Better off?

[Marenta]

When I do a comparison between where I was 4 years ago and where I am today, I am drastically better off than I was.

I've:
relieved myself of all my revolving debt (no more credit cards! yay!)
gotten a degree (still furthering my education, though)
left the military and got a decent paying job
bought a house

So, while I guess I don't necessarily like all of Obama's policies and decisions, I am way better off than I was 4 years ago.

[telcoman]

So am I and that's why I'm voting for Obama. A new word has recently been added to the English language

Romneyhood Take from the poor to give more to the rich

Telcoman

[bigbadberry3]

Also better off

Knock on wood.

[stebo0728]

So am I and that's why I'm voting for Obama. A new word has recently been added to the English language

Romneyhood Take from the poor to give more to the rich

Telcoman

This was another "stupidly" comment by Barack.

Please tell me you know the REAL story behind Robin Hood. If not, I will educate you....

Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood stole from an over-bloated government to give back to the overtaxed.

In this light, Romneyhood doesn't seem too bad. If he's going to cut the overbloated government and give back to the overtaxed, I'm all for it.

Still like you're new dictionary entry?

EDIT: And as for anyone being the "reversal" of Robin Hood, as Obama implied, Obama would be the reversal, in light of Robin Hood's true nature. If Robin Hood robbed from the overbloated government, and gave back to the overtaxed, the the only candidate proven to be the reversal of this, robbing from the overtaxed to give to the overbloated government, would be Mr. Obama himself.

[Marenta]

While you are correct on Robin Hood's story; however, have you not seen the breakdown of Romney's tax plan? 2000$ more per lower income tax brackets for the vastly lower taxes that the upper tax brackets will pay. Something like 250000$ less for people making over 3 million? Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK. Hasn't worked for the last 30 years. CEO pay from 1978 to 2011 increased 725% where as average worker increased 5.7% in the same time period.

You know, you actually paid less in taxes for these past 4 years?

[stebo0728]

Quick question. What figure would you consider fair, what % of annual income would be fair for someone to pay in taxes? Just give me a ballpark figure.

[Marenta]

I'd say, 20% on everything. That means, if there is money that you bring in from whatever source, you pay a flat 20%. I don't care where the money comes from or how many times it has been taxed already; if you receive it, it gets taxed, period.

I answered your question, answer mine. Are you better off?

[stebo0728]

Are you sure that's the figure that you are comfortable with?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

Top 1% pays 40% of total taxes
Top 10% pays 70% of total taxes

Bottom 48% pays 0% of total taxes

Where does that leave the "fairness" argument?

Also, for a liberal, that 20% figure was pretty conservative Im ok with a higher cap, say 30%. But even that cap is way overshot. Do you see now why conservatives consider income tax to be a punitive tax?

[stebo0728]

Oh and just so you know, its already been shown that if you were to tax 100% of all income above 250k, you simply WOULD NOT collect enough to even start touching the national debt. You may just start to understand why spending is the problem, not taxes. We've dug out heels in too deep with entitlement spending. This has to stop. Taxation is not the answer.

[Marenta]

I like taxes. I like what it pays for. And, you STILL haven't answered whether or not you're better off.

You balance a budget by bringing in more income AND cutting spending. It's not one or the other, it's both. Neither side has EVER had to balance a checkbook, work overtime or get a second job, or use coupons or eat ramen to make it by.

Gang of six idea was the best yet, and it was just blown off by everybody. Don't pander your "spending is bad" opinion. I'm sure it must ruffle your feathers that you have to pay bills. We have bills that need to be paid, plain and simple.

[szh]

You balance a budget by bringing in more income AND cutting spend. It's not one or the other, it's both.

Exactly right! My bolding of your comment above.

I am a registered Republican who is quite against raising taxes. However, if it is done for a good reason, without waste, and with spending cuts where it makes sense, then I can agree to rational tax raises.

Far too often though, our politicians seem to think that increased income (whether it is a windfall from good economic conditions or raising taxes) means freedom to spend without controls and without saving for rainy days. That is what has brought California to the brink ...

Z

[szh]

Oh and just so you know, its already been shown that if you were to tax 100% of all income above 250k, you simply WOULD NOT collect enough to even start touching the national debt.

Yup! I have shown the information and the math many times ...

Indeed, taking all the income may not even balance the budget of recent years, let alone contribute to reducing the debt.

Z

[Marenta]

Now that that sidebar is over, are you better off?

[szh]

I'd say, 20% on everything. That means, if there is money that you bring in from whatever source, you pay a flat 20%. I don't care where the money comes from or how many times it has been taxed already; if you receive it, it gets taxed, period.

I agree ... do a search for my flat percentage tax posts here at NICO.

However, I also am willing to include a threshold below which no tax is paid - to compensate a bit for low income situations.

