Not taking sides, not saying the incumbent is good or bad in general but that was a cracker of a speech the U.S President gave.
Really well delivered and polished.
Wish our politicians (on both sides) could speak as sensibly.
Too much Ozzie coolade for you. :empathy3:
Well..... He DOES have good speech writers, and he definitely knows how to read...... Ever heard him when he DOESN'T have a teleprompter?
(popcorn)
BTW, Be careful who you're calling a cracker..... :rofl2:
Quote from: RichBaker on January 25, 2012, 10:31:47 PM
Well..... He DOES have good speech writers, and he definitely knows how to read...... Ever heard him when he DOESN'T have a teleprompter?
(http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/rktmanfj/obama_teleprompter_incompetence_poster.jpg)
Jeez guys, it was a good speech, well delivered, that's all.
Mind you,I wish I only had to pay 30 % tax, even better would be that 13 %.
Quote from: RichBaker on January 25, 2012, 10:31:47 PM
Ever heard him when he DOESN'T have a teleprompter?
I will agree with Klady's point that it was a good speech, he presents well, and he does have great speech writers, but he does not do all that well without a teleprompter.
Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws#)
Obama The Bumbling Idiot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAUZFMHXbD8#)
As an aside, I would like to see Newt v Obama in a debate, whereas Newt seems to thrive in such situations, Obama can have some real problems thinking on his feet. It would be entertaining.
Dan
Sorry, K-man. I really don't care if he can read a teleprompter well, or he has good speechwriters. He's out to destroy the US of A. He must be stopped. :diablo:
We're gonna raise tax rates to be "fair"? That 30% he wants is on money already taxed at 35-40%, invested (at risk!) and then returned a profit. So you get penalized at almost the same rate as when you earned it the 1st time. And if he or anyone else thinks this is going to raise money, watch the vid ...
Barack Obama: Fairness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDSFMY3ijcE#)
Jeez, you're getting a bit rabid there Ed mate, no good for your blood pressure.
Consider yourself lucky you don't have our type of idiotic politician, have a go at this mug, he's nicked his speech straight off a Michael Douglas film role.
Minister Anthony Albanese borrows from Hollywood. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDy1g0fN4s0#)
THAT is funny!!
Dan
Obama does desperately want to tax the rich, in his none-to-veiled affront on the wealthy in his brand of class warfare. With Romney as an example -he made 41 million $$ in two years against which he paid 6.5 million in tax, and another 3 million in charity.
Let me just say that any ONE MAN paying 6.5 million $$ in taxes, more than the VAST majority of folks in the WORLD will ever even so much as make in their life, is only "not enough", in warped mind of a liberal.
Dan
Now this is entertaining! (popcorn)
Nothing like politics to get folks all fired up!
I want Ronald Reagan back. Remember? The president with a spine about 3 feet in diameter? I believe America was a lot more united back then.
Clinton was a VERY good speaker also, but never should have been withing 1,000 miles of being in the President's office.
Reagan was not qualified to be president and was perhaps of our worse ever, he could not carry either Clinton or Obama's dirty laundry without screwing that up.
How about some clips from "Crazy Uncle Joe" Biden. People were very hard on Dan Quayle but he is an absolute genius compared to Biden. :mocking:
I thought all of Clinton's "dirty laundry" was confiscated as evidence?
Let's keep this friendly folks. 4 years ago this topic caused a lot of unnecessary crap and in-fighting on the Yahoo list.
DavidR.
David,
Just a minor correction. It was Monica's dirty laundry that was held for evidence.
I agree about keeping it friendly, I can argue politics fruitlessly somewhere else.
I won't do it here.
how about those Lakers!
Quote from: Mike 86 in San Dimas on January 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM
how about those Lakers!
Why, are they involved with Monica's dirty laundry??? Why was this not brought up earlier????
What did Kobe buy her?
Joe,
Details, details. Wasn't he responsible for some dirty laundry?
DavidR.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/backburner/UpsandDowns.jpg)....
You missed the 1.4 TRILLION $ man ...
Quote from: Mike 86 in San Dimas on January 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM
how about those Lakers!
Lakers.... hahaha
My
CLIPPERS are the new LA team!!!!
(popcorn)how about those Lakers!
Quote from: LA Mike on January 27, 2012, 05:36:00 AM
Quote from: Mike 86 in San Dimas on January 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM
how about those Lakers!
Lakers.... hahaha
My CLIPPERS are the new LA team!!!!
Guess you missed last Tuesdays game :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo:
The fact is that nearly every US President has run up the debt. The last time the debt actually shrank was during the Johnson administration -I think. Shame really it's just not sustainable. Some folks will try to muddy the issue talking about 'debt as a % of GDP' growing and shrinking, but debt is debt, the number is the number.
Where I take particular issue however, is that when Obama took office, debt was ~9.3 Trillion. Today that debt is ~15.2 Trillion.
This is just under 6 Trillion in debt in a little over 3 years. This is simply reckless, and patently irresponsible. He HAD to see this happening, he could have tried to do something about it. Instead, he decides to run for re-election with with a Trillion dollars worth of "universal health care" (which only covers 30 of the 50 million that did not have it -so it's not 'universal'). It might be arguable that bailing out banks and automakers was required, I would not say that it was, but health care was discretionary plain and simple.
My sources:
2008:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html (http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html)
Today:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html (http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html)
-Stare at this for a while, it will make you feel sick to your stomach.
Edit: Oh, and lest you think this is simply Obama bashing, I will say that Bush Jr. did a poor job at managing debt as well, although not as bad as Obama.
Dan
Well said, Dan. I 100% agree about Both 0bama & Bush. 1 overspent a lot, and 1 has gone a unsustainable binge.
Who gets left holding the bag? :bomb: All of us.
Last year at the WCR Klavdy dropped a comment which I've been mulling over...for some time now.
We (all Americans) agree that we have to get a handle on our national debt. That's a given, correct?
Wars are expensive, everyone agrees. Klavdy mentioned that we, as a nation, are fighting too many wars.
Iraq and Afghanistan, for sure, but how about all those other wars?
The war on poverty. The war on hunger. The war on drugs. The war on immigration. The war on terror. The war on organized crime and white collar crime. The trade war with China.
Soooo...How many wars are sustainable with our current tax base? Thanks Klav, I never thought about it in those terms.
Quote from: Klavdy on January 25, 2012, 07:27:47 PM
Not taking sides, not saying the incumbent is good or bad in general but that was a cracker of a speech the U.S President gave.
Really well delivered and polished.
Wish our politicians (on both sides) could speak as sensibly.
---------
Hard not to take sides. But let me offer this.
Like this guy or not, he MUST be doing a good job.
The extreme left absolutely hates him, for not doing more.
The extreme right absolutely hates him, for doing too much.
So, he MUST be doing something right to anger all the extremists, no?
What is starting to really bother me is the total disrespect being shown for the highest office in our country. President Obama got elected and agree or disagree with his policy he deserves to be respected. Look at Arizona Gov Jan Brewer wagging her finger in the Presidents face.... if she had done that to a sitting republican president she would be held indefinitely without being charged. I am appalled at the republican blockage in congress. You don't shut down government because you are not getting your way - it seems they will do anything (even fuck up the country) to ensure that President Obama leaves office without accomplishing anything. So venomous are the actions that to me it reeks of some deeper resentment towards him - like he was black or something.
Obama received a bag full of turds from W. and much of the increase in deficit is the clean up including both stimulus packages/bailouts which were already inked by the Bush Admin - he had no choice really but to go forward. Are you really laying all the blame on him? That seems rather one sided doesn't it?
Clinton DID pay down the US deficit to ZERO and left office with a $200 billion dollar surplus in the Treasury- easily confirmed.
Pat you are right about the "Wars Galore"..... if we could stop the fear mongering for 10 seconds perhaps we could relax a bit and save some money. These same fear tactics are costing us our basic constitutional rights.
If the republicans want a republican president next term they better get in behind Ron Paul in order to swing the independent vote. I am independent and I can tell you with utter certainty that I would never vote for Santorum, Romney or Gingrich. I might vote for Ron Paul for a few reasons; one, the guy tells the truth and he does not accept lobbyist money nor a pension from the Government. Two, I would like to see the 100-year reign of the Federal Reserve ended which he promises to do. Three, his foreign policy is to get out of a bunch of countries (wars) where the US spends hundreds of billions on wars and foreign aid... bring that money home and the deficit would disappear before you know it. Finally I am not overly impressed with President Obama (although he is light years better than Bush). Obama is a let down but the horror of current republican politics is going cement his 2nd term I think.
It it a fascinating time to say the least.
tim
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
You don't shut down government because you are not getting your way
Both parties are guilty of this.....lets not get carried away. Also...bumper stickers with Bush portrayed as Hitler?? I still cannot fathom that absolute hatred and disrespect. I guess I have to get used to it.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 26, 2012, 11:52:41 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/backburner/UpsandDowns.jpg)....
Where is Jimmy Carter in that cartoon? I remember interest rates on cars, homes etc during that era. I also think back to the first Iraq war during Bush 1...that deficit does not appear that bad considering the cost of that war. Just something to consider as almost everybody was on board for that.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
What is starting to really bother me is the total disrespect being shown for the highest office in our country. President Obama got elected and agree or disagree with his policy he deserves to be respected. Look at Arizona Gov Jan Brewer wagging her finger in the Presidents face.... if she had done that to a sitting republican president she would be held indefinitely without being charged. I am appalled at the republican blockage in congress. You don't shut down government because you are not getting your way - it seems they will do anything (even fuck up the country) to ensure that President Obama leaves office without accomplishing anything. So venomous are the actions that to me it reeks of some deeper resentment towards him - like he was black or something.
Obama received a bag full of turds from W. and much of the increase in deficit is the clean up including both stimulus packages/bailouts which were already inked by the Bush Admin - he had no choice really but to go forward. Are you really laying all the blame on him? That seems rather one sided doesn't it?
Clinton DID pay down the US deficit to ZERO and left office with a $200 billion dollar surplus in the Treasury- easily confirmed.
Pat you are right about the "Wars Galore"..... if we could stop the fear mongering for 10 seconds perhaps we could relax a bit and save some money. These same fear tactics are costing us our basic constitutional rights.
If the republicans want a republican president next term they better get in behind Ron Paul in order to swing the independent vote. I am independent and I can tell you with utter certainty that I would never vote for Santorum, Romney or Gingrich. I might vote for Ron Paul for a few reasons; one, the guy tells the truth and he does not accept lobbyist money nor a pension from the Government. Two, I would like to see the 100-year reign of the Federal Reserve ended which he promises to do. Three, his foreign policy is to get out of a bunch of countries (wars) where the US spends hundreds of billions on wars and foreign aid... bring that money home and the deficit would disappear before you know it. Finally I am not overly impressed with President Obama (although he is light years better than Bush). Obama is a let down but the horror of current republican politics is going cement his 2nd term I think.
It it a fascinating time to say the least.
tim
Tim you are bang on the money. I agree with just about everything you say, and this is from a Canadian
who follows world politics like a junkie follows a line of coke, I have a great personal love for the US and it's people (I've traveled extensively in the states and my wife is American)
My only objection to your position is Ron Paul, as down to earth and forward thinking as he may seem is an old time racist of the first order(but I guess there are worse things a President can be)
Politicians as a breed, left or right will say anything to get into power or stay in power.
They truly are the last people on the planet that should lead.
Quote from: JMR on January 27, 2012, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
You don't shut down government because you are not getting your way
Both parties are guilty of this.....lets not get carried away. Also...bumper stickers with Bush portrayed as Hitler?? I still cannot fathom that absolute hatred and disrespect. I guess I have to get used to it.
I try to keep it pretty neutral... I agree that both parties can be obstructionist. Never did see a Bush/Hitler image but I agree that too is over the line. But yeah, the built up tension and revealed hatred from both sides (and the press - but mostly republican rhetoric if I had to call it) is out of control....
Grannyknot, honestly, I am all over the board on my "position". I really don't think there is a republican candidate that can win. But at least for me, Ron Paul is the only one with even a chance- you can't say he is dishonest or paid off and that is huge. Not sure about his past as a racist- I will read up on that. I wish America was known for integrity and fairness instead of greed and violence. Being fair does not mean being weak. You listen to someone like Michelle Bachman and there is so much FEAR in her motivation you would think that if we don't have American control over everything we are all going to die. Listening to her gave me the shivers....
I would like to see us have the old kind of conservative republican fiscal policy combined with a more democratic foreign policy and entitlements management if that were possible. What we are going to get is whatever the corporations (now acting with the freedom of speech rights previously only granted to individuals) and the lobbyists want to pay for. Our representatives don't represent people anymore.... it may not matter who gets the presidency.
Here is to happier thoughts! Have a good weekend all-
tim
Tim-
We are simply not going to agree on much here. But let me address a few of you points.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
What is starting to really bother me is the total disrespect being shown for the highest office in our country. President Obama got elected and agree or disagree with his policy he deserves to be respected.
I guess when this crap was going on, you had no such concerns about presidential disrespect?
(http://progressiveboink.com/archive/costumes/buswastikah.jpg)
and
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060108031510/uncyclopedia/images/b/bf/Bush-swastika.jpg)
and
(http://riffenberg.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/nazibush_demo4.jpg?w=400)
Just google 'bush swastika' -there are hundreds of them. And I'll bet you said nothing when the liberal press openly called Bush 'stupid' etc.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
So venomous are the actions that to me it reeks of some deeper resentment towards him - like he was black or something.
The last vestige of either an idiot or a scoundrel, is playing the race card. In my opinion, doing so is every bit as venomous and divisive as anything you think is being thrown at Obama, which, by the by, is just order of magnitudes better than being called a Nazi / idiot....
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
You don't shut down government because you are not getting your way
You missed the point of that effort. They were standing by their values -even if it meant shutting down the government -I know, I know -about the worst thing that could ever happen in the mind of a liberal. The Dems had just lost the house due mostly to their inability to taste the fear of depression in the air. The tea party message was well received and, had carried the day in the house, and done damage in the senate. FOR ONCE, congress had some balls by saying "NO we're not just going to roll over and approve a raising of the debt ceiling without a real plan to reduce it". I would applaud them, but the deal struck was meaningless and fairly toothless as well.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
Clinton DID pay down the US deficit to ZERO and left office with a $200 billion dollar surplus in the Treasury- easily confirmed.
Uhhh, you forgot a key word in the above sentence: "projected" as in: '...and left office with a
projected $200 billion dollar surplus... There is a difference. Had he actually reduced the deficit, it would have had an impact on debt, which it simply did not. Clinton raised the debt with the best of 'em. Easily confirmed.
Dan
Way to go, Dan, nicely and eloquently put. Liberals have no problem throwing bombs but when the bombs (or facts as they may be) come their way, they cry foul.
Bush did some really dumb things, guided by the loss of face by his Dad and listening to Cheney and Rove. However, I will not tolerate bombs thrown at Reagan. He did more for this country internationally than any president since Truman (a Democrat). My wife's family got to taste freedom for the 1st time in 55 years because of him. (She was born in East Germany you see)
And Nixon got caught with the knowledge that Watergate happened and lied about it. Clinton's whole 2nd term was fighting off the attacks of the Republicans only to find out that all that happened is he got a blow job in the Oval Office. There have been scandal on both sides, but this Fast and Furious BS that Holder pulled is far worse than breaking and entering. Trying to screw with our 2nd amendment rights. I just wonder when that will catch up to Obama.
