Tax hikes today but cuts will come later!

Sandy Clark

0 posts

11/29/2012 9:11 AM

Here we go again. The President says we should do the tax hikes immediately and we will get to the tax cuts later. Why in the world would the congress repeat this mistake. Reagan increased taxes and the dems promised to do the cuts later. Big surprise, the cuts never happened or were even discussed. Jump ahead to Bush Sr. He lost the next election because he compromised with the trustworthy dems by raising taxes first and once again, the cuts never happened. Why would any conservative legislator even consider accepting a blatant lie once again? Democrats have a pretty consistent history and cannot be trusted to fulfill promise. If the president is really serious about cutting, do it now. He could start with the $425 per gallon bio-fuel the Navy is forced to purchase for some of our ships. He could reduce the staff of every cabinet level position by 50% and nobody would even notice. He could eliminate all of his czars and again, the tax payer would not be impacted. He could cut the first ladies spending and travel by 50%. All of these are of course token issues but the cuts would have just as much impact on reducing spending as taxing the rich will do for enhancing revenue! The President unfortunately doesn't have any real intentions of cutting. The debt and deficit will continue to grow and in four years it will have reached a point that the U.S. will be just a shell of the great nation we have always been. I hope I am wrong but history is a pretty good indicator.

Steve Nelson

0 posts

11/29/2012 9:11 AM

Well, I guess the cuts, if any, will be later. Sandy, our party has again flatly rejected an immediate extension of the Bush middle class tax cuts. This time the suggestion came from a senior GOP congressman. Those tax cuts would proabably affect every single one of us on this board. I am starting to wonder if the party that I have voted for my entire life actually gives a rats behind about middle class America.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

11/29/2012 11:11 AM

Gus, the speaker of the house tried to get the Obama administration and the senate tow work on this problem nearly a year ago. He was rejected because Obama didn't want to mess with it before an election. There is blame to go around with all of them but unless the insane out of control spending is actually reduced, the tax hikes will do nothing but make people with less feel gleeful that the so-called rich are getting punished. I will be willing to make a major assumption here. You can cave to the Presidents wishes but what will end up happening is the spending will increase, not decrease. You and I could sit down at that budget table tomorrow and make multiple billions of cuts that wouldn't hurt any citizen. We could cut multiple billions more by making every department and agency in government make reasonable cuts. We could cut even more billions by consolidating redundant agencies of which we have many! Don't just blame our party. They have ll been comfortably wallowing in filth for way too long. I am almost to the point of saying give Obama everything he wants. When everything is a disaster in 4 years and he can no longer blame Bush, maybe then people will realize that the utopian fantasy world of the democrats cannot be achieved!

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

11/29/2012 11:11 AM

Haven't there already been spending cuts? Or at least no growth, maybe that's it in the federal budget?

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Sandy Clark

0 posts

11/29/2012 2:11 PM

Mel. we have never had an actual spending cut. We have only had a reduction in the rate of increase. If they want 10 % for next year and only allocated 5%, they cry calling that a 5% cut. I want to see 10% reduction from last years money, not a phoney cut that is actually a lowered than desired increase. We need to give back responsibilities to the state and get back to what government should be doing and no more. If you don't think government has gone too far, just try to purchase a super size soft drink in New York. By the way, get your money out of your 401-K. the latest today is government take over of your 401-K for fairness and savings redistribution. This has been in the works for quite some time and the trial balloon is back out there. This time it may not just be a balloon!

Wahlin Scott B

11/29/2012 4:11 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: By the way, get your money out of your 401-K. the latest today is government take over of your 401-K for fairness and savings redistribution.

Do you really believe this could happen or are you just trying to frighten and inflame people?

