| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2008 09:57:36 AM · #451 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
You either know that this is not what Obama is proposing or you are unwilling to look beyond what Fox News is telling you to think. Did you even look at the FactCheck.org piece? Or is that too liberally biased for you? |
I read your link - but you have not explained why those individuals who make $200K or couples making $250K a year should pay more than they already do? Your argument and that of others - reads to me like it is our right to take from those because they either have to much or can afford it. Both of which begs the question - says who? Who says they can afford it or have to much? The Government? If the government can set the bar at $200K or $250K, then it can certainly set it somewhere else. And it will. |
Well, if you've read the article, then you know that John McCain says so. Once you agree that progressive taxes are ok, then it's a question of degree. Whose to say when that degree becomes socialism? You? Fox News? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:03:47 AM · #452 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Wake-up and smell your feet! |
My feet smell fine.
Government will decide how much you can earn, where you will place your savings, what possessions are allowed by the state, and who your doctor will be. As I wrote previously - it matters not to me if that is what you want to vote for - just don't call it something it isn't. Obama has a consistent history on his stances and his associations with those who share that ideology.
A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take all you have. |
Wow, you're a complete mess. You've manged to pervert things beyond logic or reason.
Good luck with your mantra.
I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:10:59 AM · #453 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Cutting pork barrel spending would not be a good start. It would be trivial... a largely symbolic gesture like vowing to go on a diet by skipping dessert only on Thanksgiving. |
Your continuing defense of government waste while simultaneously arguing for increased taxes on the top 2% is one reason we will likely never agree on much. I actually expect people to be acountable for their choices and if congress chooses to spend billions on pork then they should already have the money (in excess) to pay for it. Otherwise it doesn't get spent. I may choose to go into debt for defense of my home or for some unforseen catostrophe/emergency. But to go into debt to study the mating habits of fruit flies and then expect my neighbors to pay the bill is unexcuseable. Your defense of pork spending says all I need to know about your philosophy. It is consistent with the liberal view that all is ours to be distributed as we (the enlightened) see fit. From the polls it appears you will get your wish.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:17:23 AM · #454 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I simply hope you are prepared to give up your D300 for a D70 as it is unpatriotic for you to have more than another. |
More like you'd have to give up two of your fifty-eight D300's...
Originally posted by Flash:
Obama has a consistent history on his stances and his associations with those who share that ideology. |
And McCain has been both wildly inconsistent on his stances and associates with (and/or actively assists) convicted felons and white supremacists WHILE they're bad guys, not decades later when they're working for good. BTW, I sure hope convicted felons like Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North or worse, people guilty of voting fraud like Ann Coulter, aren't allowed to vote. After all, our elections should be fair and balanced, right? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:22:14 AM · #455 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Well, if you've read the article, then you know that John McCain says so. Once you agree that progressive taxes are ok, then it's a question of degree. Whose to say when that degree becomes socialism? You? Fox News? |
It definately a matter of degree. 2 years ago - Mccain was the democrats favorite Republican as he was more democrat than some democrats. Now - he is protrayed as the second coming of Bush - so yes degree matters. Regarding socialism and its application within the US, it again is a matter of degree. The same degree that you accept by Obama as only limiting his "tax plan increase" to the top 1-2% is the same blind faith you charge me and "fox" news with. Where we apparently differ is on how good a steward of the tax collected will each candidate be? One candidate has a history of being a poor steward with excess pork and defending giving to those who didn't pay, while the other has a long history of avoiding pork and calling for the elimination of government waste while simultaneously calling for a spending freeze until the wheat can be separated from the chaffe. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:24:20 AM · #456 |
Originally posted by Flash:
to go into debt to study the mating habits of fruit flies and then expect my neighbors to pay the bill is unexcuseable. Your defense of pork spending says all I need to know about your philosophy. |
And your total ignorance of what you're talking about speaks volumes. The poster child of pork barrel spending:
"As the Navyâs top lobbyist, McCain was supposed to carry out the bidding of the secretary of the Navy. But in 1978 he went off the reservation. Vietnam was over, and the Carter administration, cutting costs, had decided against spending $2 billion to replace the aging carrier Midway. The secretary agreed with the administrationâs decision. Readiness would not be affected. The only reason to replace the carrier â at a cost of nearly $7 billion in todayâs dollars â was pork-barrel politics.