Take care,
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on January 27, 2012, 09:02:21 PM. I just wonder when that will catch up to Obama.
November 6, 2012 :drinks:
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
What is starting to really bother me is the total disrespect being shown for the highest office in our country. President Obama got elected and agree or disagree with his policy he deserves to be respected. Look at Arizona Gov Jan Brewer wagging her finger in the Presidents face....
You do know that as soon as Obama's feet hit the tarmac he was all in Brewer's face about how she portrayed him in her book. He instantly went on the offensive with her. Would you stand there and take a beating from ANYONE if you felt you were in the right? I don't think so...
And that picture was just a millisecond in time caught in the click of a shutter. And let's be real honest here. All Obama and his DOJ have done is obstruct the letter of the law in Arizona. And don't come at me with the racist card. I lived in Punta Banda, BCN, American's loose their homes. Look that up and tell me I know not what I talk about. BTW, Kathern Haning is (was) my mother.
CraigO
Wow! Cue the crickets...............
Dan, I never mind disagreeing and I hope you don't. You too Craigo - let's not have this bullshit make us mad at each other. I can (I think) talk about this stuff for a while and not get spun out and all pissed off. I like diversity I think it makes this a great place to be. We gotta have good discussion to forge towards the truth so says Socrates. Every one sees things a little different and me talking doesn't make me an idiot or a scoundrel- every perspective contains some validity. Are you ever 100% convinced of a position anyway?? I mean even if you have "decided" your mind, if its a tough topic and you're a thinking individual you are continuing the debate on in your head anyway.
I actually never did really see any Bush Nazi stuff - but as I stated in my post I think that is way over the line. The office of the President should be respected- but that goes for Jan Brewer too its not about the underlying issues its about having that base line level of respect. Disrespecting the President does the country harm regardless of the issues at hand.
Again I say it is one hell of an interesting time we are living in at the moment and I for one can hardly fucking wait to see whats going to happen. I think the intensity is in large part to the orgy of communication going on- people get so focused on an issue and so enraged. I mean we are bombarded by media, language and imagery from every direction is it any wonder that most people are fed up and pissed off.
tim
:gamer:
Hey lets go riding before the whole shit house goes up in flames!
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
Hey lets go riding before the whole shit house goes up in flames!
I second that!!!! Who is riding this weekend???? Fuck politics for a few days and enjoy the Kookaloo of our FJ's....
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 05:08:52 PM
Obama received a bag full of turds from W. and much of the increase in deficit is the clean up including both stimulus packages/bailouts which were already inked by the Bush Admin - he had no choice really but to go forward. Are you really laying all the blame on him? That seems rather one sided doesn't it?
I'm not going to argue for or against Bush, let the historians deal with him. Blame Obama for the deficits? Absolutely, 100%
Here's some interesting info on the stimulus/deficits <http://tinyurl.com/11-revelations (http://tinyurl.com/11-revelations)>
11 stunning revelations from Larry Summers's secret economics memo to Barack ObamaBy James Pethokoukis
January 23, 2012, 3:08 pm
A lengthy piece in The New Yorker looks at policymaking in the Obama White House. A key source for writer Ryan Lizza is a 57-page, "Sensitive & Confidential" memo written by economist Larry Summers—eventually to be head of Obama's National Economic Council—to Obama in December 2008. Here's some of what I (Pethokoukis) learned about Team Obama's thinking as the financial crisis was exploding, followed by quotes from the memo itself:
1. The stimulus was about implementing the Obama agenda. The short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign promises or high priority items that would spend out quickly and be inherently temporary. ... The stimulus package is a key tool for advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.
2. Team Obama knows these deficits are dangerous (although it has offered no long-term plan to deal with them).
Closing the gap between what the campaign proposed and the estimates of the campaign offsets would require scaling back proposals by about $100 billion annually or adding new offsets totaling the same. Even this, however, would leave an average deficit over the next decade that would be worse than any post-World War II decade. This would be entirely unsustainable and could cause serious economic problems in the both the short run and the long run.
3. Obamanomics was pricier than advertised. Your campaign proposals add about $100 billion per year to the deficit largely because rescoring indicates that some of your revenue raisers do not raise as much as the campaign assumed and some of your proposals cost more than the campaign assumed. ... Treasury estimates that repealing the tax cuts above $250,000 would raise about $40 billion less than the campaign assumed. ... The health plan is about $10 billion more costly than the campaign estimated and the health savings are about $25 billion lower than the campaign estimated.
4. Even Washington can only spend so much money so fast. Constructing a package of this size, or even in the $500 billion range, is a major challenge. While the most effective stimulus is government investment, it is difficult to identify feasible spending projects on the scale that is needed to stabilize the macroeconomy. Moreover, there is a tension between the need to spend the money quickly and the desire to spend the money wisely. To get the package to the requisite size, and also to address other problems, we recommend combining it with substantial state fiscal relief and tax cuts for individuals and businesses.
5. Liberals can complain about the stimulus having too many tax cuts, but even Team Obama thought more spending was unrealistic.
As noted above, it is not possible to spend out much more than $225 billion in the next two years with priority investments and protections for the most vulnerable. This total, however, falls well short of what economists believe is needed for the economy, both in total and especially in 2009. As a result, to achieve our macroeconomic objectives—minimally the 2.5 million job goal—will require other sources of stimulus including state fiscal relief, tax cuts for individuals, or tax cuts for businesses.
6. Team Obama wanted to use courts to force massive mortgage principal writedowns.
The next step in the housing plan is responsible bankruptcy reform along the lines of the Durbin bill you cosponsored. This would allow bankruptcy courts to write down the principal of primary residences to the current market value. We recommend announcing this reform to begin immediately following the close of the enhanced Hope for Homeowners period.
7. Team Obama thought a stimulus plan of more than $1 trillion would spook financial markets and send interest rates climbing.
To accomplish a more significant reduction in the output gap would require stimulus of well over $1 trillion based on purely mechanical assumptions—which would likely not accomplish the goal because of the impact it would have on markets.
8. Greg Manic, economic adviser to Mitt Romney, was dubious about the stimulus.
Greg Manic is the only economist we have consulted with who refused to name a number and was generally skeptical about stimulus.
9. But the Fed was a stimulus enabler. Senior Federal Reserve officials appear to be of the view that a plan that well exceeds $600 billion would be desirable.
10. IPAB was there at the very beginning. There are two possibilities for making tough decisions on the long-run budget, which could be done either separately or together: creating an executive-branch "health board" (which focuses on one part of the issue) and a Congressionally chartered commission (which could focus more broadly).
11. The financial crisis wasn't just Wall Street's fault. A significant cause of the current crisis lies in the failure of regulators to exercise vigorously the authority they already have.
===========
I appreciate an honest discussion of this whole matter, rather than just mud slinging. But as Tim, Mark & others have suggested, perhaps it's time for riding rather than politics. But I
CAN do politics for
a while.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
Dan, I never mind disagreeing and I hope you don't.
I do not mind this discussion, I am not mad. It's all good, and I appreciate your conciliatory tone, thanks.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
Every one sees things a little different and me talking doesn't make me an idiot or a scoundrel- every perspective contains some validity.
Accusing someone (or a group), of being a racist(s), is like accusing someone of being a child molester -it's a bell you simply can not un-ring. Simply saying it, applies an unfair stain on the person/ group your talking about. Although I do not believe you are either an idiot or a scoundrel, it
is divisive and counter-productive. I am not naive enough to suggest that there are not people who do not like Obama for his skin color. But the insinuation that Obama is opposed due to his skin color, is fairly repulsive to me, as it mitigates the prospect, that as you say, that everyone see['s] thing['s] a little differently. In my mind, this is political, not racial.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
Again I say it is one hell of an interesting time we are living in at the moment and I for one can hardly fucking wait to see whats going to happen.
Hey lets go riding before the whole shit house goes up in flames!
Agreed.
Dan
It's all good here on my end. I won't allow other people (politicians) get in the way of the brotherhood.
Cheers,
CraigO
Quote from: FJmonkey on January 27, 2012, 10:40:10 PM
Quote from: axiom-r on January 27, 2012, 10:23:23 PM
Hey lets go riding before the whole shit house goes up in flames!
I second that!!!! Who is riding this weekend???? Fuck politics for a few days and enjoy the Kookaloo of our FJ's....
I'd love to, however, the whole front end of my bike is apart right now. And Steve is up to his neck with the engine swap.
Next weekend, Cool?
CraigO
I am going riding. So, as Mitt Romeny says - hello thread.....your fired.
This just popped up on FB, too relevant and appropriate not to share:
(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/403754_283500181709730_151385851587831_801910_366225573_n.jpg)
As provocative as it is, I really do feel like this is how it goes. Just to put some more twigs on the fire...
Cheers!
Dan
Dan, that is some funny shit. Listen, I apologize that I "rung the bell". I thought about the comment and I chose to include it because they are giving him such a hard time and it does not make sense to me. In my mind it was not a straight up accusation as much as a "what about this?" or "could this be it?". Anyway I appreciate the reminder that that is not a constructive path to go down in any circumstance. We are off into new territory having the first president of color and when they are off the record or when amongst friends you hear racist comments sometimes from those that are dissatisfied with the Presidents job..... I'll apologize for the remark again as it may have been just a step too far and you make excellent points about the nature of raising the issue. I do stand by my guns that there is some validity in every perspective... even the ones that make us cringe...
Ed- I have to say that your hard line view and comments sort of drew me in on this thread..... for me, every issue has become shades of grey there are no absolutes. You can hardly believe the media these days as everything is "spun" to one perspective or the other. The truth is in there somewhere but only a thread of it. Case in point: Dan corrected me on the Clinton Surplus, I looked deeper and found out- he's right!! the Surplus talk (which is all over the news and you can still find on Google today) is not exactly the truth - its a spin. Point to you Dan.
The harder the issue is the more perspectives there are and the more perspectives there are the more difficult it will be to find the truth. We can have convictions but most of the time they are emotionally based and not factual or always rational. I hate to hear some one say out loud "the President is trying to destroy the country" - that is simply false like the "Obama is Muslim" and "not a citizen" talk. True would be: "I don't agree with what the President is doing". The president wants a vibrant America just like every republican or any other American. He just does not share your view of how to get there.
The unsustainable economic track that resulted in the the recent recession has roots that go back to Reagan's recovery out of the Cater era. Easing up the cost of money and spending beyond our means started there. The idea that we can consume without earning. Bush II releasing the financial institutions from regulatory oversight was like letting the dogs off the leash and the little guy took it in the ass. To this day, there are no prosecutions on Wall St. and all John Corzine had to do was publicly apologize.... The courts should be able force a write down on mortgages that were predatory in nature and sold a bunch of times as credit default swaps in mortgage backed securities - THE BANKS RIPPED US OFF. Yeah President Obama is spending way beyond what anyone wanted to see - but in my eyes this is the pendulum swinging the other way. He shifted the country's priorities and you don't agree with that. But, if we stop spending on wars and foreign economic support, stop subsidizing the wildly profitable oil companies and reform many other good ole boy lobbyist bought government expenses the deficit will diminish faster than we think.
I hope that we can reduce the swing of the pendulum and get back to a smoother ride with fewer extremes. But it seems that the laws of entropy are at work and as time goes on we are going to be in for a steadily increasing level of chaos and drama....
The worst of it to me is the loss of our individual constitutional rights. That is what American freedom is founded on; individual rights. Neither party has stood up sufficiently to protect them. Nobody even said a peep as our right to a speedy trial and judgement by a jury of our peers was ELIMINATED. Corporate charters were one of the founding father's greatest concerns and we have a government that is literally run on corporate sponsorship. We have got to get the money out of politics if we want to restore an actual democracy - but that would mean that the people would make decisions for the people and the rich and powerful fear that beyond all else...
Lets keep it foremost in our minds that we are all from the same great country and all on the same team! I appreciate this discussion!
:flag_of_truce:
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/backburner/ruben-xaus.jpg)
Quote from: axiom-r on January 28, 2012, 11:25:42 AM
The unsustainable economic track that resulted in the the recent recession has roots that go back to Reagan's recovery out of the Cater era. Easing up the cost of money and spending beyond our means started there.
We do indeed live together in a great country, but I must again take issue with the above statement.
Those roots go much farther back: much. First the US has ALWAYS had national Debt, Washington took on debt to pay for the cost of the Revolutionary War. His Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton devised a funding system whereby the the debt was to be paid off by 1840 -it never happened. The debt has NEVER been zero, or a surplus, never. The best we can hope for is a small number of presidents (3?) that actually lowered it marginally. Otherwise, it has always grown.
To your point, the cause of the current recession stems directly from the precipitous fall in real estate values, which had been tied up in the credit default swaps/ derivatives/ leveraged monies way too far out -probably conservatives -I grant you. But when Fanny and Freddy were brow-beaten into making home loans to people who had no business getting them, this smacks of a liberal "everyone should have a home" crap.
Also, the concept of 'predatory lending' seems like a liberal concept too. Think about it, were people FORCED to take these loans? NO! It was personal greed that had them do it. It'd be like blaming the gun manufacturers because one man shot another with one of their guns -absurd.
Many/ most of us were smart about it. I could easily have bought 2-3 times the house I actually did, but I thought about how much I could actually afford to pay for a house, and I spent that. I must tell you -it was far less than what the bank was willing to loan me. Was I being "preyed upon" being offered more money than I would be happy to have to cough up every month? No. Could I have borrowed that larger amount and eaten mac and cheese, and never go on vacation, and been OK? yes. I was simply not willing to be house-poor.
The problem occurred when people/ individuals wanted it all, the big house, all the toys, the fancy cars, the vacations, despite not actually being able to afford it... these jerks spent like a drunken sailors (like our president) ran up personal debt to more than $50 Trillion, and setup the fall. Yes, it was based on the belief that house prices would continue to increase, but there was no guarantee of that.
When unemployment began to rise, and house prices drop, default rates jumped up much faster than anyone counted on, and the CDS's began to be called in, and there was not enough to actually cover it -oops. I think we can agree that it was the greed of the jerks, coupled with the lack of insight on the part of the bankers that all hell
could go wrong, that caused it.
If people had simply not spent more than they could afford, it would have been a much smaller (non-existent?) problem and the derivatives would likely not have been too far leveraged to cover the defaults. In that same theme, we NEVER should have bailed out the banks/ insurance companies/ auto-makers, they took the same sort of risk that individuals had, they should have been allowed to fail, as did the individuals.
The democrats seem to value government intervention ("stop the greedy bankers") over personal responsibility ("don't borrow too much: idiot"). The opposite can be said for the republicans. Because this is how I live my life, I generally stand with the Republicans: the concepts of smaller government, less intrusion, less spending (hopefully), and a real value in personal responsibility resonate with me.
That's enough...
Dan
All I know for sure is,,,,, we're fucked! Good thing that 12-21-2012 is going to get rid of all these economic/political problems. All we will have to worry about is keeping the zombie hordes at bay and deciding who we should kill and eat.
Oh yeah,,,,, and looking for parts for mods on our FJ's.
