worried about 2009

bjaxx

Mishra wrote:

Phliplip112 wrote:

This has been bothering me as well a good bit as well because to me the first people to get cut will be those with the helpdesk i think. That would make it even more difficult to get an entry level position. Also since i work for a small business i am afraid i will lose my current job (If a certain person raises the taxes of my employer who apparently is the evil rich, lol)

Obama isn't taxing 98.6% of small business...

Seriously, go get laid, drink a beer... Everythings going to be alright...

Don't worry about the things you can't control...

eMeS

In response to the PM that I received:

First, I'm honored.

Second, I'd like to voice my agreement with the general tone of what HeroPsycho said, and add that very little of what either guy says during the campaign is likely to come to pass (through their sole actions).

Third, I'm in Baltimore this week, so what better topic to discuss than something related to the city just south of here.

At this point, debating about one candidate's tax plan is a lot like arguing over what color a fart is. And that's about what I think about threads like this one.

Why do I feel this way?

The last time I checked the President executes the laws enacted by Congress. That's why it's called the executive branch. If you think that that the US President has so much power that he can walk into office and enact tax legislation either you live in a foreign country and you don't need to understand this, or you need to retake civics.

Of course the President can propose new legislation, and of course he does have the authority to approve/veto proposed legislation that crosses his desk. However, nowhere do I read in the Constitution that the President can unilaterally enact tax legislation.

Our system is great for this very reason. No one branch of government can act unilaterally (notwithstanding some thoughts about the past 8 years...).

It's my opinion that much of what gets discussed during the campaign never comes to pass.

Personally, I own a small business (actually I am a 25% partner in one). Our annual gross revenue is well past the 250k mark, and our profit after expenses is well past that mark as well. When Obama is elected, we're not planning on laying anyone off or scaling anything back. In fact, we are preparing for significant expansion in a couple of areas. If somehow McCain pulls it out of the hat, our business plans remain the same.

The whole notion that raising taxes is bad in a bad economy presupposes that a tax increase will occur. It also presupposes that businesses are so bad at what they do that they can't figure out a way to continue to operate if their tax picture changes. The reality is, the legal, tax, etc.. pictures always changes...business constantly have to adjust to remain going concerns.

I would dare say that if a business is planning to cut jobs because one person is elected President versus another, what we really have is a business that is really bad at two things 1) business planning, and 2) tax planning (And I'm not so sure about the "tax planning" one, as it remains to be seen if any tax increase will occur that affects any segment of the population). If this were the case, it is my opinion that these specific businesses who plan to cut jobs if Obama is elected would be in trouble in other ways unrelated to who becomes President.

I'm neither democrat nor republican, in fact, I consider myself about 98% libertarian. I was in Texas for one day on Saturday, and I voted early. I am proud to say that I voted a straight democratic ticket. In Texas we have many races where there is only one republican candidate, and in those races they get no vote from me.

Why you ask?

1. Easy, during the last 8 years we have seen the largest increase in the size of our government ever (remember, an entirely new cabinet position was created). The majority of this increase was on the republican watch. I challenge you to find any equivalent increase in the size of government during the Clinton administration. I'm a libertarian...I don't like when the size of government increases.

2. The republican party has consistently embraced ultra-conservative ideals. IMO, I'd prefer that my government not worry about what I or my neighbor or anyone else does privately.

3. No one in Texas in their right mind supports this stupid border wall crap. If the tide of immigrants was stopped, our economy would collapse. We depend on immigrants to do jobs that we don't want to do, at a much lower cost than we would do them. This border wall has been a constant republican isolationist scheme that is doomed to waste our money and fail.

4. I'm not against war...I'm not even against preemptive war, but we never should have invaded Iraq. This was the most secular Muslim nation, and Sadaam was a known threat that had been contained since Bush I. I said this in 02 and 03, so this isn't something I just decided. We should have invaded Afghanistan and either Pakistan and/or Iran. The enemy you know is always better than the one you don't.

5. I'm no fan of any form of welfare, but if I had to pick, corporate welfare is my least favorite form. Republican policies tend to favor corporate welfare.

6. Our standing in the world has dramatically decreased over the last 8 years. I believe it has been shown that democrats in recent history have done a better job of foreign policy than republicans. IMO, it's not just the stick, but it's the carrot and the stick...the democrats have a better handle on this.

