SIEMENS DX CONTINUES LAYOFF SCHEDULE

Siemens DX is far from ending its employee layoff schedule and it's rumored most sites will once again be hit before end of 2012.
USA-Sacramento was just hit and we in the UK were told pending layoffs will start here by next week.
The madness continues.

"Obama's proposals are

"Obama's proposals are measurable...."

Yeah, to the tune of a TRILLION dollars a year in red ink for the rest of his second term; these are HIS OWN estimates.

Heee, heeee, heeeeeee!

The last time we had tax

The last time we had tax simplication, the biggest part of it was cutting the number of tax brackets from around a dozen down to 4 or so. What that did is to lump the near rich, rich, and ultra-rich into one bracket. It we went back to a dozen brackets we could have 250K-500K, 500K-1MM, etc. The tax rates on the ultra-rich would be much higher which was exactly the thing that many people objected to when tax simplification occurred. Think about it in current terms. We probably would not be having this whole tax rate argument. The near rich might not need their taxes raised whereas those who can unquestionably afford it would with little objection.

But even for someone making $300K after all deductions, expenses, etc. What are we talking about here? Four cents on every dollar over $250K. Most people can handle that I would think. But let's say you are cash strapped because you overleveraged your McMansion. I'm sure there are some near rich in that situation. But should we use tax law to help out those who made really bad financial decisions? Look at it another way. Say you eat out once a week. Cut out two weeks a year. That's four percent of your total income after taxes. Finding four percent out of a budget is usually pretty simple for most people who aren't already on a very strict budget. Nonetheless, with more tax brackets, this issue would probably be a moot point.

What I still don't get, and I confess to weaknesses in much of economic theory, is why a change in personal income tax on a small business owner would affect the number of his employees. I was under the general impression that employees were hired when there is reason to believe they will add to profits (after the expense of the employee) and let go if they detract from profits. Even if the amount of the profit from an employee is less due to government taxation or regulation, the business owner is still making a profit; it's just smaller. Another way I look at it is that if a new employee costs a total of $50,000, which is a lowball number, someone would need to be taking in 1.5 million a year for the taxes to add up to 50K. (That's 1.5MM minus 250K for which there is no change times 4 %). As you can see, I can do the simple math, but I just don't see the relationship between personal tax rates and employment. I have asked many times here and from many other conservatives, and I never get an answer other than things like ... it just does.

Once again I appeal for an explanation.

If tax simplification now means eliminating preferences and readjusting rates, I'm all for that. I don't remember which Republican said this during the primary debates, but I would like nothing more than a post card sized tax return. How much did you make? This is your tax. And, yes, tax rates would be alot lower and bring in the same revenue. But tax simplification like that is unlikely to occur, and even if it did, it is really tangential to how much total revenue comes in from taxes. It may simplify the system, eliminate some unfairness, but we will still need the same amount of revenue as we would want under the current structure. Simplification would change the distribution of who pays what, but not the total and I continue to believe this means tax increases for some until convinced otherwise.

The bottom line here is that no one has yet to come up with a proposal for spending cuts that will bring the deficity down within the next generation. Even the Ryan budget has deficit expansion through something like 2030 and that would be around the time that Medicare would cease to exist or at least wind down alot. It is also when the Ryan voucher plan would kick in which most estimates I see would add about $5,000 a year to healhcare expenses for older people. And that would only get worse because of the way Ryan does COLA so each year older people would fall farther and farther down. The Romney plan was so vague that the CBO said it couldn't be 'scored'.

If we are serious about the budget and deficit, either we need a plan with spending cuts that get us into the black each year (which will probably just add much of those taxes to state and local taxes in order to maintain services) or we need to raise revenues, or a combination of both. In the absence of any credible proposal to simply cut spending, raising taxes is the only option regardless of how much you like the idea.

but simplifing the tax code

but simplifing the tax code would save enormous government spending.

How exactly? The whole of the IRS operations is running less than 0.4% of the federal budget. I could certainly see it saving enormous consumer spending at H&R Block.

"Do you guys write this stuff

"Do you guys write this stuff while at work? No wonder Siemens DX has "issues"..."

Of course not. I don't work for Siemens and never have. All I will say is that I have a connection to Siemens, in particular, and a more general connection to DX. On the other hand, if I did work for Siemens and was writing all of this, no one there would ever notice.

Of course taxes are going up.