Kurt
Every time I go to the US, I make damn sure I'm covered to a minimum of U.S $25 million in medical /personal effects etc insurance with no excess coz, I fall off,crash, run into things.
I've got form you know.
As an example,the infamous "Pinecone" incident led to a series of dunning letters sent from a bunch of shysters based in Israel, representing the Medical centre that had already been paid.
Now if you Seppos come a gutser over there and you are not covered, it can ruin you.
I'm writing this from a hospital room, it's a beauty room too, ensuite, view, cable T.V and it's not going to directly cost me, it's already been paid for,part of the 38 cents in every dollar I pay in tax.
If you blokes were here, you'd get the same deal, visiting or not.
Oh, yeah, best tell you why I'm in hospital,last week I thought I was getting a Malaria attack,aches, 106 fever, cold sweats,balls ache,weird flushes.
Of course I did what any self respecting bloke would do by completely ignoring it until forced to see the local Q.L.D quack.
Straight in, no waiting at the local public hospital where a series of Cat scans, blood tests etc revealed Malaria combined with a nicely burst appendix.
None of this treatment will cost me,as in they won't present me with a bill.
It's already been paid for.
Pretty sweet deal, eh?
Why are some people in America so scared of this type of system?
Klavdy,
Get better quick - Rally is coming
But I think a better question than yours is, How have so many people that a universal health care system will benefit been convinced that its the work of the devil, UNAmerican, and a Communist plot to steal their soul?
Arnie
Quote from: Klavdy on January 29, 2012, 06:43:02 AM
Oh, yeah, best tell you why I'm in hospital,last week I thought I was getting a Malaria attack,aches, 106 fever, cold sweats,balls ache,weird flushes.
Of course I did what any self respecting bloke would do by completely ignoring it until forced to see the local Q.L.D quack.
Klavdy......ummhh... :scratch_one-s_head: I`ve heard of these symptoms somewhere before on this forum.......a couple of months ago, I think some QLD Doc published how they cure it with some sort of antivanine.....you should really try the search button ......... oh yeah try page 3 of the Downunder Rally..........Like most published faults on this forum, there`s a solution been documented already.................
"Uncle Kook here.
Can you get some time off work? Need you to be with me for major operation on the Sunshine Coast 11th of feb. Doc reckons I`ve been bitten (downunder) by something that`s making my genitals swell. My heart races, Palpatations, Halucinary feelings of Gliding Grandeur, Voices in my head coaxing me to a firepit of uncontrollable gorging, drinking and slander. Anti Vanine requires me to remain upright, wear protective gear and a pad. Specialists attending include Motopsycopaths along with my GP. Strife support system will be turned off Saturday evening. Please be there."
---(hope ya know what a GP is :rofl: ) Looking forward to administering your Anti Vanine!! Doug
Quote from: Klavdy on January 29, 2012, 06:43:02 AM
Straight in, no waiting at the local public hospital where a series of Cat scans, blood tests etc revealed Malaria combined with a nicely burst appendix.
None of this treatment will cost me,as in they won't present me with a bill.
It's already been paid for.
Pretty sweet deal, eh?
Why are some people in America so scared of this type of system?
It's for a couple of reasons.
#1, we don't like having the government in our lives.
#2, the insurance companies would never let it happen here, not the way you Aussies, Canada, and England run their healthcare. And it looks like England is going broke.
#3, It's way over the top expensive. We have too much money invested in other things that you Aussies don't have to spend money on, trying to keep the free world free. We US taxpayers have to keep our military spending up because countries like Japan, Australia, the EU would look pretty weak if the US was not there. How many aircraft carriers, nuke subs, B2 bombers, military bases in other countries do you guys support? That is some pricey hardware.
How much do you think your taxrate would go up if the US wasn't covering you guys and you had to pay for all this?
#4, We do have free health care here. Ask any illegal alien.
Get better soon,
CraigO
Why are some people in America so scared of this type of system?
That's the question.
Dunno how aircraft carriers, nuke subs, B2 bombers got in the mix.
Because it all costs money. The point is, how much more money in taxes would the average Aussie have to pay to keep their country safe? Can't have it both ways.
How much more would the average Aussie have to pay in taxes for all the aid the US taxpayer spends?
It's not that we are afraid, it's because it costs a fortune. And I for one am tired of paying for it.
CraigO
There are great public medical systems that are completely functional and paid for in Japan,Canada, England, Sweden, Taiwan, Australia, France and the list goes on. Those countries do manage the systems well and they are not going broke because of the system. The reason Americans are afraid of this is simple, ignorance and corporations sucking the life out of the country. Oh yeah, the Rich paying too little in taxes in also a substantial contributor as is the military inductrial complex draining an enormous amount of our tax wealth into weapons systems and large standing armies many of who are deployed in bases spread around the world. We have allowed the middle class to be diminished and soon destroyed so they can become peons to make wealth for others, the new feudal state. Sadly I see vast and significant amounts of violent social unrest coming to our country, and sooner than we think as the middle and lower classes wake up to find their pockets picked and their future stolen by liars and thieves who know no bounds to their greed and their evil.
Quote from: terryk on January 29, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
Sadly I see vast and significant amounts of violent social unrest coming to our country, and sooner than we think as the middle and lower classes wake up to find their pockets picked and their future stolen by liars and thieves who know no bounds to their greed and their evil.
I believe that the great majority of the American people lack the "cojones" for any sort of uprising. We may see some more "occupy" type stuff but not in great enough scale that the police/military can't put down or contain. There will be some groups protesting or taking more violent means of protest, but they will be quickly branded as extremists and radicals (maybe even terrorists) and be crushed. Remember Ruby Ridge? That was just a guy that wanted to be left alone and someone at BATF developed a "hardon" for him,,,,, his wife, his kids and his dog were killed. If a group is seen as a threat the government has no problems making up evidence to use as justification for it's actions.
To put down their Big Macs, stop looking at their iPhones and go outside to put themselves at risk is just too damn inconvenient for most.
I'm sure that the government and the wealthy power-brokers have given this some thought and they will come up with new and wonderful "pacifiers" for the masses. It may be new entertainment technologies, new drugs or a new "enemy" to put the blame on. Those with the power and money are not going to give it up easily and I'm sure they are/will be keeping a close eye on any "radicals".
What are you on about mate?
Aid from the U.S Taxpayer keeping Australia safe?
Safe from what?
An ill defined, vague general enemy?
We're good,'bout the only threat is mad Indonesian generals and we've told 'em we'll nuke Jakarta if they try any funny business.(Look up the ANZUS Treaty (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1952/2.html))
China:
The Red Dragon wants to trade,not wage war.
Our Defence Dept keeps fucking up though, everything from Joint Strike Fighters to Collins Class subs, we wont more than briefly mention the horrible rust bucket Troop Transports we bought off you,(HMAS Kanimbla & Manoora (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3157437.htm))
nor the stupid airtanker/transport combo.
The Americans have cool firetrucks but, wish we had 'em.
I'd buy my own, drive around going WHOOOO
Regardless, Klavdy, the money is spent for it. How's that new US Marine base working for you over there? And why did the Aussie government need us to place one there?
And Terry, the UK is going broke trying to keep everyone in health care. And the type of health care offered here under Obamacare is not the same as in the counties you mentioned. More like the socialized healthcare of the former Soviet Union where the government decides who gets treatment for what ever malady. What we have now, you can tailor your healthcare to your own needs, not some broad spectrum one size fits all. And for Obama forcing it on us, with fines and penalties, is just ridiculousness.
I don't know about you, but I don't want the government in my healthcare (or much of any aspect of my life) and I take the personal responsibility for my own.
CraigO
Hey Klavdy, Malaria and a burst appendix? That is some serious shit amigo. Peritonitis kills and coupled with the malaria bug? Oh boy.
Imagining what you are going thru, I will forgive you for stirring up the shit (you rascal)
I am not against universal health care per se, but I see 3 main issues
1) Is it appropriate for our government to 'command' that people have either a) private insurance or b) contribute into a nationwide system? This issue is currently before the US Supreme Court.
2) Inequity of the fiscal impact: 2010 US Census data shows that Less than 60% of the population in America pay income taxes. Of that 60%, 20% already have private health care coverage (thus exempt) which leaves a disproportional (small) number of taxpayers who will pay into the system.
3) Before America can be successful in a nationwide health care system, serious tort reform is needed. In fact it is long over due.
My dad was a dentist. A damn good dentist. A USC trained graduate. He loved his work. Always on call Saturdays and Sundays. He could never get away for vacations, anyhoo...At the end of his 45 year practice he could not afford his malpractice insurance premiums.
The assfuck lawyers in America are ruining everything...Filing bogus lawsuits only for posturing for out of court settlements.
This affects all areas of our economy: housing, employment, health care, manufacturing, etc, etc.
Serious Tort Reform is needed NOW!
Other countries do not have this problem ..... Take care amigo! It's a sunny 75* and I'm going for a ride... Fr Paddy.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 28, 2012, 09:17:11 PM
To your point, the cause of the current recession stems directly from the precipitous fall in real estate values, which had been tied up in the credit default swaps/ derivatives/ leveraged monies way too far out -probably conservatives -I grant you. But when Fanny and Freddy were brow-beaten into making home loans to people who had no business getting them, this smacks of a liberal "everyone should have a home" crap.
Also, the concept of 'predatory lending' seems like a liberal concept too. Think about it, were people FORCED to take these loans? NO! It was personal greed that had them do it. It'd be like blaming the gun manufacturers because one man shot another with one of their guns -absurd.
Many/ most of us were smart about it. I could easily have bought 2-3 times the house I actually did, but I thought about how much I could actually afford to pay for a house, and I spent that. I must tell you -it was far less than what the bank was willing to loan me. Was I being "preyed upon" being offered more money than I would be happy to have to cough up every month? No. Could I have borrowed that larger amount and eaten mac and cheese, and never go on vacation, and been OK? yes. I was simply not willing to be house-poor.
The problem occurred when people/ individuals wanted it all, the big house, all the toys, the fancy cars, the vacations, despite not actually being able to afford it... these jerks spent like a drunken sailors (like our president) ran up personal debt to more than $50 Trillion, and setup the fall. Yes, it was based on the belief that house prices would continue to increase, but there was no guarantee of that.
When unemployment began to rise, and house prices drop, default rates jumped up much faster than anyone counted on, and the CDS's began to be called in, and there was not enough to actually cover it -oops. I think we can agree that it was the greed of the jerks, coupled with the lack of insight on the part of the bankers that all hell could go wrong, that caused it.
If people had simply not spent more than they could afford, it would have been a much smaller (non-existent?) problem and the derivatives would likely not have been too far leveraged to cover the defaults. In that same theme, we NEVER should have bailed out the banks/ insurance companies/ auto-makers, they took the same sort of risk that individuals had, they should have been allowed to fail, as did the individuals.
The democrats seem to value government intervention ("stop the greedy bankers") over personal responsibility ("don't borrow too much: idiot"). The opposite can be said for the republicans. Because this is how I live my life, I generally stand with the Republicans: the concepts of smaller government, less intrusion, less spending (hopefully), and a real value in personal responsibility resonate with me.
That's enough...
Dan
Dan,
I think it is easy to understand that an individual cannot be trusted
not to reach for a better place in life if it is being waved in front of them for the taking... this is why the banks are complicit and responsible for the real estate crash. Yeah, people bit off more than they could chew but they were trained to do so in this "consumer economy" trained to "just buy it" - and for most it was an offer the could not refuse - debt slavery. To take any layer of responsibility away from the banks is just startling. If you wave a juicy carrot in front of a rabbit the rabbit is going to eat it - the nature of the rabbit is known. It is evident that you cannot remove the hunger from the rabbit - we have to prevent the carrot from being waved in the first place. The banks knew the people would eat up the loans - they knew they could not qualify for the loans - they made hundreds of thousands of loans anyway and profited outrageously. The bankers are now sitting fat and have not been prosecuted, the wishful buyers (that took the loan they thought they would never have the chance of qualifying for) now have a foreclosure on their credit report. The real estate goes back into the hands of the banks along with all the money they scraped off the people. Freddie and Fanny? Yeah they were on the same list as Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, Country Wide, CitiBank, and dozens of others.....
I have some friends that are in the mortgage business. They kicked some serious ass and became millionaires owning five houses at one point. While this was going on I was struggling in a job that was not paying very impressively. My buddy tried to get me to come to work for him refinancing people and dealing new mortgages to buyers.... The profits that brokers were making were unbelievable - examples of brand new 21 year old mortgage brokers in the San Diego market making $20-30k a month on mortgages were the norm. There was a frenzy - a glut at the trough - because the regulations and oversight were gone. The banks were taking these profits fully aware that they were putting
unqualified buyers into homes. THAT is predatory. The loans themselves were structured as interest only with balloon payments in 15 years- this kept the payments down making it all the more enticing - again predatory! Then they were packaging these
known bad loans into securities and selling them - that is fraud.
You say the individual should have had restraint? But what about the American dream? Everybody owns a home? These ideas and the consumerism mentality have been the American way since the 50's and our government changed our policies to prop up the economy and keep it going. That the government rolled back regulations that had protected us nicely since the Great Depression and financial institutions suddenly (within a decade) go nuts and the economy crashes is no coincident.
Of course, as an individual (a blue collar worker) if you think: "man the economy is great, I CAN get a loan, this is it! It's my time! I am going to be a home owner!! I am realizing the American Dream!!". Obviously and with no astonishment of any kind - we see those people line up to sign the papers.....you cannot put that on the people. They are seeing a chance to "make it". That is an illusion created by the banks and is a mechanism that is entirely the banks chasing profit. Preying on the ignorance of the masses and creating more slaves- slaves to the debt that they hold over them...
We will not have to settle this issue between us here fortunately. Many of the State Attorney Generals are not accepting the settlement terms proposed by the Feds to wrap up the housing problem and the fraud perpetrated by the banks. We are going to see an investigation before it is over and I think it's likely there will be some people prosecuted.
Yeah- we have no common ground on this one!
Cheers- tim
Klavdy,
Sorry to hear you are not well man- eat your peas and carrots and do what the nurse says.... hopefully it's Nurse Betty Goodtits and not Nurse Crotchet....
cheers- tim
Good Lord, what new US Marine base ?
The one both parties talked up?
It's a bunch of shit, there's already bases we built up there, Lavarack,Tindal, Robertson to name just a few, you blokes are always encouraged to use them. (http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/ts11/images/20110717adf8178707_0070.jpg)
I was in Darwin, Northern Territory when Airforce 1 arrived on the scene.
Wow,talk about Rock Stars, we have a genuine affection for our, at times goofy big Seppo brothers.
Now, about those Firetrucks, you know the ones with the additional steering section on the back?
They are cool.
Bet they go WHOOO-WHOOOP!
Quote from: axiom-r on January 29, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
........Yeah- we have no common ground on this one!
Yes, you do....
The commonality that I see with your posts is that everyone had a hand in the crisis: government, consumer, lender, investor.
Excellent discussion!
WHOOO-WHOOOP! I say, WHOOO-WHOOOP!
The Firetrucks go WHOOO-WHOOOP! WHOOO-WHOOOP!
It's 04:00, I'm in my lovely hospital room, more like a nice hotel room, really, smashed outta my gourd on Morphine shots and Endone, watching cable T.V and mucking about on the Innerwebz.
