Most recent White House lie-Stimulous created jobs

Most recent White House lie-Stimulous created jobs

Real Estate Investor · the villages, FL · Member since 2008 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705340463/Stimulus-jobs-overstated-by-thousands.html?pg=2

This shouldn't come as a surprise, but new facts show more misrepresentations from the current administration. This is hard to believe,lol. 2.4 billion dollars given to create a new electric rubber band operated car. I guess there will be some subsidy to help stuff these glorified golf carts down our throats.
BTW, My golf cart (32 ford) in my avatar IS street legal. Also, google the article on converted bumper cars, that were turned into street legal!! Left over from a carnival bumper car ride, now on the streets. From Hummer to bumper car is quite an amazing accomplishment.
I just get a kick seeing how fast we're being led down the path to destruction as a nation. Very sad. The founding fathers had it correct, and they must be rolling over in their graves. Hard to believe America has gone from a hard working, God fearing people, to one only motivated by subsidies and entitlements, with little concern for God, marriage and family. Autos, homes, food, health care etc are all subsidized. Our country is like a little red wagon that we load bricks onto. One brick is ok, and another is added, and another, until the last one crushes the axles and foundation of the wagon. Same thing happening, imo to America with all the entitlements. Wagon will break, just a matter of when, imo. Rich in Cancun

87 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member

Moderator

Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes

Originally posted by Rich Weese:

I only care about USA being compared with USA of decades ago. We are approaching 3rd rate.

We've been approaching 3rd rate for decades now.

Education in this country is a joke (we rank 9th in Math, 11th in Science worldwide), and without kids getting the best education in the world, the future of this country is bleak.

Instead of spending 50% of my tax money to "liberate" middle eastern countries, I'd rather more of that money get spent here at home improving our educational system.

As much as people think politicians are ruining this country, the decay starts at the bottom. Stupid Americans raising stupid kids who are getting horrible educations...

If the average American continues to get dumber at the current rate, we'll be lucky to remain 3rd rate...

Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)

See this reply in the discussion

66 Replies

Jump to latestLatest

Sort by

Timothy W.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
Just fighting fire with fire....

Probably why we get along everywhere but the political forum, lol.
Don't worry, post Obama presidency I'll take you through the party disillusionment therapy I had to do post Bush.

Maybe some day either party will get a president who realizes he or she works for us.
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Tim, I see what you are saying, but I do have to say that there are many countries that are more "free-market" oriented than the U.S. right now. We talk a lot about free markets but in reality we are a highly regulated market with a fair amount of bureaucracy.

I also agree with you about other countries being better for wealthy people in terms of their tax policies. In my opinion, the Supreme Court should never have ruled that the income tax is not a "taking" that requires just compensation. Unfortunately in those days property often meant real property and money was considered personal property so we ended up with a tax that started at 3% of everybody's income during the civil war to something that takes almost half of your income depending on your state. If that's not a taking, I don't know what is.
0 Reply
Timothy W.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
Tim, I see what you are saying, but I do have to say that there are many countries that are more "free-market" oriented than the U.S. right now. We talk a lot about free markets but in reality we are a highly regulated market with a fair amount of bureaucracy.

Which ones? In all seriousness I am very curious and very willing to have an open mind on it. If I'm not maximizing my dollars and time I want to know how I can.
0 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
Just fighting fire with fire....

Probably why we get along everywhere but the political forum, lol.

Don't worry, post Obama presidency I'll take you through the party disillusionment therapy I had to do post Bush.

Maybe some day either party will get a president who realizes he or she works for us.

That's why there is such a huge movement for a third party which haven't been seen since the H. Ross Parrot days...
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Tim, free markets are a somewhat general term because some countries may be quite free with their securities laws but not with their labor laws, etc.

The WSJ publishes an economic freedom index in collaboration with the Heritage Foundation, a think-tank. The 2009 index can be seen here:
http://www.heritage.org/Index/TopTen.aspx

There is an even better ranking that is done by the Cato Institute, which is a better think-tank, in my opinion. You can read that here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2009/efw2009-1.pdf

In my opinion, economic freedom is just one thing to consider when evaluating a place to do business in and live in. You will have to pay me a lot of money to make me live in Hong Kong, for example.

I would say that both Singapore and New Zealand are viable alternatives to the U.S. Singapore is more sophisticated financially than NZ but the latter is much more beautiful and has better climate if you prefer cooler places. They are both quite civilized and have good governance. (NZ's is a story of a previously socialistic country turning itself around while Singapore has always had great governance.)
1 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Rich Weese:

5.I'm willing to trat interrogations nicely , when our enemies do the same.