7. If McCain's choice of Vice-President is any indication of the other choices he will make, I'm going to kindly say thanks but no thanks and offer to contribute for a one-way trip back to Alaska for her. Am I the only one that thinks it's odd that an ultra-conservative supporter of abstinence has a teenage daughter that got pregnant outside of marriage? I'm all for anyone living by whatever rules they choose, but WTF???? Do these people not understand coitus interruptus?

8. I could go on, but the hot waitress here at "Chevy's" would probably like for me to leave, so I'm going to do that...

Best of luck making your voting decisions, and stop arguing about crap that doesn't matter.

BTW, there's a very famous computer scientist that runs a great election site. If you don't look at it daily, you might want to add it to your list. There's good stuff there: http://www.electoral-vote.com

MS

MCPWannabe

eMeS wrote:

In response to the PM that I received:

First, I'm honored.

Second, I'd like to voice my agreement with the general tone of what HeroPsycho said, and add that very little of what either guy says during the campaign is likely to come to pass (through their sole actions).

Third, I'm in Baltimore this week, so what better topic to discuss than something related to the city just south of here.

At this point, debating about one candidate's tax plan is a lot like arguing over what color a fart is. And that's about what I think about threads like this one.

Why do I feel this way?

The last time I checked the President executes the laws enacted by Congress. That's why it's called the executive branch. If you think that that the US President has so much power that he can walk into office and enact tax legislation either you live in a foreign country and you don't need to understand this, or you need to retake civics.

Of course the President can propose new legislation, and of course he does have the authority to approve/veto proposed legislation that crosses his desk. However, nowhere do I read in the Constitution that the President can unilaterally enact tax legislation.

Our system is great for this very reason. No one branch of government can act unilaterally (notwithstanding some thoughts about the past 8 years...).

It's my opinion that much of what gets discussed during the campaign never comes to pass.

Personally, I own a small business (actually I am a 25% partner in one). Our annual gross revenue is well past the 250k mark, and our profit after expenses is well past that mark as well. When Obama is elected, we're not planning on laying anyone off or scaling anything back. In fact, we are preparing for significant expansion in a couple of areas. If somehow McCain pulls it out of the hat, our business plans remain the same.

The whole notion that raising taxes is bad in a bad economy presupposes that a tax increase will occur. It also presupposes that businesses are so bad at what they do that they can't figure out a way to continue to operate if their tax picture changes. The reality is, the legal, tax, etc.. pictures always changes...business constantly have to adjust to remain going concerns.

I would dare say that if a business is planning to cut jobs because one person is elected President versus another, what we really have is a business that is really bad at two things 1) business planning, and 2) tax planning (And I'm not so sure about the "tax planning" one, as it remains to be seen if any tax increase will occur that affects any segment of the population). If this were the case, it is my opinion that these specific businesses who plan to cut jobs if Obama is elected would be in trouble in other ways unrelated to who becomes President.

I'm neither democrat nor republican, in fact, I consider myself about 98% libertarian. I was in Texas for one day on Saturday, and I voted early. I am proud to say that I voted a straight democratic ticket. In Texas we have many races where there is only one republican candidate, and in those races they get no vote from me.

Why you ask?

1. Easy, during the last 8 years we have seen the largest increase in the size of our government ever (remember, an entirely new cabinet position was created). The majority of this increase was on the republican watch. I challenge you to find any equivalent increase in the size of government during the Clinton administration. I'm a libertarian...I don't like when the size of government increases.

2. The republican party has consistently embraced ultra-conservative ideals. IMO, I'd prefer that my government not worry about what I or my neighbor or anyone else does privately.

3. No one in Texas in their right mind supports this stupid border wall crap. If the tide of immigrants was stopped, our economy would collapse. We depend on immigrants to do jobs that we don't want to do, at a much lower cost than we would do them. This border wall has been a constant republican isolationist scheme that is doomed to waste our money and fail.

4. I'm not against war...I'm not even against preemptive war, but we never should have invaded Iraq. This was the most secular Muslim nation, and Sadaam was a known threat that had been contained since Bush I. I said this in 02 and 03, so this isn't something I just decided. We should have invaded Afghanistan and either Pakistan and/or Iran. The enemy you know is always better than the one you don't.