Not something I do more than once every year or two.
WHOOO-WHOOOP! WHOOO-WHOOOP!
I think that it's somewhere in the Forum rules that there is to be no posting while stoned on morphine....Let me check.....
I was gonna say Klavdy, seems like you are enjoying the ride!!!
Nice!
Your right Pat- all the players had a role. Enjoy your ride today!
tim
Quote from: Klavdy on January 29, 2012, 12:12:37 PM
WHOOO-WHOOOP! I say, WHOOO-WHOOOP!
The Firetrucks go WHOOO-WHOOOP! WHOOO-WHOOOP!
It's 04:00, I'm in my lovely hospital room, more like a nice hotel room, really, smashed outta my gourd on Morphine shots and Endone, watching cable T.V and mucking about on the Innerwebz.
Not something I do more than once every year or two.
WHOOO-WHOOOP! WHOOO-WHOOOP!
It is now apparent why you love the free health care. WHOOP WHOOP WOOOOOOOOO...
Get better soon, you crazy loon,
CraigO
Quote from: Pat Conlon on January 29, 2012, 12:24:47 PM
I think that it's somewhere in the Forum rules that there is to be no posting while stoned on morphine....Let me check.....
no pat that was an old yahoo group rule.
:wacko2: :wacko2: :wacko2: :wacko2:
Quote from: Pat Conlon on January 29, 2012, 11:52:09 AM
It's a sunny 75* and I'm going for a ride... Fr Paddy.
You suck Pat. (wink) :biggrin: :good2:
Klavdy,
Those big LaFrance Hook & Ladder trucks won't fit on our roads and certainly won't work in the bush.
They need a large source of water from hydrants. And what are you gonna climb with those ladders, Gum trees?
Can you imagine a fleet of them monsters bouncing around a rocky (1-2 ft boulders) paddock chasing a grassfire?
Now, about the WHOOP, WHOOP noise - yeah, some of our newer 4WD trucks have sirens with multi-selection knobs so we can make noises very similiar. :-) You should see how startled some drivers are when you hit the siren from just behind them :yahoo: They don't see firetrucks either.
Enjoy your meds, they won't last long
Arnie
Quote from: axiom-r on January 29, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
I think it is easy to understand that an individual cannot be trusted not to reach for a better place in life if it is being waved in front of them for the taking... this is why the banks are complicit and responsible for the real estate crash.
Tim-
That's the crux of it right there. The penultimate liberal viewpoint: 'people can not be trusted to do the right thing for themselves, they must be coddled, taken care of, micro-managed, ruled!!
So I guess I'm a genius. Somehow I saw it was prudent to not spend too much. All of these other jerks never gave it a thought? Or did they simply not care? No wait, they were PREYED upon! That takes the responsibility right away from them -phrasing it like that, now doesn't it?
Your other analogy -rabbits and waived carrots- also speaks to the liberal viewpoint. Again, people are not rabbits, they have this thing called reason, and intellect. Pardon the right and me for assuming that people can and should actually think!
You say "...what about the American dream?" Can't you see that for some, that was all it ever was, (or at least
should have been) -a dream? The stark reality is that some folks will not be able to afford owning their own home. It was a long term goal that not everyone would attain. If it was easy, everyone would have one... So it was well meaning liberal meddling that screwed this all up. They thought they'd try and help that America dream along! In 1977 Carter dreamed up the "Community Reinvestment Act" which essentially pressured private banks to make riskier loans, as well as set HUD affordable housing goals.
Again in 1999 it was
Clinton who pressured Fannie and Freddie to make loans to lower-income people -hell this was in the NYT for crying out loud, at the time, they were proud of their president.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-nyt-clinton-pressured-fannie-mae (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-nyt-clinton-pressured-fannie-mae)
Yes, people should have self control, stating otherwise is merely justification for the greed your friends the mortgage bankers showed. So how can you say that individuals are somehow absolved from needing self control, yet your evil greedy mortgage broker friends (individuals themselves) need it imposed on them?
Game on.
Dan
And for all you "I'm going for a ride/ how about them clippers" folks, this is fun for me. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Dan
Dan, don't get cranky, it's cool.......
Quote from: bugboy on January 29, 2012, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: terryk on January 29, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
Sadly I see vast and significant amounts of violent social unrest coming to our country, and sooner than we think as the middle and lower classes wake up to find their pockets picked and their future stolen by liars and thieves who know no bounds to their greed and their evil.
I believe that the great majority of the American people lack the "cojones" for any sort of uprising. We may see some more "occupy" type stuff but not in great enough scale that the police/military can't put down or contain. There will be some groups protesting or taking more violent means of protest, but they will be quickly branded as extremists and radicals (maybe even terrorists) and be crushed. Remember Ruby Ridge? That was just a guy that wanted to be left alone and someone at BATF developed a "hardon" for him,,,,, his wife, his kids and his dog were killed. If a group is seen as a threat the government has no problems making up evidence to use as justification for it's actions.
To put down their Big Macs, stop looking at their iPhones and go outside to put themselves at risk is just too damn inconvenient for most.
I'm sure that the government and the wealthy power-brokers have given this some thought and they will come up with new and wonderful "pacifiers" for the masses. It may be new entertainment technologies, new drugs or a new "enemy" to put the blame on. Those with the power and money are not going to give it up easily and I'm sure they are/will be keeping a close eye on any "radicals".
Remember the arab spring, civil unrest in the 1906's. We will see.
Just one more point on this subject. In my mind, the height of hypocrisy is illustrated in a quote from our illustrious president, back in 2006 (when then Senator Obama, voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling to 9 Trillion). the quote, word for word from his mouth in 2006:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Since becoming president, he raised it another 5 Trillion and went begging to congress for another raise.
Seriously, how do the sheeple of America not see the duplicity?
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 30, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Just one more point on this subject. In my mind, the height of hypocrisy is illustrated in a quote from our illustrious president, back in 2006 (when then Senator Obama, voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling to 9 Trillion). the quote, word for word from his mouth in 2006:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Since becoming president, he raised it another 5 Trillion and went begging to congress for another raise.
Seriously, how do the sheeple of America not see the duplicity?
Dan
Yes, Dan, but don't you see?
Now he's spending it on his own "shovel-ready" jobs program, etc. :empathy2:
Quote from: rktmanfj on January 30, 2012, 07:44:13 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 30, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Just one more point on this subject. In my mind, the height of hypocrisy is illustrated in a quote from our illustrious president, back in 2006 (when then Senator Obama, voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling to 9 Trillion). the quote, word for word from his mouth in 2006:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Since becoming president, he raised it another 5 Trillion and went begging to congress for another raise.
Seriously, how do the sheeple of America not see the duplicity?
Dan
Yes, Dan, but don't you see?
Now he's spending it on his own "shovel-ready" jobs program, etc. :empathy2:
1) He inherited a huge mess and should have told us all it would be 5-8 years to clean this up. 2) The republicans are not helping and are not piulling there fair share and teaming to form progress. Obstruction for political gain is not something that will be rewarded. What ideas do they really have except for lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations. 3) Romney and Gingrich can not be credible candidates. Prediction - Obama re-elected and the republicans loose ground on seats as they so richly deserve.
Please remove your leftist rhetoric from my quote box... I don't want anyone to think I said that. :nea:
[edit] Done
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
1) He inherited a huge mess and should have told us all it would be 5-8 years to clean this up.
I refer back to my last posted picture.
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
2) The republicans are not helping and are not pulling there fair share and teaming to form progress. Obstruction for political gain is not something that will be rewarded. What ideas do they really have except for lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Wait, let me get your point straight on this? The republicans are "not helping" like oh, say, NOT VOTING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING? Maybe even speechifying rhetorically about how wrong it is? Uh, surely even you Terry, must see the absurdity in the point you are trying to make in the context of my most recent post.
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
3) Romney and Gingrich can not be credible candidates. Prediction - Obama re-elected and the republicans loose ground on seats as they so richly deserve.
Doubt it, but we will see, won't we?
Cheers.
Dan
k-man,
your new partner must be huge to have actually burst your appendix like that.
Quote from: mst3kguy on January 30, 2012, 08:18:50 PM
k-man,
your new partner must be huge to have actually burst your appendix like that.
MATE!
Finally!
You are out!
!!WHOO WHOOP!!
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef014e8bbffdb5970d-600wi)
You best not GoWest to L.A just yet but, they have these Firetrucks there now that will get you harder than that turd you left stuck in your dead German mates throat last time.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 29, 2012, 07:23:51 PM
Quote from: axiom-r on January 29, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
I think it is easy to understand that an individual cannot be trusted not to reach for a better place in life if it is being waved in front of them for the taking... this is why the banks are complicit and responsible for the real estate crash.
Tim-
That's the crux of it right there. The penultimate liberal viewpoint: 'people can not be trusted to do the right thing for themselves, they must be coddled, taken care of, micro-managed, ruled!!
So I guess I'm a genius. Somehow I saw it was prudent to not spend too much. All of these other jerks never gave it a thought? Or did they simply not care? No wait, they were PREYED upon! That takes the responsibility right away from them -phrasing it like that, now doesn't it?
Your other analogy -rabbits and waived carrots- also speaks to the liberal viewpoint. Again, people are not rabbits, they have this thing called reason, and intellect. Pardon the right and me for assuming that people can and should actually think!
You say "...what about the American dream?" Can't you see that for some, that was all it ever was, (or at least should have been) -a dream? The stark reality is that some folks will not be able to afford owning their own home. It was a long term goal that not everyone would attain. If it was easy, everyone would have one... So it was well meaning liberal meddling that screwed this all up. They thought they'd try and help that America dream along! In 1977 Carter dreamed up the "Community Reinvestment Act" which essentially pressured private banks to make riskier loans, as well as set HUD affordable housing goals.
Again in 1999 it was Clinton who pressured Fannie and Freddie to make loans to lower-income people -hell this was in the NYT for crying out loud, at the time, they were proud of their president.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-nyt-clinton-pressured-fannie-mae (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-nyt-clinton-pressured-fannie-mae)
Yes, people should have self control, stating otherwise is merely justification for the greed your friends the mortgage bankers showed. So how can you say that individuals are somehow absolved from needing self control, yet your evil greedy mortgage broker friends (individuals themselves) need it imposed on them?
Game on.
Dan
Dan, wow you can take a sliver of a crack and turn it into the grand canyon!! I mean, if you are going to bold one of my comments at font size 87 then at least dont take it out of context eh? "YOU CAN TRUST PEOPLE NOT TO REACH FOR A BETTER PLACE IN LIFE"- don't you agree that most people want a better place in life? So wait, then the flip side is if you are zoning in on we cant trust an individual where do you stand with the banks? Do you trust the banks? HA!
Everyone knows that people can be weak and are fail-able. That does not mean we should allow the banks to fraudulently market loans to people they knew would not qualify.... WTF? Dan, you ARE the exception to the rule- you are a thinker and you use your head. You make decisions based on fact and not emotions- bravo! The vast majority of people don't have that capacity especially on an issue like this where they have been TRAINED to buy, to accept debt and not think to far forward for themselves.... Plus, the housing bubble was still expanding and the banks preyed on that most vulnerable part of the American psyche.... GREED. "Just go ahead and buy the house, if the payment becomes a problem next year you can sell it and make up to $250k tax free since its your primary residence,,," "sign here". They did not give a rats ass that the person that just got them a fat commission check just put themselves in a very vulnerable position.... man that is a crime.
It is an open and closed case to me- the banks are guilty as fuck. Our government is complicit for taking the bankers money and dropping regulations and oversight which allowed it to happen..... Do the individuals hold some responsibility- yeah. But it is justifiable - and they are paying for it are they not? The banks acted with knowledge of their wrong doing, made buckets of profit and where are they now....... on vacation in St. Thomas....
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 30, 2012, 07:37:51 PM
Just one more point on this subject.
Ok the first two signals you gave that you were signing off I bought.... last comment? My guess is no...
Cheers Dan! I do appreciate a solid debate!
Tim
PS: I know you blame the individual. Would you refute what I am saying about the banks - or better, how would you defend their actions??
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 30, 2012, 07:55:55 PM
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
1) He inherited a huge mess and should have told us all it would be 5-8 years to clean this up.
I refer back to my last posted picture.
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
2) The republicans are not helping and are not pulling there fair share and teaming to form progress. Obstruction for political gain is not something that will be rewarded. What ideas do they really have except for lowering taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Wait, let me get your point straight on this? The republicans are "not helping" like oh, say, NOT VOTING TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING? Maybe even speechifying rhetorically about how wrong it is? Uh, surely even you Terry, must see the absurdity in the point you are trying to make in the context of my most recent post.
Quote from: terryk on January 30, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
3) Romney and Gingrich can not be credible candidates. Prediction - Obama re-elected and the republicans loose ground on seats as they so richly deserve.
Doubt it, but we will see, won't we?
Cheers.
Dan
BTW - debt ceiling is a red herring and not a genuine issue. I know, this comes as a shock to ears tuned by Fox news.
Our economic system can power out of this debt if, wait for it, corporations and individuals pay their fair shre. Yes we need to control expenses but we also need to tax fiarly and often. 13.9% on Mitt's $21 million, don't that just piss you off. If it does, do not vote republican as they are turning your guilablity into slavery. The middle class is vital and so is a owrking wage for working men and women. tax the rich, expand the economy and pay working wages. Do not be a person who swallows the whole tea party crap boat and smile as the rich steal you and your families future. Wise up buddy.
Why is it that if someone has a conservative view that liberals automatically think that we are all robots that are programed by Fox News? This is the biggest bunch of malarkey that has ever been thrown in my face!!! :ireful:
Like we don't have a brain that we can think with and that we don't take into consideration other news outlets. Let me tell you something, I get irritated just as much as some of the BS that comes out of O'Reily's and Hannity's mouth as Keith Oberman's.
It's a pain in the ass to listen to the so called news that spewes out of what ever RICH BASTARD that owns it wants to spin.
Bottom line is, just because I have a Conservative view does not mean I am a mindless robot.
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
Why is it that if someone has a conservative view that liberals automatically think that we are all robots that are programed by Fox News? This is the biggest bunch of malarkey that has ever been thrown in my face!!! :ireful:
Like we don't have a brain that we can think with and that we don't take into consideration other news outlets. Let me tell you something, I get irritated just as much as some of the BS that comes out of O'Reily's and Hannity's mouth as Keith Oberman's.
It's a pain in the ass to listen to the so called news that spewes out of what ever RICH BASTARD that owns it wants to spin.
Bottom line is, just because I have a Conservative view does not mean I am a mindless robot.
CraigO
Oberman, Maddow and Wallace are Gods. They will lead us to the liberal heaven and provide us with the conservative cryptonite to lead our country to progressive soicialism and the path to freedom and endless food stamps, free bus passes and 25 hour work weeks. Craigo, come join us.Together we can win.
[edit] Terry, when replying to a quote, make sure you response is below the [quote*] box or it will get co-mingled with the quote.
Makes it hard to read. Cheers! Pat
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
OK, no reason to be conservative and racist.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
OK, no reason to be conservative and racist.
Racist???? What the hell are you talking about???? Where is it in my response that you think that I am racist?
Just because I will not take handouts from the government, you call me racist?