Spotts David A

11/29/2012 5:11 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS wrote:
"By the way, get your money out of your 401-K. the latest today is government take over of your 401-K for fairness and savings redistribution."

bunch of crap, compare it to "Obama is going to take away our guns" and in reality, the last four years they sold more guns than any other four year period.
Or how about "we are all going to be socialists" when in reality we are more of a rich and poor country with no middle class than we were after the first 100 years of the industrial revolution.
Or try, oh never mind, my words could never influence anyone who truly believes all that Fox news malarkey. When the CEO of Hostess can say he worked for and deserved the 7 million dollar bonus he took while trying to cut workers pay and benefits by 8% and then the company claims they are bankrupt. Take the top wage earner at Hostess and assume they were all at that bracket, multiply the 8% by the number of hours they worked in a year and he could have paid that amount with less than half of his bonus. But then of course I guess that just because they worked around hot ovens and less than favorable conditions than that fat dough boy CEO had to work in, doesn't mean that they were actually working. If they cut his job the company would have survived and I don't think anyone would have noticed the difference in their end product. Maybe the workers moral would have improved along with productivity
In my opinion, there is a big difference between capitalism and flat out greed. As for taxing the rich not making any real difference, It would make me feel better knowing that I wasn't the only one feeling the pain and paying for a party I wasn't involved in or invited to. I might even celebrate and spur the economy some whereas they will just sit on the money anyway for whatever reason the so called "job creators " have used over the last 8-10 years they had these tax breaks and sent jobs overseas or just plain overworked already burnt out employees instead of hiring a few people for a so called living wage. I don't even think they would miss the money.
I am so sick of listening to this crap I could puke. Let us keep our tax breaks, let theirs go back to where they were before they created all these jobs and go from there before you drive the whole country off the cliff. Then there will be no 401K money to redistribute.

Ronald Kirkman

42 posts

11/29/2012 9:11 PM

Greetings;

Every one just relax now. Now, let's see someone check this out. We are still paying off the interest on 100 million dollars that some President borrowed for World War 1 - That's right WW ONE!! That is 94 years ago since the end of the war. No wonder I'm broke. OK - loook it up somewhere and let us know if the Capt. is right or wrong.

Another one for you. - Did you know that Dinosaurs and humans lived together? Or, Dinosaurs and Aliens - That's not from Fox News but the History Channel.

Don't worry about the Cliff - Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be the first to jump!! And, don't worry about Obama Care - the states will run it if they feel like doing it and if not, the Federal Government will not give the states any money. And, have you noticed that health care insurance has gone up substantially and your co-pay significantly higher? Wait till you ladies and gentlemen have to keep track of total hours worked for all employees for health insurance purposes and you do this quarterly. If you stay under so many hours your OK. If you go over the hours your company pays the state. We do it in MA now.

Capt. Kirk
Retired Alien
Needham Golf Club
Needham, MA

Sandy Clark

0 posts

11/30/2012 9:11 AM

Not a scare tactic and it didn't come from Fox. It came from a business show I heard on the radio. I heard the interview of the lady explaining the program. I didn't catch the name but I don't think it was Pelosi. If it is being discussed openly, it is more than a scare tactic. They will sugar coat it and call it anything they want but it will take control of your 401K out of your hands in the name of fairness. I hope it is just nothing more than a trial balloon but it is being openly discussed. I don't think it could pass but I would not leave my head in the sand and call it a scare tactic! Our current leaders and many in the past do not believe it is your money. They firmly believe all money belongs to the government and we are simply allowed to utilize it. Go back and check some of Teddy Kennedy's rhetoric if you doubt that. Puke all you want. I feel like doing the same when I realize how the upper 20% income earners pay the bill for everyone else. You can feel as happy as you want but it appears to be out of a jealous hatred of those that are already paying more than their fair share as well as yours. I hope you don't really believe that somehow those making more than you are depriving you of the opportunity to make more. That part is solely up to you. What they make has no influence over your life so why do you feel they should pay an even higher share when they already pay the majority of all taxes collected?

Ashton Alan W

11/30/2012 11:11 AM

Let's see...

When I do a Google search of "Obama wants your"... I get the following suggestions:

1) wedding presents
2) 401K
3) beer money

I think I'll wait on this one for a while myself!! :lol:

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

11/30/2012 11:11 AM

What I read about the issue was the idea was floated about having a government invested 401K or required 401K to help supplement Social Security. I guess one of the many speakers during a hearing back in 2010 mentioned that there are many that can't afford or weren't saving and just going to rely on their Social Security, and one of the speakers suggested that the government should mandate 401K's to help supplement. Then also the government could somehow benefit because that money invested could help with the debt? That is how I understood it when reading it, and I'll admit I sometimes read something into things that aren't there.

