spot;1013681 wrote: Indeed he is. Hence my "all".
Politicians who promise they're telling the truth over a matter as major as whether to start a war ought to be brought to some sort of tribunal if it turns out they twisted what facts they had, and that a neutral reading of the evidence actually before them was contrary to what they claimed.
The war was created by the Bush White House, not by any of those other people. It turned out to have been a war of aggression, not a defensive war as the Administration claimed at the time. The intelligence they claimed to have, as support for their declaration of war, turned out to have been a flimsy tissue of lies, something the entire Administration was well aware of when it made its case.
Let's pretend we didn't get suckered in as well. Our MP's could have sacked Blair any time they wanted which is more than congress can do to the president. But didn't even after it became apparent to a blind half wit he was a liar. Gordon brown went along with it as well. lying bastard. (british you see we're allowed to call our leaders rude names)
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1013835 wrote: Let's pretend we didn't get suckered in as well. Our MP's could have sacked Blair any time they wanted which is more than congress can do to the president. But didn't even after it became apparent to a blind half he was a liar. Gordon brown went along with it as well. lying bastard. (british you see we're allowed to call our leaders rude names)
What it boils down to are two questions.
Would the war have happened had the British said no?
Would the war have happened had the Americans said no?
I think the answer to that clarifies where responsibility for the war lies.
What it boils down to are two questions.
Would the war have happened had the British said no?
Would the war have happened had the Americans said no?
I think the answer to that clarifies where responsibility for the war lies.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
spot;1014006 wrote: What it boils down to are two questions.
Would the war have happened had the British said no?
Would the war have happened had the Americans said no?
I think the answer to that clarifies where responsibility for the war lies.
At least had we said no we would not be involved in the whole debacle. TB makes me ashamed of being british- and he got in twice!! Labour will lose heavily in scotland at the next election imo and the main reason is the fall out from tony Blair. The smarmy git.
Would the war have happened had the British said no?
Would the war have happened had the Americans said no?
I think the answer to that clarifies where responsibility for the war lies.
At least had we said no we would not be involved in the whole debacle. TB makes me ashamed of being british- and he got in twice!! Labour will lose heavily in scotland at the next election imo and the main reason is the fall out from tony Blair. The smarmy git.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1014076 wrote: At least had we said no we would not be involved in the whole debacle. TB makes me ashamed of being british- and he got in twice!! Labour will lose heavily in scotland at the next election imo and the main reason is the fall out from tony Blair. The smarmy git.
The last time we said no to the USA was when we refused to send any armed force to Vietnam, and it took a man of Harold Wilson's stature to stand up to LBJ and refuse when the Americans told us to send them after the Gulf of Tonkin event.
The last time we said no to the USA was when we refused to send any armed force to Vietnam, and it took a man of Harold Wilson's stature to stand up to LBJ and refuse when the Americans told us to send them after the Gulf of Tonkin event.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
spot;1014192 wrote: The last time we said no to the USA was when we refused to send any armed force to Vietnam, and it took a man of Harold Wilson's stature to stand up to LBJ and refuse when the Americans told us to send them after the Gulf of Tonkin event.
That was another fabricated excuse for a war that didn't need to happen.
That was another fabricated excuse for a war that didn't need to happen.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
YZGI, small business should be exempt from the requirement to provide healthcare, under Obama's plan. In fact, they get a couple tax breaks too, just like middle class.
The core idea in Obama's economic plan is to give the middle class and small business an edge to compete against larger business.
In a nutshell the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load. That seems fair to me -- we win, we share a little -- but some people call that evil socialism. If you don't like the idea of socialism, it's also a good and practical counterweight to the formation of monopolies, or businesses that are otherwise "too big to fail ... and thus can extract a pound of flesh from taxpayers to reward their own greed and incompetence."
The difference between the economic policies of McCain and Obama is that McCain is clinging to the Trickle-Down theory (that Bush has employed in the last eight years), that if you help the people at the top, the wealth flows down to everyone in the form of jobs and investments. Obama takes more of a Trickle-Up approach, seeing the middle class and small business as the engine of America.
The core idea in Obama's economic plan is to give the middle class and small business an edge to compete against larger business.
In a nutshell the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load. That seems fair to me -- we win, we share a little -- but some people call that evil socialism. If you don't like the idea of socialism, it's also a good and practical counterweight to the formation of monopolies, or businesses that are otherwise "too big to fail ... and thus can extract a pound of flesh from taxpayers to reward their own greed and incompetence."
