• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

I have to agree with him. At some point you just run out of things to buy. Big house, fast car, private jet, young pretty wife, then what? Then you have to start getting creative. (indoor bowling alley) After you've been creative, you have to get silly. (a second private jet for when you want to fly on a BLUE plane instead of a WHITE plane) Then you have to get stupid. (third or fourth houses you never live in) Then obscene. (million dollar parties for your dog)

Instead of the million dollar party for your dog, maybe we should use that money to pay for some road fixing or hiring some more ($)#ing air traffic controllers because the FAA is so underfunded we've got most of our controllers working overtime AND SURELY NOTHING CAN GO WRONG WITH THAT.

Woops. Got a little off topic there.

Too bad this is america and while you believe that you have no right to impose your opinion on their spending... yet.:(
 
"I do think at a certain point the government has taxed too much, grown too big, and spent far beyond what is necessary" ;) People have the right to earn money and become filthy rich.
 
I was responding to LaMidRighter by asking for a bit more reasoned approach to the issue. I suppose I do believe that one can get too rich, but that was not my point above. J.P. Morgan, hardly a fiscal liberal, recommended limits on the pay of CEO's of corporations because of the danger to a society if incomes get too far out of balance. The French Revolution did happen and is always a possibility when the poor feel their grievances outweigh the benefits of the current society. Isn't part of the anger in our current society directed at the actions of the banking and Wall Street CEO's who oversaw the financial disaster and still paid themselves bonuses?
 
I was responding to LaMidRighter by asking for a bit more reasoned approach to the issue.
There is no reasoning with people who want to impose limits on liberty and growth. It's very simple, we live in a free society, with that comes things you will disagree with, however it is not your place, my place, or any politician's place to force people into what we believe is proper, to infringe upon people based on a simple belief is tyranny and antithetical to the principles of our country. There is no reason to cooperate in tyranny.
I suppose I do believe that one can get too rich, but that was not my point above.
That is no one's concern but that person who has attained said success.
J.P. Morgan, hardly a fiscal liberal, recommended limits on the pay of CEO's of corporations because of the danger to a society if incomes get too far out of balance.
Well, considering J.P. Morgan-Chase is a huge recipient of government regulatory help.....I could care less about any philosophical musings from that group.
The French Revolution did happen and is always a possibility when the poor feel their grievances outweigh the benefits of the current society.
That is false, the French Revolution was against the aristocracy......the ruling class, there is no valid comparison here because the argument is for the ruling class to put a ceiling on the earnings of individual citizens.
Isn't part of the anger in our current society directed at the actions of the banking and Wall Street CEO's who oversaw the financial disaster and still paid themselves bonuses?
Yeah, people aren't to happy with the government officials in charge of Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac, or the signatories of the Community Reinvestment Act which is what set the conditions and requirements for that bubble to form and is directly responsible for the super high risk mortgages that were created because of those completely insane standards.
 
Too bad this is america and while you believe that you have no right to impose your opinion on their spending... yet.:(

I never claimed a desire to do so. People can spend their money on what they want. However, they're still going to pay taxes and that's going to get spent on useful things.
 
I never claimed a desire to do so. People can spend their money on what they want. However, they're still going to pay taxes and that's going to get spent on useful things.

LOL yes i'd much rather have the government buy 500$ toilet seats instead of that money being reinvested in companies that give people jobs :roll:

If you haven't noticed, government is the problem, not rich people.
 
I have to agree with him. At some point you just run out of things to buy. Big house, fast car, private jet, young pretty wife, then what? Then you have to start getting creative. (indoor bowling alley) After you've been creative, you have to get silly. (a second private jet for when you want to fly on a BLUE plane instead of a WHITE plane) Then you have to get stupid. (third or fourth houses you never live in) Then obscene. (million dollar parties for your dog)

Instead of the million dollar party for your dog, maybe we should use that money to pay for some road fixing or hiring some more ($)#ing air traffic controllers because the FAA is so underfunded we've got most of our controllers working overtime AND SURELY NOTHING CAN GO WRONG WITH THAT.

Woops. Got a little off topic there.

If I earned the money, why can't I spend it however I want?
 
LOL yes i'd much rather have the government buy 500$ toilet seats instead of that money being reinvested in companies that give people jobs :roll:

If you haven't noticed, government is the problem, not rich people.

