| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2008 10:35:42 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If wealth re-distribution was the operative for the world, then all undeveloped countries should be getting the bulk of the wealth as they are the least wealthy. |
When those poorest countries turn to groups unfavorable to the US for money, the US declares them "Terrorist States" and proceeds to bomb the hell out of them, send in troops and dump truckloads of cash into the country under the guise of "rebuilding".
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 10:37:27 AM · #327 |
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:16:26 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea. |
You know, sometime after 8 years in charge of the biggest superpower in the world and one of the larger economies, you have to start actually accepting that Bush actually has something to do with what happens. I know 'but, but, but Clinton!' is something of a rallying cry for the more right wing groups in the US, but well, you know, Bush has been in power for 8 years. If everything is still Clinton's fault, why hasn't Bush done anything in 8 years in office ? In almost a decade, with a republican congress and a republican president, doesn't it eventually start to be their decisions ? They couldn't have been that ineffectual or inattentive, could they ?
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 11:18:00. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 11:27:09 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea. |
Really? The no-bid contracts directly tied to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Last time I checked, those wars hadn't started when Clinton was president. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 12:02:53 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The point with socialists, is that they ALWAYS have something to spend someone else's money on. In its purest form, it is akin to communism with the ultimate ideal of total communal ownership of the monetary pie, to be distributed as decided by those in position to decide - typically a government entity. |
Or the National Football League.
Check out their TV contract sometime ... |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 02:05:05 PM · #331 |
| Would those of you who are liberal socialists at heart PLEASE sign on to my site proposal of taxing and redistributing the proceeds from those photographers that sell prints here. It would be a sincere advancement of your political beliefs and I for one, might be convinced that you are right, after of course I begin receiving my distribution. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 02:26:38 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Would those of you who are liberal socialists at heart PLEASE sign on to my site proposal of taxing and redistributing the proceeds from those photographers that sell prints here. It would be a sincere advancement of your political beliefs and I for one, might be convinced that you are right, after of course I begin receiving my distribution. |
This is a foolish proposition - both in itself and as an analogy.
Do you really oppose social welfare for the disabled? Would you throw wounded veterans onto the street because they can no longer work? Would you have ambulances only for those who can afford them? How about schooling only for those with rich enough parents, regardless of their ability?
All these things are managed through redistribution of wealth and the application of socialist principles in the US. The fact that the US applies these principles does not turn it into an extremist communist state.
You seem to lose the plot when confronted with a scalar proposition - unable to move from the extremist poles.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 03:18:47 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea. |
You know, sometime after 8 years in charge of the biggest superpower in the world and one of the larger economies, you have to start actually accepting that Bush actually has something to do with what happens. I know 'but, but, but Clinton!' is something of a rallying cry for the more right wing groups in the US, but well, you know, Bush has been in power for 8 years. If everything is still Clinton's fault, why hasn't Bush done anything in 8 years in office ? In almost a decade, with a republican congress and a republican president, doesn't it eventually start to be their decisions ? They couldn't have been that ineffectual or inattentive, could they ? |
Bush screwed plenty of things up. But the bidding on the no bid contracts (yeah, there was bidding on the no bid contracts, imagine that...) was done in 1998 by Clinton. So if you want to blaim that on Bush you are just plain wrong.
And likewise, at some point people need to stop blaiming every single thing wrong in the world on Bush. He messed up plenty of things, but not every single thing is his fault.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 03:22:19 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea. |
Really? The no-bid contracts directly tied to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Last time I checked, those wars hadn't started when Clinton was president. |
Look it up. 1998 they put out a bid for contracts of the nature of "if this happens you will do this." Halliburton won the bids. The intention was, if something happens and we need immediate response, we won't need to go through a 6 week bid process.
Now, has Halliburton done a good job? Have they cheated us out of money? Have we been keeping a good eye on them? That's another story.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 03:27:02 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And likewise, at some point people need to stop blaiming every single thing wrong in the world on Bush. He messed up plenty of things, but not every single thing is his fault. |
The list of things he hasn't screwed up is a lot shorter than the list of things he hasn't.