The difference between the economic policies of McCain and Obama is that McCain is clinging to the Trickle-Down theory (that Bush has employed in the last eight years), that if you help the people at the top, the wealth flows down to everyone in the form of jobs and investments. Obama takes more of a Trickle-Up approach, seeing the middle class and small business as the engine of America.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Jester;1014663 wrote: It's a Congress/Bush team that went to war.
The rules are that if the Executive declares an emergency and goes to Congress for authority to act, then Congress believes what the Executive claims to be true. That's fair, that's necessary, that's essential where Intelligence is concerned. It's what we did in the UK at the time as well.
The flip side is that when it subsequently turns out the Executive knowingly lied to its back teeth to push its own agenda rather than to react to an external emergency as it claimed, the Executive should be prosecuted.
The rules are that if the Executive declares an emergency and goes to Congress for authority to act, then Congress believes what the Executive claims to be true. That's fair, that's necessary, that's essential where Intelligence is concerned. It's what we did in the UK at the time as well.
The flip side is that when it subsequently turns out the Executive knowingly lied to its back teeth to push its own agenda rather than to react to an external emergency as it claimed, the Executive should be prosecuted.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Jester;1014684 wrote: Well nobody asked me to testify.
You can wait till he leave Texas, if you can catch him outside the US or somehow extradite him, I will be there armed and fighting to keep him here, and enjoying his life. If somehow you manage to capture him you will have me armed again, getting him safely home to his beloved Texas to live out his life.
Good luck with Either.
Why would anyone want the puppet prosecuted? I want Cheney and Rumsfeld in an American court answering to American charges of treason, together with anyone else who interfered with the standard operation of US air defences in order to make their New Pearl Harbor possible.
You can wait till he leave Texas, if you can catch him outside the US or somehow extradite him, I will be there armed and fighting to keep him here, and enjoying his life. If somehow you manage to capture him you will have me armed again, getting him safely home to his beloved Texas to live out his life.
Good luck with Either.
Why would anyone want the puppet prosecuted? I want Cheney and Rumsfeld in an American court answering to American charges of treason, together with anyone else who interfered with the standard operation of US air defences in order to make their New Pearl Harbor possible.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Jester;1014693 wrote: good luck on that ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah:wah:
It's your country, Jester. It's your future. It's your history.
It's your country, Jester. It's your future. It's your history.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Jester;1014703 wrote: I am ever so fully confident that in 30 years all will be revealed to be true enough to satisfy even you.
Finally we have a statement we could both sign up to! I don't mind that it took ages to discover, it was worth unearthing.
Finally we have a statement we could both sign up to! I don't mind that it took ages to discover, it was worth unearthing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
spot;1014688 wrote: Why would anyone want the puppet prosecuted? I want Cheney and Rumsfeld in an American court answering to American charges of treason, together with anyone else who interfered with the standard operation of US air defences in order to make their New Pearl Harbor possible.
You're not one of those that believes the 911 attack was a conspiracy on the part of the administration are you? I don't think much of bush et al but that stretches credibility just too much.
You're not one of those that believes the 911 attack was a conspiracy on the part of the administration are you? I don't think much of bush et al but that stretches credibility just too much.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1014863 wrote: You're not one of those that believes the 911 attack was a conspiracy on the part of the administration are you? I don't think much of bush et al but that stretches credibility just too much.
I'll settle for the notion of prior awareness and sitting back to watch it all unfold, knowing that the outcome would be outrage and a national desire to implement PNAC's foreign adventure. That, in all conscience, is treasonable.
I'll settle for the notion of prior awareness and sitting back to watch it all unfold, knowing that the outcome would be outrage and a national desire to implement PNAC's foreign adventure. That, in all conscience, is treasonable.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
spot;1014865 wrote: I'll settle for the notion of prior awareness and sitting back to watch it all unfold, knowing that the outcome would be outrage and a national desire to implement PNAC's foreign adventure. That, in all conscience, is treasonable.
Prior to 911 had the event been in a film people would have laughed at the idea as being too ridiculous as to be believable. That's a more believable scenario than them sitting back and letting it happen. Americans weren't used to the idea terrorism on their own doorstep so you can hardly blame them for not taking it seriously enough. That the situation was taken advantage for their own ends is indisputable. Hopefully some day soon Americans will get a grip on their leaders and call them to account but I think it will take a sea change away from the panglossian delusion that all is for the best in the best of all possible countries for that to happen.