Our enemies also capture foreign journalists and cut their heads off...does that mean it's okay for us to do it?

Just because our enemies are inhumane doesn't give us a right to be. That's the problem with this country...everyone thinks they have a right to circumvent the law for their own benefit...and then they make excuses for why it's okay...

That's one reason why we're becoming a 3rd rate country...

Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
J Scott, I completely agree with you that we cannot become barbarians just because we are fighting against them.

But do you feel that we should have the exact same standards when dealing with barbaric terrorists as we do when dealing with POWs that we capture from a country that also follows the Geneva convention? Or would you say that perhaps we need to have three sets of standards:

1. How to deal with the normal residents of our country,
2. How to deal with POWs of a nation we go to war against,
3. How to deal with these lawless guys who blow things up

The way I see it, the first and second issues have already been thought about and addressed by our courts, international treaties, etc. The third group is a new problem that we are facing and I think nobody has given it a lot of thought and we are making up rules on the fly, some of which are causing controversy.

Perhaps we need to openly acknowledge that this is a different type of enemy and we should formalize a set of rules to deal with them.
0 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:

But do you feel that we should have the exact same standards when dealing with barbaric terrorists as we do when dealing with POWs that we capture from a country that also follows the Geneva convention? Or would you say that perhaps we need to have three sets of standards:

1. How to deal with the normal residents of our country,
2. How to deal with POWs of a nation we go to war against,
3. How to deal with these lawless guys who blow things up

From the perspective of the Geneva Conventions, there is no difference between #2 and #3.
If you read Common Article #2 of the Geneva Conventions, the Conventions apply to the signatory nation (the United States in this case), even if the enemy has not signed and does not follow the Conventions.

Further, according to Common Article #2, the Conventions are more about adopting and enforcing basic human rights, not about fighting fairly. Basically, it doesn't matter what the other side does, the nation that has agreed to the Conventions are held to a higher standard.

Now, perhaps our government feels that this isn't right. If that's the case, let's make the decision that we don't want to be part of the Geneva Conventions any longer, and retract our signature as a nation.

But, until we do that, we should have enough conviction as a nation to follow-through on the International laws that we have agreed to.

How can we call ourselves the greatest nation of the planet if we can't even enforce the values that we claim to stand for?
Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Scott, I think part of the problem is that we do want to be part of the Geneva conventions for the most part. We just want to have a different set of rules apply to terrorists as to soldiers employed by a foreign country.

One problem we have is that most countries in the world do not face a major terrorist problem and the few that do are going to have a hard time convincing the rest to amend the convention.
0 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
We just want to have a different set of rules apply to terrorists as to soldiers employed by a foreign country.

I respond with two points:

1. As I pointed out above, the Geneva Conventions don't differentiate between enemies. They are about human rights, regardless of who the particular humans are. If we don't like it, we can choose not to be part of the Geneva Conventions, but if we're going to be part, it's not up to us to pick and choose which parts we'll adhere to.

2. How do you differentiate "terrorist" from "soldier employed by a foreign country"...especially when many terrorist organizations are at least partially funded by foreign governments (remember that even the Taliban was funded by the U.S. twenty years ago).

The U.S. clearly believes that terrorists are being funded by foreign countries, so in many respects they are not much different than "soldiers" for that country, other than the fact that they may not be taking direct orders.

There is a very fine line between terrorist and soldier. We can argue that terrorists are the ones that fly planes into buildings, but remember that the Japanese flew planes into buildings and ships during WWII, but they were protected by the Geneva Conventions.

It all boils down to the fact that it's easy to say, "This is what I believe in," but it's much harder to uphold that belief during trying situations.
The U.S. has made it clear that it takes the Geneva Conventions very seriously (we tried and executed Japanese soldiers that didn't follow them after WWII); now it time to see if we can really uphold those values and put our money where our collective mouths are...
Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
0 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Tom Cullen:

If the government lowers my tax rate, and let's me keep more of my money, it is NOT A HAND OUT. If, however, the government taxes more of my money, and redistributes it, the recipient DID receive a "hand out".

If I break into your house one year, steal your fridge and stereo, then the year after only steal your fridge. Did I give you a "handout" in year 2?

