OK….. Let’s do what liberals never do. Let’s think this through to its logical conclusion. Speaking as one of the greedy business owners, Trumps tax cuts freed up enough capital in my business to bring on a new position. This was not a menial position. It was a very good middle class compensated position. I am currently struggling to justify that position. My struggle is with the state of construction materials, however the hugely increased cost of construction materials combined with what I suspect will be an increased corporate tax levied next April, I may be forced to do what I have never had to do and release the new position created three years ago. I can assure you that my dilemma will be magnified many thousands of times over this coming year. We do have a false unemployment umbrella in place currently. You can deny what you see if you want. My son has two friends that have no inclination to work currently. I have used their free time to put them to work at my house with their compensated free time. Yes, there are many choosing to lounge rather than work currently. You can paint with that brush any way you like but I can assure you, they aren’t hungry. I like how you guys like to make fun of Reagan. Beating a dead horse has taken on a whole new meaning. The man was in favor of business and showed that a healthy corporate economy translates into meaningful jobs and an overall booming economy. Say what you will. I lived it and know that it was the case. So let’s stick it to those greedy corporate outfits. Make those sumbitches pay for all their years of greed and evil doing…. Here’s what you will get…. When you stick it to the big boys, you are also sticking it to us small guys. Well compensated positions will dry up and then you truly will have over qualified people looking to steal those food service positions from the youngsters. And you think you have problems now? Mark my words…. I told you that fuel would be up by a dollar a gallon within twelve months of liberal policy. They beat me to it. It only took five. Now you want to shackle us greedy businessmen with hefty corporate taxes? Go ahead. If you make a living with a government check, I am sure you will be fine. If you survive in the private sector, good luck holding your job.
gas prices were down because no one was driving, dummy. December 2020, gas was 2.33 december 2019 gas prices 2.53 caught you lying again.
How may people know there were no taxes on social security before reagan? Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist The author says that the Social Security amendments passed under Reagan’s presidency laid the foundation for 30 years of embezzlement of the trust funds. What about raising the payroll tax, and then channeling the new revenue to the general fund, from where it could be spent for other purposes? An increase in Social Security taxes would be easier to enact than a hike in income tax rates, and it would leave his income tax cuts undisturbed. Reagan’s first step in implementing his strategy was to write to Congressional leaders. His first letter, dated May 21, 1981 included the following: As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy…in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens. Reagan wrote a follow-up letter to Congressional leaders dated July 18, 1981, which included: “The highest priority of my Administration is restoring the integrity of the Social Security System. Those 35 million Americans who depend on Social Security expect and are entitled to prompt bipartisan action to resolve the current financial problem. Social Security was definitely not “teetering on the edge of bankruptcy” in 1981 as Reagan claimed in his letter to Congressional leaders. The 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan, issued its “findings and recommendations” in January 1983. The Commission accurately foresaw major problems for Social Security when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010, but that was nearly two decades down the road. In addition to the long-term problem of the baby boomers, the Commission found a possible short-term problem for the years 1983-89. But the outlook improved and became favorable for the 1900s and early 2000s. The possible minor problem for the years 1983-1989 was based on very pessimistic economic assumptions. So, at the time Reagan informed Congressional leaders that Social Security was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the actual condition of Social Security funding was fairly sound for the next two decades. Furthermore, Social Security was certainly not Reagan’s “highest priority.” Reagan had never been a friend of Social Security. He was a hardliner when it came to all government social programs. He called unemployment insurance “a prepaid vacation plan for freeloaders.” He said the progressive income tax was “ a brainchild of Karl Marx.” And, he called welfare recipients “a faceless mass waiting for handouts.” Reagan referred to Social Security as a “welfare program” and, during the 1976 Republican Presidential Primary, Reagan proposed making Social Security voluntary, which would have essentially destroyed the program. There is no way that anyone who knew Reagan’s record would accept his claim that Social Security was his highest priority. He had always wanted the program eliminated, or at least privatized. A New Law Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. Spending the Trust Funds The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example. The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen. This would not be such a serious problem if Social Security was still running annual surpluses. But Social Security ran it last annual surplus in 2009, and began running permanent annual deficits in 2010. The cost of paying full Social Security benefits for 2010 exceeded Social Security’s total tax revenue by $49 billion. So how did the government pay full Social Security benefits in 2010? They borrowed $49 billion from China, or one of our other creditors. And the amount that will have to be borrowed in future years will become larger and larger. If the trust fund had not been looted, there would be $2.7 trillion of marketable U.S. Treasury bonds in the fund that could be sold in the open market for cash. But the trust fund doesn’t hold a dime’s worth of marketable real assets of any kind. That’s why President Obama warned during the debt-ceiling crisis of 2011 that Social Security checks could not go out on time unless the dispute was settled, because “their might not be enough money in the coffers.” The Big Lie The grandiose lie that the Social Security Administration, the AARP, and the