Fascism was never defeated in the states like it was in europe and elsewhere, it became unfashionable, went quiet and then morphed.
Prior to 911 had the event been in a film people would have laughed at the idea as being too ridiculous as to be believable. That's a more believable scenario than them sitting back and letting it happen. Americans weren't used to the idea terrorism on their own doorstep so you can hardly blame them for not taking it seriously enough. That the situation was taken advantage for their own ends is indisputable. Hopefully some day soon Americans will get a grip on their leaders and call them to account but I think it will take a sea change away from the panglossian delusion that all is for the best in the best of all possible countries for that to happen.
Fascism was never defeated in the states like it was in europe and elsewhere, it became unfashionable, went quiet and then morphed.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Once again ya'll have let spot pull another thread off-topic. I'd love to see the stats on who consistently wrenches topics around to their own pet platform. There's probably a spot at the top.yaaarrrgg;1014286 wrote: YZGI, small business should be exempt from the requirement to provide healthcare, under Obama's plan. In fact, they get a couple tax breaks too, just like middle class.
The core idea in Obama's economic plan is to give the middle class and small business an edge to compete against larger business. The core idea in Obama's plan is to bring everyone under the protective wing of the government. He wants to provide healthcare to any who don't have it now, regardless if they can afford it or not (and I'd love to discuss what "afford" means), while "allowing" anyone who wants to pay for their own to do so. What he fails to point out - and logic screams - is that this gov't interference (the same interference that created this mortgage mess) kills competition. It would no longer be profitable to offer lower-cost healthcare. Insurers would be forced to raise rates, forcing more people to "opt" for the gov't plan. The spiral would continue until only the richest would be able to get healthcare other than the gov't model.
He and his plans are insidious.
yaaarrrgg wrote: In a nutshell the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load. That seems fair to meYour write as if this is not already the case. :-2
yaaarrrgg wrote: -- we win, we share a little -- but some people call that evil socialism. If you don't like the idea of socialism, it's also a good and practical counterweight to the formation of monopolies, or businesses that are otherwise "too big to fail ... and thus can extract a pound of flesh from taxpayers to reward their own greed and incompetence." :)Right. This takes out the middleman. Now the gov't will hold the monopoly and will already be rewarding the incompetent execs directly.
yaaarrrgg wrote: The difference between the economic policies of McCain and Obama is that McCain is clinging to the Trickle-Down theory (that Bush has employed in the last eight years), that if you help the people at the top, the wealth flows down to everyone in the form of jobs and investments. Obama takes more of a Trickle-Up approach, seeing the middle class and small business as the engine of America.Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work.
The core idea in Obama's economic plan is to give the middle class and small business an edge to compete against larger business. The core idea in Obama's plan is to bring everyone under the protective wing of the government. He wants to provide healthcare to any who don't have it now, regardless if they can afford it or not (and I'd love to discuss what "afford" means), while "allowing" anyone who wants to pay for their own to do so. What he fails to point out - and logic screams - is that this gov't interference (the same interference that created this mortgage mess) kills competition. It would no longer be profitable to offer lower-cost healthcare. Insurers would be forced to raise rates, forcing more people to "opt" for the gov't plan. The spiral would continue until only the richest would be able to get healthcare other than the gov't model.
He and his plans are insidious.
yaaarrrgg wrote: In a nutshell the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load. That seems fair to meYour write as if this is not already the case. :-2
yaaarrrgg wrote: -- we win, we share a little -- but some people call that evil socialism. If you don't like the idea of socialism, it's also a good and practical counterweight to the formation of monopolies, or businesses that are otherwise "too big to fail ... and thus can extract a pound of flesh from taxpayers to reward their own greed and incompetence." :)Right. This takes out the middleman. Now the gov't will hold the monopoly and will already be rewarding the incompetent execs directly.
yaaarrrgg wrote: The difference between the economic policies of McCain and Obama is that McCain is clinging to the Trickle-Down theory (that Bush has employed in the last eight years), that if you help the people at the top, the wealth flows down to everyone in the form of jobs and investments. Obama takes more of a Trickle-Up approach, seeing the middle class and small business as the engine of America.Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
yaaarrrgg;1014286 wrote: In a nutshell the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load. In the current tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1015112 wrote: In the current tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
I was reading about Warren Buffet, the richest man in the U.S. the other day. He remarked:
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs despite making much less money
Incidentally, Buffett endorsed Obama's economic policies.