Although he now crusades against wasteful military spending, McCain had no qualms about secretly lobbying for a pork project that would pay for a dozen Bridges to Nowhere. âHe did a lot of stuff behind the back of the secretary of the Navy,â one lobbyist told Timberg. Working his Senate connections, McCain managed to include a replacement for the Midway in the defense authorization bill in 1978. Carter, standing firm, vetoed the entire spending bill to kill the carrier. When an attempt to override the veto fell through, however, McCain and his lobbyist friends didnât give up the fight. The following year, Congress once again approved funding for the carrier. This time, Carter â his pork-busting efforts undone by a turncoat Navy liaison â signed the bill." |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:26:19 AM · #457 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Well, if you've read the article, then you know that John McCain says so. Once you agree that progressive taxes are ok, then it's a question of degree. Whose to say when that degree becomes socialism? You? Fox News? |
It definately a matter of degree. 2 years ago - Mccain was the democrats favorite Republican as he was more democrat than some democrats. Now - he is protrayed as the second coming of Bush - so yes degree matters. Regarding socialism and its application within the US, it again is a matter of degree. The same degree that you accept by Obama as only limiting his "tax plan increase" to the top 1-2% is the same blind faith you charge me and "fox" news with. Where we apparently differ is on how good a steward of the tax collected will each candidate be? One candidate has a history of being a poor steward with excess pork and defending giving to those who didn't pay, while the other has a long history of avoiding pork and calling for the elimination of government waste while simultaneously calling for a spending freeze until the wheat can be separated from the chaffe. |
I'll agree with you on the blind faith bit. But that applies to all candidates. We only have their statements and their records to go on. And before you bash Obama's record, just remember that McCain's isn't as peachy as you like to portray it. McCain seems to fight pork when it's politically expediant, and then turns around and supports it, again when it's politcally expediant. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:30:13 AM · #458 |
Originally posted by Flash:
you have not explained why those individuals who make $200K or couples making $250K a year should pay more than they already do? |
Because that Bush tax cut was supposed to be temporary. It was effectively a mortgage of this country designed to give the economy a boost, and once we got everybody making more money, the previous tax rates would return to help pay off the debt it incurred. Well obviously THAT didn't work, and the debt still has to be paid off. This is essentially letting those temporary tax cuts lapse, exactly as their Republican authors intended. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:30:42 AM · #459 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Cutting pork barrel spending would not be a good start. It would be trivial... a largely symbolic gesture like vowing to go on a diet by skipping dessert only on Thanksgiving. |
Your continuing defense of government waste while simultaneously arguing for increased taxes on the top 2% is one reason we will likely never agree on much. I actually expect people to be acountable for their choices and if congress chooses to spend billions on pork then they should already have the money (in excess) to pay for it. Otherwise it doesn't get spent. I may choose to go into debt for defense of my home or for some unforseen catostrophe/emergency. But to go into debt to study the mating habits of fruit flies and then expect my neighbors to pay the bill is unexcuseable. Your defense of pork spending says all I need to know about your philosophy. It is consistent with the liberal view that all is ours to be distributed as we (the enlightened) see fit. From the polls it appears you will get your wish. |
The fact is that while earmarks aka "Pork Barrel" spending, gets a great deal of attention, it's a ridiculously small percentage of the Federal Budget. It's approximately one-half of one percent of the overall budget.
Compare that to the cost of invading and occupying Iraq. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:38:39 AM · #460 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The fact is that while earmarks aka "Pork Barrel" spending, gets a great deal of attention, it's a ridiculously small percentage of the Federal Budget. It's approximately one-half of one percent of the overall budget.
Compare that to the cost of invading and occupying Iraq. |
We have had this discussion multiple times. My point remains that I find it disengenuious at the very least, for any politician to include raising anyones taxes as part of any proposal until the pork is eliminated. Further to have the repeated claim that pork is a small percentage, therefore excuseable - doesn't carry any water with me. Stop the pork spending first - period. Then we can discuss what is next. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:41:29 AM · #461 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The fact is that while earmarks aka "Pork Barrel" spending, gets a great deal of attention, it's a ridiculously small percentage of the Federal Budget. It's approximately one-half of one percent of the overall budget.