5. I'm no fan of any form of welfare, but if I had to pick, corporate welfare is my least favorite form. Republican policies tend to favor corporate welfare.

6. Our standing in the world has dramatically decreased over the last 8 years. I believe it has been shown that democrats in recent history have done a better job of foreign policy than republicans. IMO, it's not just the stick, but it's the carrot and the stick...the democrats have a better handle on this.

7. If McCain's choice of Vice-President is any indication of the other choices he will make, I'm going to kindly say thanks but no thanks and offer to contribute for a one-way trip back to Alaska for her. Am I the only one that thinks it's odd that an ultra-conservative supporter of abstinence has a teenage daughter that got pregnant outside of marriage? I'm all for anyone living by whatever rules they choose, but WTF???? Do these people not understand coitus interruptus?

8. I could go on, but the hot waitress here at "Chevy's" would probably like for me to leave, so I'm going to do that...

Best of luck making your voting decisions, and stop arguing about crap that doesn't matter.

BTW, there's a very famous computer scientist that runs a great election site. If you don't look at it daily, you might want to add it to your list. There's good stuff there: http://www.electoral-vote.com

MS

emeS.. Please.. Let's stick to the more serious issues. Now, please expand your analysis on the hot waitress?

HeroPsycho

eMeS wrote:

At this point, debating about one candidate's tax plan is a lot like arguing over what color a fart is. And that's about what I think about threads like this one.

Why do I feel this way?

The last time I checked the President executes the laws enacted by Congress. That's why it's called the executive branch. If you think that that the US President has so much power that he can walk into office and enact tax legislation either you live in a foreign country and you don't need to understand this, or you need to retake civics.

Of course the President can propose new legislation, and of course he does have the authority to approve/veto proposed legislation that crosses his desk. However, nowhere do I read in the Constitution that the President can unilaterally enact tax legislation.

MS

Spot on except you're missing a very crucial fact.

By mandate of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President is required to draft the first budget. Congress can shred it and make a brand new one, or work with the one there, but the President does draft the first budget. Considering the mammoth size in language of the budget, only under special circumstances does Congress completely abandon the entire thing, especially when they know shredding it would likely result in a veto of their brand new proposal anyway.

The reality is the President gets most of what they propose in the budget most of the time.

However, rarely does a budget have an immediate impact on the economy. Even the dramatic increases in federal spending during WWII even took time to bring us out of the Great Depression.

Also, the reality is most of what Obama and McCain are proposing are in fact the same. You only hear about the differences. Obama paints McCain's budget as catering to the rich, while McCain paints Obama's as socialist, but the simple truth of the matter is both budgets are relatively moderate, and are guided by many of the same principles. The moderate perspective is now is not the time for a balanced budget, we need to deficit spend to get the economy going, we need to shift some priorities more towards health care, we need government involvement in the financial markets to restore credit markets, etc. Remember, both candidates voted for the bailout bill.

I'm not slamming either candidate. In fact, this is the first time in a long time I feel good about either major candidate. I just notice as the attack ads roll, and the passion gets feverish in the presidential campaigns, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that both candidates are actually closer in views than we wish to believe.

eMeS

HeroPsycho wrote:

[.

By mandate of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President is required to draft the first budget.

I really didn't know this, so thanks for that.

What I thought was that the executive branch submitted every budget to Congress (every February) with estimates of federal income and recommended funding levels for government, which is the start of the Senate and House budget processes. Understanding that the budget process is huge, and all other things held equal, I can't see how any new sources of income resulting in changes to the tax code would not require corresponding changes in legislation.

MS

HeroPsycho

Changes in either do not necessitate changes in the other.

For example, No Child Left Behind drastically increased expenditures in education across the country, but there never was a corresponding increase in tax dollar spending to actually fund it to be successful. It became the quintessential "unfunded mandate".

Also, keep in mind that the federal budget law we're speaking of does not account for all government spending. A large chunk of spending for Iraq was never in a single annual federal budget bill.

P.S. Imagine how much more IT knowledge my brain could hold if I could just **** this stuff from when I studied history, government, etc. and then taught it for years.

itdaddy

Be Afraid!! Be VERY Afraid!!

If things get as bad as they could, I'll probably be taking a massive pay cut.... and your job.

You may want to enhance your knowledge and skills!!

mikeJ he kills me man you are so f funny man..i mean when someone asks a serious questin you know ho wto mix it up..i have the same humor OMG is that funny!!!