Also I mean the largest load in terms of percentage. If everyone paid a flat amount, the reality is that people making less money would feel that burden more so than someone with seven houses and thirteen cars. One person might be losing their only house in a tightened budget, the other, might have to cut back on an extra house.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
I was reading about Warren Buffet, the richest man in the U.S. the other day. He remarked:
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs despite making much less money
Incidentally, Buffett endorsed Obama's economic policies.
Also I mean the largest load in terms of percentage. If everyone paid a flat amount, the reality is that people making less money would feel that burden more so than someone with seven houses and thirteen cars. One person might be losing their only house in a tightened budget, the other, might have to cut back on an extra house.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1014863 wrote: You're not one of those that believes the 911 attack was a conspiracy on the part of the administration are you? I don't think much of bush et al but that stretches credibility just too much.
At last!!!
At last!!!
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
spot;1012608 wrote: McCain is America's only hope, whether Osama's the better politician with the better program or not. Don't be seduced by the young Jedi, Palpatine's your man.
At last!!
I think you'll find that's Obama, Spot, Not Osama.
I can see how easy it is to confuse the two though.
At last!!
I think you'll find that's Obama, Spot, Not Osama.
I can see how easy it is to confuse the two though.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Lon;1012640 wrote: I thought that both candidates gave robotic replies and never really answered some of the questions put forth. There was no passion, no conviction. Based just on personality and charisma I think Obama will be the next president. Show me any past presidential election where the guy with the better personality did not win.
Peanut man --- Carter
Peanut man --- Carter
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Lon;1012731 wrote: Integrity, knowledge are different things. The majority of voters I believe are more attracted to the better looking candidate with good stage presence, charm, charisma, personality, even height. They could be an intellectual vegetable but if they have charm--------oh my.
Obama looks like a car with the back doors wide open
Obama looks like a car with the back doors wide open
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1014998 wrote:
Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work.
Because there is no gravity in economics, it's an interdependent system. If the middle class doesn't have money to buy the products that are mass-produced, the economy will grind to a halt. Or they start defaulting on loans en masse.
The reality is that money trickles up and down, all around. Harm one sector and it will send ripples throughout the entire system. It will even affect other countries with seemingly self-contained economies.
My goal isn't to screw anyone over, but help the sectors that need it. The middle class has been in a squeeze and deserves a tax break. That is a core problem with our economy, and has been for some time.
Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work.
Because there is no gravity in economics, it's an interdependent system. If the middle class doesn't have money to buy the products that are mass-produced, the economy will grind to a halt. Or they start defaulting on loans en masse.
The reality is that money trickles up and down, all around. Harm one sector and it will send ripples throughout the entire system. It will even affect other countries with seemingly self-contained economies.
My goal isn't to screw anyone over, but help the sectors that need it. The middle class has been in a squeeze and deserves a tax break. That is a core problem with our economy, and has been for some time.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1015112 wrote: In the current tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
The way you do things now doesn't seem to ne working terribly well. You need to have a serious discussion as to whether you re going to use progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth and use it to give greater access to education, health etc etc for those who currently cannot access such things on an equal footing as those with lots of money.
Your founding fathers founded a nation based on government of the people by the people and then set out t make sure only those and such as those got any real say in how things were done. It took you till the 1960's to actually have one man one vote-or one person one vote so you're making progress. But you still have the same old debates that have been going on from time immemorial does the state have an obligation to make things better for it's people?
All men are created equal so should the concerns of the least amongst you be given equal weight as those of the rich, those with property, those with a greater financial stake in the community.
If you think the answer is yes it should then what the vast mass of the people want is what they should get and at heart you believe liberal democracy is a good thing.
If you think that those who pay the most in terms of taxes should have a greater say then you do not believe in liberal democracy but would prefer an authoritarian state where those with wealth and influence-be it corporations or individuals basically run things for their own benefit.
Are you at heart a believer in individual freedom and democracy and the constant change and debate that that involves and accept that sometime things won't go the way you would like or do you think people shouldn't complain about the status quo but just shut up and know their place.