Someone is making $500 producing that toilet seat! ;)

I also never said rich people were "the problem." Nor did I say government is innocent.

I think our current tax system is fair. Wealthy people benefit more from their income than the poor do. (they have a greater % of income that is disposable, and therefore can invest more. in a way, a rich man's dollar is worth more than a dollar) Therefore I don't consider a progressive tax scheme to be a bad thing. Even at a flat tax rate, say 20% across all income ranges, the rich are going to pay more than the poor. It's just how it goes. The only other option is a regressive "flat rate" tax scheme, like everyone of any income pays $5000 for instance, which is pretty much only supported by assholes.

Our taxes right now are at the lowest or very near the lowest they've ever been since the institution of income taxes. People complaining about taxes being too high should remember that. You hate paying taxes. So do I. Everyone hates paying taxes, but they're necessary.

The part I dislike about our tax system is how little income tax large corporations pay. Companies can make billions of dollars in profits and not pay a dime in income tax in the US.
 
Well, I don't suppose that since Obama feels someone can make 'enough' money - and he undoubetly made *more* than enough. He'd be willing to toss his few million into the pot to save a few innocent people from dying of cancer?

Makes little sense for someone to need help right *now* and have to wait a few more years when the President is sitting on a goldmine.
 
LOL yes i'd much rather have the government buy 500$ toilet seats instead of that money being reinvested in companies that give people jobs :roll:

If you haven't noticed, government is the problem, not rich people.

You do realize that the government never paid that much no?

Basically, when the government records that it paid an outrageous amount for something, it's cross subsidizing another program. The 1980s were notorious for taking run of the mill military equipment like hammers and nails and booking their costs far exceeding anything reasonable and then using the difference to fund black operations.
 
And in this great country, you can believe that and live your life however you want. Good for you. More power to you.

The same goes for someone who wants to make alotta money and buy toys and trinkets. Those people should be just as free to do so.

My main problem with, "..at a certain point you've made enough money", is, who gets to decide where that point is?

I wonder what Warren Buffet thinks of Obama now?
I wonder what Warren Buffet thinks of Obama
Warren probably still loves Obama, why because he already made his billions. I think those elites who support Obama wish to deny others and future entrepreneurs the opportunity to get rich because they probably have a quilt complex of some sort, or just plain old fashion power trip.
 
You do realize that the government never paid that much no?

Basically, when the government records that it paid an outrageous amount for something, it's cross subsidizing another program. The 1980s were notorious for taking run of the mill military equipment like hammers and nails and booking their costs far exceeding anything reasonable and then using the difference to fund black operations.
Having a DOD account in hauling government freight I can tell you first hand that the government pays a fortune in freight rates. One example I can give is; One slat of pine 1x2x8 that goes on the back of a deuce and a half, the government pays $46.50. One case of WD-40 (12cans) pays 85.90, one trailer load from Harrisburg PA. to Watertown NY pays 4600.00

I think the 500.00 toilet seat includes the purchase, the warehousing, the transportation and the installation cost.

Average cost for commercial freight(trailer load) from Harrisburg to Watertown NY, would be around 790.00
 
Last edited:
Having a DOD account in hauling government freight I can tell you first hand that the government pays a fortune in freight rates. One example I can give is; One slat of pine 1x2x8 that goes on the back of a deuce and a half, the government pays $46.50. One case of WD-40 (12cans) pays 85.90, one trailer load from Harrisburg PA. to Watertown NY pays 4600.00

I think the 500.00 toilet seat includes the purchase, the warehousing, the transportation and the installation cost.

You sure they actually paid that? Booking large expenses and actually paying relatively little then taking the difference to fund something secretly isn't something new to the government nor the private sector.
 
You sure they actually paid that? Booking large expenses and actually paying relatively little then taking the difference to fund something secretly isn't something new to the government nor the private sector.
Yes I am sure, but this is not to say that your wrong either, but either way the government over pays on just about everything. Government contracts do not discount and pay the full going rate on freight. On the commercial side of things and with competition the average discount on freight is about 60 percent or done with pallet rates at about 60.00 to 100.00 per pallet. A trailer depending on size can fit 22 to 26 pallets single stacked.

Then their are exclusive loads whether it be one pallet or a full load pays a special rate, usually around 3500.00.
 