Of course taxes are going up. The Republicans know it and are resigned to that fact. They will put up their usual theatrics to please their crowd, but they don't have a choice anymore. Polls today show that roughly 2/3 of Americans want this to happen (some of those also would accept higher taxes on everyone). The whiners here can keep whining all they want; it won't change things. They fail to accept two basic realities:

1. We are at war -- an economic war. Doesn't matter how we got here as much as finding a practical solution. Since there is no credible alternative in practical terms, the only way to fight the war is to tax those who have (more than) the ability to pay.

2. This is still a government of the people. sooner or later, the people's will will be carried out by their government. A majority of Americans opposed LBJ's ramp of of the VietNam war and drove him from office. A majority of Americans were horrified by the abuses of power under the Nixon adminstration and, ultimately, forced his resignation. A majority thought Carter was a wimp and replaced him too. A majority thought GHW Bush was insensitive to a recession and sent him to retirement (a short break here to wish him a speedy recover from bronchitis). Do you get the point yet? It's not about right and left to most Americans; it's more that our government is composed of our employees and they serve at our pleasure. The debate is over; the right lost. Get over it and get out of the way of this country moving forward again. It is no so much policy, but obstruction, that will be the end of America as we know it. We didn't hire our government to act as dogs in a manger (see Aesop's fables if you don't know this one).

Obama's proposals are measurable. They will tax a very few people more. There are numbers to look at and projections that can be made from the numbers. The only ones who don't like it are the upper 2-5 % of our rich elite, plus a group of brainwashed people who keep saying that higher taxes will increase unemployment, but can't give a single reason why this will happen nor can they show from history that lower taxes lead to greater prosperity. On the other hand, we have the Republican plan ..... ummmmm ... oops, I guess they don't have a plan. Nothing to examine, nothing to debate. I don't know about you, but in my company, people like that get fired!!

It's always easy to avoid criticism when you don't have the balls to lay out your plan. And, to date, neither the Republicans here, nor those in Congress, the Republicans have clearly shown the eunuch nature of their ideas. Yeah, I getting nasty too, but after months of trying to find out what y'all want to do, I give up in frustration.

Do you guys write this stuff

Do you guys write this stuff while at work? No wonder Siemens DX has "issues"...

"but simplifing the tax code

"but simplifing the tax code would save enormous government spending."

Another one of your vague generalities.

How would YOU 'reform' it? What are the new numbers? How much would it do to affect the budget and deficit?

Answer: You don't know and won't know unless you take a bit of time to run some numbers. But numbers are an anathema to you.

I know many people like you who manage to BS their way through life. The are rarely 'doers' and almost never leaders. They live off of their 'charm' which doesn't work with me. I want some meat, not just your fat and bones.

You have failed in every respect in this discussion except to show your ability to put labels on thigs, generalize, and blame everything on others. And if you can't run your business when taxes go up, then I suggest you go out and get a job for minimum wage and see how the other half lives.

By the way I'll give you my

By the way I'll give you my prediction of whta will happen w/ the fiscal cliff nonsense. The Republicans, being as politically mindful as the Dem's, will cave and allow a tax hike on the rich. Why? It will not be a victory in conservative eyes of course, but these politicians sure do want to get re-elected, and bad news about severe cuts will surely not get them re-elected. So the Republicans will be conservatives in name only and do what is best for them......get re-elected.

"What specificallly do you

"What specificallly do you propose and show us how it will work"

Once again for the upteeeeeth time, the devil is the details, I can agree with that. The details are ugly, flat put ugly, and the truth is even the most painful plan intended by the Republicans, is in reality not severe enough to actually make the math work without presuming some kind of miracle recovery. So I will agree that laying out their hopeful plans is a damned if we do, and damned if we don't proposition......unless the Repulicans just want to kick a bigger can down the road for the kids to worry about. That is why I think they are somewhat coy about the details. The public is in no way willing to hear precisely what is needed to cut spending; massive spending cuts exacerbated by the very guy everyone seems to like listening to. Actually the most effective change would be a complete overhaul of the federal tax code, but you and I both know this is not going to happen. So I think the House Speaker should just detail a simple new tax plan (value added tax??) that abolishes all the crazy complications of the IRS code and see what sticks. Unfortunately there really isn't enough time with the impending fiscal cliff, and regardless no one wants to deal with this sticky wicket, but simplifing the tax code would save enormous government spending.

