It seems the Democrats have lost a lot of their momentum to win the election. The election now seems to be a 50/50 toss up with the Democrats having a better "ground game" as the News anchors like to describe it. If the election turns out to be very close, hopefully there will not be another Florida fiasco over "hanging chad" that cost Al Gore the presidency.
Remember that in the US the Electoral College elects the President while the Popular Vote elects everyone else (Senate, House, Dog Catcher, School Boards etc.) and because of this and Mr Obama's leads in those states he must win I predict (based on the experts I read) Mr Obama will govern again and with a majority in the Senate again. To bastardize Kipling . . . On to the Fiscal Cliff rode the light brigade . . .
quote:Originally posted by bill w:
We have no classes this is America and we dont define ourselves this way. Oppressive taxes and intervention in every aspect of our lives combined with reckless spending has gotten us into this hole.
We don't define ourselves this way??? How would you define the poor, the Middle Class and the very wealthy? As for "oppresive taxes" what would you call the taxes of Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc. - those should be considered oppressive by Americans but those countries are always the "Happiest People on Earth". Do you understand why? They prefer the lifestyle and freedoms their way of life (and tax structure) provided them. You mentioned the '60's - go look at the Corporate and Individual Tax Rates then compared to your "oppressive taxes" of today. Sorry Bill but I strongly disagree.
They have started yelling "Where is Obama?" in the streets of Staten Island, NY and down on the Jersey Shore, just like the Katrina victims began to blame Bush. People with no power, no warmth, and running out of food are asking why Obama has not sent in FEMA and the American Red Cross. Taylor Swift just said on television that President Obama does not like middle-class white people! The people waiting in line for gas are starting to brawl and police intervention has been required in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Bread lines might be next!
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
As for "oppresive taxes" what would you call the taxes of Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc.
Well said! This is just part of the myth the right is trying to get spread out as truth.
FYI, in 1969, the top tax rate (on $200,000 or more) was 77%. 35% looks pretty reasonable now doesn't it?
Old Glory that is a very ugly and inappropriate comparison you made.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
Old Glory that is a very ugly and inappropriate comparison you made.
I really hope that if Romney gets elected that he does not cut FEMA. He suggested this earlier in the campaign but flip flopped with Superstorm Sandy.
Hopefully, Sandy will bring back to life real concerns in the US political system over global warming. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, are guilty of side stepping this issue during the election.
Yea, it was pretty ugly but it was illustrative. Just like the saying that the best of two evils is still evil, the best of two bads is still bad.
As far as FEMA and any other cuts, there is no way we can eliminate the deficit without everyone being adversily affected but think of how much better we could respond to catastrophies such as Hurricane Sandy if we weren't sending billions to the Chinese in interest payments.
Side stepping the issue of Sandy or global warming? Because I don't think global warming was side stepped by the Republicans. I think it was ignored and with good reason.
Old Glory, are you suggesting that the USA should default on it's interest payments to China? Are you suggesting that Global warming is not real?
No, we need to pay our debts and yes, I do not believe global warming is real, not in the way you do anyway. I do not believe that there is such a thing as man made global warming and I seriously question whether any current fluctuations are anything but the normal ebb and flow of cyclical events that have gone on since the beginning of time.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news...ieve-big-lie/1275666
According to a 2009 Pew Research Center Poll, only 36 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming because of human activity, down from 47 percent in 2008 and 41 percent in 2006. Only 57 percent believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming at all, a significant drop from 71 percent the previous year.
Those who have accepted the big lie as truth are fervent, unquestioning and unshakable in their belief. For many others, the campaign has simply taken the bloom off the rose of green energy, creating confusion and apathy about the issue.
The increasing influence of this propaganda campaign helps to explain why the 2012 presidential candidates have barely mentioned global warming as a campaign issue and why few incumbent congressmen or senators will even comment on the issue anymore, let alone sponsor or vote for bills that address it. Politically, global warming has become too hot to touch.
According to a 2009 Pew Research Center Poll, only 36 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence” the earth is warming because of human activity, down from 47 percent in 2008 and 41 percent in 2006. Only 57 percent believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming at all, a significant drop from 71 percent the previous year.
Those who have accepted the big lie as truth are fervent, unquestioning and unshakable in their belief. For many others, the campaign has simply taken the bloom off the rose of green energy, creating confusion and apathy about the issue.
The increasing influence of this propaganda campaign helps to explain why the 2012 presidential candidates have barely mentioned global warming as a campaign issue and why few incumbent congressmen or senators will even comment on the issue anymore, let alone sponsor or vote for bills that address it. Politically, global warming has become too hot to touch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...ather-poll-says.html
A poll released in April 2012 shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.
Nat’l Avg Northeast Midwest South West
Strongly agree 26 37 22 22 28
Somewhat agree 43 34 49 44 43
Somewhat disagree 19 22 17 21 17
Strongly disagree 11 7 12 13 12
A poll released in April 2012 shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.
A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.
How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Global warming is affecting the weather in the United States.
Nat’l Avg Northeast Midwest South West
Strongly agree 26 37 22 22 28
Somewhat agree 43 34 49 44 43
Somewhat disagree 19 22 17 21 17
Strongly disagree 11 7 12 13 12
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
No, we need to pay our debts and yes, I do not believe global warming is real, not in the way you do anyway. I do not believe that there is such a thing as man made global warming and I seriously question whether any current fluctuations are anything but the normal ebb and flow of cyclical events that have gone on since the beginning of time.
I agree with Old Glory.
First on the US debt and deficit spending has to be dealt with, we cannot continue down the path we are on. While we need to pay our current debts we should look at cutting spending. Everything must be cut – social spending, defense, foreign aid, everything. I don’t understand why we are sending billions to other countries for foreign aid when we cannot pay our bills. It is like someone not being able to pay their mortgage but using their credit card to give money to charity. If we confiscated all the income from everyone earning more than $250,000/year we would not fund the federal government for a year. Spending cuts, not tax increases are what we need.
On global warming. Our planet has gone through many warming and cooling periods over its history. I am not convinced that what we are seeing is because of anything we are doing. How does a hurricane prove man-made global warming? Hurricanes have existed since before man was here. We even have a hurricane season which is June 1 – November 30. I vividly recall when I was in 1st or 2nd grade being taught in school that the earth was cooling and we might be headed for the next ice age. I remember because it scared the hell out of me. 30 years latter all of a sudden the scientific community is now saying we are warming? How is it that scientists cannot tell me with certainty exactly what the weather is going to be tomorrow, but yet they can tell me that the earth is warming and it’s our fault. I am not convinced.
quote:Originally posted by Jrlz:
First on the US debt and deficit spending has to be dealt with, we cannot continue down the path we are on. While we need to pay our current debts we should look at cutting spending. Everything must be cut – social spending, defense, foreign aid, everything.