Most information on the subject were of blogs where people have their own agendas or Fox news, (oh I guess that's the same thing?)

Seems the republicans are all up in arms about it, I don't know why, isn't that what they wanted to do with Social Security anyway?

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Wahlin Scott B

11/30/2012 2:11 PM

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: What I read about the issue was the idea was floated about having a government invested 401K or required 401K to help supplement Social Security. I guess one of the many speakers during a hearing back in 2010 mentioned that there are many that can't afford or weren't saving and just going to rely on their Social Security, and one of the speakers suggested that the government should mandate 401K's to help supplement. Then also the government could somehow benefit because that money invested could help with the debt? That is how I understood it when reading it, and I'll admit I sometimes read something into things that aren't there.

Most information on the subject were of blogs where people have their own agendas or Fox news, (oh I guess that's the same thing?)

Seems the republicans are all up in arms about it, I don't know why, isn't that what they wanted to do with Social Security anyway?

Mel

Mel, As a municipal employee you should be in a 457, shouldn't you? You get a lot of great benefits and Sandy's money.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

11/30/2012 3:11 PM

Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: What I read about the issue was the idea was floated about having a government invested 401K or required 401K to help supplement Social Security. I guess one of the many speakers during a hearing back in 2010 mentioned that there are many that can't afford or weren't saving and just going to rely on their Social Security, and one of the speakers suggested that the government should mandate 401K's to help supplement. Then also the government could somehow benefit because that money invested could help with the debt? That is how I understood it when reading it, and I'll admit I sometimes read something into things that aren't there.

Most information on the subject were of blogs where people have their own agendas or Fox news, (oh I guess that's the same thing?)

Seems the republicans are all up in arms about it, I don't know why, isn't that what they wanted to do with Social Security anyway?

Mel

Mel, As a municipal employee you should be in a 457, shouldn't you? You get a lot of great benefits and Sandy's money.

Scott you are correct, I have money in a 457, actually have two of those one from the university I used to work for, but I also have a 401, it was money from my NJ state pension that I contributed but didn't work long enough to get vested. Plus I'm in the Missouri state pension fund which is actually in very good shape last time we checked. If we can get Sandy to retire out here to Missouri, I'll get some of his money then.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

McCallum David K

12/1/2012 6:12 AM

Sandy I dare that you INFLAME ME ! What are you thinking my friend.

Mel.........your comment "our pension fund is in good shape, the last time I checked?" Huh?

Yesterday was my last day of work and on MOnday my 401K with the compnay will be history.........I'm giving all 800k to Scott to invest for me.

Clay Putnam

33 posts

12/1/2012 8:12 AM

David McCallum said: Sandy I dare that you INFLAME ME ! What are you thinking my friend.

Mel.........your comment "our pension fund is in good shape, the last time I checked?" Huh?

Yesterday was my last day of work and on MOnday my 401K with the compnay will be history.........I'm giving all 800k to Scott to invest for me.

NOOOOOO! Give it to me. I have this sure thing. It's on a big boat. It has a lot of bells and bright lights. And there's pretty women walking around bringing people free drinks and cigarettes. There's people there all the time so it's definitely a sure thing.

Steve Nelson

0 posts

12/3/2012 9:12 AM

David McCallum said: Sandy I dare that you INFLAME ME ! What are you thinking my friend.

Mel.........your comment "our pension fund is in good shape, the last time I checked?" Huh?

Yesterday was my last day of work and on MOnday my 401K with the compnay will be history.........I'm giving all 800k to Scott to invest for me.

DMAC, I hope you don't become a flamer because of Sandy. That just don't sound right. Also, enjoy retirement, hope this doesn't mean we've heard the last from you!

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

12/3/2012 10:12 AM

David McCallum said: Sandy I dare that you INFLAME ME ! What are you thinking my friend.

Mel.........your comment "our pension fund is in good shape, the last time I checked?" Huh?

Yesterday was my last day of work and on MOnday my 401K with the compnay will be history.........I'm giving all 800k to Scott to invest for me.

