Marcus, I said in an earlier post: This woman is incapbble of raising those kids given her situation. She is seriously putting the kids well being in danger. The kids should taken away by social services. They most likely will end up in carefully screned adopted families, as in parental drug abuse cases. The woman should be left alone and figure her way back herself. That will set an example…
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > I don’t care much for the mother, but what do > you > > propose we do with those 5 kids which will not > end > > up costing the taxpayers same if not more? > > > they can live with their neighbor’s 5 kids. or > they can live with a relative or just live out on > the streets, which is probably where they were > even when their mom had a home. people can be > amazingly resilient when given the chance. I see, so lets say if they kids are aged 1 year old to 5 year old, they should be out on streets fending for themselves. I agree, a 1 year old can be extremely resilient in sub zero temperatures. Why, I see a whole lot of toddlers dumpster diving accross the city.
maybe they can stay at your place?
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > maybe they can stay at your place? Why yes, at least I don’t pretend to be a Christian.
So, Alpha, how do you feel about the compromise? You got your tax breaks, but those lazy bums will still get your money. I think it’s terrible all around. Separately, I’d like to point out that Republicans were just swept into office riding the wave of “lower deficit, smaller government”, and their first act is to…hold up any other actions until $700B in additional spending (cost of high earner tax cuts) is passed, and their compromise for getting that passed is…additional spending. Congratulations, America, you got the government you deserve.
There are no costs associated with tax costs. The only costs in government arise from SPENDING. Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say something without economic substance (just like a political slappy) like “costs of not raising taxes.”
FINforLIL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no costs associated with tax costs. The > only costs in government arise from SPENDING. > > > Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say > something without economic substance (just like a > political slappy) like “costs of not raising > taxes.” Whatever dude. Have you seen how the bond market reacted to the “no cost” tax cuts?
“We’ll give you 700 billion dollars in tax breaks, if you’ll give us 5.5 billion dollars in unemployment extension benefits.” Those guys know how to drive a hard bargain.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, Alpha, how do you feel about the compromise? > You got your tax breaks, but those lazy bums will > still get your money. I think it’s terrible all > around. > > Separately, I’d like to point out that Republicans > were just swept into office riding the wave of > “lower deficit, smaller government”, and their > first act is to…hold up any other actions until > $700B in additional spending (cost of high earner > tax cuts) is passed, and their compromise for > getting that passed is…additional spending. > Congratulations, America, you got the government > you deserve. This made me chuckle. Thank you. It’s basically the same ole trickle-down/supply side economics at its best.
LBriscoe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever dude. Have you seen how the bond market > reacted to the “no cost” tax cuts? Pretty much the same way it reacted to QE2? Fiscal and monetary policy are both a joke.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Separately, I’d like to point out that Republicans > were just swept into office riding the wave of > “lower deficit, smaller government”, and their > first act is to…hold up any other actions until > $700B in additional spending (cost of high earner > tax cuts) is passed, and their compromise for > getting that passed is…additional spending. > Congratulations, America, you got the government > you deserve. This was my first reaction to the “compromise.” Both parties “compromised” by agreeing to spend more and further increase the deficit. I think it’s more egregious for the Republicans, who claim to be deficit hawks, yet whose major victory is passing tax breaks for people making $250k+?
FINforLIL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no costs associated with tax costs. The > only costs in government arise from SPENDING. > > > Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say > something without economic substance (just like a > political slappy) like “costs of not raising > taxes.” You are aware the federal government is running a deficit, aren’t you?
