marks2065

I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made. UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year. I think those who are retiring this year are pleased to have Soc Sec because their nice safe 401Ks have tanked so badly. Those who invested in nice safe real estate are regretting it too. QuoteI guess you missed the part about safe secured accounts.

reply] The amount an individual can leave to heirs free of federal estate taxes in 2009 is $3.5 million. You must have a pretty nice house, Mark, if you are concerned about it.

I've not heard of anyone being denied their SocSec payments, and I believe the system is solvent for some 30+ years even if no changes are made. UNLIKE those who depended on their 401k for retirement this year.

You guys are seriously in need of some professional counseling before these "conservative" fear induced phobias cause serious antisocial behaviors.

Now, back to the socialized medicine thread...

it seems pretty obvious to me that an inheritance tax is the fairest of them (the taxed individual is dead so it's not going to affect them much, if at all

it seems pretty obvious to me that an inheritance tax is the fairest of them (the taxed individual is dead so it's not going to affect them much, if at all

Do you really, no shit, believe that the President is actively trying to destroy the economy so he can turn the US into a communist state? If so you have completely lost touch with the real world. How do you expect people to discuss issues seriously when such ridiculous extremes seem to be turning into normal positions? Quotehow do you expect people to stop the change to socialism if people are not open to the possibility that Obama just may have an agenda to do just that? I hope this is not his agenda but it does look like it is going that way. we in america enjoy personal freedoms because we can earn money and pay to do them, socialism reduces and sometimes eliminates that ability and allows only the higher classes to enjoy the benifits that we enjoy just by working for them.

money is taxed when you earn it, spend it, bank it - the same dollar goes round and round the economy and is taxed over and over again - inheritance tax is no different from any other tax in that respect. i think it is the fairest tax as the person getting taxed is gone, dead, shuffled off this mortal coil etc...

Quotesounds about right, hopefully i won't be around to see the disaster unfold.

We're not talking about closing...reorganizing without the huge perrennial debt obligations that have tied their hands for too long. QuoteIf GM goes under there would be a temporary dive in the economy but the US will buy x amount of cars this year and that means the other companies will sell more causing them to become stronger and have to hire more people thus relieving some of the problem caused by GM going under. Some of the company will survive and that part would be stronger and most likely without the UAW influence that is partially to blame for the currant situation. The problem we are having is not that GM is going under, but is doing it at this fragile time in our economy.

Who said that only business owners are the ones that pay their fair share (as your statement clearly implies)? How is "fair" defined? By how much YOU want to pay? QuoteI don't want to pay any but I am willing to pay as long as everyone, including those that make less than 50k pay a fair percentage also. If the people making less than 50k don't have to pay and get money sent to them in the form of welfare why do I have to pay?Who is being discriminated against now?

That wasn't the federal government. That was a direct result of capitalism at work. Hence the need for restrictions and federal protection against people making stupid decisions. no that was pressure from from clinton, carter, and groups like accorn say the banks were discriminating and needed to free up money to low income areas.

(Careful, though! You are getting dangerously close to objecting to tax cuts. They take away your GOP card if you do that!) Quote I don't think we need tax cuts right now we need everyone to pay a fair percentage, including those that make less than 50k a year. I don't believe in welfare and everyone needs to pay a percentage, not get back money they didn't pay in.

So of these stimulii take more than 12 months to take effect, like for instance interest rate cuts. Would you prefer they would not have cut interest rates until there was a proven result from the first cut? QuoteI would have liked that they not give loans to people that couldn't pay them back. Hold CEO's responsible for running the company into the ground by siezing their assets and sending them to jail if needed. Stop wasting tax payer dollars on parks and other pork projects, if the project is important enough for the fed gov to pay for it should be able to stand on its own, not inserted into a bill. Reading and understanding the bills they pass and the impact or results they will cause. these things would be a good start and do more than any of the money in the stimulus bill.

Quote>I want the US to grow and prosper, but this bill will not help us and alot of >Americans know this. The bill will almost certainly reduce the time it takes the economy to recover. The combination of tax cuts and increased spending will put more money into the consumer economy, and we are primarily a consumer economy. Quote It will give a very short and a very small amount of relief. Obama is working on raising taxes on the ones that already pay more than their fair share and they are cutting back already by lay offs, reduced benifits to employees, and less donations because of the economy. Those that employ and spend the most will be finding ways to show less income to reduce the tax burden and will save more of their money in tax free acounts rather than pay the increased tax. this alone will cause a huge problem in the working sector by reduction of goods bought and people employed. these things will cause Obama's plan to be temporary and ultimately fail and leave us with a huge debt to pay. Just as in FDR's new deal. And just because you get $13. a week back in tax relief doesn't mean you are saving. The cap and trade will greatly increase our cost of heat, electric, and gas far more than $13. a week.

problem is, nobody knows, that's the problem with uncharted waters. What would you consider to be responsible?

QuoteAnd if they can't answer that then they need to slow down and find the answer first. Fiscal responsibility comes first and right now they are not being resposible. The asshats didn't even read the bill before voting on it. How can you have any responsibility if you don't even know what you voted for?

Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great. Where were you when Bush was starting a $trillion war in Iraq?

Then who is? that is still being worked out, but i like the direction alot of the rep party are leaning to.

Because the question is whether or not the current stimilus package is irresponsible spending. We won't be able to truly answer that question for several years, if ever. I think we can all agree that no spending would be catastrophic. but alot less spending by the gov would be great.