Basically you've been ****ed over by your establishment and convinced you have no right to demand social change. Instead of discussing what to do all yuor energy seems to go in to whether you have the right to do anything in the first place.
At least speaking as an outsider that is how it seems. Mind you we don't have a written constitution so no sacred cow to get in the way.
In a flat tax situation the people making the most money will be carrying the largest load.
I challenge you to find any successful country in history when the people making the most money did not carry the largest financial load.
The way you do things now doesn't seem to ne working terribly well. You need to have a serious discussion as to whether you re going to use progressive taxation to re-distribute wealth and use it to give greater access to education, health etc etc for those who currently cannot access such things on an equal footing as those with lots of money.
Your founding fathers founded a nation based on government of the people by the people and then set out t make sure only those and such as those got any real say in how things were done. It took you till the 1960's to actually have one man one vote-or one person one vote so you're making progress. But you still have the same old debates that have been going on from time immemorial does the state have an obligation to make things better for it's people?
All men are created equal so should the concerns of the least amongst you be given equal weight as those of the rich, those with property, those with a greater financial stake in the community.
If you think the answer is yes it should then what the vast mass of the people want is what they should get and at heart you believe liberal democracy is a good thing.
If you think that those who pay the most in terms of taxes should have a greater say then you do not believe in liberal democracy but would prefer an authoritarian state where those with wealth and influence-be it corporations or individuals basically run things for their own benefit.
Are you at heart a believer in individual freedom and democracy and the constant change and debate that that involves and accept that sometime things won't go the way you would like or do you think people shouldn't complain about the status quo but just shut up and know their place.
Basically you've been ****ed over by your establishment and convinced you have no right to demand social change. Instead of discussing what to do all yuor energy seems to go in to whether you have the right to do anything in the first place.
At least speaking as an outsider that is how it seems. Mind you we don't have a written constitution so no sacred cow to get in the way.
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Pros and cons in both candidates. but about taxing health insurance is a horrible idea. Also the people who get $5 grand tax break. will they truly use it for health care. I think a lot will not. They will just hope they stay well. Then what happens to those who do not purchase the insurance?? will we be taxed for their health care?? I have heard with Bob Barr running that this will be a shoe in for Obama. Mostly with a third party. the votes swing towards Republicans. This is different
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
oscar;1015197 wrote: At last!!
I think you'll find that's Obama, Spot, Not Osama.
I can see how easy it is to confuse the two though.
Methinks you misunderstand Yoda's intention young Grasshopper
I think you'll find that's Obama, Spot, Not Osama.
I can see how easy it is to confuse the two though.
Methinks you misunderstand Yoda's intention young Grasshopper
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Bryn Mawr;1017959 wrote: Methinks you misunderstand Yoda's intention young Grasshopper
Aaaaarrr, i understand Bryn :wah:
Aaaaarrr, i understand Bryn :wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
southern yankee
- Posts: 3906
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
a senator race is going on in my state. i will watch the debate. i think it will be so important this election To be very careful who you vote for in all the races.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
posted by accountable
Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work
Can you name on country that has been economically successful by concentrating all the wealth in the hand of a few incredibly rich people at the top?
Gravity works. Nothing trickles up. Explain in layman's terms how this is supposed to work
Can you name on country that has been economically successful by concentrating all the wealth in the hand of a few incredibly rich people at the top?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1018196 wrote: posted by accountable
Can you name on country that has been economically successful by concentrating all the wealth in the hand of a few incredibly rich people at the top?
USA
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
Can you name on country that has been economically successful by concentrating all the wealth in the hand of a few incredibly rich people at the top?
USA
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1018280 wrote: USA
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
Good thinking but in Britain, the fat cats would just take jobs elsewhere.
For e.g we have a leading clothing brand, Primark, in the doo doo for employing children in third world countries.
Every time i phone my bank or internet supplier, i get some-one in Bangledesh.
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
Good thinking but in Britain, the fat cats would just take jobs elsewhere.
For e.g we have a leading clothing brand, Primark, in the doo doo for employing children in third world countries.
Every time i phone my bank or internet supplier, i get some-one in Bangledesh.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
oscar;1018290 wrote: Good thinking but in Britain, the fat cats would just take jobs elsewhere.
For e.g we have a leading clothing brand, Primark, in the doo doo for employing children in third world countries.