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FINforLIL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There are no costs associated with tax costs. > The > > only costs in government arise from SPENDING. > > > > > > Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say > > something without economic substance (just like > a > > political slappy) like “costs of not raising > > taxes.” > > You are aware the federal government is running a > deficit, aren’t you? I don’t think he is. Or he thinks that we will abrogate our debt.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “We’ll give you 700 billion dollars in tax breaks, > if you’ll give us 5.5 billion dollars in > unemployment extension benefits.” > > Those guys know how to drive a hard bargain. I’m pretty sure they got more than that… “Of its estimated $900 billion-plus cost over two years, roughly $120 billion covers the high-end tax cuts and the estate tax cut, $450 billion covers Mr. Obama’s wish list and $360 billion covers the tax cut extensions both parties favored.” (Source:NyTimes.com)
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “We’ll give you 700 billion dollars in tax breaks, > if you’ll give us 5.5 billion dollars in > unemployment extension benefits.” > > Those guys know how to drive a hard bargain. OK, I misheard a data point on the radio. Clearly the extension of jobless benefits is going to cost more than 5.5 billion. However, it’s still orders of magnitude less than the other end of the exchange.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > “We’ll give you 700 billion dollars in tax > breaks, > > if you’ll give us 5.5 billion dollars in > > unemployment extension benefits.” > > > > Those guys know how to drive a hard bargain. > > > OK, I misheard a data point on the radio. Clearly > the extension of jobless benefits is going to cost > more than 5.5 billion. However, it’s still orders > of magnitude less than the other end of the > exchange. That argument only works if you ignore the fact that $360 billion of tax cuts are favored by both the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, only about $120 billion is for the much-argued rich tax breaks. The unemployment insurance itself is about $56 billion and includes other things like payroll tax cuts and low-0income credits. They also threw in bonus depreciation to induce the buying of more capital assets. All in all, I think it was an ok deal, but Democrats are crying mostly because there wasn’t much of a fight. Edit: Source - http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/12/tax_agreement.html Yah I know that it’s a liberal/progressive site, but I doubt they would fudge the numbers in any material respect. It got linked through a NyTimes.com article I was reading earlier.
FINforLIL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no costs associated with tax costs. The > only costs in government arise from SPENDING. > > > Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say > something without economic substance (just like a > political slappy) like “costs of not raising > taxes.” Is this a joke? Give yourself a huge pay cut and see if it becomes easier or harder to balance your budget.
monger187 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FINforLIL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There are no costs associated with tax costs. > The > > only costs in government arise from SPENDING. > > > > > > Shameful for somebody in a CFA forum to say > > something without economic substance (just like > a > > political slappy) like “costs of not raising > > taxes.” > > > Is this a joke? Give yourself a huge pay cut and > see if it becomes easier or harder to balance your > budget. Indeed, but historically tax revenue runs right around 18% of GDP. Even now with amazingly low tax rates across the board it’s only been trimmed to around 17%. Spending, on the other hand, has historically been around 18-19%, but is now at 26%. Which one seems out of whack to you?
I’m going to go out of a limb here. But this is the truth: If you look at Medicare numbers, the horrendous waste comes for a small %. “12% of Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for 70% of ALL Medicare spending. The sickest 5% are responsible for 43% of ALL Medicare spending.” Medicare in 2008 costs the government $600 BN, and still growing ridiculously Now, this might sound horrible, but if the sickest 5% is costing the country $258 BN a year, why don’t we let them go? This $258 BN is taxes from EVERYONE, why is it going to help just these 5% of people? Suggesting this is political suicide, but thinking about it logically…
greengrape Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m going to go out of a limb here. But this is > the truth: > > If you look at Medicare numbers, the horrendous > waste comes for a small %. > > “12% of Medicare beneficiaries are responsible for > 70% of ALL Medicare spending. > The sickest 5% are responsible for 43% of ALL > Medicare spending.” > > Medicare in 2008 costs the government $600 BN, and > still growing ridiculously > > Now, this might sound horrible, but if the sickest > 5% is costing the country $258 BN a year, why > don’t we let them go? > This $258 BN is taxes from EVERYONE, why is it > going to help just these 5% of people? > > Suggesting this is political suicide, but thinking > about it logically… Logan’s Run could solve all our problems.