Yes I am sure, but this is not to say that your wrong either, but either way the government over pays on just about everything. Government contracts do not discount and pay the full going rate on freight. On the commercial side of things and with competition the average discount on freight is about 60 percent or done with pallet rates at about 60.00 to 100.00 per pallet. A trailer depending on size can fit 22 to 26 pallets single stacked.
Then their are exclusive loads whether it be one pallet or a full load pays a special rate, usually around 3500.00.
The biggest problem is the government can just take more money. If I own a business I have to watch every cost and get the best deals I can because my customer base is not guaranteed to expand, and my last resort is to raise price. Why should the government care when they just raise taxes to make up for deficits? This is why I cannot stand the operating protocols of most government entities.
 
The biggest problem is the government can just take more money. If I own a business I have to watch every cost and get the best deals I can because my customer base is not guaranteed to expand, and my last resort is to raise price. Why should the government care when they just raise taxes to make up for deficits? This is why I cannot stand the operating protocols of most government entities.
Exactly and well said.
 
Yes I am sure, but this is not to say that your wrong either, but either way the government over pays on just about everything. Government contracts do not discount and pay the full going rate on freight. On the commercial side of things and with competition the average discount on freight is about 60 percent or done with pallet rates at about 60.00 to 100.00 per pallet. A trailer depending on size can fit 22 to 26 pallets single stacked.

Then their are exclusive loads whether it be one pallet or a full load pays a special rate, usually around 3500.00.

I don't disagree they over pay, but to over pay several thousand times over commercial rates suggests they are cross subsidizing something. Paying $150 for nails which cost $2.5 is a massive red flag that money is being allocated to something they don't want you to know about. This was the heart of Airbus's lawsuit against Boeing. Boeing was paying outrageous prices on some materials on certain lines of planes. There's no reason to do that especially when the supplier wasn't critical unless you are cross subsidizing other product.

Another reason why government account is a joke.
 
I don't disagree they over pay, but to over pay several thousand times over commercial rates suggests they are cross subsidizing something. Paying $150 for nails which cost $2.5 is a massive red flag that money is being allocated to something they don't want you to know about. This was the heart of Airbus's lawsuit against Boeing. Boeing was paying outrageous prices on some materials on certain lines of planes. There's no reason to do that especially when the supplier wasn't critical unless you are cross subsidizing other product.

Another reason why government account is a joke.
I agree and I believe that the governments accounting practicing would be like peeling a onion. I think fraud, mismanagement, payoffs, earmarks, corruption, favoritism, don't give a sh!t attitude, is the prevailing attitude amongst those in charge in our government.
I think Boeing has a valid complaint, not to mention Boeing should prevail anyway even if it is strictly because it's a American based company with a long and honorable history in regards to the government/military.
 
I don't disagree they over pay, but to over pay several thousand times over commercial rates suggests they are cross subsidizing something. Paying $150 for nails which cost $2.5 is a massive red flag that money is being allocated to something they don't want you to know about. This was the heart of Airbus's lawsuit against Boeing. Boeing was paying outrageous prices on some materials on certain lines of planes. There's no reason to do that especially when the supplier wasn't critical unless you are cross subsidizing other product.

Another reason why government account is a joke.
BTW , I have always wondered how senators and congressmen get filthy rich will serving the people, when these individuals couldn't even hold down a cashiers job at walmart. Perhaps the subsidizing that you speak of can be found in the deep pockets of our government officials.
 
I agree and I believe that the governments accounting practicing would be like peeling a onion. I think fraud, mismanagement, payoffs, earmarks, corruption, favoritism, don't give a sh!t attitude, is the prevailing attitude amongst those in charge in our government.

Perhaps, but on the flip side, black operation funding of secret research is in a security sense, done better through cross subsidization then the open funding budgetary process.

I think Boeing has a valid complaint, not to mention Boeing should prevail anyway even if it is strictly because it's a American based company with a long and honorable history in regards to the government/military.

You mean Airbus. And Boeing is hardly an honorable company. Especially after the string of scandals cumulating in the DOD banning Boeing from certain project bids. And this whole tanker deal is ridiculous. The EADS plane is a better option in performance measures. We should not be buying military hardware that is good for certain jobs and not good for the military application we need it for.

Boeing was IMO violating WTO regulations. By taking government contract money on defense deals and cross subsidizing its commercial liners, that was not playing by the rules. But then again, Europeans have been playing that game too at EADS.