You need some kind of therapy, I don't know what, but you need help!!!
CraigO
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 03:53:04 PM
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
Why is it that if someone has a conservative view that liberals automatically think that we are all robots that are programed by Fox News? This is the biggest bunch of malarkey that has ever been thrown in my face!!! :ireful:
Like we don't have a brain that we can think with and that we don't take into consideration other news outlets. Let me tell you something, I get irritated just as much as some of the BS that comes out of O'Reily's and Hannity's mouth as Keith Oberman's.
It's a pain in the ass to listen to the so called news that spewes out of what ever RICH BASTARD that owns it wants to spin.
Bottom line is, just because I have a Conservative view does not mean I am a mindless robot.
CraigO
Oberman, Maddow and Wallace are Gods. They will lead us to the liberal heaven and provide us with the conservative cryptonite to lead our country to progressive soicialism and the path to freedom and endless food stamps, free bus passes and 25 hour work weeks. Craigo, come join us.Together we can win.
[edit] Terry, when replying to a quote, make sure you response is below the [quote*] box or it will get co-mingled with the quote.
Makes it hard to read. Cheers! Pat
Thanks for cleaning that up Pat. And thanks for the complements for my FJ. Only trying (and I mean trying) to emulate your good work on yours. I bow to your abilities...
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:47:12 PM
It's a pain in the ass to listen to the so called news that spews out of what ever RICH BASTARD that owns it wants to spin.
Bottom line is, just because I have a Conservative view does not mean I am a mindless robot.
CraigO
This is right on Craig. We would all do well to recognize the spin and start to filter it... Fact is, most of these issues are not nearly as polarized as the talking heads try to make it... Remember a lack of controversy does not increase viewership... they have to make it gory and sensational if they want the masses to stay glued....
From the myriad of news companies and networks only a few decades ago, the FAA has allowed mergers and consolidation to the point where there are only 5 sources for media today. The truth is out there- its just unlikely that it will be easily found! Only ongoing discussion between people with opposing views brings out the truth to the surface these days..
tim
Really CraigO.. not racist hmmmm? Then explain this! (if you can)
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
:bomb:
:rofl:
I can only hope TerryK was also rofl when he threw down his race card...
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 05:42:26 PM
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
OK, no reason to be conservative and racist.
Racist???? What the hell are you talking about???? Where is it in my response that you think that I am racist?
Just because I will not take handouts from the government, you call me racist?
You need some kind of therapy, I don't know what, but you need help!!!
CraigO
Some conservatives clearly have undersized irony detector neuorns. Take a step back and relax, no one really thinks you are a racist here. Miserably and woefully wrong on economic theory, perhaps, racist , nothing to indicate this.
BTW - you take handouts from the government every day. Police protection, military standing at the ready, FAA keeping your plane ride safe, DOT ensuring your helmet is reasonably effective, FDA making sure your food is not tainted, Social security payments so your mom or grandma does not need to worry about her next meal and medicaid so she has medical care, etc, etc. A handout for you Craigo and your family, hope this is OK with you.
Now, if only the rich and corporations would pay there fair share and stop destroying the middle class. I say again, Mitt paid 13.9% tax on $21 Million in earnings. How does that feel to you ? Now talk about taking a government handout when you and I pay more in tax on far less income. Wow. How is this right? How is this an American value? Please do explain this economic reality to us so we can understand this and be good with it.
Quote from: ddlewis on January 31, 2012, 06:54:52 PM
Really CraigO.. not racist hmmmm? Then explain this! (if you can)
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
:bomb:
:rofl:
I can only hope TerryK was also rofl when he threw down his race card...
Bingo - we have a winner with functional irony neurons.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 07:10:23 PM
Quote from: ddlewis on January 31, 2012, 06:54:52 PM
Really CraigO.. not racist hmmmm? Then explain this! (if you can)
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 03:57:43 PM
Terry, you're on dope!!!! I will never go to the dark side of the entitlement mindset.
CraigO
:bomb:
:rofl:
I can only hope TerryK was also rofl when he threw down his race card...
Bingo - we have a winner with functional irony neurons.
It was a Star Wars metaphor. Get a clue..
CraigO
I am taxed at an alarming 28% plus property taxes plus sales tax. I do not take hand outs from anyone. Now, from my long years of service and frugelness, you libs want to take now 30% of my capital gains that I already paid taxes on while earning it.
I have worked in corporate America for over 20 years and never took a penny in any entitlement, not even unemployment. I am now self employed.
That may be your mindset, but not mine. I worked for everything I own. Now, you libs think that I should kick down to the "disenfranchised" (more like drug/alcohol addled and uninspired) for not holding up their end of the deal.
In a word, No.
CraigO
Quote from: craigo on January 31, 2012, 07:36:32 PM
I am taxed at an alarming 28% plus property taxes plus sales tax. I do not take hand outs from anyone. Now, from my long years of service and frugelness, you libs want to take now 30% of my capital gains that I already paid taxes on while earning it.
I have worked in corporate America for over 20 years and never took a penny in any entitlement, not even unemployment. I am now self employed.
That may be your mindset, but not mine. I worked for everything I own. Now, you libs think that I should kick down to the "disenfranchised" for not holding up their end of the deal.
In a word, No.
CraigO
Do not be delusional, of course you are a taker, of course you pay heavy taxes while the rich pay far less of their income.
Here once again, in an attempt to break through and make you say Uncle,I am a leach on the USA society like everyone else is exactly how you are a taker Craigo - Police protection, military standing at the ready, FAA keeping your plane ride safe, DOT ensuring your helmet is reasonably effective, FDA making sure your food is not tainted, Social security payments so your mom or grandma does not need to worry about her next meal and medicaid so she has medical care, etc, etc
See, you are nothing but a big leach like all of us.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 07:09:02 PM
...
Now, if only the rich and corporations would pay there fair share and stop destroying the middle class. I say again, Mitt paid 13.9% tax on $21 Million in earnings. How does that feel to you ? Now talk about taking a government handout when you and I pay more in tax on far less income. Wow. How is this right? How is this an American value? Please do explain this economic reality to us so we can understand this and be good with it.
Mitt paid 2.8 million. That seems like a pretty good chunk of change, considering 47% pay nada and even worse many of them got an Earned Income Credit, aka refund. That fact disturbs me more than Mitt "only" paying 2.8M.
He gets most of his income from investments which is taxed at a lower rate. Same applies to you and me. So not exactly unfair unless you have bought into the class warfare line currently being played.. Ok lets say at some threshold of rich-ness maybe there should be a point where you pay more on your investment income. People might get behind that IF they believed congress would use the extra income to pay down the debt. but that's a laugh..
Feel 100% sure that if we crank up tax rates on the rich/corporations we will not use it for the deficit but it will go straight into the government spending crapper.
Oh, Terry, you are so far beyond reasoning with. But I will make my rebuttal for those that are not brain washed.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
BTW - debt ceiling is a red herring and not a genuine issue. I know, this comes as a shock to ears tuned by Fox news... Our economic system can power out of this debt if, wait for it, corporations and individuals pay their fair share. Yes we need to control expenses, but we also need to tax fairly and often.
RED HERRING!? RED HERRING??!!?? Not a genuine issue?
In 2008 (just three years ago!):
The debt per person in this country was
$30,844 The debt per tax payer was
$86,925Now:
The debt per person in this country is now
$48,866 The debt per tax payer is now
$135,433These number are not scary? We can 'power out of it'?? Show me ONE time in US history where this country has EVER powered out of it's debt? The fact is, it has NEVER happened. Johnson, the most successful of the three presidents that have ever even so much as reversed the course of the debt, managed a meager .85% (less than 1%) over 6 years -at that rate it would take 120 years to reduce the debt to zero. This is just worlds away from "powering out" of debt.
Even your savoir Obama voted
against raising the debt ceiling to a comparatively tame, 9 Trillion, (when it was politically expedient to do) as it was, in his own words, a 'reckless... lack of leadership'. I guess then it was a real issue, but now that there's a dem in the white house, (and it's 93% higher), it's a just 'red hearing issue'.
Oh, I listen/ watch ALL of them, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR, BBC, even translated Al Jazeera, plus the local liberal affiliates. Then I make my mind up for myself. Perhaps it is YOU that should consider watching something besides MSNBC...
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
13.9% on Mitt's $21 million, don't that just piss you off.
This does not bother me. Not even a little bit. That 13.9% translates to just under 3 million dollars. Somehow, in the warped liberal mind, 3 million dollars, more than everyone on this list pays together, from 1 man, for one year, is "not enough". Said another way, he completely paid off the debt of 59 other citizens.
He paid that 14% against capitol gains, the same rate you or I, or anyone would pay -seems fair to me.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
Wise up buddy.
I'm plenty wise, this really does not even dignify a response.
Terry, If you believe the redistribution of wealth crap you seem to champion, then perhaps Terry should start with Terry. Do this. Average income in the US is $32,140. Take every penny you make above and beyond that and give it away to someone who makes less than that. Failure to do any less than this makes you a hypocrite -which puts you in good company, because so is our president.
Hrumph...
Dan
News
Don't get me started where do you go for a nonbiest and imformative reporting. I have given up on TV news and the papers are not any better.
Look at the Edmonton sun today 20 pages in the news section 12 of the 20 were adds. The sunshine girl looked good though.
Scott
For Terry:
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406798_282082241849428_190630504327936_775563_929406569_n.jpg)
From Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on June 03, 1970, 12:04:19 PM
Hrumph...
Dan
Dan,
You clearly are adept at criticizing the President... Kudos. I have enough Military left in me to respect him for where he is (I also think he is adept at letting the military do it's job... Not easy). I don't think he hits on all cylinders, but Newt would get us all killed (as in the planet) in a "Bad Newt" moment and Mitt is so out of touch with the US condition that he'll get no support from the Democratic membership of congress. He's also at least as big a hypocrit as Barack (where do they get these fucking names?).
I think the trouble lies with the lack of benefit for any serious thinker with problem solving skills (many of the Presidents past had these) to run these days. Sadly we have no better choice on balance than Barack... He's been a quantum leap over Jr (not saying much). He's been a ball buster on defense. He's repaired our reputation in a world that needs a moral leader (Jr fucked us here) and put us back on the bully pulpit. And recently the economy is coming back to life. Slowly perhaps, but the Facebook IPO is a sign of improving investor sentiment.
I believe Barack will win and that result (lack of change) is the most sure path out of the current economic situation.... Betcha a beer he wins :drinks:
Frank
Quote from: Dan Filetti on January 31, 2012, 09:11:47 PM
Oh, Terry, you are so far beyond reasoning with. But I will make my rebuttal for those that are not brain washed.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
BTW - debt ceiling is a red herring and not a genuine issue. I know, this comes as a shock to ears tuned by Fox news... Our economic system can power out of this debt if, wait for it, corporations and individuals pay their fair share. Yes we need to control expenses, but we also need to tax fairly and often.
RED HERRING!? RED HERRING??!!?? Not a genuine issue?
In 2008 (just three years ago!):
The debt per person in this country was $30,844
The debt per tax payer was $86,925
Now:
The debt per person in this country is now $48,866
The debt per tax payer is now $135,433
These number are not scary? We can 'power out of it'?? Show me ONE time in US history where this country has EVER powered out of it's debt? The fact is, it has NEVER happened. Johnson, the most successful of the three presidents that have ever even so much as reversed the course of the debt, managed a meager .85% (less than 1%) over 6 years -at that rate it would take 120 years to reduce the debt to zero. This is just worlds away from "powering out" of debt.
Even your savoir Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling to a comparatively tame, 9 Trillion, (when it was politically expedient to do) as it was, in his own words, a 'reckless... lack of leadership'. I guess then it was a real issue, but now that there's a dem in the white house, (and it's 93% higher), it's a just 'red hearing issue'.
Oh, I listen/ watch ALL of them, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NPR, BBC, even translated Al Jazeera, plus the local liberal affiliates. Then I make my mind up for myself. Perhaps it is YOU that should consider watching something besides MSNBC...
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
13.9% on Mitt's $21 million, don't that just piss you off.
This does not bother me. Not even a little bit. That 13.9% translates to just under 3 million dollars. Somehow, in the warped liberal mind, 3 million dollars, more than everyone on this list pays together, from 1 man, for one year, is "not enough". Said another way, he completely paid off the debt of 59 other citizens.
He paid that 14% against capitol gains, the same rate you or I, or anyone would pay -seems fair to me.
Quote from: terryk on January 31, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
Wise up buddy.
I'm plenty wise, this really does not even dignify a response.
Terry, If you believe the redistribution of wealth crap you seem to champion, then perhaps Terry should start with Terry. Do this. Average income in the US is $32,140. Take every penny you make above and beyond that and give it away to someone who makes less than that. Failure to do any less than this makes you a hypocrite -which puts you in good company, because so is our president.
Hrumph...
Dan
Arrghhh, I am cutting you loose as you clearly have absolutely no genuine understanding of macroeconomics and the tax base of our country.
Me, I have a degree or two in economics, not that this makes me any more knowlegable. OK, reading your post, it absolutely does. but that is OK.
Kookaloo Bro, and worry not, the country will easily power through this minor amount of debt that is not even close to a historical high. Hysteria might be close, but collecting taxes from corporations and the rich will address this and is inevitable, or there will be civil war again.
Now, on with the show.
Tim,
I sense you and I are closer in thought than either of us are to the polar extremes. Anyway, I appreciate the critical thinking. As I have said, this is fun for me.
So I started this response yesterday, but did not finish, so I will now.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
"YOU CAN TRUST PEOPLE NOT TO REACH FOR A BETTER PLACE IN LIFE"- don't you agree that most people want a better place in life?
Again, 'can't trust people' rubs me the wrong way.. However, sure! We agree. Hell,
I want a better place in life. I want my own jet, I want a heirum, and several hundred million dollars in the bank, but the reality is that I will likely never have any of these. Nice goals, but unattainable. Like home ownership was for some, that is until the dems (in classic redistribution of wealth mentality) tried to 'fix' that problem. Despite what the dems will have you believe, "What I want" does-not-equal "what I get". Your insistence that somehow it's the banks' fault that they risked loaning $$ to poor people is maddening, seriously.
Now, to be fair, I am for balance here. I think/ thought that banks that took the same risk that people did, should not have been bailed out -that is every bit as maddening. They should have been/ needed to be, allowed to fail, too big to fail? -Bah!
The whole thing pisses me off, NO ONE complained when the money was plentiful, all you had to do was sign on the dotted line... Now people, who should have READ what they signed, or at least understood the implications and taken pause, are all pissed off because some 'predator bank' 'forced them' into bad loans -it just so ridiculous!!
To your point, were there idiots that were taken advantage of? Short answer: yes. Surely, these were the same idiots that would have otherwise have bought snake oils from shysters elsewhere. Whereas I lament their story, you would seemingly bring the power of the US federal government in to try and save these idiots from themselves.
The truth is, there is just no saving people from themselves. Most of us have seen the drug addict/ alcoholic spiral down to oblivion, you can try to help them, but if they do not want help, there is nothing anyone can do. People that take on too much debt are similar. The KNEW it was risky/ bad for them, but they gave into their impulsivity time and time again. No way they would have listened to anyone telling them to reign it in, I know this from personal experience. Worse in fact, they would have been the very first ones to bitch when the 'free money' spigot was turned off by the feds.