Compare that to the cost of invading and occupying Iraq. |
We have had this discussion multiple times. My point remains that I find it disengenuious at the very least, for any politician to include raising anyones taxes as part of any proposal until the pork is eliminated. Further to have the repeated claim that pork is a small percentage, therefore excuseable - doesn't carry any water with me. Stop the pork spending first - period. Then we can discuss what is next. |
You have this misguided belief that all pork is bad. That highway you drive on to work is somebody else's idea of pork. That government contract that keeps you in a job is somebody else's idea of pork. Sure there are some wasteful things and Obama has agreed to try to remove them (ok, I don't really believe that anybody actually can do this), but McCain's idea of stopping all government project spending will cripple local economies. If you like what's happening on Wall Street, I'm sure you'll love it when it comes to your street. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:45:53 AM · #462 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
(ok, I don't really believe that anybody actually can do this) |
At least I can respect your honesty and candidness. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:48:22 AM · #463 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
(ok, I don't really believe that anybody actually can do this) |
At least I can respect your honesty and candidness. |
The point is that politics require compromise. You allow some money to go to projects that benefit a local area (that's good for somebody) in order to get a more important piece of legistlation passed (hopefully that's good for everybody). To believe that this will go away is to deny the very nature of how governments (and really any social group) behaves. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:54:39 AM · #464 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The fact is that while earmarks aka "Pork Barrel" spending, gets a great deal of attention, it's a ridiculously small percentage of the Federal Budget. It's approximately one-half of one percent of the overall budget.
Compare that to the cost of invading and occupying Iraq. |
We have had this discussion multiple times. My point remains that I find it disengenuious at the very least, for any politician to include raising anyones taxes as part of any proposal until the pork is eliminated. Further to have the repeated claim that pork is a small percentage, therefore excuseable - doesn't carry any water with me. Stop the pork spending first - period. Then we can discuss what is next. |
HA! Disingenuous describes everything the Republicans have done in the past 8 years, especially their "justification" for invading Iraq and the subsequent blundering and mismanagement of the whole sordid affair. That little bit of deception and trickery on their part will wind up costing the taxpayers trillions. Yet here you stand wagging your finger over nickels.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 10:59:48 AM · #465 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We have had this discussion multiple times. My point remains that I find it disengenuious at the very least, for any politician to include raising anyones taxes as part of any proposal until the pork is eliminated. Further to have the repeated claim that pork is a small percentage, therefore excuseable - doesn't carry any water with me. Stop the pork spending first - period. Then we can discuss what is next. |
I know enough about government to know that my knowledge is woefully inadequate and that I have *NO* business in much of any political discussion.
This statement above makes it blatantly obvious to me that you have no perspective whatsoever on the financial climate. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 11:01:49 AM · #466 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
If you like what's happening on Wall Street, I'm sure you'll love it when it comes to your street. |
For those who are in cash or very secure bonds or bond funds, the wall street debacle is a non-issue. The ones who are panicked over wallstreet are those with too much exposed risk. Again, if you can't afford it, then don't buy it. In this case it is risk. If you can't afford the risk, then don't expose your assets to it. If you choose to expose yourself, then don't complain when you get caught in a risky venture.
The proposed solution is now to have the government buy up one's 401K at August '08 levels and secure it in a government account returning a gauranteed 3%. If you are that adverse to risk, then there are bond funds that today are returning an annual 4% and have done so for 25 years. Even Warren Buffet says an annual 5% return is all anyone should ever hope to average over decades of investment. So if you want to follow the get rich quick crowd and incurr high risk, then be prepared to pay the price if it doesn't come through. What you shouldn't be able to do, is take my money from me because you made a poor choice. You didn't here me complaining when you were making 10, 12, 14, 20, 30% return and I was megerly wading along at 4%. But typical of some liberal mindset, they are always the victim. Greedy speculators, evil tycoons, those filthy rich unpatriotic persons that don't want to pay for my screw ups. Those are the real culprits. Lets tax them more - wel'll show them bastards to be careful and sensible with their investments. Lets take all their capital and give it to those who didn't work for it. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 11:13:55 AM · #467 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Everyone would rather keep 100% of what they earned, but those who reach the top of the ladder can't ignore the needs of the people holding that ladder up. You cannot make money from people who have none. |
What a great analogy! |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 11:29:45 AM · #468 |
A non Fox source
As for who he will vote for to succeed Bush, Moore said he was choosing "the lesser of two evils." While admitting that he would have preferred another Republican candidate, Moore said he would vote for John McCain because "we are already taxed to death."
And he just doesn't trust Barack Obama.
"His background for me is just not that solid," Moore said, referring to Obama. "For me, he's just on a ride of popularity."
...