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. I

TC

Oh, so you're saying that any taxation is actually burglary? If that the case we, have differences of opinion with regard to the role of government. Apparently, you are in small minority otherwise we would have had national tax revolt (Not just tea bagging) long time ago.
0 Reply
Timothy W.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I would say that both Singapore and New Zealand are viable alternatives to the U.S. Singapore is more sophisticated financially than NZ but the latter is much more beautiful and has better climate if you prefer cooler places. They are both quite civilized and have good governance. (NZ's is a story of a previously socialistic country turning itself around while Singapore has always had great governance.)

Very interesting. Appreciate the input.
Tim
0 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
Originally posted by Vikram C.:
I would say that both Singapore and New Zealand are viable alternatives to the U.S. Singapore is more sophisticated financially than NZ but the latter is much more beautiful and has better climate if you prefer cooler places. They are both quite civilized and have good governance. (NZ's is a story of a previously socialistic country turning itself around while Singapore has always had great governance.)

Very interesting. Appreciate the input.

Tim

Singapore is great! Just don't spit your gum in the street. You'll get some *** whooping caning...
:nono:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGIE_en&q=singapore+punishment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=dhfvSsD0C4jgsQOy7v31Aw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCEQqwQwAw#
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
Eddie, Singapore is actually a much better place than it used to be. They do have some strict laws that are unnecessary, such as the chewing gum ban. But they have become a much more "normal" country in the last decade as they have consciously decided to attract high net-worth immigrants. They are doing this by encouraging more entertainment businesses, fairly big casinos, creating a good night-life, etc.

There is actually quite a bit of competition between Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc. to get rich people from other countries to move there and these countries are working quite hard on improving the quality of life.

It is no longer the boring business-only city that it used to be. It has night-life comparable to most big cities in the world and it is improving rapidly.

I also like they way they handle kids who vandalize property, to be honest. In many countries parents are not doing a good job raising their children with discipline and respect and the legal system is really not well-prepared to handle kids who misbehave. In Singapore, the kid gets spanked. Much cheaper and more effective than anything we do here.

The main thing I do not like about Singapore is the weather. It is around 86 to 90 (30-32 celsius) almost every day and humid.
1 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:

The main thing I do not like about Singapore is the weather. It is around 86 to 90 (30-32 celsius) almost every day and humid.

Are you kidding me? I love that kind of weather. I plan to move to the tropics when I retire. T-shirt, Shorts and sandals are my uniform of choice... :wink:
0 Reply
Steve Babiak
Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
... T-shirt, Shorts and sandals are my uniform of choice... :wink:

Eddie,
In your current avatar, I guess that we are seeing you in your uniform of non-choice :cool:
0 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tom Cullen:
Being allowed to keep more of your money is NOT a handout.

So, if I walk into a Starbucks, order a coffee, go to pay, and the guy behind the register says, "Nope, keep your money...no charge...," that's NOT a handout?
The guy is letting me keep MY money, but it's still clearly a handout, because I am getting the same service for less money.

Btw, living in the U.S., there is an implicit agreement that you are prepared to pay money to the government in return for services rendered (for example, 50% of the taxes you pay go to the defense of your country). So, it's not like the government is just taking your money without giving anything in return...just like my Starbucks example above, they are taking your money and providing a service in return.

The question is, when they take less of your money, are they providing you less, more, or the same amount of service?
Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
0 Reply
Rich Weese
OP
Real Estate Investor · the villages, FL · Member since 2008 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
17y
J Scott- don't muddy the water with starbucks
1. Is food stamps re deistribution of money?
2. Is welfare the same as above?
3. Is subsidized housing vouchers?
4. Is medicare?
5. Is cash for clunkers?

The govt didn't create these $$. They appropriated these from someone and GAVE them to someone else. If this isn't a re-distribution of one persons $ into someone elses pocket, what is it??

No camouflage here. Just answer yes or no . Then I'll know whether there is any hope for us both seeing anything the same. Rich
1 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Rich Weese:
J Scott- don't muddy the water with starbucks
1. Is food stamps re deistribution of money?
2. Is welfare the same as above?
3. Is subsidized housing vouchers?
4. Is medicare?
5. Is cash for clunkers?

You do realize that less than 12% of your tax dollars are going to welfare programs, many of which benefit hard-working Americans as well (there are people on this forum you make a LOT of money from Section 8 rents, which is a welfare program).

So, in reality, the types of welfare programs you are probably most concerned about constitute less than 10% of our tax dollars (probably much less than 10%)...

