I keep saying that to fix the debt problem we have to:
Raise tax rates and or eliminate loopholes/deductions/credits. I totally agree that the barons on Wall street shouldn't be able to show their annual income as cap gains as an example.
Admit that SS and Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally unsustainable and retirement and eligibility ages will have to be raised.
Redefine our role in the world militarily and admit that we can't fix every problem. I want the best trained and the best equipped military in the world but I want them home ready to defend us instead of throwing their lives down third world hole toilets.
Lets start there and then see what else we need to do.
I think by Fuzzy's point, you're for eliminating loopholes/deductions/credits but still took one yourself. I don't really hold it against you though, which is why I compared it to the Prisoner Dilemma.
Agreed.
Good luck with this one.
I still think we should raise rates on those making millions or more.. it'd be one thing if they were investing in US businesses. Maybe a credit for doing so? *shrug* I don't really that would work long term as more lines blur in the global economy.
I could care less what Fuzzypubes thinks because he is a pimple on the ass of society.
I took a legal credit on my income tax. I would have been stupid not to. The fact that I advocate in here for the elimination of loopholes (along with implementing a lower basic rate) doesn't obligate me to not take advantage of the existing tax code. There is no moral obligation to pay more taxes than are legally owed. to It was still just income tax. As the progressives in here like to continually point out, just because I didn't pay much income tax in 2009 I still paid a load of other taxes.
The optics are a bit strange on it. You're against tax credits, but take advantage of the ones available to you. You're for them eliminating the tax credits, but as long as they are there, you take advantage of them.
I don't think there's anything morally/ethically wrong with that, because you can say, "Why should I pay in if everyone else won't? I'm for everyone paying more, not just me."
Maybe to make it more clear: it'd be like someone yelling about how they should criminalize alcohol while drinking a bottle of scotch.
It's the rules.
a simple analogy.
This is, after all, a basketball forum.
I'm an NBA coach. I think the 28 second shot clock is too long. I advocate that position to the league. I think a 20 second shot clock is plenty.
The rule hasn't changed.
Should I limit my team to taking 20 seconds to shoot before the rule is changed? Am I immoral or wrong for not doing it?
Immoral? Nah. Wrong? Nope.
But it does look a bit peculiar, to shout for the removal of a policy while engaging in said policy. Especially if one could live by what they wished the rules should be, without unduly harming themselves.
For instance, I had a thread a while about whether or not to go on welfare. By the books, I could. But I didn't because I felt I'd just be taking money from a family who actually needed it. That was my choice; I don't think anyone would have said I was immoral for choosing otherwise. (Ok, maybe a few people...)
I guess I'm just a big dummy though for not taking whatever I could and ing over some needy family.
If you don't understand the difference between Fed. mandates vs. my local school board (I can call each and every member of which right now from my house) deciding on what my kid's school will serve tomorrow in the lunch room...... I don't even know how to finish the statement; my first statement and my second one are not contradictory at all.so you are ok with the local district dictating what its children should be eating.
that's what I was going to respond to your first sentence with.
I'm not sure I've ever seen someone gripe then explain to himself how to handle his own gripe all within a span of two sentences.
Incredible effort.
Kids just don't have enough sodium in their diets.
I'm sure he still payed more taxes than most people, probably more than you make.
LOL... "Our tax dollars"
ing liberals always think other money is theirs.
More dumbing down by the dumb one.
We all pay taxes and as such they are all our taxes. He didn't imply individual ownership. Thats middle school english that you fail at.
You suck at possessive plural pronouns too.
You are denouncing an action. In other words you are claiming that a particular behavior is bad. You then participate in said behavior. This not an arbitrary time value. its a particular act.
its like railing about drug use and snorting rails or saying that people that cheat on their wives are assholes and cheating on your wife.
Your a hypocrite. Its not hard to figure out.
ing libertarians never seem to realize that individuals aren't islands.
Bartleby: Your point?
Baseball, football, basketball, track, and, (ick) soccer -- they all work.
Do those things and your kids won't need to stifle gag reflex while choking down their federally mandated vegan shakes and tofu bars.
Yep, they can choose between cheese enchiladas, pizza, a hamburger, a cheesburger, and and and.
Oh but they have a salad bar too!
Perhaps they could make it so that at least half of the choices are healthy (at least more than the current 3%). Also, the healthy choices should be filling (sorry salad, I love you, but you are a side dish at best).
Unhappy Meals
That's because the National School Lunch Program, which gives schools more than $6 billion each year to offer low-cost meals to students, has conflicting missions. Enacted in 1946, the program is supposed to provide healthy meals to children, regardless of income. At the same time, however, it's designed to subsidize agribusiness, shoring up demand for beef and milk even as the public's taste for these foods declines.
Under the program, the federal government buys up more than $800 million worth of farm products each year and turns them over to schools to serve their students. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the system, calls this a win-win situation: Schools get free ingredients while farmers are guaranteed a steady income. The trouble is, most of the commodities provided to schools are meat and dairy products, often laden with saturated fat. In 2001, the USDA spent a total of $350 million on surplus beef and cheese for schools -- more than double the $161 million spent on all fruits and vegetables, most of which were canned or frozen. On top of its regular purchases, the USDA makes special purchases in direct response to industry lobbying. In November 2001, for example, the beef industry wrote to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, complaining that a decline in travel after September 11, along with a lowered demand for beef in Japan, was suppressing sales of their product. The department responded two months later with a $30 million "bonus buy" of frozen beef roasts and ground beef for schools.
"Basically, it's a welfare program for suppliers of commodities," says Jennifer Raymond, a retired nutritionist in Northern California who has worked with schools to develop healthier menus. "It's a price support program for agricultural producers, and the schools are simply a way to get rid of the items that have been purchased."
http://motherjones.com/politics/2003/01/unhappy-meals
iow, the health of the kids is the last thing in the program's intentions. It's all about taxpayer subsidies to BigAg.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-16-2011 at 09:55 AM.
Echo in here?
so you can call each board member today and tomorrow the cafeteria will be serving the kids what you want them to?
I call bull .
I don't know where I stated that you were distinctly contradicting yourself.I don't even know how to finish the statement; my first statement and my second one are not contradictory at all.
All I noted was:
1. you had a gripe
2. you gave yourself a solution to said gripe at an astonishing speed
3. it was impressive
I don't have a problem with banning junk food. I think it's good. But even if that does not happen.
What my parents used to do is don't give me any money. How can I buy junk food with no money? I would either eat the they send me with or eat after school at home.
I did use to steal fries and pizza from the lunch line now and then, but not every day
And if your kid doesn't care about sports? LOL @ everyone in school can be on the football team or the basketball team. It's also hilarious you strawman the argument to kids eating vegan shakes and tofu bars. I'm sure you'll come back with some stupid false equivalence against me even though fries, chips, and a soda/slush is a standard daily school lunch for tons of kids.
And since when do kids choose their meals every day? What head parent would let his kid pick Wendy's for dinner every night? But it's ok for them to pick fast food crap every day at school?
I'd be happy if beef and milk was what they were serving; deep fried fast food has to go. Only the parent should be able to poison his kid like that daily if that's what he chooses. I mean, french fries once a week on burger day is fine, but fries available every day is moronic. Sodas and other kinds of worthless sugary crap like Vitamin Water should be gone period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