David, the last time we received information our state pension plan was pretty healthy, it was reported on June 30th, 2012 to be pre-funded at 83.5%. Much better shape then I hear many other states pension funds. Just making a statement of fact. I don't get what your question to my comment is, so I'm guessing what you were wondering.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Sandy Clark

0 posts

12/3/2012 2:12 PM

David, don't worry. I would rather we go over the so-called fiscal cliff than let Obama have everything he wants. What they will probably do is come up with a short term deal to kick the can further down the road so they can supposedly work out a deal to save the country. Gee, who got us in the mess in the first place, wasn't it the same clowns that now think they have a solution to save us? Yes, if we can just have more of your money so we can further bloat this already over bloated government by adding more to the deficit and debt rather than CUTTING!

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

12/3/2012 3:12 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: David, don't worry. I would rather we go over the so-called fiscal cliff than let Obama have everything he wants. What they will probably do is come up with a short term deal to kick the can further down the road so they can supposedly work out a deal to save the country. Gee, who got us in the mess in the first place, wasn't it the same clowns that now think they have a solution to save us? Yes, if we can just have more of your money so we can further bloat this already over bloated government by adding more to the deficit and debt rather than CUTTING!

Yes Sandy, the same republicans in congress that have been there for years and voted for all of President Bush's tax cuts. (I know there are plenty of democrats too, of course I think Sandy is thinking it's the president, but I'm just guessing, don't want to put words in his mouth.)

i can agree with you that we can and should try to spend smarter with less waste, I just don't understand how anybody can say we should keep cutting spending when we are taxing at rates that are so much lower then in many years past. Especially when infrastructure is as poor as it is, one of the main functions of government should be infrastructure spending. How do we continue to keep spending for the things we need to spend on while keeping the tax rates so much lower? The math doesn't add up. And what is it that we should be cutting that would make a difference? Everyone will have their own opinions on what to cut, I'm sure. The other question is why did we prosper so much back when tax rates were higher?

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Sandy Clark

0 posts

12/3/2012 3:12 PM

Mel, for starters, I blame all of them no matter the party. I still say we cannot ask for more tax money when the money we currently spend is being wasted. Find one department in any state at the local to national level that doesn't waste money . We have duplication of services everywhere. When was the last zero based budget from any level of government. Have an audit of every department throughout the country and see the ridiculous levels of waste eliminated before we ask for more. It isn't how much they have or need it is how effectively they spend it. when you sneak $400 per gallon bio-fuel into the military budget, that is just one example of multi-millions wasted daily. Look at the travel / party problems we heard about not long ago in a couple of government agencies. These things exist on steroids throughout all levels of government. Reducing taxes will bring in more revenue than increasing taxes and just giving the same addicts of OPM (Other Peoples Money) will continue adding to the deficit, not reducing it. Yes, certain services need to be sustained but get rid of the corruption and mis-management first. Then determine if you need any more money or just better management techniques!

Keith Lamb

3 posts

12/3/2012 6:12 PM

Stupid us....the answer is right in front of us. Sandy for POTUS. Now I can sleep at night.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

12/3/2012 6:12 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Mel, for starters, I blame all of them no matter the party. I still say we cannot ask for more tax money when the money we currently spend is being wasted. Find one department in any state at the local to national level that doesn't waste money . We have duplication of services everywhere. When was the last zero based budget from any level of government. Have an audit of every department throughout the country and see the ridiculous levels of waste eliminated before we ask for more. It isn't how much they have or need it is how effectively they spend it. when you sneak $400 per gallon bio-fuel into the military budget, that is just one example of multi-millions wasted daily. Look at the travel / party problems we heard about not long ago in a couple of government agencies. These things exist on steroids throughout all levels of government. Reducing taxes will bring in more revenue than increasing taxes and just giving the same addicts of OPM (Other Peoples Money) will continue adding to the deficit, not reducing it. Yes, certain services need to be sustained but get rid of the corruption and mis-management first. Then determine if you need any more money or just better management techniques!