I totally agree with this. Cutting spending should be a high priority.
However, if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important.
I'm not for "increasing" taxes, but saying you are paying too much when you are paying less than any time in the last 50 years just sounds crazy.
If the Ryan tax plan were adopted, Romney's tax rate would be 0.82%. How can that be presented as a responsible option considering our crushing debt?
Salesserviceguy, I'm confused about what your position is on Global Warmimg. With your last two posts, one seems to have a bias against an one a bias for. Being in Novia Scotia, I would expect that you face a global warming bias in the media although I was surprised to see in the poll numbers that you site that various areas of the country seem to poll pretty similar.
Food for thought...if the dustbowl years of the 1930's happened today, it would be blamed on man-made global warming. It obviously wasn't man-made then. Why would it be today?
Food for thought...if the dustbowl years of the 1930's happened today, it would be blamed on man-made global warming. It obviously wasn't man-made then. Why would it be today?
quote:Originally posted by JasonR:
However, if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important.
I'm not for "increasing" taxes, but saying you are paying too much when you are paying less than any time in the last 50 years just sounds crazy.
If the Ryan tax plan were adopted, Romney's tax rate would be 0.82%. How can that be presented as a responsible option considering our crushing debt?
First of all, I question your data but regardless, If you donate enough money to charity, you can reduce your tax burden to nothing. Romney donated 29.4%, over $4 million to charity. Also, his income comes largely from Capital Gains, not income which makes a difference.
I totally agree with..."if you are trying to pay your bills at home, cutting expenses is important, but having money coming in is equally important." However, increasing taxes can be detremental.
“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
The theme I was trying to convey was that the polling indicates between 2009 and 2012, Americans attitude towards global warming is that it is not some fuzzy far off threat but real and much closer to home.
Basically, the prevailing research indicates that while 67% of Americans believe that global warming is a growing problem, 98% of politicians avoid the issue.
"Global warming skepticism is still alive and well, thanks to an effective campaign of public disinformation — one heavily financed by oil, gas, electric utility and coal interests, and employing tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry."
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
Basically, the prevailing research indicates that while 67% of Americans believe that global warming is a growing problem, 98% of politicians avoid the issue.
"Global warming skepticism is still alive and well, thanks to an effective campaign of public disinformation — one heavily financed by oil, gas, electric utility and coal interests, and employing tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry."
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
"Climate scientists have been warning for more than two decades that global warming is accelerating as a result of human activity, primarily from burning of fossil fuels; and contributing to extreme weather patterns, including longer droughts, more violent storms, rising sea levels and bigger coastal surges. Sandy and the drought that gripped the southern and western United States this summer should be exhibits “A” and “B” to that prediction."
So huricanes and droughts are both the result of global warming? It appears that all significant weather activity, droughts and floods, heat and even cold spells are blamed on global warming. But only the skeptics are subject to "disinformation"?
No one is saying hurricanes and droughts are the exclusive result of global warming only that the increasing frequency and severity of such weather events appear to be related.
2/3rds of Americans somewhat to strongly believe global warming is effecting the weather in the USA.
Skeptics are always free to voice their opinion and can believe what they wish. Just like the tobacco industry wants people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer.
2/3rds of Americans somewhat to strongly believe global warming is effecting the weather in the USA.
Skeptics are always free to voice their opinion and can believe what they wish. Just like the tobacco industry wants people to believe that smoking does not cause cancer.
If the world could vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tml#slide=more260869
According to a 21-nation poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA for the BBC World Service, an average of 50 percent of people surveyed abroad favor Obama. Only 9 percent of those polled prefer Romney, and in 20 out of 21 countries voters would chose Obama, the exception being Pakistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...tml#slide=more260869
According to a 21-nation poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA for the BBC World Service, an average of 50 percent of people surveyed abroad favor Obama. Only 9 percent of those polled prefer Romney, and in 20 out of 21 countries voters would chose Obama, the exception being Pakistan.
AS I get ready to retire for the night, it seems the USA will be in Obamas hands for the next four years. I hope I wake up and it's not true....of course I won't be happy as a matter of fact I will feel sorry that our continued debt will force us to follow others. I hope I'm wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
AS I get ready to retire for the night, it seems the USA will be in Obamas hands for the next four years. I hope I wake up and it's not true....of course I won't be happy as a matter of fact I will feel sorry that our continued debt will force us to follow others. I hope I'm wrong.
I am with you Art. It is clear now from the exit polls that Obama's bail out of the UAW and his pandering to the typical liberal special interest groups bought him the presidency. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". Seems we have two parties with extremely different visions for the country. One party says if you vote for me I will take money from one group and give it to you. The other party says vote for me and I will let you keep more of your money.
I hope that Washington will grow up and stop spending our childrens money, but I dont think that will happen. We are headed the way of the Europeon Socialist nanny state. Get ready for increased taxes and Obamacare, no turning back now.
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
That's because there are too many people that are receiving social services, they will vote for thier way of like. If I were on foodstamps or needed a social service then I would be a dumbass to vote for someone who will cut the cut the fat. Over the last 16 years Democtrats have been able to expand services and have more voters depenedent on the governments services,
Don't get me wrong I beleive that most of these services are good, the problem is that there are way to many people and businesses that are abusing the services and plainly put, ripping of the US. Democrats will continue to expand services to ensure that they have additional voters.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
McCain was definately not a social conservative and he lost too.
I now believe that there are two things that pretty much have sealed the fate of the Republican Party...1.)The left wing media is too powerful to overcome and 2.) The social re-engineering happening in our educational institutions, lower as well as higher, have been in place long enough to indoctrinate the electorate.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
While the Republican message clearly resonated with a lot of voters on the fiscal issues it was out of touch on many social issues.
How is Mitt Romney out of touch on social issues? He is one of the most moderate republicans out there. This election was not about social issues, fiscal issues topped the exit polls. Unfortunatly there are way too many people who depend on the government and they are not going to vote against the thier self interest. More people are now in the wagon then pulling the wagon.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Don't get me wrong I beleive that most of these services are good, the problem is that there are way to many people and businesses that are abusing the services and plainly put, ripping of the US.
That's the issue I'd really like to see addressed. Let's implement a one-strike policy. You knowingly defraud the government, you get blacklisted.
The Republican party was out of touch on women's issues, Gay Rights, Blacks, Latinos, environmentalists, Foreign affairs and young people.
Romney being a devout Mormon did not help.
The Republicans did appeal to white males 35+ years old.
Romney being a devout Mormon did not help.
The Republicans did appeal to white males 35+ years old.
There was a two million vote gap in the popular vote...obviously more appeal than just white males 35+.