"a pay cut and your job! " hahhahaaa hahaahaah
true dat! man true dat! hahaaaha
hahahhh

but yeah noone ever got stiffed for working hard!

FlexTec

Okay, it is not 15 grand on cirts but all his combined education plus cirts were around 15 grand or more. He was in tech support and crabbed that his wages could not go above 17 dollars a hour. After epending considerable time in upgrading and in support services he left to become a apprentice plumber. He is making more then his last job and its not nearly as technical as IT and wont have to wory about spending so much money to keep current.

What ever you do, consider being biexperainced. Have two industies under your belt that are not tied economically.

My wifes Boss's son is Biexperainced as a ambulance driver and a electrician. I met a alarm installer who is also a locksmith. Perhaps both of those go hand in hand.

Go there the need is. Trades is not all that bad I did my time as a helicopter and auto mechanic before swiching over. Nice thing about automechanic is it is something you never forget and it does not go obsolete over night unless your clients are millionars. Then thay can afford to buy/sell cars as often as you change socks That is all I can say.

MCPWannabe

FlexTec wrote:

Okay, it is not 15 grand on cirts but all his combined education plus cirts were around 15 grand or more. He was in tech support and crabbed that his wages could not go above 17 dollars a hour. After epending considerable time in upgrading and in support services he left to become a apprentice plumber. He is making more then his last job and its not nearly as technical as IT and wont have to wory about spending so much money to keep current.

What ever you do, consider being biexperainced. Have two industies under your belt that are not tied economically.

My wifes Boss's son is Biexperainced as a ambulance driver and a electrician. I met a alarm installer who is also a locksmith. Perhaps both of those go hand in hand.

Go there the need is. Trades is not all that bad I did my time as a helicopter and auto mechanic before swiching over. Nice thing about automechanic is it is something you never forget and it does not go obsolete over night unless your clients are millionars. Then thay can afford to buy/sell cars as often as you change socks That is all I can say.

Actually, "Joe the Plumber" is not even a licensed plumber and he hasn't completed an internship. Furthermore, he is dirt broke. The state filed of Ohio filed a tax lien against him. He made 40K and is in no position to buy a business for over 250K.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_Joe_The_Plumber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber

blargoe

Why would anyone bet the farm on what some scum sucking politician says they are going to do? You can pretty much look at their record, and the reality of the economy and tell what they are REALLY going to do, at least eventually. The tax cuts won't stay, and eventually, everyone's taxes will have to go up a lot to pay for all the new spending. Jobs are going to be lost for the next few years, then it will pick back up (some MFG has already -very slowly - started moving back here because of rising transportation and labor costs in China). Chicken littles everywhere will jump off the IT ship, and then all will be right again.

I'm not going to lose my head over it, I'm going to keep investing in my career and make myself as attractive a hire as I can. There will always be someone, somewhere, who can use my services.

shednik

I have to say I can't wait for the election to be over because I am so tired of seeing the bashing going back and forth. I am worried with either candidate really because of the state the economy is in. So I'm with blargoe on this one I'm going to keep building my resume with school, certs, and just over all knowledge. I've seen things changing quite a bit in my company already so I say prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I'd also like to add in spite of being sick of political discussions I thoroughly enjoy reading eMeS and HP talk about both sides of it, I learn more each time so thanks guys.

HeroPsycho

blargoe wrote:

Why would anyone bet the farm on what some scum sucking politician says they are going to do?

Not to pick a fight, but if politicians are scum sucking, what adjective should be given to the people who put them there?

_____________ Voters

We need to stop slamming politicians and look in the mirror a little more to know why these people end up being something we revile. If they have to become this to win an election, then we must ask ourselves why we as a society repeatedly reward these types by electing them. (That includes the people who choose not to vote.)

Am I the only one sickened by the fact that how much money a candidate raises to plaster ads in various media plays an enormous role in whether the candidate wins an election or not? Why should the amount of exposure to biased advertising have any impact whatsoever?!

Think about it - why do we even need campaign finance reform? Answer: because a significant amount of voters are so ridiculously stupid that they will vote for a candidate based on them being repeatedly exposed to advertising.

