So, you admit you cannot show me the math and you just want to try something EXTREME for no justifiable reason and with no idea what'll happen in the following years. It sure will FEEL good to finally STICK it to the rich for that first year, eh?

You're free to invent motives and pretending they're mine. If you decide to imagine that my motive is merely to "STICK it to the rich" that's just another indication of your inability to deal with the questions actually put to you, and of your lack of character. The fact remains that adjusted gross incomes over $2,000,000 do not pertain to my proposal, and you know it.

I've stated several times in the past if I were given the power to do it, I could easily cut the military budget by 20 or 30% with out hurting our military capability.

But you never will be given the power to do it. Your options are to either support candidates who take budgets and deficits seriously, or to support Republicans.

For example, why was Clinton successful at balancing the budget (if you didn't count everything) and why was Obama successful at lowering the deficit by a statistically insignificant amount? Clinton was DRAGGED to a balanced budget (if you didn't count everything) by a house and senate full of republicans (no filibuster proof senate, though).

That is not true.

"A major problem with the economy at the time was the issue of the massive deficit and the problem of government spending. In order to address these issues, in August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton)

As for your statement about not recommending being a single-issue voter and believing the debt/deficit is the biggest problem and therefore must never vote republican... Well, I guess this is an example of two people looking at the same thing and seeing two totally different things.

No. You're either not looking or you're lying about what you see.

If the debt/deficit is not our biggest problem, what is? We are on a path to hyperinflation.

No time soon. As a percent of GDP, our deficit is small. Japan's has been much higher as a percentage of GDP and the effect has not been good, but certainly not disastrous.

We now have president/vice president debates that are nothing more than BOTH SIDES CALLING THE OTHER SIDE A LIAR. How is that possible?

That's not true, either. There are substantive policy disagreements, but since they have no ideas, Romney and Ryan do lie a lot.

And I'll give you the benefit of doubt since you're relatively new here,

I don't need it.

... but I've stated multiple times I'm not a republican. But I'm definitely even more NOT a democrat.

I've already seen you voluntarily self-identify as "conservative" and I wonder how you feel about "libertarian" as a description of you. Do you think it's a fair alternative adjective, or do you insist that you're conservative and not libertarian? Why?

As a matter of fact, I've become so disenfranchised...

That's not what that word means, crybaby.

---

We've had it too good for too long. People have forgotten where we've come from. People growing up today think this is the way it's always been. Political correctness is preventing us from teaching the new generations the truth. Class warfare is being instigated by the likes of Rachel Madcow. It's time for us to crash.

Excellent comment. And, it also applies to other western countries as well.

---

(edited to make text URLs into clickable links)
Who are the real fiscal conservatives?

Romney has stated he wants to lower the tax rates across the board and ...reduce or remove some deductions and PLACE A CAP on total deductions. The house and senate must work out the details. The liberals are currently focusing on the "lower the tax rates for everybody" and calling it a $5T tax cut for the rich since the math doesn't work out and not mentioning anything at all about the second part of the statement. The liberals will soon claim Romney is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor because we must also address some cuts to social programs. And again, keep in mind, these are 2009 numbers. The current numbers are worse, they just haven't been made public yet.

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/the-iron-triangle/do-the-brass-support-the-obama-defense-budget--20120413
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/how-mr-romney-would-force-feed-the-pentagon.html?_r=0
http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004075880.html?ref=corg

Democrats are the true fiscal conservatives.

(Start at 9:18 if you're in a hurry, or just don't care how Rachel Maddow analyzes budget matters in the context of the presidential campaign.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#49425000

I don't recommend single-issue voting, but if you sincerely believe that debt and deficit are the United States' biggest problems, you must never, ever vote Republican. Conversely, if you profess such interest but vote Republican anyway, you are either a dupe or a liar.

---

Really?! http://corporate.walmart.com/
<ed>http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/leadership/board-of-directors

Funny how it is a publicly traded stock on the NYSE.

I was informed differently, I am happy to be corrected. Thank you.

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/09in11si.xls

... line 29... column L... $204,322,325,000.

Rows 4 & 5, multiple columns: "Adjusted gross income"

8,211--------------Returns GREATER than 10 MILLION dollars
$204,322,325,000---Total taxable income from them
$1,133,650,000,000--to try to shore up this deficit
$16,176,000,000,000--to try to eventually start lowering this debt

So, you tell me, what would happen if we had a 100% tax bracket for anyone making more than $10M?

My suggestion is also to nullify all exemptions on returns with gross income above $2 Million, not only to adjust the rate. As a former H&R Block worker, you know that the data you have provided is not applicable to my proposal. Using your data, questions about the effect of what I have actually proposed are not answerable.

What are you trying to pull?

A fast one.

---

For the record, Walwarts does have some name brands, and some selection of product quality. Even at wally's you can choose from low end to mid-end products. And the mid-end products offered are often NOT at the best prices... You can see this for yourself just by checking walmart.com vs Amazon, Newegg, etc...

What is on the web is a bit different than what is in a store.

As to price differences, drive the customer to the product that generates more revenue by the selection of price points. Basic marketing.

