending, we just stop the funding of the spending or pass the costs to different entities. </p>
<p>This brings back what I said in the first post. I want low taxes and low spending.</p>
<p>Today, Bernanke was asked what the US government should do for its economy. Bernanke said the US government should use arithmetic. If you want low taxes, you need low spending. If you want to spend, then you need to pay for it. </p>
<p>It’s simple arithmetic.</p>
<p>The Romneys of the world who brag about not raising taxes when they are sending the costs to somebody else are full of crap.</p>
<p>“If you have to work for a living, you aren’t rich.”</p>
<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>Asset taxes would lead to increased investments, both in public and private infrastructure, and would spur innovation.</p>
<p>“Well that ain’t me Mini.”</p>
<p>Then you have nothing to fear from me, and LOTS to fear from the corporate socialists. </p>
<p>“Mini needs to be put in a museum–the last living Marxist in the US.”</p>
<p>It was actually Engels who first described corporate socialism - and he knew, 'cause he was one. The corporate socialists (the REAL Marxists) know precisely where their class interests lie, and know how to organize to further them.</p>
<p>“Guess that makes me a proud member of the corporate socialist class.”</p>
<p>Me too. A bunch of privileged guys got together and decided to practice law together, which is why I have the job that I do, with the benefits that I have. I wouldn’t want them taxed or penalizaed to the point that they cut back. I wouldn’t want that to happen to most employers.</p>
<p>Thank you Chevda and Dstark.
Sounds like Dem gov of NJ, only he raised the taxes. We have the highest property taxes in the country and still have school programs cut regularly</p>
<p>I am not against free enterprise.
I am all for entrepreneurs and holding on to the money they make.
I am not for taking the profits of successful businesses and sharing them with the general population ,simply because they make more money.
I am not for punishing people who work hard and happen to make more money than others.</p>
<p>Chevda said it much better than I could. (re: Romney and schools - Gloucester, MA may had to close an elementary school to meet the budget. It’s nuts.)</p>
<p>So why aren’t these problems in MA brought up in the debates. I have not watched all of them (too many, and too long), but I have watched enough and have not heard about these issues.</p>
<p>lje, about NJ, I hear you. We seem to have some of the overlapping issues that MA has!</p>
<p>zoosermom, yes, a lot of the state income taxes went back to the cities and towns, with significant amounts allocated for education. Additionally, funds from the state lottery were earmarked for local education. He reduced the amounts going back to cities and towns from the lottery.</p>
<p>
Because they’re not nice sound-bites like “I never raised taxes.”</p>
<p>“Additionally, funds from the state lottery were earmarked for local education. He reduced the amounts going back to cities and towns from the lottery.”</p>
<p>I can sort of make a case for localities choosing their own priorities, as long as state taxes were reduced accordingly, but what now gets done with the lottery money?</p>
(and me). Actually (and with exceptions of course), those who a-hem earn the majority of their income (over a certain point) from things other than working. You can figure it out for yourself.</p>