OK Mr. Smart Conservative.

OK Mr. Smart Conservative. What specificallly do you propose and show us how it will work. You guys talk a good game in theory, but have, to date, offered nothing concrete other than the sham of the Ryan budget which the vast majority of the American people oppose. i know what it is; you, the conservative elite and intelligensia just know better. The rest of the poor ignorant Americans just need to trust you all and not ask any questions. You self-proclaimed wisdom and correctness are all that we need to know about. The reason that Republicans won't detail their ideas and plans is they know they will be soundly rejected by the American public. Just look what happened this year with just a bare minimum of Republican ideas. Y'all got soundly thrashed. Can you imagine what you would get in an election if you laid out what you really want to do. You can look to places like Ohio and Wisconsin to see how the American people reacted to your ideas on leadership and programs. You guys hide your plans and keep them within the little circle of your conservative world. You are just afraid to lay it all out for the American people. You have no guts despite your apparent macho.

So how about some ideas of what you will do instead of the blame game in which both sides are equally to blame. How about some details? How about explaining how your concepts will work in the real world?

Oh, no. Silence again? More bullets and arrows.

How pathethic. All that hot wind from conservatives and not a windmill in sight to at least convert it to electrical power. If only we could use your hot air for energy, we wouldn't have an oil shortage and we wouldn't be engaged in some of the nonsensical debates you want to have over pipelines for oil companies (no, my friend, that oil in the Keystone pipeline will NOT be for Americans .. it will be for oil companies to sell on the open market) or about drilling for oil and natural gas with no concern for the environment or even a willingness to tell the American people what the $%^& they are pumping into the ground to get the natural gas out. Just another example of 'trust us --- we are superior to you -- we know better'.

Have you noticed your tactics aren't working? And the American people don't want to buy a bridge from you either.

"Socialism is good, untill

"Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money."

You are a conservative compatriot indeed. Yes, you hit it right on the nail, clobbered it actually. Liberlism/ socialism just sound better and are far easier on the ears than reality, which is the conservative viewpoint. Because someone is capable of attaining and maintaining immense wealth, the liberal always feels in some corrupted logic, that he/ they deserve a cut of this fiscal pie. But their corrupted logic only seems predatory towards intelligence and economic talent, as if they do not believe that these types of people do not fully deserve their well earned power and wealth. I guess it is easy for the naive to feel perfectly capable of sitting in the business owner's big chair and sign a few papers to keep the business humming right along........no problems and not too difficult at all is how they feel. It just takes the fortune to be lucky enough to get to sit in thst chair. Never mind that business opportunity for real talent is always out there, and you just have to be good and smart enough to figure it out and then take on the hard work and risk of starting it up.

Conversely, I do not see liberals complaining about Joe average not getting some of the action as an actor, singer, entertainer, basketball player, artist, comedian, etc., etc. And why would that be? Because it is obvious to any drone that these people have unique abilities that 99.99% of us cannot do at even a pedestrian level, so we enjoy immensely observing this talent.

But whooooaaa, get some really, really smart guys like a Jobs, Gates, Buffet, Trump, and yes a million other lesser talents, and the liberals gotta go after their money like gang busters. Why not much noise from the liberals about these guys deserving their wealth?
They certainly make very little noise about the actors, athletes, singers, etc. attaining all that wealth.......but then again, their talents are observable to anyone with eyes and ears. Liberals have no respect for the talents of business/ investor types because they have no appreciation of their talents at all; just doesn't register. You hear it all the time......why do these rich CEO's and busiiness people deserve such salaries? I actually agree with this somewhat as I do believe their compensations are getting out of hand. But the liberal very rarely makes the same vociferous argument about Tiger Woods and his 40-60 million a year income, which I do not think he deserves either.

Financial, mathmatical, scientific, investment, etc. talents are simply ignored by the naive liberal. I guess a lack of ability to appreciate these tallents is indicative of the loss of overall average math talent in this country.

George Bush did not create

George Bush did not create this mess here. We have elaborate pensions for every public service employee. Last time I looked that was a Dem invention. We are broke!!!

"Are conservatives always

"Are conservatives always right... Probably not.

But on the other hand look at all the states and cities which have been run by democrats for most of the past 50 years. NY, Illinois, California, Detroit, Washington DC, Philly, Newark,,,,. They all are in financial trouble due to liberal policies. The other cities that have already gone bankrupt were all controlled by democrats.

Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money."

Did you intentionally leave out the default by Orange County, California in the 90s? Orange County is one of the most conservative and Republican areas in the United States.

Here is my own take:

Capitalism is good, until (one 'l' only) the wealth disparity becomes so great that it leads to revolution. One of the best examples to support this statement was the American Revolution itself. If you don't believe that it was about economics and wealth distribution, then you don't understand American history.

Way off base again. We are

Way off base again. We are NOT alike. I offer specific proposals and you offer nothing but criticizing what is. You are just like the Republican leaders in Congress. You laugh and criticize anything and everything that Democrats propose, but offer nothing specific themselves. Just listen to what John Boehner said yesterday: It is up to the President to propose spending cuts. I guess he never read the Constitution which is 100 % clear that it is Congress's job to create law in this country. Congressional Republicans appear to have a one word vocabulary: NO NO NO. You're a businessman, aren't you? If someone makes you an offer that you don't like what do you do? Do you make a counter-offer or just say no?

I won't even comment on the stupidity of your 'violence' comments about liberals. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of right wing violence as well. No need to support this with facts or data since they are of no use to you.

We all know, or think we know, what you don't want. But, much like an over-tired little child, you are cranky, upset, but have no idea how to express yourself in terms of what it is you want or need to 'un-crank' yourself. Why? Because your thoughts are shoot-from-the-hip without any real consideration or analysis of consequences it too much trouble for you and would take too much time. Even George Bush (in a debate with John Kerry) said (over and over again) ... being President is haaaard work. Just thowing out every idea that pops into your head with no real thought behind it is not hard work ... it's something any amateur can do. We have seriouis problems (something we appear to agree upon). I put alot of thought into my proposals and present a reasonable amount of top-level detail. You barely propose anything concrete and when you do, it is naive simplistic thought like putting all welfare recipients into orphanages after 6 months without a single thought as to who would pay for the orphanages. But the idea fits your mantra... it will work simply because the government won't be involved any more. I hate to tell you this, but I would much rather have the American government running things than a totally inept company like Siemens. I would rather see a bit of government waste than the massive waste I've seen in industry and heard about from others who see exactly the same thing in most companies. When companies waste money, they simply pass the cost on to consumers, so the waste gets hidden. Obviously, hiding waste is much more difficult for government, but the good news is that when waste is uncovered at the government level it is out in the open and can be corrected. The same is not true with the far greater waste that takes place in the private sector.

I expect more barbs for liberals as your response. Just keep firing away while America goes over 'the cliff'. If you have nothing to add in terms of specific proposals to solve our problems, why not go back to your own little business and spend more time working at it there? You're going to need to work harder now to pay that extra $4000 on each $100K you make OVER $250K (or 500K). Working at your own company might, at least, be a productive use of your time. The nonsense you post here and the constant attacks on those who disagree with you are completely worthless and are nothing more than a bitter old man tilting at windmills. You will pay more taxes if you are making over $250K and we not only don't care, but we welcome your added contribution as a patriotic gesture to help your country in it's time of need. And we certainly don't believe a word of your predicted dire consequences of such tax increases because all you ever do is make talking points assertions and never back anything up with facts, data, details or history.

You are, in fact, the worst combination of John McCain and Joe Biden. Both are well known for their off-the-cuff remarks and their fondness for chewing on their own feet.

There will be games,

There will be games, trick-or-treating, a maze and a haunted school house. Visitors can take a break from the family entertainment to take a narrative tour in the buildings during the event. vancouver wordpress design

Are conservatives always

Are conservatives always right... Probably not.

But on the other hand look at all the states and cities which have been run by democrats for most of the past 50 years. NY, Illinois, California, Detroit, Washington DC, Philly, Newark,,,,. They all are in financial trouble due to liberal policies. The other cities that have already gone bankrupt were all controlled by democrats.

Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money.

"Did you happen to come

"Did you happen to come across the words megalomania or delusional anywhere during your edjumication?"

I guess I really need to type elsewhere and use spellchk.

This is all very funny to me also. Actually i think it is more interesting than funny, but it's still alittle fun or I would not still be here correct? Actually we are very much alike, strong willed and pig headed about our respective positions, it's just that we are mirror images of each other in terms of our beliefs....nearly perfect reflections of each other but reversed completely.......like the vector cancellations on metal balls swinging and banging off each other. Perhaps we are here to keep Newton's laws intact.