You say out of touch with gay rights and environmentalists...well yea, that is th platform, that was the point. I disagree on the Foreign Affairs. The blacks, nothing the Republicans can say or do could have changed that. I feel the Democrats pandered to the Latinos just to get their vote by ignoring the issue of illegals and immigration just like they ignored the debt, the defecit, a nuclear Iran, an insolvant Social Security, and 4 dead in Bengazi...
By the way, you left off of your list the druggies. The Republicans also are out of touch with those who want to legalize marijuana.
You say out of touch with gay rights and environmentalists...well yea, that is th platform, that was the point. I disagree on the Foreign Affairs. The blacks, nothing the Republicans can say or do could have changed that. I feel the Democrats pandered to the Latinos just to get their vote by ignoring the issue of illegals and immigration just like they ignored the debt, the defecit, a nuclear Iran, an insolvant Social Security, and 4 dead in Bengazi...
By the way, you left off of your list the druggies. The Republicans also are out of touch with those who want to legalize marijuana.
Republican senator Lindsey Graham’s remark that there weren’t enough “angry white guys” to bring Republicans to power seemed prophetic in the light of President Barack Obama’s victory.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
All true but what would be the point of adopting the Democratic talking points. Even if the Republicans promised free healthcare, free cell phones, unlimited unemployment checks, food stamps, college education, (sex-change operations, legalized drugs...), etc. like the Democrats do you really think they would get the votes? All that would happen would be a third party which seals their fate anyway.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
Republican senator Lindsey Graham’s remark that there weren’t enough “angry white guys” to bring Republicans to power seemed prophetic in the light of President Barack Obama’s victory.
A decline in the number of white voters and a surge in voters from ethnic minorities and women helped Obama on election night. Ohio, one of the key battleground states, was captured in part through a rise in turnout among African-Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Back in August, Graham had said: “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”
This year is likely to be the first in recent history when the majority of babies born in the U.S. are born to families from an “ethnic minority” background. That demographic shift is already being felt at polling stations – 72 percent of those who cast their vote this year were white, down from 74 percent in 2008, according to exit polls by the Associated Press.
The Republican Party has tried to make the point that it is not just the party of white voters, via high-profile speeches at the GOP convention from Republicans of an ethnic minority background, but early signs are that it has failed to convert voters.
I would agree that the republican party failed to win over some minority groups. The answer is not to change the platform, but to continue to reach out to those groups. The values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not values that are only held by white males.
You may want to check on the exit polling with women. I read that married women went for Romney.
It is clear that Obama's pandering worked. We have the bail out of the UAW that bought Ohio and Michigan, the executive order fiat of the dream act (which the democrats would not pass) to buy the hispanic vote effecting florida and Colordo, and the whole discussion of how birth control should be paid for by health insurance companies and then there is the whole I am now for sames sex marriage "evolution" of Obama. He said and did what he needed to do to get re-elected. That is a great way to run a campaign, but not the qualities of a leader.
Here's a real horses ass that was thankful for Sandy:
Chris Matthews: 'I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week' (Video)
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/colu...ast-week-video-64061
Chris Matthews: 'I'm So Glad We Had That Storm Last Week' (Video)
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/colu...ast-week-video-64061
That is one way to put it Art. Chris is so blind with his support of Obama that we does not care about anything about his re-election. Does he think? People died and a lot of people are still suffering and this guy is glad becuase it helped to re-elect his guy. His comments are disturbing. Imagine what thoughts he has that he censors himself from saying.
Art/Jrlz - go back and read what Matthews said b/c you missed his point.
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
From CNN:
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art/Jrlz - go back and read what Matthews said b/c you missed his point.
This is all so very simple and easy to solve . . .
If you don't like the LEFT leaning media OR the RIGHT leaning media don't watch them (I don't)and encourage others to do the same.
If you don't believe that Climate Change is man-made and real, so be it - that's easy, now let's see what we can do about the effects of what the routine weather cycles are doing to our world since it's not man-made.
If we don't like what the DEM's are doing or the REP's then disassociate yourselves from them (I did) and quit sending them money - I mean come on, $6 billion was spent so some of you must've sent them money (I didn't) b/c there's not that many fat-cats out there are there? Are there really?
If the party you supported lost, I can only suggest you that didn't spend enough time collecting money or organizing your supporters b/c like it or not, the Community Organizer won doing what the money collectors ridiculed him for in 2007. (my guy lost but then again I didn't do a lot to help his cause).
If you think we're running off the fiscal cliff then you have to help us find an answer and there are many, many available; I'd start with Defense by limiting expenditures to 1/2 that of the rest of the world's combined expenditures - and if we can somehow refrain from sending our troops and treasure to far off lands maybe the downline costs of the Veterans Administration will be lowered; we can eliminate farm subsidies to any individual or corporation with income before expenses of $1 million - they don't need it; foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, you have to be kidding me but I'm sure there's a way to defeat the lobbying groups associated with those countries; we can raise the retirement age, gradually, to 70; modify the passed Healthcare act so that it is single-payor, a la Medicare - don't worry with all the healthy, younger folks the costs per capita will be much lower - Medicare is not cost-effective b/c only the old and infirm can participate driving up the p/c costs; from the revenue side (this is the easiest of all)raise taxes on those most able to pay them and no it's not the poor or middle class - I'd suggest we start by looking at the tax rates during the boom years of the 1950's-60's when our economic growth was second to none (when Japan was building and China was a third-world country; most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike).
This is just a starter list of course. How do we do these things you ask - CONSENSUS - but having Mr Obama tell Mr's McConnell and Boehner that unless thay agree to serious compromise then every department of the federal government with regulatory powers will come down on Kentucky and Ohio and examine very closely, just how much compliance there is by the businesses in their respective states to the various rules, regulations and tax audits.
I said it was Easy!
I am with you on everything but the single payer health care system. I am a conservative, but the Republican parties position on defense spending bothers me too. We spedn way too much and any talk of cuts is treated like the end of the world. We need to decrease spending on defense, stop being the world's police force and continue to bolster our militaries rapid special operations ability.
quote:Originally posted by SalesServiceGuy:
From CNN:
"White men comprised just 34% of the electorate on Tuesday."
"The big picture is this: Democrats are continuing to win big with the demographic groups that are growing; Republicans are still struggling to increase support with shrinking base voter groups."
The GOP needs to make in roads into the growing demographic bases. They need to do this by talking about thier message and not become the democrat lite party. The core message of liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices resonate with many people, regardless of demographics.
QUOTE]The GOP needs to make in roads into the growing demographic bases. They need to do this by talking about thier message and not become the democrat lite party. The core message of liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices resonate with many people, regardless of demographics.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.