1. Take all your income, from any source whatsoever. Deduct your losses ... i.e., if you included capital gains from sales of stock, house, etc., in the income, then it is okay to remove capital losses too.
2. Subtract a base amount that resolves the "poverty" issue - this base amount is independent of whether you own a house, have tons of kids, etc. The base amount can be changed to compensate for inflation as needed.
3. If the remainder after subtracting the low-income base amount is above $0, take 20% of the remainder and send it to the US Federal Government, and take 5% of the remainder and send it to the State you live in.
4. Done.

Simple enough?

Z

[szh]

Now that that sidebar is over, are you better off?

Better off than what?

Z

[telcoman]

Now that that sidebar is over, are you better off?

Better off than what?

Z

Romney?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

You balance a budget by bringing in more income AND cutting spending. It's not one or the other, it's both. Neither side has EVER had to balance a checkbook, work overtime or get a second job, or use coupons or eat ramen to make it by.

You're right, increase income and reduce spending.

1. What if a measure you intend to take would infact REDUCE you're income. Ever heard of the Laffer curve? Theres a sweet spot in tax rates, go either side of that sweet spot and REVENUES decrease. Too low, sh*tty revenues, go too high, equally sh*tty revenues. So, are we on that sweet spot? Thats debateable, I dont think we are, I think we are too far to the high side, and dropping.

2. Even considering upping tax rates would indeed increase revenues, we've already established that those who actually pay, pay WAY above even you're own estimate of whats fair. What if you already work 2 jobs, wife works 2, kid cuts grass, maybe you still can't afford the 150 cell phone, 150 cable bill, and 50% GAI home you are living in, and 3 cars in the driveway. At some point, you've done all you can do on the income side, and you can no longer ignore the spending side.

Now, for you're OP question. Actually, yes, I am better off, but I dont attribute that to Mr.Obama. I divorced a wife who had ZERO common sense, I had to file bankruptcy on all the debt she left me with, and currently own ZERO automobiles. My pocketbook feels better, but I got there through no help from this administration.

[szh]

When I do a comparison between where I was 4 years ago and where I am today, I am drastically better off than I was.

I've:
relieved myself of all my revolving debt (no more credit cards! yay!)
gotten a degree (still furthering my education, though)
left the military and got a decent paying job
bought a house

So, while I guess I don't necessarily like all of Obama's policies and decisions, I am way better off than I was 4 years ago.

Oh, I see ... you were asking about your original post.

I think that the problem is that you are confusing government policies and decisions with your particular scenario of events. I could easily see your same experiences happening under "Bush era policies" too - since these were good choices and good actions that you took.

In the past four years, my personal experiences are a bit different (FWIW, I would not blame or credit President Obama for this):

1. At the end of the first year of President Obama's tenure, my company almost folded due to general economic conditions.
2. We laid off about 60% of our company in Feb 2009 to survive.
3. All the remaining employees took pay cuts (non-exec salaries were cut ranging from 5% to 35% - no exceptions) to keep the company going.
4. As a VP, I took a 55% pay cut for about 18 months or so ... same with all the other senior management who were still here (CEO, VP of Marketing departed).
5. My salary is still not back to what it was in 2008 ... four years ago. Indeed, none of the employees salaries are back to what they were in 2008.
6. FWIW, my salary in 2008 had not changed since 2003, and my current salary is still below that 2003 and 2008 levels.

So, to answer your question more simply: "NO, I am not way better off than I was four years ago". In fact, I have not caught up yet to what I made in 2003 ... eight years back.

In terms of credit cards, my wife trained me to pay them off years ago ... they are conveniences. Not a way to buy stuff we cannot afford or need. We have re-financed our house twice in the past few years to reduce payments - without that, the pay cut months would have been impossible, even though we dipped into savings to make it all work.

Regardless of this, I don't believe in whining about what that time was! Yes, my personal situation is still not way better off yet. But our company survived the storm, we buckled down and made it work, we are now growing steadily and have re-hired people too. Still not back to the peak employment we had, but we have doubled the number of people in the past 12 months.

Our current CEO (who was the Chairman back in 2008) is to thank for that steady fiscal management and tough controls. And, since he was pretty well off before he joined the company, he also paid some company expenses and salaries out of his own personal pocket on more than one occasion. Without that, we would certainly have shut our doors when we could not make payroll some months.

BTW, given the severe actions that my company had to take - however reluctantly - in light of the "revenues were below expenses" problems that we faced, I find it very irritating when Governments and their employees think that operating a deficit is normal and should not impact their financial situations at all.

Unions seem to think that even a few percent pay cut is unacceptable and must be fought tooth-and-nail. Sorry! Try living with a 55% pay cut for 18 months and still not having salary restored to pre-cut levels.

And, I sympathize even more with people who have been out of a job for ages. It was painful to let 60% of our people go in 2009, and it took some of them a long, long time to find other jobs. I hope we never have to do that again ...

Z

[Marenta]

Oh my god! Somebody got it!