It would be a very boring world without people's differing viewpoints especially since I would have no one to shake my head against, and you, no one to laugh at.

What gets me is that the left is always so much more violent and angry when other's do not agree with your positions. Look at any riot, union strikes, demonstrations, campaigns, eco freaks, PETA, SPCA, etc........all very angry. And I hear that tone in your posts.......what gives? I too, get upset with you liberals, but I'm not popping any veins because I know I am right, same as you feel, but you harbor the anger so much on your sleeves. I think it is because liberals are taught by group think or even from formal edjumications (what with colleges being heavily liberal), and the tone is always anger at the people in control. And us conservatives? We get this way because we experience the business/ labor difficulties in the real world and have to learn for ourselves what makes economic entities tic. When you learn this way, there isn't so much anger but more frustration...... I think because we are still "in control". When people have no control, they have greater anger and fear. What say you, on like this take?

Edjucated? I think that

Edjucated?

I think that says it all. There is just no point trying to edjucate a person with a closed mind, who knows he's right but can't provide a shred of evidence to back up his claim. Did you happen to come across the words megalomania or delusional anywhere during your edjumication?

btw: Did Romney pay for his White House lunch today or has he now become a 'taker' at the taxpayer's (and your) expense?

I'm sorry, but this is just too funny.

Let me save you the time to answer since you must be very busy running your very successful company:

Liberals are wrong .... always
Everything liberals have done or want to do have either hurt or will ruin America.
Liberals clutter their minds with facts and data.
Liberals respect intelligence and education.

I am right ..... always.
Cut my taxes.
I'm against Obamacare
Cut my taxes.
I have no replacement for Obamacare.
Cut my taxes.
Cut government spending.
Cut my taxes.
I have no specific things to cut in goverment.
Cut my taxes.
Let business do anything they want and everything will be just fine.
Cut my taxes.
Get rid of unions.
Cut my taxes.

Might sound repetitive, but 'cut my taxes' is the only thing that Republicans seem to support. They are completely void of any other positive ideas.

Rule # 1 in investing ----

Rule # 1 in investing ---- stay away from the "experts"

By the way, I have to make an

By the way, I have to make an admission. I have not listened to any financial advisor except for a single exception in my entire life, as I do not trust any of them at all. I did trust and listen to one key financial genius, Warren Buffet. I didn't feel comfortable with my level of understanding of the tech boom during the late 1990's, and I had read several times that Buffet also was uncomfortable with tech investing because all the numbers (here we go again) didn't make sense to him and if something didn't make sense to him, he refused to invest in it no matter what the returns. I took his cue and stuck to it because what he said reflected exactly how I felt about the tech boom. That is why I didn't ride any of that stuff and it turned out to be correct, but I did indeed follow someone else's advice this one time.

"I wonder if you oppose

"I wonder if you oppose knowledge and facts in your business as much as you do in your political 'thinking' ... "

We have tried the facts and numbers game, but we are as opposed to what the data tells us as if we each just made up all of our stats. This is what I'm trying to get across, the facts are meaningless unless you interpret the right deductions. And my take is that your deductions are not very good overall. In fact I'm here because it fascinates me how the liberals (primarily) interpret world, economic, military and political events so differently. Now, you suggest it is I that is cock-eyed and of course that is just as valid as my own position. However I do have a very, very good record of being savy in terms of investment and business, and these things are far easier to access for successfulness. Politics, military, the penal system, etc. are in a sense impossible to gauge absolutes about rightness or wrongness, so we can argue endlessly and be neither totally wrong or totally right.......EVER. These sectors will be forever arguable for either position, liberal or conservative. But in terms of investment and business dealings, I am old enough to have been witness to countless foolish positions taken by people, many professional or edjucated in these fields, who were completely off base and at least to me at the times, completely clueless. They would know all the data, studies, current world/ market conditions, charts, puts/ calls leveraging, hedging/ risking, diversifying, etc., etc...........but still miss the boat!!!!
I did not lose much in the early 1970's market crash, the early 1990's real estate decline, the 2000's tech bubble, nor even the 2007 real estate bubble/ crash. I sold and invested pretty much around all of these great losses, and you know what? Each time, I had to go against the vasy majority of financial advisor's and economists predictions and go with my own analysis and instincts. My biggest regret was not riding the tech boom upwards even as I avoided the crash downwards, but that would have required taking risk's against my analysis of the inevidable bubble and trusting I would have gotten out on time......no guarrantee. So it was probablly best I didn't ride it at all, and that is the way it turned out. Still a huge missed opportunity, but at least I didn't lose huge amounts during that cycle. So you see, I am a guy hugely skeptical of all the data that gets thrown around, so if you see it as a weakness, well go ahead, power to you. I will continue to trust my instincts rather than the number crunchers who would have busted me several times if I had listened to their "expert" opinions.

