The Demise of the United States is Inevitable

[Carlos]

I'm not sure why he lurks in the shadows and hopes the Congress and the Senate can work things out themselves.

It's because NOBODY other than Obama is doing ANYTHING about it.

This is Obama saying "You political heads need to #@^&ing do something about this crisis!" Not Mr. Obama.

He already put in the seeds when he was sworn in as president.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

which market plummeted 20% ? Not heard about that...... yet.

The US markets actually plummeted 20% on the Monday, they recovered and closed at 5% down... approx rounded figures here.

Tuesday, they recovered about 4% growth. Wednesday, they lost another 5%. So here in Australia, being Thursday already, the US markets are closed, but overall since S&P's weekend downgrade, US markets are down a total of 6%.

I learnt today, that since April, the markets have actually dropped in total, 16%.

Its actually all a good thing IMHO right now, because the worlds economy was never sustainable to consistently continue increasing in wealth... that is not realistic based on past trends and how past decade data indicated. The entire world had to come down many notches and get back to reality, as all this growth was a bubble, never an actual defined good that had the backing of physical, tangible assets.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The 10 most valuable companies in the U.S. by market capitalization:

Interesting.
Apple nearing double the market cap of Microsoft.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Apple has recorded a 100% increase in the last 12 months. We have certainly helped that in this house and office, by changing completely to Apple everything. All a little learning curve to change, but wow... it just works without issue and there really is nothing that cannot be done on Mac that could on PC... the last of the converts, MYOB, have even converted with better performing products than their Windows basis.

I was reading up on the Apple facts the other day when I heard them taking the #1 spot from Exxon... I can fully understand why they are now the worlds market leader.

 

[Fred Sherman]

That is exactly my point. Lets say we see no job growth at all in any given month, but see a decline of 100,000 public sector jobs and an increase in 100,000 private sector jobs. Its cause for celebration because that is economic growth. In that scenario, there should be zero effort expended to creating new public sector jobs or preventing their loss. All effort should be focused on continuing to grow the private sector further.

A public sector employee is a drag on growth, being paid for out of the tax burden and their work does nothing to contribute to GDP or stimulate growth. A private sector job increases the GDP, contributes to economic stimulus, and adds to the revenue base. This one for one swap is a damned fine trend.

 

[Fred Sherman]

Apple has recorded a 100% increase in the last 12 months. We have certainly helped that in this house and office, by changing completely to Apple everything. All a little learning curve to change, but wow... it just works without issue and there really is nothing that cannot be done on Mac that could on PC... the last of the converts, MYOB, have even converted with better performing products than their Windows basis.

I was reading up on the Apple facts the other day when I heard them taking the #1 spot from Exxon... I can fully understand why they are now the worlds market leader.

I made that switch myself not too long ago and haven't looked back. Not only is Mac OS far superior to Windows, the cost of software is lower. MS Office for Mac is far and away better than its Windows counterpart, which was a big surprise to me. Finally, its UNIX so whatever I can't do in the GUI, I sure as hell can shell script from the command line.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Colbert gets FEC permission to form "Super' PAC.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

WASHINGTON Comedian Stephen Colbert won approval from the Federal Election Commission to start a political organization that he plans to use to promote or oppose candidates in the 2012 election.

Mr. Colbert also prompted the agency to make a decision that could have implications, though in narrow circumstances, for politicians and others wishing to influence elections.

In a 5-1 vote, the agency ruled that Mr. Colbert's staff at Comedy Central can help his political organization produce campaign ads but only if the ads air as part of his comedy program.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

source: http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/episodeiv-anewhope/
source: http://gawker.com/5829688/stephen-colberts-super-pac-releases-its-first-ad

Campaign Financing in the United States is a national embarrassment.
PACs ? #scam #joke #ridiculous
Hopefully this Colbert stunt actually sheds some light on campaign financing.