If you are worse or better off than you were 4 years ago, the current or past government and policies didn't do a hill of beans for you. You did it all, only you can impact your situation.

[szh]

Better off than what?

Z

Romney?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

Telcoman

Silly, unrelated reference as always.

You seem to blithely assume that all senior management, particular CEO's of companies, are simply out to get every one of their employees and don't care for them ever. And that this is the only way to be successful in running companies.

Nothing could be farther than the truth, and my company is clear evidence to the contrary.

Our CEO put his personal money during difficult periods to help us keep employees and make payroll. And I know that he agonized over who to keep and who to let go when we had layoffs in 2009, and I believe him that he never wants to have to go through that again if he can possibly prevent it. But, when we needed to make the hard decisions, he took the responsibility and owned it.

Thus, as a competent businessman, Romney is more likely to know when to make the hard decisions that sometimes need to be made. Other politicians seem to think that they can forever fund pet silly projects on the backs of tax-payers.

About time we got some fiscal responsibility in government!

Z

[telcoman]

Thus, as a competent businessman, Romney is more likely to know when to make the hard decisions that sometimes need to be made. Other politicians seem to think that they can forever fund pet silly projects on the backs of tax-payers.
About time we got some fiscal responsibility in government!
Z

Romney's competence is knowing how to load companies up with excessive debt to force them into bankruptcy. He makes a ton of money while those employees lose their jobs, health insurance and perhaps their homes.
He was successful in providing a healthcare plan for Massachusetts residents but now wants to repeal that plan for everyone else.

Screw him!

Telcoman

[stebo0728]

Romney's competence is knowing how to load companies up with excessive debt to force them into bankruptcy. He makes a ton of money while those employees lose their jobs, health insurance and perhaps their homes.
He was successful in providing a healthcare plan for Massachusetts residents but now wants to repeal that plan for everyone else.

Screw him!

Telcoman

Ok, prove it.

Bain Capital actually made its living doing the exact OPPOSITE of your claims above. They didnt always succeed, but the fact that they are STILL in business doing the same thing means that the succeed far more than they fail.

[szh]

Thus, as a competent businessman, Romney is more likely to know when to make the hard decisions that sometimes need to be made. Other politicians seem to think that they can forever fund pet silly projects on the backs of tax-payers.
About time we got some fiscal responsibility in government!
Z

Romney's competence is knowing how to load companies up with excessive debt to force them into bankruptcy. He makes a ton of money while those employees lose their jobs, health insurance and perhaps their homes.

Oh, please don't spout the usual party line crap. You have no information or ability to justify the above statement in any way whatsoever.

Z

[telcoman]

When the truth comes out the GOP hurts

http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/ ... cancer-ad/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv6DtYU3nY

[Marenta]

For as smart as you all are, you're all retarded to be jumping down a rabbit hole when this topic should be purely about whether or not you're better off than 4 years ago. Unless we have the pure truth, assume everybody is lying.

[szh]

When the truth comes out the GOP hurts

Even CNN showed that the ad was a lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOJkzUr ... r_embedded

"CNN Sets The Record Straight On The Despicable New Ad From President Obama's Super PAC"

Z

[szh]

For as smart as you all are, you're all retarded to be jumping down a rabbit hole when this topic should be purely about whether or not you're better off than 4 years ago.

Yup!

This is the politics forum after all.

Z

[stebo0728]

When the truth comes out the GOP hurts

Even CNN showed that the ad was a lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOJkzUr ... r_embedded

"CNN Sets The Record Straight On The Despicable New Ad From President Obama's Super PAC"

Z

I KNEW it would be telco to first post that ad.

Wolf Blitzer of all people, tore that ad a new a**hole. He even admonished its creators for running it when they KNEW it was intellectually dishonest.

[BusyBadger]

When the truth comes out the GOP hurts

Even CNN showed that the ad was a lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcOJkzUr ... r_embedded

"CNN Sets The Record Straight On The Despicable New Ad From President Obama's Super PAC"

Z

And then there's this.

[telcoman]

And then there's this.

And that ad never ran on TV but Obama got a big bang for 0 bucks

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opini ... ey.html?hp

“Romney is one of the worst presidential candidates in recent memory. He is stiff and awkward and inconsistent and struggles to connect with people. His track record is all over the place. And he’s willing to say anything and embrace anyone to further his ambitions, which is as distasteful a character trait as they come. If you are straightforward with folks, they may disagree with you but most will at least respect you. I’m not sure that Romney ever learned that lesson. His “by any means necessary” approach is by all measures repugnant.
Now things are by no means settled. To the contrary, they are just about to heat up. Republicans have boatloads of money and a burning desire to unseat this president. They also have a host of voter suppression laws working in their favor, many in battleground states. And a growing sense of comfort among Democrats could lead to a loss of energy and lower turnouts.
But voters’ discomfort with Romney and his own side’s lack of faith in him will be high hurdles to clear come November.”

Telcoman