A gentleman with a grasp of the problem.

[Jeff Young]

Except "state and local" budgets aren't "BHO's government."

Take a look at that list and tell me which countries with significantly less federal goverment expenditures as a percentage of GDP you would like to live in (and be ok with the level of services provided in those countries).

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

Here is another chart that shows the Government spending at the start of 2011 to be right around 18%.

So when you said:

"-the BHO government is now 45% of the economy."

What you meant was that the total Govenment spending is now 45% of the economy, and even your proof shows the total government spending including local to be only 38.9% of the GDP. Please explain!

Domtoni, now you are adding state and local spending and calling it Obama's?

Domtoni, does obama pay the local dog catcher?

*****************

Would you please correct the data to show what % of the GDP is Prsident Obama's




click for larger chart

 

[domtoni]

Read the Wikipedia link. Perhaps you won this one.

 

[Keith]

Aw come on! That little yellow sign is going to get in the way of a true Englishman and his pint? Bullshit. If you guys have gone that pansy you don't deserve to be called Englishmen; and I know that isn't the case.

Nothing to fear but fear itself Ron - it was one of youze guys said that!

I think it goes to show how a) tolerant we are b) find this stuff kind of amusing and c) over my cold dead body!

:thumbsup:

PS, you know what's really funny? Nobody noticed until a "SHOCK HORROR DISASTER" type news item appeared on the er, ooops, BBC.

Anyway, back to as many mispellings of GOP you can think of including GNP, GDP, BHP (be creative) and GMT. :laugh:

 

[Jim Craik]

Domtoni,

You know I sure do not feel like I won, once again, I feel like the bad guy

 

[Jim Craik]

Ian,

You asked how many people work for the US Government.

The US Federal Govenrment including the Military & Postal workers is approximately 1% of the population.

If you add state and local local Government, from the President to Police, Firemen, Teachers to street sweepers, it's approximately 4% of the US population.

Really not that big a number!

For example, I understand in Greece, it's something like 35%.

***********

Government is the name we give to things we decide to do together.

 

[Cliff Beer]

What we need is an effective tax on the ultra-rich. In other words, a tax that affects just the top .01% of Americans. This could simply take the form of higher top tax rates....perhaps something like 50% at incomes in excess of several million dollars. By comparison, most european countries have top rates going to 60% which kick in at relatively low (sub $1MM incomes). So, such a higher rate in the US here would still be moderate in the grand scheme of things globally.

The fact of the matter is that the rich have gotten richer (and greater in number) while the middle income bracket has been squeezed hard over the last 10 years or so. The poor are, as always, screwed, unfortunately.

Of course, a proposed tax on the ultra-wealthy never gets very far.....because the ultra wealthy have huge influence in Congress. Surprise, surprise, the weathly are highly focused upon keeping themselves rich, and keeping everyone else poor. Some things never change.

 

[Graham]

What we need is an effective tax on the ultra-rich. In other words, a tax that affects just the top .01% of Americans. This could simply take the form of higher top tax rates....perhaps something like 50% at incomes in excess of several million dollars. By comparison, most european countries have top rates going to 60% which kick in at relatively low (sub $1MM incomes). So, such a higher rate in the US here would still be moderate in the grand scheme of things globally.

The fact of the matter is that the rich have gotten richer (and greater in number) while the middle income bracket has been squeezed hard over the last 10 years or so. The poor are, as always, screwed, unfortunately.

Of course, a proposed tax on the ultra-wealthy never gets very far.....because the ultra wealthy have huge influence in Congress. Surprise, surprise, the weathly are highly focused upon keeping themselves rich, and keeping everyone else poor. Some things never change.

Bang on Cliff...a big +1

 

[Keith]

Wouldn't work - they would "Flee"

Question is (as yet unanswered) East or West?

 

[Graham]

Wouldn't work - they would "Flee"

Question is (as yet unanswered) East or West?

