Right and wrong is subjective. And I AM a moderate. I've always felt that I was, and all of the surveys and tests I've taken have bore that out. And why would you care anyway? You're more on the fringe, why does that bother you? I think it all comes back to objectivity. To admit you have a bigger slant implies that you're also less objective. Continuous exposure to anything will have an affect. What if you come home from the circus as a clown and don't know it? All I'm saying here is that what we feed our minds is just as important as what we feed our stomachs. And Olberman and the like are junk food. Again, what you chose to feed your head doesn't interest me in the slightest. Who cares?
When this whole economic downslide started, did I not say the day was coming when I can say "I told you so"...? I'm pretty much shielded from the effects of it now and it is still going on two years later and hasn't really gotten better. Stimulous schmimulous....this is where Oregon's stimulous infusion of cash is going: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091012/NEWS07/910120329 Didn't really creat jobs, just the promis to not get rid of more jobs. All of the 8000 jobs mentioned were state employees. Nothing for the private sector. A good resource: http://www.propublica.org/special/chart-tracking-states-spending-trackers Say "no to soshialism"...? It's too late, it's been alive and well for quite awhile now.
Don't even bother - he's just trolling. I don't think he's ever posted in any thread that hasn't been political. Just tell him to suck a dick and move on. Besides when his internet tough guy act gets called out he'll crawl into some dark alley and yell at a hobo, then reappear several months later.
I thought everyone understood unemployment was a lagging indicator? Guess not. I present you with an article from the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. Disagree?
oh damn. i thought i was the only one who realized he was an idiot the center & left of...? World politics? Western politics? center of everything?
One of the largest benefactors of the stimulus lauding its effectiveness? Really? I didn't see that coming a mile away... Of course unemployment is a lagging indicator (in a production-based economy), but there is also a flip side to that coin (http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=8968): Also from the WSJ: The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims - WSJ.com Also from the WSJ, calling the Stimulus a tragedy: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Get Little Value for Money - WSJ.com We could trade articles all day long, but I guess we will see what we want to see. On EDIT: I thought I would toss this in, Schiff explains why there can't be recovery without jobs: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=253
Here are a few of my disorganized thoughts/ramblings: How does having a bunch of states with differing and sometimes even contradicting laws benefit us? Why are gays allowed to marry in some states but not in others? Why should their human rights be subject to a geographical area? Why are speed limits different across states? Does that mean that people in Illinois are worse drivers than people in Michigan? Why can't you buy liquor on Sundays in some parts of the country? Isn't that tyranny of the majority? The whole "the US was founded as a loose confederation, so it should stay that way" argument doesn't take into account how our society has changed. If we had applied that logic to other issues, slavery would still exist, and women still wouldn't be able to vote. The bailouts were a mistake. The companies in question lobbied government to have money thrown at them, and then they used it to pay bonuses and other BS. The stimulus is really not gonna do anything. It's not a long term solution. As j0k3r said, it's not creating jobs. Our economy is going through a period of readjustment resulting from the bursting of a bunch of bubbles. Why is it that the same people who say taxes are unconstitutional turn around and say that the right to bear arms should not be infringed because it's in the Constitution?
^ I agree with most of that. The taxes things can be debated though, not technically in the Constitution as far as I know. I think it's needed, but not sure it's Constitutional.
It's OK guys, we can stop fighting. An arbitrary system has reached an arbitrary number, the economy is fixed, capitalism is saved! dot dot dot
Aren't we pouring a ton of money into green jobs? The alternative energy revolution is what will get us out of this hole. No matter how you slice it, things are getting better. If you want to argue how long this will last until the next big bust then by all means have your article posting war Posted via Mobile Device
Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I believe I mentioned it before, that our tax system should be overhauled. Instead of getting a cut of our paycheck, the government should tax consumption. It would make some people think twice about buying stuff they can't afford. And it can be justified by the concepts of scarcity and competition used in economics. Just for the record, I have nothing against states taking care of themselves, but certain things should be the same across the board, if we're to call ourselves a country. Otherwise all states should secede. Yes, green jobs. We should look into making everything as efficient as possible. And investment in infrastructure is key. Anybody who has taken an economics class knows that.