Every time i phone my bank or internet supplier, i get some-one in Bangledesh.
Same here, but if they only get the deduction for domestic job creation, I think it might work.
For e.g we have a leading clothing brand, Primark, in the doo doo for employing children in third world countries.
Every time i phone my bank or internet supplier, i get some-one in Bangledesh.
Same here, but if they only get the deduction for domestic job creation, I think it might work.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1018303 wrote: Same here, but if they only get the deduction for domestic job creation, I think it might work.
Your economy depends on consumers to generate sales to generate production?
Give a $30,000 fixed annual tax rebate to everyone in the workforce with a requirement that they spend it rather than save it before the end of the tax year. It gets your economy going, your tax system pays people to do what the economy needs them to do and you get an instant social safety net and healthcare provision instantly. You put your economy back on course to full production. It's rather a neater system than you might at first imagine.
Your economy depends on consumers to generate sales to generate production?
Give a $30,000 fixed annual tax rebate to everyone in the workforce with a requirement that they spend it rather than save it before the end of the tax year. It gets your economy going, your tax system pays people to do what the economy needs them to do and you get an instant social safety net and healthcare provision instantly. You put your economy back on course to full production. It's rather a neater system than you might at first imagine.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Originally Posted by spot
Nixon against Kennedy. I thought Al Gore won on likeability too.
YZGI;1012710 wrote: You think Nixon had a better personality? Never heard anyone say that before.
Kennedy vs. Nixon has comparisons to Obama vs. McCain.
Gerald Ford.
Now he was a real firecracker !
Nixon against Kennedy. I thought Al Gore won on likeability too.
YZGI;1012710 wrote: You think Nixon had a better personality? Never heard anyone say that before.
Kennedy vs. Nixon has comparisons to Obama vs. McCain.
Gerald Ford.
Now he was a real firecracker !
I AM AWESOME MAN
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
Accountable;1018280 wrote: USA
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
Yeah that's really been working. in 1989 your outstanding debt was $2.7 trillion. Now the digital clock showing the figure had run out of digits. Your country is bankrupt but the rich are now really rich.
You need to get away from the sound bite rhetoric and start looking for solutions. All americans seem to do is spout bits from the last political advert they saw.
You appear to support the idea of tax breaks for small business when you stop and think about it.
If a company (or individual) with profits of £10,000,000 a year is taxed at 25% and someone that makes a profit of £500,000 is also taxed at 25% clearly the one paying 25% of £10,000,000 is paying the most tax. Do you consider that fair? Or is the impact on the income taken in tax for one of them disproportionate?
Which one if allowed to keep more of the profits is most likely to re-invest and generate more jobs and spread the jobs throughout the economy-thereby reducing the impact of one sector going in to decline-the one with the £10,000,000 plus turnover or the hundreds of small businesses?
You don't need more profitable big business and millionaires you need lots of small businesses generating wealth. Tax breaks to the already rich won't do that. just look at the last eight years. Paris Hilton buying a new cadillac doesn't really do much for your economy-though the guy washing it might be grateful for the crumbs from the rich man's table.
You puzzle me. On one hand you are all for being independent and self sufficient but on the other you seem to think it OK to depend on the magnanimity of the rich and hope they create a job for you if you let them keep more of their money. You maybe don't touch your forelocks as they go by but you do seem rather over impressed. As they say here in the UK Bollocks to that idea.
What's the lowest threshold for paying tax in the US?
My point is that giving the poor something for nothing does not give incentive to work or produce.
Taking from those who create jobs and demonizing the rich does not give incentive to become independent of gov't (I know, it's a foreign concept for you, but accept it as uniquely American).
Hey, here's an idea. Make job production tax deductible. Tax the crap out of the rich, but offer generous tax deductions for each new job produced - maybe allow the deduction after the job's been around, say, two years (I'm thinking as I type). Those rich people who do little to increase the overall standard of living, such as professional athletes and hollywood stars, can have their wealth redistributed.
Does that idea make sense?
Yeah that's really been working. in 1989 your outstanding debt was $2.7 trillion. Now the digital clock showing the figure had run out of digits. Your country is bankrupt but the rich are now really rich.
You need to get away from the sound bite rhetoric and start looking for solutions. All americans seem to do is spout bits from the last political advert they saw.
You appear to support the idea of tax breaks for small business when you stop and think about it.
