Reply With Quote
Careful...
You may lose IQ talking with him too much...
And if we let those banks fail, the US taxpayer wouldn't have been out the money, and the banks who did it right, would have taken up the slack.
Careful...
You may lose IQ talking with him too much...
Too bad you pre-date him as a poster... otherwise you might have an excuse.
Maybe. It at least needs a leash.
Absolutely.
I agree here too.
No. Right or wrong, we are now committed to try to win, else be quitters.
Are you a quitter?
Why? Some of them are real proud to be part of something like this. The war has been going on long enough, nobody is there that didn't sign up for it.
Does your authoritarianism mean they cannot do as they please?
Yes. We need to do better there than we have.
I agree there too. However, i doubt I agree with the method you would choose.
Yes, we have interfered too much. We need to be more careful than we have been.
we used to be diverse, until democrats scared productive businesses elsewhere.
I have mixed feelings about term limits. I prefer requiring public service to be a charity the individual does for his nation, rather than a position that grants power.
I have agreed with that for almost 40 years.
Good luck taking power away from the established powers top be. A first step wouold be to require the winner to have 50%+1 or more, and runoff elections to make it so.
No. Simply not allow groups to give money like corporations who may have stock holders of differing views. Same with unions. Only allow like mined groups and individuals to contribute, and disallow groups who have members who are not all in agreement.
No. I think he is great for everything except as Commander in Chief. I would only consider that if we has a five star general to go with the deal.
If you don't like trickle down economies, what do you think of the trickle down bailout?
Yes, they are running scared of what to expect in the future. If they knew what to plan for, things would be far better for all of us, even if they knew to plan for things unsettling to them. The not knowing is the worst part.
Please, keep one thing in mind when you read my assumed partisan posts. I take a cross between conservatism and libertarianism. I hate the democrats agenda for that reason. they are both liberal and authoritarian. I have no love for the republicans, but I see them as the lesser of two evils. I am not partisan, but rather, anti-democrat.
We're not quitters....just look at how we won Vietnam...
Yes.
The democrats stopped funding the war they started.
Technically the US started getting involved by sending money/advisors to Vietnam under the Eisenhower administration, but you are correct that Kennedy/Johnson sent the first combat troops.
No one rightfully knows what would have happened. You can't take a monster like the US economy and predict exactly what will happen... if you could, alot of economists would be out of a job.
You yourself note the difficulty in predicting weather patterns more than a few days out. Do you think the global economy is much simpler?
I agree that, morally, we should have let the banks fail. However, I can see why people supported the bailout, as it did seem to change what might have been a historical depression into merely a huge one.
Didn't you yourself say that you couldn't define what a "win" would be? How could we possibly lose a game if we don't know what winning is?
What's this "we" stuff? And who's next on the schedule?
Ah, ridiculous ol' dubya logic: "we have to keep dying in Iraq to honor those who died in Iraq."
when did w say that?
yeah "sorry, we aren't funding you baby killers" "sorry vietnamese we are out of here, pay no attention to our vaults of names and addresses we left of our allies".
True Americans, obviously.
or "real" Americans (i.e., people who vote for Sarah Palin and have a single digit IQ)
This is a flat-out lie.
Poor workers pay taxes, too: SS tax, sales tax, user fees (driver's license, car registration, ...).
CC puts it broadly but when you pin him down he'll admit to a narrow technical emphasis. He just means income tax. He just likes to say po' folks pay no taxes for some reason.
Just read a BP story where Gulf Coast hotel workers (housekeepers, laundry, dishwashers, garbage handlers, etc) on H1B visas want to sue BP for causing their unemployment (they have only a short time before losing their job with their H1B employer and deportation).
They make $7.75/hour, and of course, no tax free benefits, no health care. "Just Go To The Emergency Room (c)"
What inescapable income tax does WC and rich guy CC want to punish these people with? Would the rich guys want to pay $10 more per night to gross up the wages of these $7.75 workers to $15/hour (still below the avg Wal-mart hourly)?
In practice, a minimum 1% tax rate is useless in practice, less that round-off errors in IRS revenues. It's nothing but a punitive, vindictive ethic.
My guess is that these poor manual workers won't get a penny from BP.
That's the beauty of point of sale taxes. They are hard to avoid. Except for taxes on a few commodities like gas, alcohol, and cigarettes however those are essentially state and local taxes.
Most illegal aliens still pay no Federal taxes because they work off the books completely or as contract labor.
"sale taxes. They are hard to avoid"
and therefore extremely regressive, which is why, eg European, countries with high sales taxes also have very high income tax deductions for the low end.
Boutons is right.....a person with a $30k/year income is likely to spend all their income every year, whereas, a person who makes $100k/year is likely to save, or invest some of that income...that's a regressive tax because it taxes all of the poor income but only a part of the richers income...
...this is the main weakness of the flat tax too...unless you build some really generous deductions, or exemptions for the poor, and then we are back to the system we have today...
I'm not saying things would have been smooth sailing. I seriously believe the more we try to control the free market, the less free it becomes, and we then end up ing it up more than it would otherwise be.
Not at all, but would you agree the bigger natural forces or man made forces have more effect?
Isn't it better to let the ans fall so smaller elements of power cannot do the same scale of destruction?
No way to know without seeing the alternate reality of no bailout. Maybe you're OK with mortgaging away your children's future for your present security, but I'm not into such self-centered acts.
Really?
Do you know what "making work pay does?
Sure, states that have a sales tax, they pay taxes Fees for things not necessary for life.
As yourself. Is that at the federal level, or at the 10th amendment level?
I don't think they can. the government let BP off the hook with that $20 billion fund. Then on top of that, it's the hype from the media fears generated by the leftists that killed tourism, and not allowing people to go to beaches who still wanted to.
Want some cheese with that whine? Sorry about your job.
The more you seek redistribution of wealth, over doing actual things to promote that people to take care of themselves, the more you are a liberal loser, and lib .
From a revenue standpoint, yes. From the reality that now the some people will have skin in the game, more will stop voting for politicians who with to redistribute others wealth.
Maybe, maybe not. However, the money is there in that $20 billion fund, if Ken Feinberg things they should get some of it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