Unfortunately a big part of the growing demographic base are people riding in the wagon, not the ones pulling it.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not correct Old Glory. I often say that there are more people in the wagon than pulling it also, mostly out of frustration. I have faith that the human spirit wants freedom, not tyranny. Last week I thought to mself - Do communist countries have an illegal immigration problem? Do people wait for years to be admitted into a communist Eutopia like Cuba? I dont believe they do, so that must mean that human beings by nature yearn for freedom. The democratic party has become the party of socialists and communists. They are all about "shared sacrafice" and "shared prosperity". They are all about the government taking care of your needs. They live the whole from each according to his means and to each according to his needs philosophy. Dependency on the government is not freedom and deep down every knows that.
The republican party needs to focus on it's routes of limited federal government and personal freedom. I believe that with the right leadership that message will attract many to the GOP.
17 million NEW Food Stamp recipients is definately enough to sway any election. How do you suggest the Republicans go about pandering to them? I don't think liberty, personal responsability and personal freedom to make choices is going to resonate with them.[/QUOTE]
I hope you are not correct Old Glory. I often say that there are more people in the wagon than pulling it also, mostly out of frustration. I have faith that the human spirit wants freedom, not tyranny. Last week I thought to mself - Do communist countries have an illegal immigration problem? Do people wait for years to be admitted into a communist Eutopia like Cuba? I dont believe they do, so that must mean that human beings by nature yearn for freedom. The democratic party has become the party of socialists and communists. They are all about "shared sacrafice" and "shared prosperity". They are all about the government taking care of your needs. They live the whole from each according to his means and to each according to his needs philosophy. Dependency on the government is not freedom and deep down every knows that.
The republican party needs to focus on it's routes of limited federal government and personal freedom. I believe that with the right leadership that message will attract many to the GOP.
The government and the people have become so corrupt that we are doomed as a nation. I beleve we will collapse within our lifetimes in the way that old Russia did.
Glory/Jrlz: When you lose your job and you're about to lose everything you've worked your life for, Food Stamps will help you feed your children - no child in the US should be hungry. If you're going to vote are you going to vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children? Its easy for me to see why not you guys?
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
Here is a very well stated explanation for the election results.
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012...the-american-empire/
http://rabbipruzansky.com/2012...the-american-empire/
"vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children?"
Do away with Food Stamps? Deregulate Banks? You forgot poisen the water and kill off the elderly.
Do away with Food Stamps? Deregulate Banks? You forgot poisen the water and kill off the elderly.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Glory/Jrlz: When you lose your job and you're about to lose everything you've worked your life for, Food Stamps will help you feed your children - no child in the US should be hungry. If you're going to vote are you going to vote for the guy and party that wants to do away with Food Stamps, the party that wants to deregulate the Banksters that are trying to take your house, the party that says "we can't raise taxes on the rich, they're the job creators when they're the ones that got rid of you or do you vote for the guy that helping you feed your children? Its easy for me to see why not you guys?
Jrlz: as for Communist countries and immigration there are only five left in the world and of those, Cuba and No Korea are so corrupt no one wants to go there. Leaving Vietnam where most NIKE products are made there's huge demand for workers where they're treated decently as with China. Laos, bordering Vietnam and China is so isolated as to almost not exist.
Fisher: you're onto something here. I can concur that things will dramatically change in the US in the next 50-75 years as it has since Ronald Reagan's time. We, as a country, are not doomed but we as a Middle Class will continue to exist but with little upward mobility unless those in power realize that those that can afford to, should be the ones that take up the cause and help.
I must have missed something and certainly did not explain my position well. Was someone advocating getting rid of food stamps? I contend that we need to dramatically decrease the size of the Federal Government. That does not mean that people who are in need should not have a saftey net. That saftey net should come from state government, local government and charities, not the Federal government. The most efficient way to help people is at the local level. Sending tax dollars to DC to fund a big federal organization is inefficient. Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. How does that make sense? Prime example of government getting in the way.
As far as there being only five communist countries left in the workd and no one wanting to go there, that makes my point. Why do we want to go down the socialist/communist route with our country? National socialism has never worked and never will.
Jrlz: your Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. This sorta shoots that local being more efficient thing out of the water. By keeping the Feds in the social insurance business (that's what Food Stamps are and Medicare and Social Security) it makes sure that State and Local govts are not overwhelmed in the event an industry (be it coal, auto etc.) are taken out. Right now Unemployment Insurance rules and length of coverage are all over the place but I agree that there are huge improvements to be gained in this area.
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Chuck, You assume that all Food Stamp recipients are needy and that they have children and that those children will go hungry without the Food Stamp Program. Certainly true of some but an additional 17 million? Do really think that there is no fraud in the Food Stamp Program? How many of these recipients have big screen TV's with cable, cell phones, high car payments, etc.? That means they would rather have those things than feed their children. That also means that indirectly, I am funding their TV's etc.
My point with the poisen water comment was that if you believe anybody wants to take away food stamps, you probably believe all the other lies as well which of course is proven by your subsequent comment regarding fracking.
My point with the poisen water comment was that if you believe anybody wants to take away food stamps, you probably believe all the other lies as well which of course is proven by your subsequent comment regarding fracking.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: your Example: a local charity in my area that helps to feed the elderly who live on thier own has been ordered to stop using their food supply vendor and instead use the governments chosen vendor, even though they are more expensive, because that is the policy. This sorta shoots that local being more efficient thing out of the water. By keeping the Feds in the social insurance business (that's what Food Stamps are and Medicare and Social Security) it makes sure that State and Local govts are not overwhelmed in the event an industry (be it coal, auto etc.) are taken out. Right now Unemployment Insurance rules and length of coverage are all over the place but I agree that there are huge improvements to be gained in this area.
As for your socialist/communist comment. People think they are one and the same - not so. Communism involves Central Planning and Control of all area of production and distribution whereas the socialized countries are quite a bit less structured in those areas.
And Glory my defense of Food Stamp recipients was in reaction to your comment about 17 million additional Takers (not your words but I thought that's where you were going - regardless, I don't fault anyone for voting for the guy that's going to make things easier for his family and NOT VOTE for the guy that's gonna make them worse. No child should go hungry regardless how uneducated, lazy or whatever their parents are. Now if I was wrong about you 17 million comment it's MY BAD and sorry goes back to you . . . but I didn't realize Romney was poisioning the water (oh yes that Fracking thing and Natural Gas, he sure is).
Chuck I am not shure how that shows that the local government si not more efficient. In this case a town if being ordered to us the government "approved" vendor. That vendor is more expensive than the one the town had been using. The added expense may cause the town to have to rethink how many meals a week they can provide.
It appears that one of the presidential canidates did want to cut food stamps. The Toledo blade is reporting that the USDA will be cutting funding for food stamps to Ohio residents. The change will affect approximately 869,000 recipients and could mean a drop of $50 per month in benefits. How is that hope and change working out for the folks in Ohio? This change was not announced until after the election. The change is linked to how the USDA calculates benefits based on utility bills. Ohio did appeal the decision, but the USDA rejected it. So families that are struggling to feed thier children can look forward to $50 less per month in help.