Both candidates are "out of touch" with small-business owners in Mary Grech's opinion. McCain doesn't understand the economy, she says, but she has more faith in him than Obama. If Obama takes office, Grech said she'd probably back off on her long hours.
"What would be the incentive for me to work these long hard hours if he is going to take my pay? To me that is counterintuitive. It's punishing my hard work."
-- CNN's Kristi Keck
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 11:42:06 AM · #469 |
Again, unless you are in the rarified strata of those making more than $250K, you will pay more tax under McCain's plan.
The vast majority of small businesses do not fall into the $250K+ income level.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 11:54:16 AM · #470 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I would if the other news outlets carried anything other than blind prasie for the messiah. |
Don't you realize that FOX is a propaganda organ, rather like an American equivalent of TASS, the Soviet news agency and government mouthpiece? What is actually fair and balanced to a reasonable, objective listener must of course sound like "blind praise" to you. FOX is always willing to distort, slander, and smear â anything to advance their agenda. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:10:35 PM · #471 |
For those who want lower taxes, I'd like to know what we are going to cut in spending?
86.8% of the federal budget was taken up by:
Social Security
Medicare/medicaid
Unemployment/welfare/mandatory spending
Interest on debt
Defense and the War on Terror
So what's it going to be? I always hear the Republicans talk about lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes. What I don't hear is where the lower spending is going to be. All of those above are either untouchable or sacred cows.
It just makes no sense to me. How can this country keep going on like this? Eventually the party is over and I just don't see how that is avoidable. The only question in my mind is, does it come in my lifetime? my children's? my grandchildren's? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:42:52 PM · #472 |
I just want to throw it out there that I'm a small business owner in Canada, a country with one of the highest tax rates in the world for business. Compared to the US, Canada's tax culture is socialist. The more you make, the more you pay, the less you make, the less you pay. Under a certain level, you don't pay any income tax at all. We've got nice big highways, clean cities, universal health care, and the Conservative government still finds $19,000,000,000 for the military. To put it plainly, I'm not hurting because of the tax situation here. In fact, I'm happy to pay tax, ecstatic to be considered economically socialist. It mystifies me when rich Yanks complain about paying a fair percentage of tax, as though their good fortune should be inviolate, as though paying a representative amount of tax according to their income is some kind of communist outrage.
Anyone care to explain to a non-American what all this talk of pork and barrels means? |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:49:13 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by Flash:
But to go into debt to study the mating habits of fruit flies and then expect my neighbors to pay the bill is unexcuseable. |
Some more information on the fruit flies from a biologist whoâs actually working on the project from his blog itâs NOT junk DNA:
âShe was apparently talking about true fruit flies from the family Tephritidae - specifically the olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) secured $748,000 to develop methods to eradicate the B. oleae - which has the potential to wreak havoc on the California olive crop. Why France? Well, some of this money went to a USDA research facility located in France - which the US government set up in France where B. oleae is already established and can be studied without the risk of escape.â
In other words, they are studying fruit flies in France to help protect the olive crops in California. How is that a wasteful government expenditure?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:49:16 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Anyone care to explain to a non-American what all this talk of pork and barrels means? |
Loosely. "pork barrel politics" is the practice of lending your support to a bill in return for concessions written into that bill. You need my vote to pass a particular health bill, and I give my support in exchange for a "line item" giving funds for a highway project in my home state, say. This makes my constituents happy (federal money is funneled to them) and helps me stay elected. In theory, the president's possession of a "line item veto" helps guard against this, but presidents are pretty selective in how they wield that particular power.
R. |
|
|
|
10/28/2008 12:50:46 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
I would if the other news outlets carried anything other than blind prasie for the messiah. |
Don't you realize that FOX is a propaganda organ, rather like an American equivalent of TASS, the Soviet news agency and government mouthpiece? What is actually fair and balanced to a reasonable, objective listener must of course sound like "blind praise" to you. FOX is always willing to distort, slander, and smear â anything to advance their agenda. |
From this mornings exchange between Megyn Kelly and Bill Burton (Obama spokesperson)
"You should know that in the polls as recently as this month, one taken by Rasmussen, the majority of Americans think that FOX is the least biased network out there.
NBC was first, CNN was second, FOX was last in terms of bias. Your guy is believed to be getting helped by 70 percent of the press corps according to the latest Pew Poll, but you complain when FOX has the nerve to confront your candidate with his own words?" |
|