If a company (or individual) with profits of £10,000,000 a year is taxed at 25% and someone that makes a profit of £500,000 is also taxed at 25% clearly the one paying 25% of £10,000,000 is paying the most tax. Do you consider that fair? Or is the impact on the income taken in tax for one of them disproportionate?
Which one if allowed to keep more of the profits is most likely to re-invest and generate more jobs and spread the jobs throughout the economy-thereby reducing the impact of one sector going in to decline-the one with the £10,000,000 plus turnover or the hundreds of small businesses?
You don't need more profitable big business and millionaires you need lots of small businesses generating wealth. Tax breaks to the already rich won't do that. just look at the last eight years. Paris Hilton buying a new cadillac doesn't really do much for your economy-though the guy washing it might be grateful for the crumbs from the rich man's table.
You puzzle me. On one hand you are all for being independent and self sufficient but on the other you seem to think it OK to depend on the magnanimity of the rich and hope they create a job for you if you let them keep more of their money. You maybe don't touch your forelocks as they go by but you do seem rather over impressed. As they say here in the UK Bollocks to that idea.
What's the lowest threshold for paying tax in the US?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Mccain vs. Obama Debate II
gmc;1018343 wrote: Yeah that's really been working. in 1989 your outstanding debt was $2.7 trillion. Now the digital clock showing the figure had run out of digits. Your country is bankrupt but the rich are now really rich.
You need to get away from the sound bite rhetoric and start looking for solutions. All americans seem to do is spout bits from the last political advert they saw.
You appear to support the idea of tax breaks for small business when you stop and think about it.
If a company (or individual) with profits of £10,000,000 a year is taxed at 25% and someone that makes a profit of £500,000 is also taxed at 25% clearly the one paying 25% of £10,000,000 is paying the most tax. Do you consider that fair? Or is the impact on the income taken in tax for one of them disproportionate?
Which one if allowed to keep more of the profits is most likely to re-invest and generate more jobs and spread the jobs throughout the economy-thereby reducing the impact of one sector going in to decline-the one with the £10,000,000 plus turnover or the hundreds of small businesses?
You don't need more profitable big business and millionaires you need lots of small businesses generating wealth. Tax breaks to the already rich won't do that. just look at the last eight years. Paris Hilton buying a new cadillac doesn't really do much for your economy-though the guy washing it might be grateful for the crumbs from the rich man's table.
You puzzle me. On one hand you are all for being independent and self sufficient but on the other you seem to think it OK to depend on the magnanimity of the rich and hope they create a job for you if you let them keep more of their money. You maybe don't touch your forelocks as they go by but you do seem rather over impressed. As they say here in the UK Bollocks to that idea.
What's the lowest threshold for paying tax in the US?Okay, quite a long response to the first three letters of my post (the portion with the big grin). Any comments on the rest?
eta: When have I ever indicated I wasn't for tax breaks for small business??
You need to get away from the sound bite rhetoric and start looking for solutions. All americans seem to do is spout bits from the last political advert they saw.
You appear to support the idea of tax breaks for small business when you stop and think about it.
If a company (or individual) with profits of £10,000,000 a year is taxed at 25% and someone that makes a profit of £500,000 is also taxed at 25% clearly the one paying 25% of £10,000,000 is paying the most tax. Do you consider that fair? Or is the impact on the income taken in tax for one of them disproportionate?
Which one if allowed to keep more of the profits is most likely to re-invest and generate more jobs and spread the jobs throughout the economy-thereby reducing the impact of one sector going in to decline-the one with the £10,000,000 plus turnover or the hundreds of small businesses?
You don't need more profitable big business and millionaires you need lots of small businesses generating wealth. Tax breaks to the already rich won't do that. just look at the last eight years. Paris Hilton buying a new cadillac doesn't really do much for your economy-though the guy washing it might be grateful for the crumbs from the rich man's table.
You puzzle me. On one hand you are all for being independent and self sufficient but on the other you seem to think it OK to depend on the magnanimity of the rich and hope they create a job for you if you let them keep more of their money. You maybe don't touch your forelocks as they go by but you do seem rather over impressed. As they say here in the UK Bollocks to that idea.
What's the lowest threshold for paying tax in the US?Okay, quite a long response to the first three letters of my post (the portion with the big grin). Any comments on the rest?
eta: When have I ever indicated I wasn't for tax breaks for small business??