Oh that. I had the impression

Oh that. I had the impression it was computer generated spam.

The one who always talks

The one who always talks about Mobile. I'm not even sure if it is a man or woman who posts that stuff whenever they get off their meds. It's just crazy stuff from someone who seems to be crying out for help and this sure isn't the site to find it.

Yeah, whoever entered this

Yeah, whoever entered this thread should know better. This thread was long occupied by the crazy siemens hating lady again, who keep replying to her own post and arguing with herself.

WTF? What is this post all about ?

Mitt Romney went to the White

Mitt Romney went to the White House for lunch today. He left, extremely upset, when he found out that the President had already eaten his lunch !!!!

Poor Mitt .... poor for the first time in his born-with-a-silver-dog-cage-on-his-car life. Exit ----> stage right!

Please go and stay gone. You

Please go and stay gone. You think this is a game you can just make up in your head as you go along.

I wonder if you oppose knowledge and facts in your business as much as you do in your political 'thinking' ... and I use that word very liberally in your case !!!!

No wonder that Republicans like you are a dying breed. (Yes, and that is a fact, too).

OK, actuary, not

OK, actuary, not actuator.

But again, all of my stuff is posted off the top of my head, and I see you are jamming up the Google servers once again.

Won't you feel naked the first time you have to come up with something when the serach engines are not there for you to lean on?
Just asking.....gotta go.

It is sheer idiocy tyo

It is sheer idiocy tyo believe that social security is not based on the same kind of actuarial statistics as any other insurance. The difference is that insurance companies can adjust their rates yearly, or at any time, to adjust for new actuarial data, whereas changing pay-ins and pay-outs is far more complicated for social security since it requires Congressional action rather than the wave of a pen by some VP at an insurance company.

When you start looking at things with a pre-existing bias it is not surprising that you get things wrong all the time.

This must be close to strike 50 for you. A new major league record!!

The first person to get a

The first person to get a monthly retirement check from Social Security certainly got her money's worth. Ida May Fuller, a retired legal secretary from Ludlow, Vt., received her first monthly check in January 1940. She was 65 years old and lived to be 100. She had paid Social Security taxes for three years.

___

Social Security taxes paid by Fuller during her career: $24.75.

Fuller's first monthly benefit check: $22.54.

Fuller's lifetime benefits: $22,888.92.

"If social security is a

"If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance (car, home, life, renters, etc). "

Not quite my friend, Private insurance bases their rates statistics and averages, and had put the monies into investments.

SS was based on let this generation that is now working pay for those who are now retired. The first person to collect had contributed around $20 and ends up pulling $20,000 before she passed away. ( If my old right wing brain cells are working correctly -- please check) All well and dandy as long as the working population was far greater then the retirement population. When started it was about 5-10 to one. Now it is approaching 2-1 or less. I hope you have a lot of grandchildren to support me and my wife.

So you're an engineer. It's

So you're an engineer. It's an actuary, not an actuator !!!!

Social security is a stand alone system. Period. And please don't start with your LBJ and the Viet Nam war nonsense. The way you present that 'issue' is completely misleading and wrong. Money was NOT taken from social security; the excess at that time was 'used' to make the budget appear to be 'balanced' on paper. I guess it's easy to have ridiculous ideas and opinions when you have the basic facts wrong.

"If social security is a

"If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance "

Insurance is where many people (policy holders) pay an actuator's estimate of how much the insurance company can charge on a yearly basis, in order to fulfill the contract obligation limits defined in the fine print...... and still make a profit. They are gambling that these obligations will be less than what they collect in premiums over the long haul.