BTW , I have always wondered how senators and congressmen get filthy rich will serving the people, when these individuals couldn't even hold down a cashiers job at walmart. Perhaps the subsidizing that you speak of can be found in the deep pockets of our government officials.

I doubt that. From what I understand, much of it goes to defense research. Wasn't the F-117 funded partly through cross subsidization? I don't blame them especially after the whole contra affair method of funding. Cross subsidization is a much safer way of funding black ops.

And most Congress member are rich from the start. I've said this before and I'll say it again. America is not a "democracy" it's a plutocratic republic.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but on the flip side, black operation funding of secret research is in a security sense, done better through cross subsidization then the open funding budgetary process.



You mean Airbus. And Boeing is hardly an honorable company. Especially after the string of scandals cumulating in the DOD banning Boeing from certain project bids. And this whole tanker deal is ridiculous. The EADS plane is a better option in performance measures. We should not be buying military hardware that is good for certain jobs and not good for the military application we need it for.

Boeing was IMO violating WTO regulations. By taking government contract money on defense deals and cross subsidizing its commercial liners, that was not playing by the rules. But then again, Europeans have been playing that game too at EADS.



I doubt that. From what I understand, much of it goes to defense research. Wasn't the F-117 funded partly through cross subsidization? I don't blame them especially after the whole contra affair method of funding. Cross subsidization is a much safer way of funding black ops.

And most Congress member are rich from the start. I've said this before and I'll say it again. America is not a "democracy" it's a plutocratic republic.
I agree on most of your points but not totally. Boeing for the most part has been honorable, yes it has had it's scandals but when the chips are down Boeing comes through. Perhaps I am just old school.
Subsidizing black ops I can understand the secrecy, yet on the other hand this could be dangerous.

regardless of what kind of society we are, in the end the people have the power, it is that we don't practice it.
 
I agree on most of your points but not totally. Boeing for the most part has been honorable, yes it has had it's scandals but when the chips are down Boeing comes through.

When you have a scandal where one of your lobbyists where sleeping with the agents in charge of the deal and one of those agents becomes a board member, that is pretty fricken' bad. That said, I have Boeing stock.

Subsidizing black ops I can understand the secrecy, yet on the other hand this could be dangerous.

It's a two edged blade no doubt.

regardless of what kind of society we are, in the end the people have the power, it is that we don't practice it.

Indeed. The fact we still cling to a two party system is a sign of that.
 
In principle, I agree with Obama's statement. Enough is as good as a feast.

In practice, I don't like the government to be taking charge of this matter too much. I also feel like Obama and his wife are most likely arrogant hypocrites, since their income is quite more than most people in the world make.

One thing is true

some people are overpaid but the solution is not to concentrate more and more power and wealth in the hands of a malignant federal government. The federal government is clearly an entity that has WAY TOO MUCH money
 
BTW , I have always wondered how senators and congressmen get filthy rich will serving the people, when these individuals couldn't even hold down a cashiers job at walmart. Perhaps the subsidizing that you speak of can be found in the deep pockets of our government officials.

How did AL Gore senior-the poor country schoolteacher as he called himself become a multi millionaire on a public servant's salary:mrgreen:
 
Someone is making $500 producing that toilet seat! ;)

I also never said rich people were "the problem." Nor did I say government is innocent.

I think our current tax system is fair. Wealthy people benefit more from their income than the poor do. (they have a greater % of income that is disposable, and therefore can invest more. in a way, a rich man's dollar is worth more than a dollar) Therefore I don't consider a progressive tax scheme to be a bad thing. Even at a flat tax rate, say 20% across all income ranges, the rich are going to pay more than the poor. It's just how it goes. The only other option is a regressive "flat rate" tax scheme, like everyone of any income pays $5000 for instance, which is pretty much only supported by assholes.

Our taxes right now are at the lowest or very near the lowest they've ever been since the institution of income taxes. People complaining about taxes being too high should remember that. You hate paying taxes. So do I. Everyone hates paying taxes, but they're necessary.

The part I dislike about our tax system is how little income tax large corporations pay. Companies can make billions of dollars in profits and not pay a dime in income tax in the US.

more income redistributionist bull****. What's gonna happen next year when huge tax hikes hit. People like you always whine people wealthier than you don't pay enough

I have no duty to fund your existence. You can claim its fair that I do but that is nonsense as well
 
Back
Top Bottom