Are you willing to pay for the auditors? Actually I'm sure they are there, we have auditors at our level of government, but I bet there is still waste, or what one person's waste is another's need. Look at the private sector are all businesses doing the same? I doubt it. (I know they aren't other peoples money...well except the tax they are suppose to pay)

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Wahlin Scott B

12/3/2012 8:12 PM

Most municipalities have their financials posted very plainly on their websites. The larger they are the more difficult they are to understand. The City of Boynton Beach is a full service city with fire, police and golf(!) but it is still easy to understand. Even so you can request meetings with finance folks, join oversight committees and join advisory boards. Any of these things will let you know that cutting more expenses is BS on the local level. Let's go over the cliff. It is okay by me.

Clay Putnam

33 posts

12/5/2012 8:12 AM

Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Most municipalities have their financials posted very plainly on their websites. The larger they are the more difficult they are to understand. The City of Boynton Beach is a full service city with fire, police and golf(!) but it is still easy to understand. Even so you can request meetings with finance folks, join oversight committees and join advisory boards. Any of these things will let you know that cutting more expenses is BS on the local level. Let's go over the cliff. It is okay by me.

It would appear as if the president is following your strategy of no cooperation and compromise. No surprise. Looks as if my predictions are coming true. This is a lame lame duck president who is willing to bargain the American public for the sake of his agenda.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-obama-could-risk-going-over-cliff-081447326--finance.html

Sandy Clark

0 posts

12/5/2012 10:12 AM

I just read this morning that he consulted yesterday with Maddow, Sharpton and O'Donnell from MSNBC on Tax rates. Sharpton has made his money race baiting, and Maddow and O"Donnell are extremely liberal. That must have been a fair and balanced brilliant exchange of ideas. Obama does think he is king. The President is supposed to be the President of the U.S. not just the liberal so-called elite!

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

12/5/2012 11:12 AM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: I just read this morning that he consulted yesterday with Maddow, Sharpton and O'Donnell from MSNBC on Tax rates. Sharpton has made his money race baiting, and Maddow and O"Donnell are extremely liberal. That must have been a fair and balanced brilliant exchange of ideas. Obama does think he is king. The President is supposed to be the President of the U.S. not just the liberal so-called elite!

That's funny I have heard the President has consulted with many business CEOs and they don't really have a problem with him raising the tax rates. Of course they probably earn most of their money from capital gains and get taxed at 14%,

I heard something on Morning Joe today, that maybe just having the same tax rate for income and capital gains would probably work. As Warren Buffet said "I don't worry about the tax rates when I go to invest in something" This rate might help those small businesses that are making just above the $250,000.

I also heard a business that makes $300,000 their taxes would only (I know only might not be the best word) $1,500 to $2,000, because the new rate would only be on the money earned Over $250,000. Maybe that owner could invest in something, put it in his 401K or something like that?

I don't really think the president has time to meet with those MSNBC talking heads, and if he was going to meet with any MSNBC talking heads to discuss tax policy I could think of a lot better talent then those, and I even like Maddow. Of course that wouldn't be no different I guess then finding out many consultants to the Romney team worked at Fox news as I've heard, but I will say I heard it on MSNBC.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Sandy Clark

0 posts

12/5/2012 4:12 PM

Don't forget, Fox has a business channel as well! I know that won't go over very well with some of you. If it is Fox, it is probably bias even if it is just finance and investment talk.

Spotts David A

12/5/2012 4:12 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Don't forget, Fox has a business channel as well! I know that won't go over very well with some of you. If it is Fox, it is probably bias even if it is just finance and investment talk.

I like Fox. They have the Simpsons and animation domination. Wouldn't take Homers investment advice though.

Steven Kurta

2 posts

12/6/2012 11:12 AM

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12- ... -next-year

huffpost, but just read the newsworthy part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 45596.html

Wahlin Scott B

12/6/2012 9:12 PM

David Spotts said: I like Fox. They have the Simpsons and animation domination. Wouldn't take Homers investment advice though.

And they have Sarah Palin, who is often quite humorous!

[youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YVxIc2yvhM[/youtube">

Forum Groups

Tax hikes today but cuts will come later! Cancel

Forum Groups

Tax hikes today but cuts will come later! Cancel The title field is required!

Tax hikes today but cuts will come later! Cancel