But with SS, we pay into it all our working days, assuming that we will be paid out an entitled cash stream after reaching the age of 65-66 (currently for most people). The trouble is, in the insurance scheme all of the premiums go towards obligations or towards profit for the insurance company but with SS the money does not all go towards SS benefits to be paid out currently or in the future. Some of the money is essentially "stolen" by being used to fund other things besides SS benefits, and is a major reason why the program is essentially broke within 20-30 years unless benefits are cut or contributions and the retirement age are raised.

I don't know about you guy's but that does not seem to be a great deal for the taxpayer. It is essentially a huge tax increase, heavily biased negatively towards the younger folks since they are paying more and more towards things other than their future benefits through the FICA payments each paycheck.

Personally, if I am assuming I make FICA payments towards SS benefits, I would want ALL OF IT to be used for that ourpose.

:Social Security is the

:Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, those under 40 will be paying the price. Not I :-)"

Another one of the Republican talking points that has no justification. Obviously, none of them know what a Ponzi scheme is nor do they realize that the future of Social Security can been ensured with some tweaking as has been done in the past. The so-called problem with social security is more a matter of anyone's ability to exactly predict the future and the number of benefit recipients and the number of younger people contributing to the system.

If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance (car, home, life, renters, etc).

But thank you for maintaining the image of your No-Nothing Party.

"I agree. we should try

"I agree. we should try Mongolian Chinese Buffet - Warren, MI"
END QUOTE

So this is for real. their rating is not good. LOL

"Personally I love watching

"Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!"

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, those under 40 will be paying the price. Not I :-)

Part III I may have a

Part III

I may have a solution also for some of the imported oil we seem so unable to do without. A lot of this oil is used to fire up electric generating plants across the country. That is a lot of oil.

About 1/3 of all American adults are obese. That means somewhere around 20-75 million adults walking around obese. I'm not advocating sacrificing them, but perhaps when they pass away we can boil their carcasses much as they used to render whale meat for the fat content. Oil floats to the top to be easily skimmed off for fuel. We could do this with fat people's carcasses and use the oil to fire up electrical plants. That may save millions spent for imported oil, and would go a long way towards further reducing the deficit.

Part II I also have a very

Part II

I also have a very efficient and cost effective way to decrease the military budget yet not decrease or maybe if we are lucky, even increase the effectiveness of our long range weapons. A second benefit would be to streamline the costs that burden Medicare and health care costs in general in this country.

I think all men and women over the age of 66 should be drafted, no exceptons granted, except of course for the decreased level of danger peace time may grace on the fortunate ones. Notice how this precise age eliminates the payments for SS that this group would have just begun to be qualified for. This manditory military service would be for a special division dedicated to piloting all current forms of self guided missle systems. Since their age precludes any significant loss of life's pleasures and accomplishments, these soldiers can sacrafice their lives to a much needed and honorable cause. Cruise missles cost about a million dollars each, and a live pilot brings smarter and better adaptability if the strike dynamics should change. Regardless they can guide the weapon directly onto targets and even make changes seconds before a strike actually hits its target. We can compensate the families of these heroic soldiers with a significant reward if the soldier hit his target perfectly.

Do you plan to send adults on

Do you plan to send adults on welfare to orphanages too? And who will pay the cost of the orphanages? Are you proposing to pay the cost of all the orphanages all by your generous self?

Please learn to engage mind before opening mouth and remember that a closed mouth gathers no feet.

Well, this is a new one. I

Well, this is a new one. I knew that the Tea Party wanted to take the country back, but at worst, I figured they meant back to 1932 before the New Deal. Now we get a proposal to return to the nineteenth century. You simply don't get that society today is not structured for the kind of solutions you propose. I never realized how out of touch you were with the vast majority of America. You are the perfect example of the kind of leader who will eventually destroy what remains of the Republican Party. As I recall, the last time the leading conservative Party died in America (the Whigs) it took almost a decade for their replacement (the Republicans) to form and become credible. During that interim period, most conservatives found a home in what was called the No-Nothing Party. It looks like history is repeating itself.

Or was that just a modest proposal, Mr Swift?

I think anyone on welfare for

I think anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be eliminated from circulation. Within 6 months 90% of the entitlement problem would then be taken care of. The kids can go the orphanage route, and within one generation the problem is fixed. Who else after seeing what happened to these long termer's would try and collect welfare for that long? I think I should run for president.