At least he hasn't started yet another war with N. Korea or Iran.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 03:34:12 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Bush screwed plenty of things up. But the bidding on the no bid contracts (yeah, there was bidding on the no bid contracts, imagine that...) was done in 1998 by Clinton. So if you want to blaim that on Bush you are just plain wrong. |
Not fixing it would be his fault though, surely ? He was bringing honour and integrity back to the office, after all.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 15:35:14. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 03:48:34 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Note: Bill Clinton started the "no-bid" contracts that Haliburton has. Bush just extended them. It was a Clinton administration idea. |
Really? The no-bid contracts directly tied to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Last time I checked, those wars hadn't started when Clinton was president. |
Look it up. 1998 they put out a bid for contracts of the nature of "if this happens you will do this." Halliburton won the bids. The intention was, if something happens and we need immediate response, we won't need to go through a 6 week bid process.
Now, has Halliburton done a good job? Have they cheated us out of money? Have we been keeping a good eye on them? That's another story. |
You're sort of right. Halliburton/KBR did have the LOGCAP contract during part of the Clinton Administration, but it was not awarded during Clinton's tenure.
Halliburton/KBR did win the first 5 year LOGCAP in 1992, but it was awarded during the first Bush administration on the watch of then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, on August 3rd to be precise. They lost out to DynCorp in 1997 over allegations of fraudulent billing in Bosnia. The GAO estimated that fraudulent billing on the part of Halliburton/KBR inflated the cost of the contract by 32%. The latest LOGCAP was awarded to Halliburton/KBR in 2001 by the Bush administration, who fired DynCorp before their contract was up. Since then, they have been awarded numerous such contracts by the Bush administration.
It should also be pointed out that the same Dick Cheney who led Halliburton/KBR to the LOGCAP trough as Secretary of Defense, was made CEO of Halliburton in 1995 and that when DynCorp's contract was terminated and the contract awarded to Halliburton/KBR, it was done under Vice-President Cheney.
Message edited by author 2008-03-10 15:50:21. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 04:03:16 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Would those of you who are liberal socialists at heart PLEASE sign on to my site proposal of taxing and redistributing the proceeds from those photographers that sell prints here. It would be a sincere advancement of your political beliefs and I for one, might be convinced that you are right, after of course I begin receiving my distribution. |
This is a foolish proposition - both in itself and as an analogy.
Do you really oppose social welfare for the disabled? Would you throw wounded veterans onto the street because they can no longer work? Would you have ambulances only for those who can afford them? How about schooling only for those with rich enough parents, regardless of their ability?
All these things are managed through redistribution of wealth and the application of socialist principles in the US. The fact that the US applies these principles does not turn it into an extremist communist state.
You seem to lose the plot when confronted with a scalar proposition - unable to move from the extremist poles. |
Matthew,
Sincerly now, this proposition mirrors the very action deemed necessary by socialists and damning of conservatives. I would even go a bit further...how many social liberals, claim all the proceeds of their photography to the government to insure proper taxes are paid? I suspect not many. I suspect that many, dealing primarily in a cash business, don't claim the income at all. Myself, I claim every cent received in compensation for my photography as income and thus pay the appropriate tax on my wages. So when folks like yourself and others, want to continue to take more and more and more of my wages for more and more taxes, I get a bit peeved. Especially when those doing the taking are not responsible enough to keep it to programs that thwart dependency. I have no problem with limited financing of public programs, however, I do not support a neverending dipping into the well. Earn your own keep. Pay your own way. Contribute to the charities of your choice. Support your community through active donations from a free heart. NOT forced taxation to insure multi-generational dependency on a government system that perpetuates itself. If increased taxes is a good thing then please support more fotogs here paying into the general distribution coffers. I for one could use the money. |
|
|
|
03/10/2008 04:10:42 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Bush screwed plenty of things up. But the bidding on the no bid contracts (yeah, there was bidding on the no bid contracts, imagine that...) was done in 1998 by Clinton. So if you want to blaim that on Bush you are just plain wrong. |
Not fixing it would be his fault though, surely ? He was bringing honour and integrity back to the office, after all. |
Nah, He just watched while Cheney fired DynCorp and give it back to his cronies at Halliburton/KBR. It was all about getting your cronies on the Federal teat. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 02:20:10 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Sincerly now, this proposition mirrors the very action deemed necessary by socialists and damning of conservatives. |
Flash, we started this little detour not as a political debate but because I pointed out that conservatives tend to oppose GW and social/western liberal attitudes tend to support it - and that this mirrors the "self first, others later & everyone for themselves" vs "community support/responsibility" themes of those political attitudes.