 

[Ranger375]

The problem is leadership at all levels starting from the top. Yes, Obama has done nothing other than make the crisis worse. Spend spend spend is not the answer. I guess that happens when you elect a President who didn't really have any experience (not to mention never voted anything other than "present" when it came to bills in the Senate). But hey, people wanted change, and they got it Congress is full of old decrepit people who spend more time campaigning for their jobs than solving problems. Term limits might help out there....

 

[Fred Sherman]

It's because NOBODY other than Obama is doing ANYTHING about it.

This is Obama saying "You political heads need to #@^&ing do something about this crisis!" Not Mr. Obama.

He already put in the seeds when he was sworn in as president.

Yeah, uhh...

It really doesn't work that way. And it sure doesn't explain why there hasn't been a budget for over 800 days, just continuing resolutions. It seems you see leadership where the rest of the world - including his own party - sees none.

I don't find any of this unexpected. The man had no political credentials before taking office. He didn't even finish out his first term as a freshman senator before running for president. He didn't have the resume for the job.

Lets be honest here. Obama wasn't elected president, "not Bush" was. McCain was the Bush surrogate. I guarantee you the mood in the country was so anti-Bush that had the race been Jesus of Nazareth (R) vs. Lucifer the Fallen (D), we'd be the Satanic States of America.

So from that perspective, I don't really blame Obama for being what he is - a community organizer with no real leadership skills or experience in national politics thrust onto the political stage at a moment of great historic importance and crisis.

I blame the people who elected him and cast an emotional and not an educated ballot.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

A private sector job increases the GDP, contributes to economic stimulus, and adds to the revenue base. This one for one swap is a damned fine trend.

Which seems to have recovered a 4% growth from all this market damage from the latest US job figures, outlining growth and a decrease in unemployment. Really good to see, and hope it continues.

We currently have that issue here in Australia. Labor are in Government, will absolutely be booted at the next election from polling results, no questions there. They spend money frivoulously, waste money on stupid programs that fail, then of all the stupid things, they increase public sector Government positions, employing people that endup sitting around doing little to nothing, usually creating schemes to waste money and drag the country downwards, which they are achieving.

Our Coalition, do the exact opposite, being they reduce Government positions, making people work effectively, then use that money to bolster the economy itself by public sector employment growth, hence when under that Government, Australia grows.

Why is Labor back in Government? The simple answer is that they pulled a youth vote election, Facebook, Twitter, Online, catchy crap appealing to the youth, and captured their votes, when they have little overall knowledge of politics. They now got one here quickly, with a 20% + increase cost to living since 07 when they put them in. The last election was a hung parliament, but as Labor were in, they pulled their secondary support that got them over the line.

Problem is... the current leader they have for the Coalition is an idiot... and in Australia they aren't just puppets, they actually have to lead or they get the party booted.

This could be a novel... but you get the idea no doubt. Obviously the same in the US... two primary parties, two different strategies. One usually ruins economies, the other fixes it... then the public forget how much they fixed things so quickly, putting back the one that destroys it. Merry-go-round anyone?

 

[Fred Sherman]

We don't have that problem Anthony. We don't have one party that ruins and another that fixes, we have two that are hell bent on ruining, each using a different path to hell.

Its like getting beaten to death by a guy on your left or a guy on your right. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the hits are coming from, the end result is still pain, blood and death. The only way this country could be any more polarized is if it were 1864.

At the next election, the American people will send the Dems packing and maybe a few RINOs too and all will seem well for a little while. But the dirty truth is it doesn't matter too much if you swap out the players if the rules to the game remain the same and politics is one ugly game.

Folks will be happy with their shiny new president until they realize the allure of power is such that anyone who wants the job is so morally suspect that they shouldn't be allowed to have it.

Shakespeare put the words, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers", on the lips of Utopian idealist **** the butcher in Henry the Sixth as he plots revolution with Jack Cade. I can assure you those words held no contempt for the legal profession. Rather, as political revolutionaries themselves, it was the realization even then that a lawyer is nothing more than the larval form of a politician.