You even find ways to go

You even find ways to go after Warren Buffet, I see. As I understand it, he is an old man, I think he has cancer, he is rich beyond belief and even if Berkshire-Hathaway stock dropped by 50 % he would still be rich beyond belief. I also believe he is giving the bulk, if not all, of his wealth to charity. But even your way, what you are saying is that there are many people like Warren Buffet who would benefit from a rise in taxes for the elite rich.

To the other poster, I have been saying for ages that $500K or even a million is an acceptable compromise. I could make arguments about those in high cost areas having made a choice and if $4000 on each $100,000 over $250K makes that much of a different, it suggests they bought in way above their means. For those in high cost areas in general, salaries are usually higher there to compensate. But, as I said, the higher levels would still be acceptable. To me what is more important is to remove the tax preference for capital gains for uber-income people, especially those who get a large percentage of their income from such investments. There are still many people like Mitt Romney who pay only around 15 % because so much of their income is long term capital gains.

Personally I love watching

Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!

I agree. we should try

I agree. we should try Mongolian Chinese Buffet - Warren, MI

Warren Buffet has stated he

Warren Buffet has stated he believes that the tax rate should go up on the rich, but thinks the rate should apply only to those above $500K a year or even higher. I agree with the $500K cutoff as $250K for a family in pricier neighborhoods is not rich.

But if you think about it, he knows this will leave more money in the economy to prop up Wall Street as smaller cuts to government spending can be endured, helping to boost spending. And he has a huge interest in keeping stock values up because of his Bershire investments. I do not believe he sincerly believes increasing taxes will not effect employment negatively, but like I said he has a huge dog in the fight in terms of equities values.

Yeah, whoever entered this

Yeah, whoever entered this thread should know better. This thread was long occupied by the crazy siemens hating lady again, who keep replying to her own post and arguing with herself.

Just have some holiday spirit, enjoy the one woman show.

Nope. This is like any other

Nope. This is like any other website. Enter at your own risk. You know the rules !!

Could you at least name your

Could you at least name your room appropriately or put out a "do not disturb" sign?

In case you haven't noticed,

In case you haven't noticed, we already have one, thank you. It's a special room that isn't for everyone's taste. Fortunately for you, attendance in OUR room is not mandatory.

Could you guys get a room?!

Could you guys get a room?!

Once again, you miss the

Once again, you miss the point. You simply put faith into someone who you say shares your 'philosophy'. One would think that the 'philosophy' would be based on something ... some facts, some data. But you and the Republicans refuse or simply can't come up with any data or facts to support your philiosophy; you simply state you know you are right. You say you don't like what 'liberals' want to do, but you won't say what you want to do. You criticize Obama for not achieving all he set out to do (never mind the FACT that he tried to do much more but was blocked at every turn by a minority in the Senate. This anti-democratic group refuses to even allow many issues to come up for a vote and yet they maintain they are the party of 'true' America who support freedom and democracy. Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Since you won't use facts, data, or history to support your philosophy and won't make any specific proposals to ensure an healthy economic future for America, I can only conclude that you are just filled with anger, fear, and hot air.

SO STOP ALL THE CRITICISM. STOP THE UNFOUNDED DIRE PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE. STOP THE CATEGORIZATION AND LABELS. STOP SAYING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT AND TELL US WHAT YOU DO WANT. MAKE A PROPOSAL WITH SOME DETAILS AND EXPLAIN HOW YOUR IDEAS WILL WORK IN PRACTICE. MAYBE THEN YOU WILL HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE ZERO.

You simply don't seem to understand that simpy being against things and not having any ideas of your own is not the basis for an adult coversation about anything. You sound like a sports fan whose team is doing very poorly. You complain about the players, the managers and coaches, and the owners. You know everything that isn't working for your team. Yet, you don't make a single suggestion as to how to fix it. You don't suggest any trades; you don't suggest and improvement in player training, or anything else. You are like the little kid during the 'terrible twos' that just stomps his feet and says no to everything. It is little wonder that the Republican party in which you believe is spiraling itself into oblivion. If I were really a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I would welcome a new political order consisting solely of radical leftists (relatively speaking), liberals and moderates, and a tiny minority, off in the corner, called The Party Formerly Knows as Republicans. How do you expect a polical party to survive with no idea and just a vague agenda of low taxes, no government programs whatsoever other than an excessively large military, and a completely nauseating, anti-democratic social agenda. I don't know about you, but I for one do not want Big Brother Republicans in my bedroom.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.