Glory, check my post above where I said there were some easy answers and I stated that "most importantly we need to seek out and find all the source of tax avoidance, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, business tax fraud, immigration fraud (both employers and employee alike)" - I know how important it is to end the fraud, misuse, overbilling, unnecessary tests, unneeded farm subsidies etc.
Jrlz, your exapmle just showed that state/local involvement isn't the answer - I propose we give the money to religious and community orgs and let 'em know that if an audit finds waste, graft, corruption or whatever then BINGO, there goes the tax-exempt status.
As for the Toledo Blade article (gotta go read it) but just how does the amount you get for food stamps equate to, or is related to utility bills? I propose USDA ag subsidies be drastically cut (large corporate farms don't need it just small farmers since they're at huge risk due to market, weather, pests etc.) and food stamps funding go into H&HS (its a health issue not agriculture).
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution. We're in for an Austerity Crisis (why call it a fiscal cliff when the rest of the world calls it Austerity Crisis?) and it won't be pretty. I hope it happens because unfortunately I have no confidence in our elected or appointed officials to do anything more than kick the can down the road so they can get back in front of the cameras and talk about Benghazi again or is Susan Rice gonna be confirmed.
Jrlz, your exapmle just showed that state/local involvement isn't the answer - I propose we give the money to religious and community orgs and let 'em know that if an audit finds waste, graft, corruption or whatever then BINGO, there goes the tax-exempt status.
As for the Toledo Blade article (gotta go read it) but just how does the amount you get for food stamps equate to, or is related to utility bills? I propose USDA ag subsidies be drastically cut (large corporate farms don't need it just small farmers since they're at huge risk due to market, weather, pests etc.) and food stamps funding go into H&HS (its a health issue not agriculture).
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution. We're in for an Austerity Crisis (why call it a fiscal cliff when the rest of the world calls it Austerity Crisis?) and it won't be pretty. I hope it happens because unfortunately I have no confidence in our elected or appointed officials to do anything more than kick the can down the road so they can get back in front of the cameras and talk about Benghazi again or is Susan Rice gonna be confirmed.
Art:
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
quote:I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
What we need, very desparately, is a leader - someone who can get these elected idiots away from the cameras and microphones and to the study tables to hash out a solution.
From your lips to God's ears Chuck.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art:quote:I see that 90 thousand Texans have signed a petition to secede from the Union. Not even 1%, however I like their spirit!
Been there, done that, didn't work out so well! But hell, why not try it, at least you'll see if things are better then or not. They gotta keep the Cowboys though!
If Texas actually does seperate I would seriously consider moving there.
Texas has everything it needs to be it's own country. Texas has shipping ports, oil, natural gas, decent size land mass and some natural borders.
Remember when the Conservatives told the Liberals "America, Love It or Leave It"? Wow, times have sure changed.
ACTUAL INCOME TAX PAID
| % of Americans | Tax Liability | ||
| 47% |  |
$0 (47% of Americans pay no income tax at all) | |
| 37% | |
$1-$10,000 | |
| 15% | |
$10,000-$50,000 | |
| 1% | |
$50,000+ | |
The top 5% most productive Americans pay 59% of all income tax collected by the Fed Government. Despite the media labeling this category of taxpayers as "wealthy" - over half of those most productive Americans are actually small business owners taxed at the personal income tax rates.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
<html><div class="rendom_title">ACTUAL INCOME TAX PAID</div>
<div class="text">
<div class="pool_result_container">
<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="2%"> </td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>% of Americans </strong></td>
<td width="47%"><strong>Tax Liability</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" height="10"> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color">
<td> </td>
<td width="5%">47%</td>
<td width="46%"><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$0 (47% of Americans pay no income tax at all)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color_none">
<td> </td>
<td>37%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$1-$10,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color">
<td> </td>
<td>15%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$10,000-$50,000</td>
</tr>
<tr class="sel_color_none">
<td> </td>
<td>1%</td>
<td><img src="http://www.section179.org/images/pollbar_red.jpg" /></td>
<td>$50,000+</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
The top 5% most productive Americans pay 59% of all income tax collected by the Fed Government. Despite the media labeling this category of taxpayers as "wealthy" - over half of those most productive Americans are actually small business owners taxed at the personal income tax rates.</p>
</div></html>
Startling is it not. I researched it once and if you took 100% of the income from everyone earning more than $112,000/year we could only fund the federal givernment for something like 10 months. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem. I say this is not that much different from someone with an additcition. You have to hit rock bottom before you can recover. The government & the country has to hit rock bottom, realize they have a problem and then recover. Look at Europe with thier Austerity problems. That is the US in the near future.
Who makes up that 47% anyway? Check this link out for a surprise answer . . .
http://www.businessinsider.com...no-income-tax-2012-9
http://www.businessinsider.com...no-income-tax-2012-9
Of course it's not JUST the very wealthy that pay no taxes, take a look at this link . . .
http://payupnow.org/
Easy to solve these issues if we could just get the elected officials that work for us to do their jobs.
http://payupnow.org/
Easy to solve these issues if we could just get the elected officials that work for us to do their jobs.
chuck
The rich pay taxes period, and yes they can get substanial deductions depending on how they spent or earned that money. But to have that article state they paid zero tax is absurd. We all pay taxes every day and so do they when the buy fuel, clothing, payroll deductions, etc.
I do admit that the current IRS thing is hokie and I'm in favor of a National Sales Tax to eliminate the IRS, this way everyone pays their fair share (yes even the people who are in the country illegally).
The US has 3.1 millionaires, to say 7,000 paid zero taxes, means that 99.75% paid taxes according to that web sites math. I'd take 99.75% all of the time. Again the current IRS tax system stinks and it is not fair.
The rich pay taxes period, and yes they can get substanial deductions depending on how they spent or earned that money. But to have that article state they paid zero tax is absurd. We all pay taxes every day and so do they when the buy fuel, clothing, payroll deductions, etc.
I do admit that the current IRS thing is hokie and I'm in favor of a National Sales Tax to eliminate the IRS, this way everyone pays their fair share (yes even the people who are in the country illegally).
The US has 3.1 millionaires, to say 7,000 paid zero taxes, means that 99.75% paid taxes according to that web sites math. I'd take 99.75% all of the time. Again the current IRS tax system stinks and it is not fair.
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
You're wrong the WSJ reported that there is 3.1 millionaires in the US. I'll believe the WSJ before I believe a rogue web site.