 

[Digital Doctor]

Its like getting beaten to death by a guy on your left or a guy on your right. Ultimately, it doesn't matter where the hits are coming from, the end result is still pain, blood and death.

Maybe a third party is needed ?
As you say, it'll be more of the same ilk.

Canada has 3.
4 if you include the greens.
5 if you include the Bloc Quebecois (which by the last election, no one did).

If the goal was political change, don't the politicians themselves have to rule on that ? Politicians, like everyone, don't usually vote to give themselves less power ! It seems like it is a Catch 22.

 

[SchmitzIT]

...they increase public sector Government positions, employing people that endup sitting around doing little to nothing...

That's not Labour. That's communism. Is the party leader's name Castro by any chance?

 

[Fred Sherman]

...they increase public sector Government positions, employing people that endup sitting around doing little to nothing...

We have the same situation here in the US, except it isn't the government, its unions.

Unions in the US are definitely socialist. Consider the pundits talking about how Republicans managed to maintain control in Wisconsin's state recall elections, which was a result of the curtailing state worker unions:

"The revolution has not occurred," said UW-Milwaukee political science professor Mordecai Lee, a former Democratic lawmaker. "The proletariat did not take over the streets."

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_0eab6966-c2a9-11e0-a206-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1UotNUeJh

The proletariat did not take over the streets? Are you kidding me?

 

[grant sarver]

Sad, but true. The decline of the US is now unstoppable.

First and foremost, 52% of all Americans pay no tax whatsoever. The problem with that is that the burden will be shifted more and more to "the rich", and the population of "the rich" will grow smaller and smaller.

You have to understand what "rich" means. A business with over a $1 million/year in revenue is "rich" - but is it? Lets say that business has $250,000 in machinery that it needs to function as a business. It also has 15 employees earning $50K on average a year. Thats a net profit of $250K. Between Federal, state, local and FICA, 55% of that is gone. Thats $112,500 in net profit. Out of that, they have to manage inventory, operating expenses, equipment maintenance and have enough left over to save for equipment refreshes every 3 years. Hardly rich at all, is it?

First off I certainly don't agree with your premise "The Demise of the United States is Inevitable"

Second, I'm retired from being an owner of a business fairly close to your example. $250K is about right for capital equipment, but 15 employees is way heavy (for manufacturing) for $1 million sales. Federal tax does not come out before "inventory, operating expenses, equipment maintenance". All of those are deductions from income tax. Profit? Who needs profit? Profit is what a corporation pays tax on. Why would I want profit? I made more than $150K plus a pile went into a self-directed IRA and I was also the corporation's landlord. No trouble getting a commercial mortgage with a twenty-year lease in my hand! Not to mention I always drove a new MB (company car, of course).

Save for equipment? Well, let's see; expensing, depreciating, energy and other tax credits. Some energy-saving equipment was paid for 100% by the local power company! I paid the same federal income tax as General Electric; ZERO! Yes, we have the highest corporate income tax in the developed world, but nobody pays it! "52% of all Americans pay no tax whatsoever"? And probably a higher percentage of corporations "pay no income tax whatsoever"!

Oh yeah, my self directed IRA invested in a nice vacation home in Baja Mexico (which we rent out on occasion). No, not "rich", but comfortable enough.

 

[grant sarver]

Also, your quote is incorrect to begin with. It is impossible to "not pay any tax whatsoever". Here in Washington State we have nearly 10% sales tax. And property tax. And the lower income people buy a higher percentage of taxable items than wealthier people. I was able to invest 30 - 40% of my net income (no sales tax on that). How many low income people can do that? It's called "leverage" and the lower incomes don't even get a lever! Once basic needs are met, it's all leverage!