I'll argue your point: the banks were like drug dealers, 'pushing' easy-money to all comers -even (and especially the 'adicts'). The difference here is that the banks put up the $$ in the first place, they took risk, they were not guaranteed their investment would pay off. Then Bush and Obama stepped in to try to subsidize the banks -to keep them loaning (crazy, plan that that was). Had the banks been allowed to fail there would have been balance -yes we would have had liquidity issues, but guess what, we had them anyway.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
So wait, then the flip side is if you are zoning in on we cant trust an individual where do you stand with the banks? Do you trust the banks? HA!
As above, the banks should simply have been allowed to fail, they took too much risk they should have been allowed to fail. Many of them did by the way, and many bankers did indeed lose their jobs and livelihood etc. The big ones being bailed out was, as I've said several times now, maddeningly wrong headed.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
Everyone knows that people can be weak and are fail-able. That does not mean we should allow the banks to fraudulently market loans to people they knew would not qualify.... WTF?
I do not know this, nor would I want to try and legislate for the fact that people can be impulsive idiots. You just can't fix (or legislate for) stupid. I know you and the dems are well meaning, but again, some people just can't be saved from themselves, and will perhaps, learn the hard way or not at all and suffer.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
Plus, the housing bubble was still expanding and the banks preyed on that most vulnerable part of the American psyche.... GREED.
This line of thinking is irrational. Extrapolating, this leads to criticizing advertisers for "preying upon" consumers by using sexy images and innuendo etc. Sex sells precisely because it's also 'a vulnerable part of the American [human] psyche'. Further, the 'predator food industry', foisting all of this fattening food on the American people because, let's face it, hunger is an even more elemental 'vulnerable part of the American [human] psyche'. I hope you see my point. People need to eat, reproduce, consume resources, have shelter. Unless you intend to dispel with capitalism entirely, there will always be people that will try to sell you these things in quantities you cannot afford: always. It is ONLY the individual that can regulate this.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
"Just go ahead and buy the house, if the payment becomes a problem next year you can sell it and make up to $250k tax free since its your primary residence,,," "sign here".
We agree on this. If this, and statements like this were ever actually used -where a buyer was effectively 'guaranteed' their real-estate would appreciate, then this was indeed miss-leading and fraudulent. I suspect you will have trouble tracking down specific evidence to that effect - Rather, I think that if you look into it, you will see that 99.99% of the mortgage documents include a statement that says essentially 'your real-estate may depreciate -you will still owe us this $$ we're lending you'. Again, caveat emptor -READ WHAT YOU SIGN...
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
They did not give a rats ass that the person that just got them a fat commission check just put themselves in a very vulnerable position.... man that is a crime.
On this, we disagree, It's not a crime to not care about the person you are loaning $$ to, nor is it a crime to get a big fat commission check from that sale. Again, per my previous post, Carter and Clinton had legislated, and urged banks and Freddie and Fanny to do exactly this: make more loans to lower income folks. Further they
vigorously fought cases against banks that 'discriminated against minorities' by NOT making loans to them -maddening. All of this created an environment where, and it's easy to see in retrospect, the banks and Fannie and Freddy should not have taken on so much risk.
I seriously doubt I will convince you otherwise, but less government intrusion would, in my mind ultimately make for a better society. People would be forced, by the reality of the situation, to make do with what they have. If that's not a lot, then it would be all the more motivation to work harder, to MAKE (as opposed to be GIVEN) a better life for themselves. As nice as it would be to have it, better life is just not gaurenteed. This is a philosophical difference between you and me. But ask yourself, what are the things in your life you are most proud of? Then ask yourself; of those things, how many of them did you work hard to achieve vs. how many of them were simply handed to you? See where I'm going?
Before I'm acused of being heartless, I will say that I do believe there must be safety nets, for the truly indigent. The debate really comes down to dissagreement as to how high, and how much ground those nets are to cover.
Quote from: axiom-r on January 31, 2012, 10:11:02 AM
Ok the first two signals you gave that you were signing off I bought.... last comment? My guess is no...
Guilty as charged. This is entertaining. I appreciate a good political debate.
Cheers,
Dan
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
Arrghhh, I am cutting you loose as you clearly have absolutely no genuine understanding of macroeconomics and the tax base of our country.
I have no problem with being cut loose, feel free, we're all busy. But you make the above statement without any statement of fact. We disagree that 15 trillion dollars of debt is a problem -amazingly, but to say I have no understanding is disingenuous, and intellectually weak.
I'm guessing your point centers around debt as a percentage of GDP, which many like to use to defray the magnitude of the number. But as I have said the number is the number, the debt is the debt. It is an absolute concrete thing. If shit went down, (AKA another terrorist attack etc.) and GDP plummeted as can and HAS happened, the debt would still be the debt.
Or perhaps you think tax revenues can be increased by taxing the 'bastard rich pricks with all the $$ anyway'. You studied economics, tell me what a nominal tax rate is, go back and look at the research as to what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased. Answer: it goes down.
Perhaps it's just a lack of understand as to just how big a number a Trillion is.
I offer this, it really puts it into perspective for me:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html (http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
We owe 15 of these to foreign countries [edit, not just foreign countries -bond holders everywhere]. I fail to see how that's not a problem.
Good day,
Ride well.
Dan
Quote from: Flynt on February 01, 2012, 01:20:30 AM
"....I believe Barack will win...."
I agree with Frank. All this discussion of Mit vs. Newt vs whomever is moot.
Barack was assured the reelection the precise moment the double tap struck Osama bin Laden.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 10:39:44 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 10:05:19 AM
Arrghhh, I am cutting you loose as you clearly have absolutely no genuine understanding of macroeconomics and the tax base of our country.
I have no problem with being cut loose, feel free, we're all busy. But you make the above statement without any statement of fact. We disagree that 15 trillion dollars of debt is a problem -amazingly, but to say I have no understanding is disingenuous, and intellectually weak.
I'm guessing your point centers around debt as a percentage of GDP, which many like to use to defray the magnitude of the number. But as I have said the number is the number, the debt is the debt. It is an absolute concrete thing. If shit went down, (AKA another terrorist attack etc.) and GDP plummeted as can and HAS happened, the debt would still be the debt.
Or perhaps you think tax revenues can be increased by taxing the 'bastard rich pricks with all the $$ anyway'. You studied economics, tell me what a nominal tax rate is, go back and look at the research as to what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased. Answer: it goes down.
Perhaps it's just a lack of understand as to just how big a number a Trillion is.
I offer this, it really puts it into perspective for me:
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html (http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
We owe 15 of these to foreign countries [edit, not just foreign countries -bond holders everywhere]. I fail to see how that's not a problem.
Good day,
Ride well.
Dan
This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased
We live in a republic with a tradition in the most recent stage of our nation of tax collected in income taxes, tarrif on imports and taxing corporate profits. We have reduced tarrif to a minor role, have taken realized corporate taxes to record lows as a percentage of revenue with corporate welfare at record highs and have reuced taxes on the wealthy to laughable levels compared to other democratic rates and our traditional progressive tax strategy and national values.
Hmmm, wonder what happens, taxes are shifted to the middle class and the deficit and borrowing expands.
You seem to think that the progressive tax system is not relevant somehow. That the relevant number is the dollar not the percentage of wealth given back to our great country. As if the rich should have a limit on their taxes, a celing on taxes paid. I think this situational thinking is a result of greed on a monumental level. And, you excuse this and that is wrong minded. You benefit you pay, you benefit more than average you pay more. Pay up rich friends, it is your role in the repulblic. Pay up corporations, you need to pay your fair share too.
The books can be balanced if we continue to reduce costs and tax to build revenue.
Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000. Close the loop holes, inplement morality into the system again, and power out. If the taxes are too high for your liking, move to a place where you like it better, har, har.
Or, flush the whole system startng with the middle class.
Quote from: Pat Conlon on February 01, 2012, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Flynt on February 01, 2012, 01:20:30 AM
"....I believe Barack will win...."
I agree with Frank. All this discussion of Mit vs. Newt vs whomever is moot.
Barack was assured the reelection the precise moment the double tap struck Osama bin Laden.
Reelection is a distinct possibility. The incumbent is generally hard to beat, -the devil you know and all that. Mitt is too stiff as well. Although I'd like to See Newt (on his game) vs. Obama in a debate, it does not look like that's going to happen.
So, if it is Mitt Vs Obama, it will be difficult for Mitt. Ultimately, it will depend on events between now and the election. $5.00 gas prices -as predicted, would not do well for Obama, nor would continued economic woes -have you been watching Europe? A lot can happen to make the devil you know, not quite as attractive. To be clear, I do not hope for these things, but lots can and will happen between now and November. It will be these events, or lack of them, that will in my mind, decide the election. We will see.
Frank, I will take you up on that beer. What the hell. :drinks:
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased
Let me come at this another way. I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity. That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society. Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.
I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise. It is decidedly not a canard. However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it.
Dan
PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future)
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 12:59:21 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased
Let me come at this another way. I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity. That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society. Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.
I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise. It is decidedly not a canard. However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it.
Dan
PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future)
Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.
The empirical evidence is that lowering tax rates on the wealthy results in investment, wealth creation for the wealthy and not much more. Lowering the rich mans taxes is acid for the economic cloth in total and a expansion of greedy self interest. We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay. Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reson or justification for this unjust situation at all.
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 12:59:21 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
This is another canard - what happens to the nominal tax rate as the marginal tax are increased
Let me come at this another way. I believe we can agree that at a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. And I hope we can agree that at a tax rate of 100%, it would also be $0, since such a tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity. That is unless you believe that people will work merely for the benefit of society. Therefore, it is a clear deduction that tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.
I believe the above logic illustrates that the idea that nominal rates will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, eventually drop as marginal rates continue to rise. It is decidedly not a canard. However, I will state that clearly, you think that point is higher, I think it's lower, neither of us can prove it.
Dan
PS. For anyone that would like to read more about the so-called Laffer Curve, the idea I expressed above, I found the following inrteresting, if dry:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future)
Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.
The empirical evidence is that lowering tax rates on the wealthy results in investment, wealth creation for the wealthy and not much more. Lowering the rich mans taxes is acid for the economic cloth in total and a expansion of greedy self interest. We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay. Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reson or justification for this unjust situation at all.
ooops - all income ABOVE $500,0000 not just all income.
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.
Yikes, you are died-in-the-wool.... At this point we are wasting each others time.
The Laffer curve is a canard? I am shocked that you think people will actually work at 100% tax rate, or 99%, or 98% or 97% or even 70% or will work as hard for 50% etc. I sure as hell would not it is positively Orwellian. For those rates, I'd feel inclined to suckle up to the warm tit of the government.
You said it yourself Terry:
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000.
And again in this thread
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay.
Why just "35% - 45%?" Why did you not go for the jugular at that 90+%?? Because maybe, just maybe even you see it would be BAD FOR THE COUNTRY? Or perhaps you know it will not work?
The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% for the rich is not too far off, the unfortunate thing is the wealthy will likely have to shoulder even more of the burden than they currently do. What pisses me off is that I just see so very much class-envy-inspired glee in the liberals' demeanor when it gets talked about -yours included.
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reason or justification for this unjust situation at all.
Less? LESS??! Maybe you paid 3 million in tax last year, but I sure as hell did not. This is only "less" in the warped mind of the liberal.
The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.
The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.
It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 04:37:39 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Yikes, the Laffer curve and trickle down economics were both discredited in multiple studies by multiple economic institutues many years ago. Voo Doo economics simply does not work. The canard on marginal rates is that raising the top marginal rates decreases tax contribution rates from individuals. Not true. The marginal tax rates, such as the increase imposed by Ronald Reagan, resulted in higher tax harvests.
Yikes, you are died-in-the-wool.... At this point we are wasting each others time.
The Laffer curve is a canard? I am shocked that you think people will actually work at 100% tax rate, or 99%, or 98% or 97% or even 70% or will work as hard for 50% etc. I sure as hell would not it is positively Orwellian. For those rates, I'd feel inclined to suckle up to the warm tit of the government.
You said it yourself Terry:
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 11:31:57 AM
Nominal tax rates are not effected by reasonable marginal tax rates, say 35% - 45% on all income over $500,000.
And again in this thread
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
We should agree that a marginal rate of 35%-45% on all income, all of it, is fair, just and a tenant of this nation. Earn and pay.
Why just "35% - 45%?" Why did you not go for the jugular at that 90+%?? Because maybe, just maybe even you see it would be BAD FOR THE COUNTRY? Or perhaps you know it will not work?
The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% for the rich is not too far off, the unfortunate thing is the wealthy will likely have to shoulder even more of the burden than they currently do. What pisses me off is that I just see so very much class-envy-inspired glee in the liberals' demeanor when it gets talked about -yours included.
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 03:40:17 PM
Why should a rich Mitt pay less in taxes that you and I, no reason or justification for this unjust situation at all.
Less? LESS??! Maybe you paid 3 million in tax last year, but I sure as hell did not. This is only "less" in the warped mind of the liberal.
The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.
The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.
It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.
The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.
No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most. The only thing needing adjustment is their paying a reasonable amount of their income as had been the tradition and the law of the land before we all were raped. Now, how about we fix that and stop putting up canards and protests about the rich paying too much today, give me a break. BTW - I personally apy a large amount in taxes every year, glad to do so as I earn a fair bit. I am disappointed by the greed of those who only care about paying less and screw the country. This is not a conservative versus liberal thing. It is about a few super greedy thinking they are better than the rest of us and rigging the system. 13.9% my foot, what a crook.
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.
If it were wages he was earning, you'd be close.., but it's not, it's capital gains, and he's paying the same rate any of the rest of us would be paying, fair and square.
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 01, 2012, 05:54:43 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
The crazy thing is, I think 35% - 45% on everything over $500,00 for the rich is not too far off. - Good we are getting somehwere. So you now agree that Mitt should pay 35%-45% on a good portion of his income not 13.9%.
If it were wages he was earning, you'd be close.., but it's not, it's capital gains, and he's paying the same rate any of the rest of us would be paying, fair and square.
You beat me to it...
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 10:13:02 AM
Your insistence that somehow it's the banks' fault that they risked loaning $$ to poor people is maddening, seriously.
The whole thing pisses me off, NO ONE complained when the money was plentiful, all you had to do was sign on the dotted line... Now people, who should have READ what they signed, or at least understood the implications and taken pause, are all pissed off because some 'predator bank' 'forced them' into bad loans -it just so ridiculous!!
I'll argue your point: the banks were like drug dealers, 'pushing' easy-money to all comers -even (and especially the 'adicts'). The difference here is that the banks put up the $$ in the first place, they took risk, they were not guaranteed their investment would pay off. Then Bush and Obama stepped in to try to subsidize the banks -to keep them loaning (crazy, plan that that was). Had the banks been allowed to fail there would have been balance -yes we would have had liquidity issues, but guess what, we had them anyway.
On this, we disagree, It's not a crime to not care about the person you are loaning $$ to, nor is it a crime to get a big fat commission check from that sale.