That's not democracy; that's idiocracy.

networker050184

HeroPsycho wrote:

blargoe wrote:

Why would anyone bet the farm on what some scum sucking politician says they are going to do?

Not to pick a fight, but if politicians are scum sucking, what adjective should be given to the people who put them there?

_____________ Voters

We need to stop slamming politicians and look in the mirror a little more to know why these people end up being something we revile. If they have to become this to win an election, then we must ask ourselves why we as a society repeatedly reward these types by electing them. (That includes the people who choose not to vote.)

Am I the only one sickened by the fact that how much money a candidate raises to plaster ads in various media plays an enormous role in whether the candidate wins an election or not? Why should the amount of exposure to biased advertising have any impact whatsoever?!

Think about it - why do we even need campaign finance reform? Answer: because a significant amount of voters are so ridiculously stupid that they will vote for a candidate based on them being repeatedly exposed to advertising.

That's not democracy; that's idiocracy.

I agree with most of what you say, but a candidate can win in the popular vote and still lose the election. So even if "the people" (the popular vote) choose one candidate another may win. The system is messed up and the voters are not the ones to blame IMO. You can say the people decided on this system we use, but that was decided before any of us were eligible to vote.

I do agree 100% with the idiocracy though. Most people will go with what ever they see on tv which is sad.

dynamik

Have you guys seen this: http://www.hulu.com/watch/41177/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-obama-and-palin-rallies-of-fear#s-p1-st-i1

HeroPsycho

networker050184 wrote:

I agree with most of what you say, but a candidate can win in the popular vote and still lose the election. So even if "the people" (the popular vote) choose one candidate another may win. The system is messed up and the voters are not the ones to blame IMO. You can say the people decided on this system we use, but that was decided before any of us were eligible to vote.

I do agree 100% with the idiocracy though. Most people will go with what ever they see on tv which is sad.

The popular vote would have only selected a different president from the electoral college twice. The electoral college actually has little influence when you consider popular vote per state determines it, which mimmicks what tends to happen in the electoral college, although the EC usually amplifies the result of the popular vote nationally.

eMeS

HeroPsycho wrote:

Think about it - why do we even need campaign finance reform? Answer: because a significant amount of voters are so ridiculously stupid that they will vote for a candidate based on them being repeatedly exposed to advertising.

I don't think this means we need campaign finance reform, I think this means we need smarter people.

Everyday I find myself more in agreement with whomever it is on this site it is that has "I'm convinced we all live in The Matrix" in their signature.

What I'm doing this week is a good example....I'm going to forgo the details, but let me just put it this way: Who that has been in IT for any significant amount of time (let's say 5+ years...) and believes that a vendor tool can miraculously solve a people/process problem? Unraveling this nonsense and trying to make a substantive change to the underlying process is what I'm doing this week for a customer...it's an uphill battle against stupidity every step of the way.

Sadly, this isn't an uncommon occurrence....

Something is balancing the equations....

HeroPsycho wrote:

That's not democracy; that's idiocracy.

Ow my balls.

MS

eMeS

HeroPsycho wrote:

The popular vote would have only selected a different president from the electoral college twice.

Not trying to start a debate here, but I thought there were three cases were the person receiving the most popular votes lost the election because a competitor received more electoral votes.

Either way, think of it this way:

1) There have been 42 elected Presidents (Ford was not elected).

2) If the number of those where the winner did not receive the most popular votes was 2, then the failure rate is 4.76%

3) If it is actually 3, then the failure rate is 7.14%

If ~5% or more of all US commercial jets crashed, I wouldn't fly!

Heck, the airlines don't even lose or delay my luggage that often....as I've calculated, it's more like ~1.5% of the time that they do this (I know this from direct measurement!)...

If I am remembering correctly, the failure rate for the space shuttle on any mission was less than 1%, which turns out to be about 1 failure per decade..

Often something with that high of an error rate can destroy businesses...it's amazing that we have a mindset that "the people" (at least nominally), elect the President, but we're willing to accept an extremely high error rate in the process.

As you've said, and I agree, it's up to all of us to make changes to things that are clearly broken....

MS

CaptainCharisma

Does Obama's tax plan apply to businesses or individuals or both? I haven't read the specifics of the plan, but I assumed it was individuals not businesses.

As others have stated if your company is looking to cut its workforce based on who gets elected to presidential office, than I would already start looking for another job because your company has serious issues.