If you're really concerned about how much you're paying in taxes (or how the money is being used), you should be much more concerned about the fact that 50% of your tax dollars are going to defense spending, much of it going to waste (and into their own pockets) by corrupt politicians and overseas governments.

Again, people like to get upset about the little things, while the big things that really hurt you are just ignored and glossed over...

I'm not saying welfare isn't an important issue, but it's certainly shouldn't be a top priority in any discussion of over-taxation and waste...

But, then again, it seems to me that many people around here don't generally seem to care about productive discussion of high-priority topics...they just want to complain...
I apologize in advance if my introduction of facts derails anyone's complaints...
Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
1 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Steve Babiak:
Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
... T-shirt, Shorts and sandals are my uniform of choice... :wink:

Eddie,
In your current avatar, I guess that we are seeing you in your uniform of non-choice :cool:

Yap. Three years of Nomex coverall... In the desert....Not fun...
0 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
Originally posted by Tom Cullen:

I'll say it again. Being allowed to keep more of your money is NOT a handout. Taking more of my money and giving it to someone else (for nothing) IS a handout to the OTHER person.

Tax cuts are NOT handouts. Unless you think being allowed to keep more of YOUR money is a "handout".

TC

Tom,
Where do you draw the line? If we start with zero taxation. Now, we start taxing people. When do you say enough? Dollar #1? The second dollar? Who decides what is hand out and what is not and where the money goes? Is giving Afghan and Iraqi politician money is a hand out? You may argue that it is not since it may keep the peace (If there ever be...) I'd say it's a hand out. Is keeping schools from falling apart a hand out? You may say no (Education is the top priority in this country), I may say yes (Argument: Only people who have kids should pay that).
My point is, that individual point of views cannot determine what is hand out and what is not because it is subjective. We had eight years of corporate hand out and favoritism and the citizens of this country voted in drove against it. Obviously nothing is forever and in four years (or two) things may change again.
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
J Scott, you make a good point but so does Rich. There are actually two parallel discussions going on here. Rich is referring to the redistribution of wealth whereas you are discussing waste in government spending. Both are bad, in my opinion.

Here's the current spending (wikipedia):

1. Social security - 21%
2. Medicare - 13%
3. Medicaid + kids - 6%
4. Unemployment + welfare - 11%
5. Interest on debt - 8.5%
6. Defense + antiterror stuff - 21%

The rest of the stuff goes into various other expenses, some of which are defense-related although not directly related to any current wars. (e.g. VA) I think there is enough waste in every category to make a fiscally prudent person want to throw up.

BTW, I liked your Starbucks analogy. I would modify it a bit for the new coffee shop Govbucks. In this shop, you have to pay for the coffee whether you drink it or not. If you drive a nice car, then you pay extra for the coffee that you may not drink so that someone who has a cheaper car gets to pay less for their coffee. Some people game the system and actually get paid to drink the coffee. Much of the money that people pay for their cofee is actually flushed down the toilet and not used for cost of goods sold. And if you don't pay the price Govbucks charges (after checking out your car) then Govbucks will provide you with free accommodation at one of its facilities where you can enjoy the intimate company of a bunch of guys.
1 Reply
Eddie Ziv
Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
17y
That is exactly the issue here Vikram. Those are not separate issues but one. One man's government spending is another man's distribution of wealth and another one's war mongering waste and a forth one's outright socialism. Every one has an opinion. Ronald Reagan thought that spending billion on a program called "Star War" was a necessity. Barak Obama think that spending money one Government health care option is a wise idea. Both administration ran and running a record shattering deficit. It is all about ideology and opinions. Nothing more.
0 Reply
Vikram C.
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
17y
I agree, Eddie. I personally hate all the waste in all the programs as a matter of fiscal prudence in addition to disliking some programs as a matter of ideology.
0 Reply
J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Vikram C.:

BTW, I liked your Starbucks analogy. I would modify it a bit for the new coffee shop Govbucks. In this shop, you have to pay for the coffee whether you drink it or not.

But, it's always been this way...

I don't have kids in public schools, but I pay taxes for education (point made by Eddie above). I have never had to call the police department, but I pay just as those people who call the police many times. I'm not a veteran, but I pay just as much as veterans for VA services.

Do you propose that instead of the GovBucks model that has been in place since this country was founded that there instead be a model where you only pay for those services that you use? How would you implement such a system?
Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
0 Reply

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.

Log In Join for Free