We n3eed to lok at who it is getting better for. Undoubtedly, the top tier is getrting a bit more boost from your hard eaned tax dollar. they seem to be the ones preaching the benefits and attributes of the billions and billions borrowed against future generations of middle class people. For every good news article concerning the economy, there is another that counteracts the first. I reserve judgement at this time in favor of waiting to see what happens for people like you and I. What happens in the world of the filthy rich doesn't count in my opinion. The top tier has all the cards (AKA: laws/policy) stacked in thier favor and have for quite a while.
Will Financial Reform Avoid Another Economic Meltdown? | MintLife Blog | Personal Finance News & Advice
Therein lays the problem with a consumption tax. People would reduce taxes by consuming less. Therefore revenues would fall and financing for the huge assed government would be in deficit more than now. Better for: the government, to support a huge consumeristic society, hell bent on increasing credit scores and keeping up with the jones's by means of increasing income and get taxes from that income. Everytime we work an hour or buy anything, we're supporting huge government because of the income and business taxes we pay. Every time there's an increase in any form of tarrif, business tax, tax on proffits, any tax towards businesses at all, you and I get forwarded those costs 100%. Business, no matter the size pass all those costs on to you, they don't absorb any of them. [/layman's view of taxation without representation]
Not necessarily by state, but damn right they should alter the speed limit based on region. The idiots here shouldn't be allowed to go faster than 20 for the most part. its for their own protection As a functional drunkard, I fully support liquor laws on the basis that nothing good happens drinking after 2am. Who the hell was the last guy who got arrested for not paying taxes? This has been raised again and again and I'm not sure if there is anything close to a precedent saying its not true I think the green jobs/infra spiel is BS, but only in the narrow scope everyone is looking at it in. We are much better served by making all our day to day stuff more effecient than finding newer technology to provide power. (prepare for economist boner Green.view: Home front | The Economist additionally, (more) power effecient stuff already exists, so it is just a question of building/installing/maintaining it, which can be performed by the majority of workers. That combined with how much "stuff" there is to have those actions performed on it - washer, dryer, dishwasher, insulation, ac, etc. - means that there is already a huge market sitting in place. Compare that to green energy - its extremely expensive right now, limiting the scope of how it can be deployed, and how much labor is needed to deploy it. A lot of the work in the green industry is still research and development - jobs requiring higher education, which a lot of our idle workforce has little to none of. Take a bunch of that money and offer rebates/whatever to have people get new thermostats, better laundry machines, nicer insulation, etc. There is no way that there are 5 million green jobs that are going to be filled in the near future. We're forcing it too much.
We all make mistakes while driving, and who honestly respects speed limits? Only reason they're there anymore is because they provide revenue for the police. Great! But by passing a law based on religious grounds, the state is indirectly sponsoring that religion, which goes against the Establishment Clause. Dunno if he was the last one, but Wesley Snipes did. Anything that makes you feel guilty to siphon your money is BS. Exactly! Who in his right mind would be against making stuff as efficient as possible? It'll save money in the long run. As for solar and eolic, they have their applications alongside current technologies.
Remember when I said politicians could be bought and sold like commodities? Pro-Obamacare Republicans in the pay of the health industry | Washington Examiner
ha! corruption? It's been alive and wel for many decades. The difference now is that It's wide open and almost expected. Being on the take is a portion of the congresional job discription isn't it?
As long as we're discussing hypotheticals.... If you know you're gonna have more money in your pocket because you don't have to give part of your income to the government, you're gonna spend it. Besides, this is America; we're a consumerist society. You said it yourself. Illegals who don't currently pay taxes wouldn't be able to evade them if a VAT were in place. Undeclared income from illicit activities such as selling drugs would find its way back into the system as well. Even tourists would have to pay (as long as we didn't exempt them). If you had an electronic system in place, you could get rid of the IRS, or at least reduce its size, saving* on administrative costs. Aren't you "small government types" all about this kind of thing? The government would have a constant stream of revenue. A VAT would create a market for used goods (recycling). Certain things such as healthcare and education could be exempt. *Not entirely true. The transition from out current system to a new one would actually increase administrative costs initially, but things would even out eventually.
Hypothetically. in reality. taxes never decrease. The burdens get shifted slightly, but the revenue collection numbers do not go down. if a universal sales tax were to be implemented, it would be in addition to the income tax that would end up never getting repealed.