(obviously high end is out the window at Wally's, to that end I agree with Gary)

Yes, their supermarket obviously has national name brands. And you can find some other recognizable brand names in places. And they do at times offer two choices, the no name with 4x shelf space of the brand name. (So I was being a bit over the top.)

Anyways, I think it's ridiculous that Walmart and others knowingly keep their employees in an employment range that ensures their eligibility for benefits...

And in response to the statement that regulation causes this.... BAH!

Regulations could undo this!

Since it was regulations that created it, of course better written ones could undo it. At this point it has been policy far too long for the absence or regulations to get rid of it. That is the crying shame of fixing things with the hammer of regulation. Fix one thing and break ten others.

---

Apros pos the Walmart discussion, it might be worth noting that the Walmart business is owned and run by the Walton family, one of the richest in the world. It doesn't have an elected board of directors and public shareholders. Therefore it is more like a private dictatorship.

Really?! http://corporate.walmart.com/
<ed>http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/leadership/board-of-directors

Funny how it is a publicly traded stock on the NYSE.

---

Apros pos the Walmart discussion, it might be worth noting that the Walmart business is owned and run by the Walton family, one of the richest in the world. It doesn't have an elected board of directors and public shareholders. Therefore it is more like a private dictatorship.

For the record, Walwarts does have some name brands, and some selection of product quality. Even at wally's you can choose from low end to mid-end products. And the mid-end products offered are often NOT at the best prices... You can see this for yourself just by checking walmart.com vs Amazon, Newegg, etc... (obviously high end is out the window at Wally's, to that end I agree with Gary)

Anyways, I think it's ridiculous that Walmart and others knowingly keep their employees in an employment range that ensures their eligibility for benefits...

And in response to the statement that regulation causes this.... BAH!

Regulations could undo this!

---

#resist

Gary, you are incorrect, I do understand the Walmart ethos and a bit about the Walmart customer. The commodification of goods and services justifies the race to the bottom, which is a zero sum game.

---

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

Gary, that is where a good accurate salesperson or marketing adds value to the product. If the better item is no longer viewed as a commodity the user will pay a bit more for the perceived added value.

You don't understand the Walmart shopper. They know where to get name brands. They aren't interested in that. They are interested in commodities at the lowest possible price. That is the Walmart ethos. "Always low prices." It is their main sales point.

What you suggest might be the Costco way. Note however which is the bigger company.

---

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

Gary, that is where a good accurate salesperson or marketing adds value to the product. If the better item is no longer viewed as a commodity the user will pay a bit more for the perceived added value.

---

... my meager success was based purely on luck ...

The cold war continues...

That's you response to me?
You twist my words.
And you wonder why people ignore you or insult you (or you perceive them to insult you)?!?
You insult me when you lump that brief response into a rant against "Liberals", when you know ... YOU KNOW!!! ... I am not. Barry is not. So on and so forth.

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

Guess that explains why some people ... young people ... 20s and 30s ... avoid WalMart? And why I, mid-40s, rarely enter it?

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

Ah, if that were the case. At least you are trying to see it, but it isn't the 1950's anymore.

Consider the Walmart customer. The Walmart customer cares not in the quality of the goods; his only care is the price tag. So having good skilled labor that produces quality goods is a determent to a company that wants to sell to Walmart consumers. Having cheap labor that makes low quality goods is an asset. And for another reason. The shorter something lasts the faster a replacement is needed and more profit can be generated in repeat sales.

---

Welcome back MajorKong. I was starting to feel lonely in here.

Liberals....




What they don't understand is forcing an employer to pay more and more in wages forces the employer to hire less and less employees.

What they don't understand is the reason the employer hires fewer and fewer employees is because fewer and fewer are willing to pay the price that must be paid for the service or good produced by that business to sustain that business.

What they don't understand is that it is always better for a private company to try and fail than to have the government step in and start running it.

What they don't understand is whether or not that business is run by (a) private individual(s), they are not going to do it unless there's a profit (or at least break even) and the same applies if the government steps in and runs that company.

What they don't understand is when the government steps in and runs that business, when there isn't enough productivity to make a profit (or at least break even), then the next logical step is to set unreasonable worker quotas or lower the cost of producing that good or service by reducing the workers wages.

What they don't understand is the single LARGEST cost in producing a good or service is the cost of labor.

What they don't understand is the wages available for a worker is what the consumer is willing to pay for his labor.

Which brings me back to, there is no free lunch.

---------

..

Guy, I too welcome back the Major, now onto your post. I shall ignore your rather long list of straw man arguments and center on personal experience. An organization hires when it has more profitable business than it can deal with, with the current staff. Demand for goods and services is the determinant not the cost of labor per se. The quality of the labor matters much more than the cost.
Most of the time the best deal is not the cheapest.

---

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major, can you point out a country that adheres to the Ayn Rand utopia you desire?

Somalia

No. Russia today.

---

Somewhere in the 80's a guy came along and was elected, and he opened the floodgates. It's all been downhill since, no matter how great people thought it/he was.

Would this be the same guy who signed TEFRA?

In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."

I don't think heading further in that direction is any answer to the problem.

I think I agree with you.

---