I'm middle income and I have no problem with National Sales Tax, you see that's the problem we are in..... x amount of people are NOT paying taxes and that's not the way our tax code was meant to be. EVERYONE would pay their FAIR share and the FAIREST way for EVERYONE to pay taxes is a national sales tax.
There could be exemptions for those on disability, but if you can work you need to pay taxes
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Art, there are only 433,000 people making $1,000,000 or more per year in the US in 2011 (321,000 in 2008). This is income that is taxed not net worth which isn't taxed, earnings are taxed. A National Sales Tax is NOT a fair tax as it inordinately places a heavier burden on Middle Income and below since they spend all they make. Wealthy families (say $1,000,000) don't spend 20 times what a family making $50,000 spends. If we'd simply use the taxes rates in effect during Ronald Reagan's first term and close up the graft and corruption of tax cheats (make them HURT) and base Corporate taxes on revenues received BEFORE expenses we could capture quite a bit of "hidden" profits and taxes that individuals should be willing to pay.
Chuck, by tax cheats I hope you mean people are not paying taxes according to the law and not those paying taxes according to the current law. I would disagree with taxing companies based on revenue and not taking into account expenses. What happens when profits fall and companies struggle, like they are now? This will make matters worse and companies will be forced to cut even more jobs just to pay the tax bill. Furthermore, taxing companies is actually taxing the poor. If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them. A law of business is that they will always pass increased costs onto the next level down. That is unless you go totally communist and start controlling what business can charge for something.
A National Sales Tax is basically a consumption tax. It is not a progressive tax as it impacts lower income people much more than higher income people.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Although personal and corporate income taxes provide the bulk of revenue to the federal government, consumption taxes continue to be a primary source of income for state and local governments.
Are you proposing a new Federal tax on top of existing State and Municipal taxes in exchange for greatly simplifying the Federal tax code?
Although a National Tax is a fairly simple concept it would probably be a monster to litigate.
Jrlz: if I may use your quote
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: if I may use your quote. Please don't use Big Oil as your example because they are the industry (along with Finance/Banking/Investment) that need the most adjustment. Can you in any way justify the "Oil Depletion Allowance" given to Big Oil permitting them to essentially "depreciate" the Oil they're taking from the ground andselling to us? They're billions of dollars of profits IN A FISCAL QTR is terrible. Is oil costly to produce, sure but those costs are passed on to consumers. I was saying to tax their revenue so that when their rev decreases so do the taxes they owe but when they are selling more and more oil products they pay higher and higher taxes. But to allow deductions for sold inventory, its not right - an MFP dealer can't offset his SOLD inventory against his PROFITS can he?quote:If we increase taxes on say "big oil", a popular target of the left. What is big oil going to do? They will pass that increase on to the wholesalers. The wholesalers will pass that cost onto the retailers. The retailers will pass that cost onto the consumer. This will result in gas, heating oil, anything delivered viz a truck costing more. This results in taking more money from the consumer. This hurts the middle class and the poor more than it will hurt the wealthy. There are a lot of struggling middle class and poor familes. Increasing thier fuel costs, fuel costs and the cost of all sorts of other items will hurt them
By tax cheats I was referring to those who manipulate their cash flows and revenues to avoid taxes, e.g. Apple's Irish revenues and profits.
The "Fair Tax" Art mentioned has some merit but more as a Value Added Tax (a la Europe) than as a Nat'l Sales Tax but proponents of the "Fair Tax/Nat'l Sales Tax" concede that we'd need a rate of 30-35% unless there are rebates to lower income families.
I can justify the oil depletion allowance. It is a form of depreciation built into the tax code. Also, billions in profits in a fiscal quarter is great, not terrible. Why is profit bad? Profit helps companies to grow, create more jobs, buy more equipment again creating more jobs, and pay dividends to share holders. An MFP dealer can use depreciation on their inventory. In addition at this time of year many companies will use the depreciation allowance to justify end of year purchases, hopefully giving the economy a boost. I wonder why the democrats did not change the tax code regarding the oil industry when they had control of congress and the whitehouse for the first two years of the Obama administration. They obviously want a target to beat up and create class warfare with rather than fixing what they say is a problem. How much tax revenue does the government make from the various taxes on oil? My guess is that it is also in the billions, may even be more than the oil companies make. Why is that not terrible? The government who had no hand in extracting and refining is profiting greatly, but that is ok?
Art my friend, if you'll trust the WSJ then go here: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20...n-50-million-a-year/
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
then Click on the Social Security link. In 2009 those with earnings in excess of $1,000,000 amounted to 77,607 and I stand corrected. Again you may be referring to a NET WORTH number but you pay taxes on earned income not your NET WORTH.
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
I think we all can agree that from a revenue standpoint there much that needs to be addressed and many ways to address it AND from the spending side thare are also many ways to address this but the answers are relatively easy. The HARD PART is getting our elected officials to 1) Address the issues and 2) Negotiate a compromise. I see no hope in solving the issues just them kicking the can further down the block till we have Europe style austerity, heaven forbid.
quote:Originally posted by Chuck:
Jrlz: Profit IS good, but oil companies are a little "over the top" (Exxon $47 BILLION in profit while we pay $3.75 a gallon). High gas prices is why many Americans buy Korean and Japanese autos. And FWIW, I never sold any devices to oil companies.
Chuck, that is a very Socialist answer. Are you suggesting that the Government should step in and dictate what a "reasonable" profit should be? If you were a stock holder of Exxon, you wouldn't be too pleased with that. Let' change the equation to percentage of profit. What percentage of profit is reasonable? Is 10%? Is 15%? According to Wikipedia, Exxon's revenue in 2011 was $486 Billion and their net profit was $41 Billion which makes their profit percentage a little over 8%. Take away ALL their profits and the price of gas goes down about $0.30/gallon (8% of $3.75/gallon). That doesn't seem extravegant to me no matter what we pay for gas. But, of course you take away the profit and Exxon might just go away. Then where would we be hmmm? By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon.
Hey Glory, that wasn't meant to sound socialist - socialist is like most other oil-producing countries Canada, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Lybia, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Venuezela, Nigeria, Russia - where the oil production has been Nationalized. I just want to see Corporate tax rates of 35% be realized as they are on small businesses.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
I'm not gonna quibble about the percentage of profits Exxon makes, hell I think its great (as a stockholder) and whether or not we pay $3.50, $3.75 or $4.50 a gallon is of little concern for me. BUT, as a loyal American that dutifully, and without reservation, pays my fair share of income taxes, I find Exxon making $47 BILLIONS in profit AND PAYING ZERO, REPEAT ZERO in taxes to the IRS a little over the top. Again our IRS tax laws need adjustment and I add that in addition to paying ZERO to the IRS they received a future benefit (read that as a credit against future taxes) of $156,000,000. For those of us still in the fact check mode, please consult page 92 of their SEC 10-K filing for 2009. This is why I suggested that perhaps Corporate taxes be based on Revenues rather than Profits; realistically not workable but what a way to be certain we collect SOME corporate taxes (it'd work for GE, Wells Fargo too since they paid NO IRS taxes either).