NCPSSM, repeatedly tells the public is outrageous. They continue to say that Social Security has enough money to pay full benefits for another 20 years without any government action, when Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless! We can easily understand why the SSA continues to repeat the big lie. That is what they are told to do by top government officials, who are trying to keep the Social Security theft a secret from the public. But why do the senior organizations continue to repeat the lie? They are supposed to be representing the best interests of their members, but, in my opinion, they are betraying their members. So the great Social Security fraud, which began under Ronald Reagan in 1981, is still alive and well 32 years after it began. Republican and Democrat presidents and Republican and Democrat members of Congress, all share in the blame. There is nothing broken about Social Security. If the government had not stolen $2.7 trillion from Social Security, or, if the government would make arrangements to repay the stolen money, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits for at least 20 more years without any other action. But crooked politicians, who do not want to repay the money, are trying to convince the public that Social Security is a flawed system, which needs to be replaced with private accounts. Social Security is a sound program that has worked well for more than 75 years. It ain’t broke, so why try to fix it? The government—not Social Security—is what is broken and needs to be fixed. It is time for the American people to stand their ground and fire the crooked politicians. President Obama, and every member of Congress know that everything in this article is true. But they have succeeded in fooling the people for three decades and seem to think they can continue to do so. Don’t let them get by with it! Ronald Reagan And The Great Social Security Heist | FedSmith.com
Doubling down on stupid? . . . Gas was down before no one was driving, “dummy”. $2.47 and falling on 2/26/20. $2.25 and rising on 2/8/21. Worse yet, they've done nothing but rise since Biden took office. Caught you lying again FD.
he said a dollar, and it isn't anywhere near that. try reading/ How much should gas cost and why haven't the people who care about that bought a car that gets good mileage? We'll be driving electric in a few more years anyway
There is no doubt that electric vehicles are the way of the future. Not one iota of a question…. But let me ask you one thing. I am in a reasonably comfortable financial position and I cannot justify replacing my vehicle at best every 6-8 years. What amounts to an uncomfortable inconvenience to me will be an insurmountable burden to most. How do you suggest that all these struggling families replace their gas guzzlers with sleek new efficient vehicles? Government grants? May as well be. Edit…. My local station is at $2.99 today. We were flirting with two bucks a gallon pre-Covid.
My math says 3.04-2.26 = $0.78, which isn't far off at this time (5 months into the 12), and is certainly indicative of more than a dollar within 12 months. As for us driving electric cars . . . all of us?
This is an excellent point. It will be really slow to replace all the gasoline cars with electric. And you're totally right it's not going to be easy for struggling families. Actually, yeah. Remember Obama's Cash for Clunkers program? It was more of a modest test run that had its issues, but having the government incentivize families to take old cars off the road and replace them with safer and more fuel efficient ones seems like a viable start. The broad impact on economy and environment of that program specifically is debatable, but on individual levels it actually did help a lot of families. It even helped my family trade in an old car.
In their eagerness to totally convert from gasoline to EV, something everyone overlooks is how much money and time would be required to create a generation / distribution infrastructure adequate to meet the needs of American drivers. For this reason alone, we're probably looking at more than 20 years to complete such a move, and that's if it began in earnest right now.
I wonder how fast the economy would recover if all the anti vax morons would get their shots? They won't because they want to sabotage the economy or they believe idiots like tucker (who won't reveal whether or not he's been vaccinated)
It's a matter of will not necessarily time or money. China installed more than 1000 EV charging stations per day in 2019 According to data released by the China Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Promotion Association in December 2019, the number of public charging stations for electric vehicles (EVs) owned and operated by its members totaled 496,000 units as of November 2019, of which 289,000 were AC charging stations, 206,000 were DC while 488 offered both types of current. An additional 17,000 public charging stations for EVs were installed during the month of November, a year on year increase of 71%. Between December 2018 and November 2019, the number of public charging stations grew on average by some 17,000 units monthly. During the first eleven months of 2019, 365,000 charging facilities were installed, a rise of 29.5% compared to the corresponding period of last year. As of the end of November, the number of facilities throughout the country totaled 1.174 million units, up 61.2% on an annual basis. The public charging infrastructure network remained concentrated, with the cities of Beijing and Shanghai, together with Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, Zhejiang, Anhui, Hebei, Hubei and Fujian provinces, accounting for 74.0% of all such facilities. In November, charges throughout the country totaled 535 million kWh, up 45 million kWh from the prior month. Buses and passenger vehicles were the big users of the charging facilities, while other types of vehicles such as taxis and sanitation vehicles were light users. As of November 2019, there were eight Chinese companies that own and operate at least 10,000 EV charging stations in China: https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...00-ev-charging-stations-per-day-in-2019/#gref
The cost of oil is currently being manipulated by OPEC. That is the single best reason to convert from gas to EV's.
Joe, I couldn’t agree more. We had our age in OPEC’s basket in the 1970’s and they nearly drove us to our knees with their crude manipulation…. I have said this before. You have to allow these things to take their natural course. Forced change will cripple half the families in this country at a time when we are already gasping for air.