Your statements, however, reaffirm my argument: you don't agree with the imposition of additional taxes, presumably including taxes or costs associated with (or proposed in relation to) environmentally damaging behaviour, because you feel that you already pay more than enough.
From the perspective of this debate, you are economically opposed to the concept of GW and are looking for evidence to support your desire, rather than looking at the evidence in an objective fashion. This makes your intellectual position fairly unconvincing.
You pretend to argue with me but through your words you prove my point.
As for your boasts on paying tax - please don't get too carried away - we are all obliged to do so and you are in no way special.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 04:31:10 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
As for your boasts on paying tax - please don't get too carried away - we are all obliged to do so and you are in no way special. |
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 04:36:10 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
What - you think that conservative people are more likely to pay tax than people who are less conservative? That seems very unlikely to me.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2008 04:37:18 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
As for your boasts on paying tax - please don't get too carried away - we are all obliged to do so and you are in no way special. |
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
I don't think tax evasion is exclusive to either liberal or conservative. Nor is it more contradictory to the philosophy of one side or the other. |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 05:49:57 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
What - you think that conservative people are more likely to pay tax than people who are less conservative? That seems very unlikely to me. |
I'm going to guess very few liberals and/or working class people put their money into accounts in Switzerland or incorporate in the Cayman Islands specifically to avoid paying US taxes ... |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:48:14 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
What - you think that conservative people are more likely to pay tax than people who are less conservative? That seems very unlikely to me. |
My point was very much more specific than that. It was directed directly towards any poster(s) here who are in favor of increased government social programs, and might not be claiming every cent generated through "other" means, including selling prints as a side line. In other words, before you (generic you not specific you) suggest for others to pay more tax, please be sure you are paying all you are supposed to. I obviously have no evidence this is the case, however as ours is a cash business and other part time photographers I know are not so accurate in their income reporting, I can deduce that some of those here may not be paying their full fair share. If you are not paying your full fair share, then do not preach to me, about how I need to pay more. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:54:55 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm going to guess very few liberals and/or working class people put their money into accounts in Switzerland or incorporate in the Cayman Islands specifically to avoid paying US taxes ... |
But they may not be claiming all their income from a part time hobby like photography. Which makes them just as guilty of tax evasion and a hypocrite for asking others to pay more so that they can have additional social programs that fail to meet the needs of the problem, when they don't fully contribute to the public coffers. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:56:56 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think tax evasion is exclusive to either liberal or conservative. |
Neither do I. Just be sure that those who are asking for me to pay more, are paying what they are supposed to 1st. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:57:46 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Forgive me if I implied other wise. My point was more to specifically address a possible inconsistency between those that lay calim to social policies that require more tax, yet fail to accurately account for all income (like side lines including photography), thereby failing to pay the appropriate tax. |
What - you think that conservative people are more likely to pay tax than people who are less conservative? That seems very unlikely to me. |
My point was very much more specific than that. It was directed directly towards any poster(s) here who are in favor of increased government social programs, and might not be claiming every cent generated through "other" means, including selling prints as a side line. In other words, before you (generic you not specific you) suggest for others to pay more tax, please be sure you are paying all you are supposed to. I obviously have no evidence this is the case, however as ours is a cash business and other part time photographers I know are not so accurate in their income reporting, I can deduce that some of those here may not be paying their full fair share. If you are not paying your full fair share, then do not preach to me, about how I need to pay more. |
So, you think that Liberal DPC members that sell their photos are hypocritical tax evaders, whereas the Conservative DPC Members that sell their photos are not? Is that it? |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:24:21 AM · #349 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't think tax evasion is exclusive to either liberal or conservative. |
Neither do I. Just be sure that those who are asking for me to pay more, are paying what they are supposed to 1st. |
I made $10.42 on DPC prints and, damn, I forgot to declare it. My bad.
But if I do declare it I should be able to file a Schedule C and depreciate the $5000+ in camera equipment I own, right?
I think I paid more taxes this way. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 04:17:11 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you think that Liberal DPC members that sell their photos are hypocritical tax evaders, whereas the Conservative DPC Members that sell their photos are not? Is that it? |
No. But I think that some of the liberal posters here may not be claiming all their income from print sales and when then call for me to pay higher taxes, then I think that they are a bit hypocritical. |
|