And in response to your reminder of "By the way, the average tax on a gallon of gas is $0.489/gallon." That's the tax you and I pay (not Exxon) to build and maintain the roads, mass transit etc.
I still say the solutions are easy, there just has to be some negotiation and compromise; not so easy as long as we keep electing the BOZO's that are in the pockets of Lobbyists that should represent US.
How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made. However, whatever they (or any company) pay in taxes will be passed on to you and I, the consumer.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
My comment regarding the tax liability of every gallon of gas was meant for informational purposes only. It was not meant as an indictment. I actually believe that this is one of the few taxes that is well placed.
quote:How much Exxon paid (or didn't pay) in taxes is a totally different subject from how much profit they made
What they DIDN'T pay in taxes went to the shareholders and what they DIDN'T pay in taxes is what I want to see changed.
I believe we need a constitutional amendment that would tie the hands of our elected officials as it pertains to budgeting. Tax increases alone will not solve our problems. The federal goverment needs to drastically reduce spending in addition to any tax increases. I hope, but know that our elected officials on both sides of the isles will not live up to this. Here are the brutal numbers: Our federal budget is 3.73 Trillion dollars. Roughly 1 Trillion of this does not exist, leading to defecit spending. If we let the Bush era tax cuts on incomes of $250,000+ expire that would generate 829 Billion, so we are still 171 Billion in the hole. If we increased corporate tax rates by 20% we would still be in the hole by about 120 Billion. Let's assume all of these tax increases do not negatively effect the economy, although it most certainly would, the federal government would have to cut somewhere around 700 Billion per year from it's budget to erase the deficits and begin to pay back the 16 Trillion we owe. It would take us about 20 years to pay of the US debt at this rate. I only wish we had some elected offical with the intestinal fortitude to propose such a plan. Painful yes, but we need drastic spending cuts to go along with any increased taxes. Anything less is just prolonging the problem.
quote:Originally posted by Old Glory:
Do you think a Constitutional Amendment would do any good? The Constitution mandates a budget every year but there hasn't been one in four years.
Valid point. I think we need an amendment becuase no congress can bind future congresses, so even if we had a group of rational adults in and they passed commonsense budgets and laws, in 2+ years a future congress could undo the whole thing. Perhaps, as part of the amendment if congress and the white house failed to produce a budget all the law makers would not get paid, including thier staffs. Extreme, but I think we need something extreme if we are going to turn things around. If you ran a business like our federal government you would first be out of business and secondly be going to jail for accounting fraud.
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
quote:Originally posted by Art Post:
Great points, we could also sell/lease the US Post Office and get rid of that burden.
Great point Art. The US Post Office is a case study on how the government should not run a business. The post office has a failing business model and has failed to adapt. For one, the drop in documents being mailed becuase of e-mail. How did they not see that one coming. Secondly, charging the same rate regardless of where you are mailing to, across the town or across the country and they charge the same. I think they are legally bound to this policy, but it should be changed. Go to a tiered system,something like breaking the countryies into regions and mailing from one region the the next would cost you more. How about getting into the e-commerce software business to facilitate on-line bill paying to replace the loss of bills being mailed. The opportunties are endless.
Jrlz: I like your thoughts on how to solve the budget issues and if your number are correct and valid your solution would work with one small addition. You state letting the Geo Bush Tax Cuts expire and raise Corp taxes we could get to a shortfall of $120 Billion. I'd suggest that if we reduce the Defense budget by 16% Voila, balanced budget. Of course we could restrict the Defense spending to the TOTAL of the next five largest spending countries in the world and save over $300 Billion additional - that would hammer away at the debt too. I said it was easy but we need compromise; not so easy. US Postal Service privatized? Who'd deliver all that junk-mail in my mailbox?
the defense spending does a lot for the economy and their are many jobs attached to the spending, I fear a large cut will put many many civilians out of work, and not only the ones that work for the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Companies like Lockheed, GE, Tyco, etc.
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
The first priority needs to privatize the US post office and turn it into a profit center and get it out of the loss column.
Second cut foreign aid by 50%, let china spend their money and we'll keep a strong defense just in case.
Third, the frontier..... go back to the moon before the Chinese and mine for Helium 3 and other minerals and bring back home and sell to other countries for a profit. Empty the prisons and have them go to work and live on the moon and make money. Kinda like England did with Australia.
Go column by column and see where cuts can be made to BS programs that do not generate revenue for the government. Do not cut medicaid, social security and other programs the are needed in case you are disabled with sickness or injury.
Enact tougher laws to deal with those who defraud the government, and then send their asses to the moon.
EPA.....let them regulate the moon, just bring them under control and cut some of the red tape. Pollution in China in rampant, kinda glad we have the EPA but they are costing the US more dollars than they save.
Higher education give scholarships for new emerging technologies.
as Vince would say "that's my two cents"
I was in Arizona for a dealer meeting two years ago. Phoenix to Tuscon. I was very surprised by how much military I saw there alongside the touristy routes and remember thinking what a big impact it must have on the general economy.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
quote:
It is crazy inefficent that the US Post office has to deliver on Saturdays. In rural Canada, a lot of people do not get mail delivery to their homes, they must go to a super mailbox with 20-50 individual mail boxes.
Not only that, but when I go the post office, I guess they put all of their intelligent people on the routes, cause most (not all there are some good ones) of the people inside are really really dumb and slow.
Art, dig a little deeper in your research of the USPS and you'll find that they DO NOT receive taxpayer money. The only reason they are financially in trouble is because Congress in 2006 required them to PAY FORWARD 75 years worth of Retirement and Medical benefits for future retirees to the tune of $5.5 BILLION per year for the next ten years (ending in 2016). Now I ask are FedEx or UPS or your dealership's Principals ORDERED to pay forward future retiree benefits for 75 years? Operationally the USPS turns a profit every year. Is there waste - sure there is but Congress is the problem. We call them lawmakers but what we need are fewer laws (take a year off WITH PAY, we'll even save money).
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
As for the Military Spending waste - how can we support the F-35 when the hours of maintenance vs. minutes of flight are calculated at present rates and we know the costs will go up - how can we support cost-plus contracts - where's the incentive to keep costs down? The F-35 is envisioned to replace MOST of the airframes we currently use (fixed wing) from the flying tank, the Warthog, to the F-22 Strike Fighter - just think about that for a moment - the F-35 is a failure now just like the F-22 was a failure when it went into production - pilots black out in the damn thing now.