South for the winter?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

What we need is an effective tax on the ultra-rich. In other words, a tax that affects just the top .01% of Americans. This could simply take the form of higher top tax rates....perhaps something like 50% at incomes in excess of several million dollars. By comparison, most european countries have top rates going to 60% which kick in at relatively low (sub $1MM incomes). So, such a higher rate in the US here would still be moderate in the grand scheme of things globally.

The fact of the matter is that the rich have gotten richer (and greater in number) while the middle income bracket has been squeezed hard over the last 10 years or so. The poor are, as always, screwed, unfortunately.

Of course, a proposed tax on the ultra-wealthy never gets very far.....because the ultra wealthy have huge influence in Congress. Surprise, surprise, the weathly are highly focused upon keeping themselves rich, and keeping everyone else poor. Some things never change.

Tell the truth, if you were ultra rich and the government was about to sick a tax proctologist on you for your wealth, would you stay in the good old US of A?
I don't think they are focused on keeping everyone else poor, the poor aren't as driven or in the right place at the right time. Most new rich got that way by working 80 hour weeks for many years. I don't begrudge that. My God son just graduated from UCONN with a Mechanical Engineering degree and a 3.974 grade average. In high school he was an above average basketball player, I asked him if he was going to try out for the UCONN team, he said "no I'm going to get good grades, graduate and get a good job and my Masters degree." He interned during the summers at United Technologies. He just accepted a job with them at 80K, 10K signing bonus and the are paying for his Masters degree. He lives within his means, saves money, and invests it. I have no doubt that this kid will be wealthy some day. I don't think that he should be penalized for a great work ethic.

 

[Doug S.]

I have no doubt that this kid will be wealthy some day. I don't think that he should be penalized for a great work ethic.

I congratulate you on having raised your son with a good work ethic, Al!

Did you also raise him with the "ethic" that we all have to contribute to the operation of our country, and that the rich have more means to contribute than the poor.....or did you raise him to believe that asking the wealthy to contribute some of their "excess" income (of which the poor have NONE) is a "penalty"?

No need to answer, I know. Your past posts have always referred to this as a penalty. There is no doubt in my mind that your son was raised with your displays of that "attitude", so even if you didn't "indoctrinate" him by telling him to view it as a penalty, he would have picked up on it and adopted it. It's human nature.

I really like Bill Gates' nature....he's one of the most wealthy individuals in the world (#2, I believe), and he has the concept of "enough is enough" and dedicates a huge part of his wealth to charitable causes.

Will your son ever have the idea that "enough is enough", or will the quest for more $$ be for him like the quest for more drugs is to a drug addict? I have always proposed that for the wealthy money IS like a drug, the more they get, the more they want. Fortunately, it is not usually deadly, as are some of the illicit/prescription drugs that addicts abuse, but IMHO the "jones" for more money when you already have enough is every bit as self-destructive.

IMHO, your son is a lucky man to have had such a good upbringing, but did you ever teach him to look at the "opposite" side with an open mind?

I like to think that the wealthy, due to their wealth, have a greater opportunity to help correct the financial ruin in which our country finds itself, and that they should embrace that opportunity without rancor (i.e., viewing it as a "penalty").

We should all be so "unfortunate" as to have excess income :stunned: .

Cheers to Bill Gates, and all the other wealthy in the world who realize when "enough is enough" and dedicate their excess resources to the needy, from Doug!!

 

[Keith]

Just announced today, that Microsoft have more liquid cash than the Federal Reserve something like $175 billion?

Why doesn't BO tap Bill for a loan?

 

[Doug S.]

Al, my apologies for this hijack, but you live in AZ, I'm curious if you've heard anything about this (found on one of the other automotive forums):

This is just the beginning. The state of Az will now have a question on your tax return asking you to report all internet purchases, and submit the tax you owe on them. If the info is left blank, your chances of being audited will go up.

Big Brother is watching!