I seriously doubt I will convince you otherwise, but less government intrusion would, in my mind ultimately make for a better society. People would be forced, by the reality of the situation, to make do with what they have. If that's not a lot, then it would be all the more motivation to work harder, to MAKE (as opposed to be GIVEN) a better life for themselves. As nice as it would be to have it, better life is just not gaurenteed. This is a philosophical difference between you and me. But ask yourself, what are the things in your life you are most proud of? Then ask yourself; of those things, how many of them did you work hard to achieve vs. how many of them were simply handed to you? See where I'm going?
Dan - good stuff. I feel the need to repeat that I am registered Independent. Depending on the issue at hand, I could be called a "liberal" or a "conservative". I was raised in a family that understands the value of an earned dollar. I have a house and I worked hard to buy it without support from the government or family. So the idea that we are apart in regards to the idea that "there is no guarantee in life" and that "you have to work to succeed" is not correct. We agree on those things. I am not for an entitlement society but as I stated a few posts ago, the pendulum has swung so hard and so far to one side that it needs to come back the other way to level some things out. I want my mom on Medicare and I don't ever want to see privatization in entitlement programs. Some rich bastard will end up cheating her out of her benefits etc etc...
I get pissed though when I see power abused and that is what happened with this sub-prime mortgage crises. They rich and powerful stacked the deck so they could take advantage. I don't think you are recognizing the mechanism the banks used here.
It is not that they made loans without caring or created loan vehicles that were by their nature unfair to the debtor - they did do those things and they are bastards for it, but that is not illegal. What makes them so red-handed guilty is that they took on the risks as you described, with very low standards for "qualifying" and then packaged these shitty, high-risk loans into MBS's (mortgage backed securities) which was only possible because regulations and oversight were removed by the gov. Then - get this - they managed to label these securities as "AAA" through the credit ratings companies and they sold them for profit to others as "AAA investments" knowing they were much higher risk. They sold them to everyone: other countries, other investors, other banks, other private companies 401k funds etc etc etc.... people worldwide believed that American Mortgages were a good bet- and the banks perpetuated this belief while selling them a crap sandwich wrapped in a AAA marked package. They knew that the people attached to the MBS they sold at both ends (the home owner in over his head on one end and for example a pension fund for city employees on the other) were screwed. IT WAS FRAUD. What is crazy is that every time they sold an MBS they made money, so even the banks that knew what they were buying (a hot potato that they needed to repackage and sold ASAP) continued to buy and sell - the game was a secret and they were all cashing in on it. They needed to keep filling the pipeline with new loans so the qualifying got easier and easier.... These are crimes Dan.
Not only should more of the banks been allowed to fail but they need to be prosecuted for what they did. I do believe we will see that come to pass someday.
Your points about people taking on more than they can handle and how stupid that is are valid - but they were led down the primrose path (perhaps no laws were broken here but that should change) for sure it is a totally unscrupulous thing to do....
So in the end there are a few folks that worked the system and should not receive governmental assistance to keep their home - yes. But the vast majority were taken advantage of all the way around. The housing bubble was an artificial rising on the game the banks were playing - they created the bubble. Most of the people should not end up screwed over because of that - that's why I think a judge should be able to look at an individual's situation and force a write down of the debt if they deem it to be warranted.
What a thread!
tim
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most.
You did not answer the question Terry. Why not 90% or 99% tax rate? If you're all for this punish the rich nonsense, then why not? Extrapolate out the the already heavily skewed progressive tax and this is what you get: a 99% tax rate for the so-called super rich. Especially if the Laffer curve is as nonsensical as you seem to think.
Why are you not evangelizing the progressive tax out to it's natural 'fair' conclusion? If the Laffer curve is such non-sense then there will be no loss in revenue -it's all upside for the good old US of A.
WHY NOT?
Due tell.
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 05:47:17 PM
No one is arguing here for more than that. The nation has a progressive tax system which is the reason the top 10% pay so much more than the bottom 90%. It is just the way things work, those who benefit the most pay the most.
You did not answer the question Terry. Why not 90% or 99% tax rate? If you're all for this punish the rich nonsense, then why not? Extrapolate out the the already heavily skewed progressive tax and this is what you get: a 99% tax rate for the so-called super rich. Especially if the Laffer curve is as nonsensical as you seem to think.
Why are you not evangelizing the progressive tax out to it's natural 'fair' conclusion? If the Laffer curve is such non-sense then there will be no loss in revenue -it's all upside for the good old US of A.
WHY NOT?
Due tell.
Dan
Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.
It should be 35%-45% on anything over $500,000 in income, any income, simple.
I am not about punishing the rich just fairness in our system.
The Laffer curve is no longer a relevant theory.
Chicks dig scars
(http://fjowners.com/gallery/2/1_01_02_12_8_00_35.jpeg)
Especially when they can see 'em
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-klBoCe5H-dU/Tyn2KfWbV1I/AAAAAAAAGog/2mRGwbvZakE/s576/IMAG0014.jpg)
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 07:49:36 PM
Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.
BS!! Terry you're now talking out of both sides of you mouth. You say it has to be 'fair' -right? You've used that word at least a dozen times in the past few days. It's you whole justification for why Mitt needs to be taxed more -he's not paying his 'fair share'. It's either 'fair' or it's 'not fair' not Terry. Which is it? Do we allow some folks to succeed and others to not do well, or do we punish the rich for their success with an eye on making things 'fair'? Do we redistribute wealth (and bloat the living shit out of government in the process) or don't we?
Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010. A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club. That's just UNFAIR -Right?
Is a 99% tax rate "an extreme position" or the only 'fair' thing to do?
My 10 year old twins could tell you that life is not fair. It's true, it's just not fair. And legislating or writing tax code to try and make things 'fair', or even 'more fair', or is a fallacy designed to bloat the government.
I'll say it again:
The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.
The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.
It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 08:46:19 PM
Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010. A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club. That's just UNFAIR -Right?
Geeze, Dan, I thought you knew this stuff. :-)
It's those under taxed companies that sponsor the golf tournaments fault. If they would pay more taxes then Tiger wouldn't make such an obscene amount of money for whacking a little white ball around.
DavidR.
Y'all take your politics quite seriously. Not a bad thing, but wow.
I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative; don't agree with anyone :smile:
So here's my $0.02 ... it is morally wrong to defer costs to future generations. They don't have a say.
Politics, as it is run in most developed countries, encourages the deferral of hard decisions. It is easy to let the kids pay.
If, as a country, you are borrowing to run the government, then you have to cut costs and, more than likely, raise taxes.
If the top 1% pay 36.73% of total revenue, then they should be making around 36% of national individual income. I suspect their income ratio is higher.
Every system of governance, taken to its extreme, is bad.
In a pure meritocracy the incompetent starve, and everyone's soul is stained.
In pure socialism the capable are discouraged, the economy suffers, and everyone loses.
Hidden unlimited money in politics is a cancer. Democracy needs transparency.
If you want good schools, safe streets... all that stuff, you'll have to pay the taxes for it. No one else. You.
Oh, and one more thing: most people, including most politicians, are doing the best they can. Let's cut then all a bit of slack.
Now, back to some nice tunes and dreams of spring :music:
Quote from: Klavdy on February 01, 2012, 08:43:35 PM
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-klBoCe5H-dU/Tyn2KfWbV1I/AAAAAAAAGog/2mRGwbvZakE/s576/IMAG0014.jpg)
Looks like the US Federal government is not the only bloated thing around here.
Jeeze Klavdy, lay off the doughnuts...
:lol:
Heal well.
Dan
Quote from: SlowOldGuy on February 01, 2012, 08:58:46 PM
Geeze, Dan, I thought you knew this stuff. :-)
It's those under taxed companies that sponsor the golf tournaments fault. If they would pay more taxes then Tiger wouldn't make such an obscene amount of money for whacking a little white ball around.
DavidR.
Ha! If you take it back one step, you are right. it's the companies. However, if you go back one more step, it's those pesky individuals -especially the rich ones, that buy stuff from the companies that are the real problem -get them, tax the living hell out of them, and the 'problem' is solved...
Easy peasy :)
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 01, 2012, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 01, 2012, 07:49:36 PM
Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.
BS!! Terry you're now talking out of both sides of you mouth. You say it has to be 'fair' -right? You've used that word at least a dozen times in the past few days. It's you whole justification for why Mitt needs to be taxed more -he's not paying his 'fair share'. It's either 'fair' or it's 'not fair' not Terry. Which is it? Do we allow some folks to succeed and others to not do well, or do we punish the rich for their success with an eye on making things 'fair'? Do we redistribute wealth (and bloat the living shit out of government in the process) or don't we?
Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010. A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club. That's just UNFAIR -Right?
Is a 99% tax rate "an extreme position" or the only 'fair' thing to do?
My 10 year old twins could tell you that life is not fair. It's true, it's just not fair. And legislating or writing tax code to try and make things 'fair', or even 'more fair', or is a fallacy designed to bloat the government.
I'll say it again:
The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.
The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.
It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.
Dan
Sorry the logic upset you but there is such a thing as a fair marginal rate.
Presenting false choices is not very compelling as an argument Dan , " hey man, then if you tax anyone rich then everyone who is rich needs to pay 99% man as like, this is the only logical thing man". Silly stuff wothy of the best moment from the Jeff Lebowski school of economics.
The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes. People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes. People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.
Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?
I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 02, 2012, 09:56:39 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes. People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.
Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?
I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.
Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich. What, you think that rich people should pay less in tax just because they can manipulate their earnings profiles into a channel that they set up as lower marginal rates in the code. BS on steroids. :diablo: they are the :diablo:
Mitts earning BTW are not, repeat not, from capital gains.The income is from carried interest, a fancy dancy tax loop hole that moved real income to a capital gains rates. This was accomplished through lobbying efforts of the leveraged buy out companies with congeress.
Now, how about that. Do you get to pay $13.9% as a result of your lobbyists? Thye rich screwing the middle class one more time by bowing out of paying their fair share and shifting the burden to the working man. Now, go look at what is happening to real wages for the middle class versus income of the rich in the top 5%. Astounding.
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.
These are capital gains, essentially earning from investing in America's economic infrastructure.
President Terry: :bad: You want to tax capital gains at 45%, then will you allow write-offs of losses when they do poorly and lose money? It would be only 'fair'. Doing so would be Reduced upside and lots of downside... Yeah, that'll encourage investment... Or do we punish the rich yet again and prevent it?
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
Presenting false choices is not very compelling as an argument Dan , " hey man, then if you tax anyone rich then everyone who is rich needs to pay 99% man as like, this is the only logical thing man".
It's not a "false choice" Terry. It is the ONLY logical conclusion to a progressive tax based on 'fairness'. [Read: Redistribution of wealth.]
Again, go back to Tiger Woods.
Dan
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 02, 2012, 09:56:39 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes. People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.
Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?
I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.
Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.
Doing so would bring their investment to an absolute standstill. There is a tipping point (much lower than this) where they will just let their money sit, risk (and tax)-free.
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 02, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 02, 2012, 09:56:39 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 02, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes. People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.
Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?
I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.
Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.
Doing so would bring their investment to an absolute standstill. There is a tipping point (much lower than this) where they will just let their money sit, risk (and tax)-free.
Yes, in the short term this effects investment rate in the stock market, which really does not drive true investment in GDP capacity only wealth for stock holders. Most of whom are rich in the first place and favor low capital gains taxes to further enrich themselves. Real investments that drives GDP and jobs such as investments in physical plant, hiring workers and creating infrastructure are not effected much by raising the capital gains rates.
How about a new candidate?
The Canada Party - "Meet The Canada Party" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM#ws)
:rofl2: :lol: :biggrin: :sarcastic:
Here is a Pobblebonk.
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-b6mNzgSIp2o/TyoQbSjCL3I/AAAAAAAAGoo/QlD1IQCUMzc/s255/0503-JB-breeding-Limnodynastes_dumerili-101.jpg)
It is rather a fetching shade of green, no?
Words are cheapl
Quote from: Klavdy on February 10, 2012, 05:46:31 PM
Here is a Pobblebonk.
(http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-b6mNzgSIp2o/TyoQbSjCL3I/AAAAAAAAGoo/QlD1IQCUMzc/s255/0503-JB-breeding-Limnodynastes_dumerili-101.jpg)
It is rather a fetching shade of green, no?
Well Klavdy, you really are after a blue, aren't you?
First you start off about tax and then you go straight to frogs!!
It's bastards like you that make this country what it is today, thank goodness...........
BTY how's the bike?
Obama is bad, possibly the worst in recent history, no doubt about that.
But we have no real alternatives, holy crap, I actually thought Hillary could do better for a momen.
Alternatives, I'm not sure who I will vote for, but if Obama is my only choice, I'll pass and not vote for the first time in decades.
Around here, unemployment is unofficially near 30% according to the local office. And "all the jobs" that are coming in are <$10.00 an hour, that truly sucks.
I can not remember times ever being this bad. If they are not for you, be thankful.
Quote from: simi_ed on January 26, 2012, 01:41:57 AM
Sorry, K-man. I really don't care if he can read a teleprompter well, or he has good speechwriters. He's out to destroy the US of A. He must be stopped. :diablo:
We're gonna raise tax rates to be "fair"? That 30% he wants is on money already taxed at 35-40%, invested (at risk!) and then returned a profit. So you get penalized at almost the same rate as when you earned it the 1st time. And if he or anyone else thinks this is going to raise money, watch the vid ...
Barack Obama: Fairness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDSFMY3ijcE#)
The problem is there are a lot of people that agree with him and also support the death of what many of us considered to be a good country.
A shame, time will tell, I hope we recover soon, but I sure have not seen any positive signs. Obama has spent us into oblivion, to the point that is may take another World War to get us out - maybe that is "their" plan....
Quote from: motohorseman on February 26, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
Quote from: simi_ed on January 26, 2012, 01:41:57 AM
Sorry, K-man. I really don't care if he can read a teleprompter well, or he has good speechwriters. He's out to destroy the US of A. He must be stopped. :diablo:
We're gonna raise tax rates to be "fair"? That 30% he wants is on money already taxed at 35-40%, invested (at risk!) and then returned a profit. So you get penalized at almost the same rate as when you earned it the 1st time. And if he or anyone else thinks this is going to raise money, watch the vid ...
Barack Obama: Fairness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDSFMY3ijcE#)
The problem is there are a lot of people that agree with him and also support the death of what many of us considered to be a good country.
A shame, time will tell, I hope we recover soon, but I sure have not seen any positive signs. Obama has spent us into oblivion, to the point that is may take another World War to get us out - maybe that is "their" plan....
Sorry guys, but spend us into oblivion....total crap on a cracker. Geesh, stop slurping up the tea party/ fox non-news.
This is easy to fix and we will recover sooner than the republicans would like. tax the rich appropriately, raise tariffs on imports in a logical manner and tax corporations properly. Done...balancing the books. Punish layoffs and punish offshoring of headquarters and workers. Instiutute a fair wage act for the middle class. Leave some jam on the bottom shelf where the average guy can reach it. Enough greedy action of the ricjh already as they are royally srewing the middle class.
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
This is easy to fix and we will recover sooner than the republicans would like.
Only a liberal could be so egregiously clueless as to say 15.4 TRILLION dollars of debt is "easy to fix".
***We are currently spending a million dollars every 26 seconds.*****
THINK about that: in the time it takes you to read this, the US will accumulate another million dollars in debt!!!