We don't need more aircraft carriers and battle-groups to support them. We have over 550 foreign bases - Lets close them all down and bring our troops home - we don't need 10,000 troops in Afghanistan in 2014 - hell, they can't do anything now. How many thousands are there in Korea and Japan and Germany. Will employment be hurt?Not is we start rebuilding our infrastructure starting in Sandy's wake in NJ, NY and the NE. We can start repairing the railroad bridges and the old roadway bridges which keep falling down at regular intervals. We've got serious problems and absolutely NO LEADERSHIP in the Executive nor the Congress and now the damn Supreme Court is wasting time on immigration - who the hell cares - if we can just get the able bodied back to work in good paying jobs the the illegals can go back to being food service workers, vegtable pickers, hotel/motel maids and landscapers, like they've always been 'cause no one else wants those jobs. End of rant. Promise to not post on this subject again but don't tempt me. ;-)
Chuck:
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
I agree with the 550 foreign bases, there is no need for that many. My son is to be deployed to Afganistan in June of 2013. Not one country has ever won in Afganistan, it is what is is a tribal nation that relies on growing poppy for revenue. It will be probably be the same in 100 years from now. There's not much we can do there, and the "mayor of kabul" does not have influence beyond the city limit.
As far as military, CHINA is building and will continue to build as long as they have revenue. We need to have strong deterrent to make sure that China does not want to dominate the world. History repeats it self and one day there will be another napoleon, hitler and mussolini along with the various other crackpots that have come and gone. I'm all for giving the military what it needs to maintain our way of life and yes we could have more money to sustain our advanced military technology if we closed half of the bases.
If we don't have strong military then someone else will and that someone else is CHINA. It may not happen in our lifetime but I'm sure one day it will. In 50 years China has doubled their population to almost 1.4 billion chinese, in another 50 years they could reach 2.8 billion that's a lot of people to feed and they as others will set their sites to maintain their way of life.
When it comes to illegals, the US turned a blind eye and let them come in for years without doing anything to stop the problem until it was too late. I've read some articles that stated that the US needed a cheap labor force and thus the reason for turning a blind eye. Now the problem is out of control.
Whatever way you slice it, the people in Congress, the Senate and the President all need to be locked in a building and not be allowed to take leave until they have solutions to the nations problems. If this were to happen I'm sure we would have a solution rather quickly.
Too many people want their piece of the pie in government and we as citizens let this happen for many decades because most of our countries population does not bother to vote except in a Presidential Election.
There needs to be a strong third party however neither the democrats nor the republicans will allow that to happen. Laws are made for the rich by the rich, because we don't hold them accountable. When was the last time an average joe made it to the whitehouse?
That's my rant for the night!
Art, I am a veteran of Vietnam conflict (USMC) and a member of Veterans for Peace. I've had three bumperstickers on my car since 2004, "Bring them home NOW", "...and this time take care of 'em when they get here" (custom made) and "Another Veteran against War in Afghanistan" - I wish your son well and hope he takes his glove (and a spare) and a bat and ball with him - that's diplomacy. Don't worry about China they've tried to get into Vietnam twice in recent years, they can't . . . it is not the same China army MacArthur fought.
My hat's off to you for serving, I was a few years to young for the draft.
I also served in the Army (but was never deployed) and am for a sensible cut in the military budget.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
Heck, even the Defense department is for a cut in defense spending (they self-identified $136B of cuts that congress then failed to cut).
Seems those most eager to not appear "soft on defense" are those against the cuts.
In June 2016, it must be embarrassing to be personally associated as a Republican. Donald Trump is so associated with vague taking points and un-veted out political positions that he cannot possibly win the general election regardless of how dumb his "favorite" Americans are.
I understand that American politics is based upon tribes that will always vote for their political affiliation but this election season will feature the permanent demise of the last eight years of the obstructionist Republican party.
Who could possibly vote for a party that knowingly and permanently damaged the credit worthiness of the USA?
Donald Trump's unfavorability level is at 70%, the highest since announcing his presidential campaign, according to a new poll out Tuesday.
According to the new Washington Post/ABC News survey, 7 out of 10 American adults have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican presumptive presidential nominee. That's a significant reversal from a few weeks ago when Trump's polling seemed to be trending upward. Just 29% reported having a favorable opinion of Trump in the new poll. Among Hispanic respondents, that number is 89% unfavorable.
The fact that the democrat and republican parties are essentially the same these days are an incentive to shake things up with Trump. The latest congress was elected to stop Obamas shredding of the Constitution, and they have done nothing. Might be time for a businessman to eliminate some of these massive federal agencies and put us on a more fiscally responsible track. Trump has stirred up a hornets nest with immigration, we cant continue to have open borders. The media propaganda machine and foreign donors will fight hard for their bought and paid for candidate Hillary.
Are you implying that the for the first time in many election cycles that the Republican/ NRA party will have less money to spend on media than the Democrats?
Fox, CNN, CBC, BBC, Reuters, CNBC, TSN
The world press is reporting great concern over the possibility that Trump could become President.
I checked Snopes.com on 7/6/2016. They have nothing on this but they are decidedly left leaning so they may never verify it. Here is where a large part of the National Debt is.
We all know this but need to be reminded! It's your and my dollar.
Just Perks?
Salaries for Personal Secretaries for the U.S.A. President's wives
This will get your blood circulating! Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower:--- One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Total number of Personal Staff Members paid by Tax Payers.
Jackie Kennedy: -------One
Lady Bird Johnson-----One
Pat Nixon ----------------One
Betty Ford----------------One
Rosaline Carter: --------One
Barbara Bush: ----------One
Hilary Clinton: ----------Seven
Laura Bush: --------------One
Michele Obama: --------Twenty-two
Michele Obama's personal staff:
One.. $192,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
Two.. $160,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
Three..$133,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
Four.. $122,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Director of Communications for the First Lady)
Five.. $120,000 - Winter, Melissa (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Six.... $110,000 Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Seven.. $104,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
Eight.. $95,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
Nine.. $90,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project for the First Lady)
Ten.. $85,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Eleven.. $84,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
Twelve.. $82,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
Thirteen.. $80,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
Fourteen.. $77,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
Fifteen.. $72,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
Sixteen.. $70,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
Seventeen.. $65,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
Eighteen.. $63,000 - Tubman, Samantha a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
Nineteen.. $60,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
Twenty.. $56,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
Twenty-One.. $55,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
Twenty-Two.. $55,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
Total $2,075,200 in annual salaries -
all for someone we did not vote for and apparently have no control over.
5 are Muslim and 13 are African-American that's 18 out of twenty two .
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created
such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One on all ALL Trips, Europe included.
As of 11/15/2015 the Obama Family has spent over 1.3 Billion dollars on personal family trips.
They were personal not political or Government related.
Copyright Canada Free Press:
Yes. The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because America
no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might
be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama if any of them
published this