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[craig]

Tell the truth, if you were ultra rich and the government was about to sick a tax proctologist on you for your wealth, would you stay in the good old US of A?
I don't think they are focused on keeping everyone else poor, the poor aren't as driven or in the right place at the right time. Most new rich got that way by working 80 hour weeks for many years. I don't begrudge that. My God son just graduated from UCONN with a Mechanical Engineering degree and a 3.974 grade average. In high school he was an above average basketball player, I asked him if he was going to try out for the UCONN team, he said "no I'm going to get good grades, graduate and get a good job and my Masters degree." He interned during the summers at United Technologies. He just accepted a job with them at 80K, 10K signing bonus and the are paying for his Masters degree. He lives within his means, saves money, and invests it. I have no doubt that this kid will be wealthy some day. I don't think that he should be penalized for a great work ethic.

Way to go Al....sounds like your kid has his head on straight, but you should warn him that making too much money will make him a target for the fat and lazy people in this country that run to the government like a "sugar daddy" wanting more and more and more.....lazy pricks:thumbsup:

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al, my apologies for this hijack, but you live in AZ, I'm curious if you've heard anything about this (found on one of the other automotive forums):




Big Brother is watching!

Cheers from Doug!!

It is being debated as far as I know.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Way to go Al....sounds like your kid has his head on straight, but you should warn him that making too much money will make him a target for the fat and lazy people in this country that run to the government like a "sugar daddy" wanting more and more and more.....lazy pricks:thumbsup:

While I am very proud, it is my God son, My only child is 41 years old and a home builder and is struggling with this "wonderful" economy.

 

[craig]

Oops...sorry Al I missed the god part.....No doubt I would hate to be a home builder at this time..

 

[Jim Craik]

The poor pay very little if any tax, the middle class more than the poor, the wealthy should pay more than the middle class and the "ultra rich" should pay more than the wealthy.

Craig, in one post you defend the ultra rich, say that the ultra rich should not pay their fair share, you say take social security and health care from middle class retired folks. but to not touch the ultra wealthy. The need their billions!

Then you use the words "fat lazy, sugar daddy and lazy pricks" to describe the defenders of the middle class.

Talk about not being able to grasp the problem, you are clueless!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I congratulate you on having raised your son with a good work ethic, Al!

Did you also raise him with the "ethic" that we all have to contribute to the operation of our country, and that the rich have more means to contribute than the poor.....or did you raise him to believe that asking the wealthy to contribute some of their "excess" income (of which the poor have NONE) is a "penalty"?

No need to answer, I know. Your past posts have always referred to this as a penalty. There is no doubt in my mind that your son was raised with your displays of that "attitude", so even if you didn't "indoctrinate" him by telling him to view it as a penalty, he would have picked up on it and adopted it. It's human nature.

I really like Bill Gates' nature....he's one of the most wealthy individuals in the world (#2, I believe), and he has the concept of "enough is enough" and dedicates a huge part of his wealth to charitable causes.

Will your son ever have the idea that "enough is enough", or will the quest for more $$ be for him like the quest for more drugs is to a drug addict? I have always proposed that for the wealthy money IS like a drug, the more they get, the more they want. Fortunately, it is not usually deadly, as are some of the illicit/prescription drugs that addicts abuse, but IMHO the "jones" for more money when you already have enough is every bit as self-destructive.

IMHO, your son is a lucky man to have had such a good upbringing, but did you ever teach him to look at the "opposite" side with an open mind?

I like to think that the wealthy, due to their wealth, have a greater opportunity to help correct the financial ruin in which our country finds itself, and that they should embrace that opportunity without rancor (i.e., viewing it as a "penalty").

We should all be so "unfortunate" as to have excess income :stunned: .

Cheers to Bill Gates, and all the other wealthy in the world who realize when "enough is enough" and dedicate their excess resources to the needy, from Doug!!

What is enough? Anyone can work hard and amass wealth, look at the work ethic of the Mexican Americans, I know a lot of people that started from scratch that are wealthy. Obama talks about when enough is enough, that's not stopping him from getting wealthy. What exactly is enough? If you work 80 hours a week until your 80 years old and have an indoor pool full of cash that you do the backstroke in, God bless you. Or are you supposed to give some of it to someone that sits around partying with his finger up his butt until he is 55 years old and wakes up to find that he has no retirement. Please don't tell me that you get rewarded for being a fuckup! You should be able to help people out, but it's not the government's place to make that decision for you.