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
I WILL agree with you Terry, that it's 'easy to change'; to the extent that you mean 'run it up'. As evidence of this, our current POTUS has increased Debt nearly 6 TRILLION DOLLARS in just over 3 years!! But the other direction? Well, that's decidedly more difficult -perhaps it's impossible.
I've read in the past where you think we can 'power out of this' - I'm just really having a hard time seeing it as anything other than seriously tinted rose-colored/ liberal glasses. Oh, and there is no historical precedence for 'powering out' of 15.4 TRILLION dollars in debt either.
Last point, you can bet you last, untaxed dollar that the debt will be a huge "legitimate issue" when the White House is next occupied by a conservative. To bolster my point here, I offer as evidence the words of our current POTUS, who actually made sense as a senator, but like with Super PACs, completely reversed direction in practice. My evidence:
"O" the Debt Ceiling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mZ39Zet97Q#)
Dan
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
This is easy to fix and we will recover sooner than the republicans would like.
Your president, the one you voted for with such conviction, or at least the man he was as a congressman,
agrees with the conservatives, and firmly
disagrees with you Terry.
"O": "America has a debt problem, and a failure of leadership"
He said this was when the debt was slightly less than HALF of what it is today.
The debt is 15.4 of these:
(http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pallet_x_10000.jpg)
Those are 4'x4'x4' pallets (double stacked!) of 100 dollar bills -note the man in the bottom left corner, as a size reference.
"easy fix" -My ass.
This president, and to a lesser extent his predecessors, have screwed our children and grandchildren worse than Catholic priests.
Dan
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 27, 2012, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
This is easy to fix and we will recover sooner than the republicans would like.
Your president, the one you voted for with such conviction, or at least the man he was as a congressman, agrees with the conservatives, and firmly disagrees with you Terry.
"O": "America has a debt problem, and a failure of leadership"
He said this was when the debt was slightly less than HALF of what it is today.
The debt is 15.4 of these:
(http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/pallet_x_10000.jpg)
Those are 4'x4'x4' pallets (double stacked!) of 100 dollar bills -note the man in the bottom left corner, as a size reference.
"easy fix" -My ass.
This president, and to a lesser extent his predecessors, have screwed our children and grandchildren worse than Catholic priests.
Dan
Great, stop panicking and drinking the tea party nonsense. This is just a diversion from the real problems, greedy people who have destroyed the middle class. This will be fixed. BTW - debt as a percentage of GDP is not that impressive.
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
BTW - debt as a percentage of GDP is not that impressive.
Oh, Terry, do tell... enlighten us! (popcorn) (popcorn) (popcorn)
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 27, 2012, 09:12:02 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
BTW - debt as a percentage of GDP is not that impressive.
Oh, Terry, do tell... enlighten us! (popcorn) (popcorn) (popcorn)
OIK, glad you asked. Debt is impacted by two factors, revenues and inflation.
Revenues supported substantial surplus cash flow into the treasury before tax cuts for the rich, extreme corporate welfare public policy and off the books wars that were a waste of lives and money took this away.
This is temporary of course.
Fix - 1) Raise the tax rates on millionaires to a real rate of 36% for every dollar over $250,000 in income 2) shut down the loop holes for corporations and the rich, 3) raise the corporate tax rates to make all business over $20 million in annual revenue pay a fixed minimal tax and 4) selectively raise the import tariffs up once again to normal levels ( oh, it is cheaper to build cars, computers, TV's, dish washers, socks, in the USA, OK, I will do this here and not import). 5) Punish corporations who keep funds overseas, place jobs overseas and move overseas witrh punitive tax rates and fees. 6) Reward the corporations who bering back jobs to america. 7) Tax financial transactions at a low rate 8) scale back weaponas systems and the size of the armed forces over a 10 year time period to a much lower percentage of GDP and close down the majoruity of our overseas bases.
We have now created a surplus and are back in the black. Retire our debt somewhat and refund social security funds that we stolen and used as part of the general fund.
Inflation - eats away at the real value of the debt.
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
OIK, glad you asked. Debt is impacted by two factors, revenues and inflation.
Revenues supported substantial surplus cash flow into the treasury before tax cuts for the rich, extreme corporate welfare public policy and off the books wars that were a waste of lives and money took this away.
This is temporary of course.
Fix - 1) Raise the tax rates on millionaires to a real rate of 36% for every dollar over $250,000 in income 2) shut down the loop holes for corporations and the rich, 3) raise the corporate tax rates to make all business over $20 million in annual revenue pay a fixed minimal tax and 4) selectively raise the import tariffs up once again to normal levels ( oh, it is cheaper to build cars, computers, TV's, dish washers, socks, in the USA, OK, I will do this here and not import). 5) Punish corporations who keep funds overseas, place jobs overseas and move overseas witrh punitive tax rates and fees. 6) Reward the corporations who bering back jobs to america. 7) Tax financial transactions at a low rate 8) scale back weaponas systems and the size of the armed forces over a 10 year time period to a much lower percentage of GDP and close down the majoruity of our overseas bases.
We have now created a surplus and are back in the black. Retire our debt somewhat and refund social security funds that we stolen and used as part of the general fund.
Inflation - eats away at the real value of the debt.
Gee, that sounds just great!
Why don't we just do that? :scratch_one-s_head:
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 27, 2012, 09:42:35 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 26, 2012, 12:56:03 PM
OIK, glad you asked. Debt is impacted by two factors, revenues and inflation.
Revenues supported substantial surplus cash flow into the treasury before tax cuts for the rich, extreme corporate welfare public policy and off the books wars that were a waste of lives and money took this away.
This is temporary of course.
Fix - 1) Raise the tax rates on millionaires to a real rate of 36% for every dollar over $250,000 in income 2) shut down the loop holes for corporations and the rich, 3) raise the corporate tax rates to make all business over $20 million in annual revenue pay a fixed minimal tax and 4) selectively raise the import tariffs up once again to normal levels ( oh, it is cheaper to build cars, computers, TV's, dish washers, socks, in the USA, OK, I will do this here and not import). 5) Punish corporations who keep funds overseas, place jobs overseas and move overseas witrh punitive tax rates and fees. 6) Reward the corporations who bering back jobs to america. 7) Tax financial transactions at a low rate 8) scale back weaponas systems and the size of the armed forces over a 10 year time period to a much lower percentage of GDP and close down the majoruity of our overseas bases.
We have now created a surplus and are back in the black. Retire our debt somewhat and refund social security funds that we stolen and used as part of the general fund.
Inflation - eats away at the real value of the debt.
Gee, that sounds just great!
Why don't we just do that? :scratch_one-s_head:
Because special interests and corporations have taken over the countries political system, bought and paid for.
And, americans are largely ignorant people who go about their lives without any investment in understanding how the special interests use our political system to convert the working folks into slaves working for corporations. In fact, the moneyed are treating the middle class like their property beating down wages and running a propaganda war that gets played out as devisive politics.
If you took those pallets of $100.00 bills ($1,000,000.00 per pallet) and placed them in the Lincoln Memeorial reflecting pool, you'd have to stack them 6 pallets high to get equal the 15 trillion dollar debt. That pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide and the pallets would be approximately 2 stories high.
It would only take about 1,500 semi trailer loads to transport that many $100.00 bills requiring app. 15 mile long convoy.
California's real estate value is 4.4 trillion,,,, all we have to do is sell 4 Californias and we'll be "in the black". Maybe the Chinese would like to buy Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon and call it even. Or we could could sell the the eastern seaboard (Maine through Florida) and call it good.
Quote from: bugboy on February 27, 2012, 10:08:47 AM
If you took those pallets of $100.00 bills ($1,000,000.00 per pallet) and placed them in the Lincoln Memeorial reflecting pool, you'd have to stack them 6 pallets high to get equal the 15 trillion dollar debt. That pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide and the pallets would be approximately 2 stories high.
It would only take about 1,500 semi trailer loads to transport that many $100.00 bills requiring app. 15 mile long convoy.
California's real estate value is 4.4 trillion,,,, all we have to do is sell 4 Californias and we'll be "in the black". Maybe the Chinese would like to buy Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon and call it even. Or we could could sell the the eastern seaboard (Maine through Florida) and call it good.
How about keeping those, and selling them everything in between? :morning1:
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 27, 2012, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: bugboy on February 27, 2012, 10:08:47 AM
If you took those pallets of $100.00 bills ($1,000,000.00 per pallet) and placed them in the Lincoln Memeorial reflecting pool, you'd have to stack them 6 pallets high to get equal the 15 trillion dollar debt. That pool is 2,029 feet long and 167 feet wide and the pallets would be approximately 2 stories high.
It would only take about 1,500 semi trailer loads to transport that many $100.00 bills requiring app. 15 mile long convoy.
California's real estate value is 4.4 trillion,,,, all we have to do is sell 4 Californias and we'll be "in the black". Maybe the Chinese would like to buy Hawaii, California, Washington and Oregon and call it even. Or we could could sell the the eastern seaboard (Maine through Florida) and call it good.
How about keeping those, and selling them everything in between? :morning1:
Works for me. My wife is Chinese,,,,, maybe she could get a job as a Govenor or some shit like that. I'm sure she could then hook me up with some sweet job like "communist party enforcer" or something. I'd like something that would give me the "authori-tie" to go around and whack people in the shins with my night stick! (Although I might have to trade my FJ for a "big wheel" and mirrored sunglasses.
"This president, and to a lesser extent his predecessors, have screwed our children and grandchildren worse than Catholic priests.
Dan"
Beautiful post, Dan.
You got sex, politics and religion all in one.
Well done, 10/10.
Quote from: Klavdy on February 27, 2012, 07:47:03 PM
"This president, and to a lesser extent his predecessors, have screwed our children and grandchildren worse than Catholic priests.
Dan"
Beautiful post, Dan.
You got sex, politics and religion all in one.
Well done, 10/10.
"and to a lesser extent his predecessors" - and so unbiased and fair. Bravo. (popcorn)
Quote from: terryk on February 27, 2012, 07:59:27 PM
"and to a lesser extent his predecessors" - and so unbiased and fair. Bravo. (popcorn)
As I have for many years, I am talking about DEBT. Surely Terry, even
you can't dispute the fact that the debt has risen faster and with more vigor under "O" than ALL of his predecessors.
So this statement
is accurate, and unbiased, and fair.
Hrumph!
Dan
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/425709_352250798148603_100000910570973_1038386_840187293_n.jpg)
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 27, 2012, 08:23:50 PM
...
As I have for many years, I am talking about DEBT. Surely Terry, even you can't dispute the fact that the debt has risen faster and with more vigor under "O" than ALL of his predecessors.
...
An interesting point of view on the cause of recent US debt...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bush%20vs%20obama%20policy%20impact.jpg?uuid=M4KmSkzjEeGk0SPB0M4ulg)
Bob, did we have another election & put Bush back in office? And further, regardless of the so called "cost of tax cuts", your citation ignored the elephant in the room, the 0bamacare costs.
Here's some actual data on federal surplus/deficit spending, and therefore national debt:
2001: 128.5
2002: -157.8
2003: -377.6
2004: -412.7
2005: -318.3
2006: -248.2
2007: -160.7
2008: -458.6
2009: -1412.7
2010: -1293.5
2011: -1300 (Bloomberg estimate)
So, by my quick addition:, Obama has already spent us more than a trillion dollars into debt than Bush did. While I'm not here to defend Bush, 0bama IS surely spending us into oblivion, regardless of MS-LSD-NBC, Washington Post or anyone that posts here.
Here's some more info: This story that we're going to "power out" of the huge debt is a laugh! Obama is spending virtually every penny he's hoping to raise on more federal spending
(http://freebeacon.com/wp-content//uploads/2012/02/President%E2%80%99s-Tax-Hike-Achieves-Virtually-No-Deficit-Reduction.jpg)
Tax hikes won't work:
Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported that the U.K. Treasury–in the first test of the wealth tax policy introduced last year–received 509 million pounds less for January than the same month in 2011. The Treasury had projected that monthly revenues would actually increase by more than 1 billion pounds. ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9097219/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9097219/50p-tax-rate-failing-to-boost-revenues.html)
We need to spend less money. Anything else is going to bankrupt the USA.
Quote from: Bob on February 28, 2012, 06:14:04 AM
An interesting point of view on the cause of recent US debt...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/column-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2011/08/25/gIQALDBchQ_blog.html)
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bush%20vs%20obama%20policy%20impact.jpg?uuid=M4KmSkzjEeGk0SPB0M4ulg)
Where in here is the 1.6 Trillion in TARP $$ that Obama spent? I always doubt the veracity of these, especially when magically better projections are stretched out to 2017. Interestingly, neither the CBO nor the Treasury projections are quite as rosy (they both show the debt as ever-increasing) -so I really don't know where these numbers come from. (See below for where my numbers come from.)
If you look at current debt, and historical debt (as indicated by the US treasury) the appalling growth of the debt is crystal clear:
2000: 5.757* Trillion
2008: 9.468* Trillion
Today: 15.406* Trillion
8 years of Bush, the debt grew:
3.711 Trillion.
3 years of Obama, the debt grew:
5.938 Trillion (so far!).
THINK about that folks. Bush was bad about increasing the debt, no doubt. However it was Obama that went next-gen reckless on debt. It would be just plain irresponsible to vote for this clown again.
Vote the bum out!
Dan
* Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html (http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html) -To see the 2000, and 2008 numbers use the "Time Machine" feature in the top right.* These numbers are based on the US Treasury figures.
I love coming to America and I'm really looking forward to catching up with and riding with my mates.
Big ride planned, WCSR and the Colorado thing.
Is there a name for the C.O Rally?
Or a theme?
We should have a theme.
I'm proposing hats.
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/46770/1771288-tin_foil_hat_super.jpg)
(http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg)
Quote from: Klavdy on February 28, 2012, 08:16:18 AM
We should have a theme.
I'm proposing hats.
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/46770/1771288-tin_foil_hat_super.jpg)
Nice hat. If the shoe (hat) fits....
Dan
Quote from: Klavdy on February 28, 2012, 08:16:18 AM
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/46770/1771288-tin_foil_hat_super.jpg)
(http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg)
Test, I wondering why Klavdy's second picture did not show up. I think it was the URL sizing, so I removed them to see if it shows up.
Hmmm, ignore this, I am just experimenting...
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg)
Quote from: Marsh White on February 28, 2012, 12:25:10 PM
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg (http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/warning_nwo.jpg)
It's 403.
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 28, 2012, 07:53:13 AM
...
Where in here is the 1.6 Trillion in TARP $$ that Obama spent?
...
From the article: "TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.".
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 28, 2012, 07:53:13 AM
THINK about that folks. Bush was bad about increasing the debt, no doubt. However it was Obama that went next-gen reckless on debt. It would be just plain irresponsible to vote for this clown again.
Vote the bum out!
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... I don't think it matters who is in office. For 2011, the U.S. federal budget had 6% ($227B) for interest payments, and that's with very low interest rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget). Watch what happens when rates go up. Canada got serious about deficit reduction when interest payments went past 30% of the budget. Nothing will change until it hurts. Ask the Greeks.
Quote from: Bob on February 29, 2012, 07:16:34 AM
Nothing will change until it hurts. Ask the Greeks.
Oh Spiros, try the front and stop shtupping me in my bottom, it hurts.