 

[Fred Sherman]

Also, your quote is incorrect to begin with. It is impossible to "not pay any tax whatsoever". Here in Washington State we have nearly 10% sales tax. And property tax. And the lower income people buy a higher percentage of taxable items than wealthier people. I was able to invest 30 - 40% of my net income (no sales tax on that). How many low income people can do that? It's called "leverage" and the lower incomes don't even get a lever! Once basic needs are met, it's all leverage!

Apples and oranges, my friend (or chalk and cheese for our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic). We absolutely can and do have 46% of household paying no federal taxes. Sales and property taxes are state and local taxes.

As to my example, it'll hold pretty true for a small IT company. As for the rest, you are exploiting the loopholes in the tax code that our friends on the left want to remove, proving that they are, in fact, business killing ideas.

 

[grant sarver]

When comparing tax burdens of different countries it's normal to include federal, state and local taxes. Your original statement was "pay no tax whatsoever" not "pay no income tax". Big difference.

Exploiting the loopholes? Like deducting "inventory, operating expenses, equipment maintenance"? Am I "gaming the system" when I say "Gee, I think I should give myself a raise"? Are you "exploiting the loopholes" when you take the deductions you're allowed?

 

[Fred Sherman]

We are discussing federal income tax and federal government spending. Attempting to artificially inject state and local taxes into the discussion is just a red herring. It has no bearing on federal taxes or federal spending. In fact, many states require a balanced state budget. Texas does, which probably explains why we have job growth and population growth. We also have no state income tax. But again, not germane to the discussion.

I have no problem with you taking advantage of every available loophole. I do. Then again, I'm not one of the cheerleaders for the left talking about shared sacrifice as a code word for taking them away from you without addressing the fact that nearly half the households have no skin in the game themselves.

 

[jadmperry]

We are discussing federal income tax and federal government spending. Attempting to artificially inject state and local taxes into the discussion is just a red herring. It has no bearing on federal taxes or federal spending. In fact, many states require a balanced state budget. Texas does, which probably explains why we have job growth and population growth. We also have no state income tax. But again, not germane to the discussion.

I have no problem with you taking advantage of every available loophole. I do. Then again, I'm not one of the cheerleaders for the left talking about shared sacrifice as a code word for taking them away from you without addressing the fact that nearly half the households have no skin in the game themselves.

A few points of disagreement.

I don't think the balanced budget amendment has anything to do with population or job growth. I do think that Texas is attractive to employers (especially in comparison to other states with more onerous regulation). But, one of the larger factors in job growth is (in my opinion), the low pay that many are willing to accept in Texas.

An interesting point is that President Obama's Recovery Act is credited with creating 47,000 jobs in Texas.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7210083.html . This appears to be included in the 237,000 jobs created in Texas from June 2009-April 2011. http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14/3152456/story-of-texas-job-growth-not.html . But, 9.5% of all jobs in Texas are at the minimum wage level, which ties Texas with Mississippi as the highest in the nation. http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/

Also, of the 1 million jobs created during Gov. Perry's tenure, " nearly one-third were in government. Because of the surging population, more than half of those new public sector jobs were at public schools. Those jobs are likely to be lost in coming years....Lawmakers in the recent session were forced to slash the budget to make up for a shortfall estimated at $27 billion. The cuts will cost at least 100,000 jobs by 2013, according to an independent analysis released early this year. " http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...to-presidential-race-touting-texas-job-growth

Of course, it should be remembered that along with a favorable business climate, Texas enjoys an advantage in natural resources. "Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone." http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/

Now, this is not a dig at Texas (I am quite fond of the state and lived in San Antonio for 4 years until 2007 and am considering moving back as soon as my son finishes high school). It is just pointing out that the tax issues and job growth issues are complex. And, I do think that there is a relationship, though not direct, between local, state and Federal taxation. For example, a state or locality that secures a Federal educational grant of money and uses that to hire teachers does not have a need to have higher local or state taxes to pay for services (teacher's salaries). That Federal grant had to come from Federal revenues (taxes).