|
Post by socal on Jan 23, 2009 14:08:03 GMT -6
And finally, we (or at least I) could give a shit what the latest rationale you've come up with to make your point... The new occupant in the Oval Office & the huge majorities in congress prove more people prefer the liberal path vs. the so-called "conservative" path. Come on Socal even you know that this statement isn't true, It's pretty obvious that some people voted for Obama and other Dems had at least a little something to do with their hatred of GWB. The last time I checked the Dems taking control over both houses happened in the last two elections. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that all people voted for Obama and the Dems simply because of GWB but to say that the last to elections prove that people in this country prefer a liberal path over a conservative one simply isn't 100% accurate and has a lot to do with how shitty a job Bush did in office. ---Thus my use of "more people prefer". Otherwise, I guess I must be missing the connection between the full-hearted endorsement of GOP congress borne legislation & the direct correlation of their growing majorities. 2010 is a time to prove your hypothesis. Until then you should be wary of the opening GOP salvo of: -Saying they are strengthening the economy dccc.org/blog/archives/nrcc_economy_is_robust_and_job_creation_is_strong/-Pro wage discrimination www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012201787.html?hpid=topnews-Anti children's health insurance (again) -Citing actions by fictional characters in a fictional world (Jack Bauer) on the floor of the Senate as proof torture works. ....that's the kind of stuff the GOP can hang their hat on.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 24, 2009 11:38:24 GMT -6
News from The President's economic advisor Robert Reich: White males need not apply. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.Edit: Here's the video of Reich's comments in context while talking with tax cheat and head of the Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangle. Never mind. Not a big deal seeing as only 3% (30 billion) of the $850 billion package is actally slated for road/bridge etc... infrastructure repairs(15 Billion in 2009 and 2010). So much for striking fast. BTW, isn't the federal gas tax suppose to cover this? Anyways, looks like not many construction workers will be needed. Forget what Mr. Reich said. I wonder where the rest of the loot will go? businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090123164740.aspx
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 24, 2009 11:48:48 GMT -6
Never mind. Not a big deal seeing as only 3% (30 billion) of the $850 billion package is actally slated for road/bridge etc... infrastructure repairs(15 Billion in 2009 and 2010). How does 3% of $850 Billion = $30 Billion??? If a Wendy's cashier accidentally typed in 10,000,000 Baconators for my order (instead of 1 or 2), she'd have been orders of magnitude closer to being correct than your statement. .....but after living through the Bush administration, I could see how miscalculations of 5 or so billions here or there aren't a big deal for you.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 24, 2009 11:59:27 GMT -6
Excellent point. Much less than 3%. The use of double/doubles(ocho/ocho) would have been a more effective(and yummier) analogy though.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 24, 2009 17:25:41 GMT -6
;D
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 26, 2009 10:51:30 GMT -6
To those amongst you who are in favor of increasing tax rates for the "rich" (evidently, that yard marker is moving south to $100,000) so that those who don't pay a dime in taxes can get a refund, I am curious about the following as it pertains to the relationship between you and your kids: Do you teach them that by working harder, they can earn the ability to make a better living and provide a nicer home and environment for their families? If your answer is no, you can stop here. If your answer is yes, why? I mean....how do you reconcile teaching them to work hard and be successful with your support of the Federal Government penalizing them via higher tax rates once they have done the hard work and gained that success? I played Big Government last Halloween. When we returned from Trick or Treating, I had my two kids empty their candy on the table. I divided as I saw fit, giving myself a huge portion(I love candy!). Of course, they weren't very happy and were pissed that they had just spent almost 2 hours "working hard"(actual quote). My daughter actually wanted to go back out and get more candy until I told her that I would have to take my cut and distribute the new haul as I saw fit. She declined. You were actually playing "CEO" but you're too fucking brainwashed to realize it.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 11:22:52 GMT -6
I played Big Government last Halloween. When we returned from Trick or Treating, I had my two kids empty their candy on the table. I divided as I saw fit, giving myself a huge portion(I love candy!). Of course, they weren't very happy and were pissed that they had just spent almost 2 hours "working hard"(actual quote). My daughter actually wanted to go back out and get more candy until I told her that I would have to take my cut and distribute the new haul as I saw fit. She declined. You were actually playing "CEO" but you're too fucking brainwashed to realize it. Maybe in the context of the Theory of Government Nationalization(CEO Fwanks, anyone). Not in the real world though. My subjects do not draw a paycheck nor do they move about freely without my consent. My overseeance team makes sure that my subjects have adequate food and shelter with or without any productivity from them. Iambiggovernment and I take whatever candy share that I wish.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Jan 26, 2009 13:33:30 GMT -6
You were actually playing "CEO" but you're too fucking brainwashed to realize it. Maybe in the context of the Theory of Government Nationalization(CEO Fwanks, anyone). Not in the real world though. My subjects do not draw a paycheck nor do they move about freely without my consent. My overseeance team makes sure that my subjects have adequate food and shelter with or without any productivity from them. Iambiggovernment and I take whatever candy share that I wish. I thought that game was called "Dictator." As in, "this family is a dictatorship, not a democracy."
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 26, 2009 14:05:17 GMT -6
Maybe in the context of the Theory of Government Nationalization(CEO Fwanks, anyone). Not in the real world though. My subjects do not draw a paycheck nor do they move about freely without my consent. My overseeance team makes sure that my subjects have adequate food and shelter with or without any productivity from them. Iambiggovernment and I take whatever candy share that I wish. I thought that game was called "Dictator." As in, "this family is a dictatorship, not a democracy." Dictatorship. Big government. What's the difference? The subjects cough up whatever I tell them to!
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Jan 26, 2009 14:30:04 GMT -6
To those amongst you who are in favor of increasing tax rates for the "rich" (evidently, that yard marker is moving south to $100,000) so that those who don't pay a dime in taxes can get a refund, I am curious about the following as it pertains to the relationship between you and your kids: Do you teach them that by working harder, they can earn the ability to make a better living and provide a nicer home and environment for their families? If your answer is no, you can stop here. If your answer is yes, why? I mean....how do you reconcile teaching them to work hard and be successful with your support of the Federal Government penalizing them via higher tax rates once they have done the hard work and gained that success? Ok, I'll answer your question. "Do you teach them that by working harder, they can earn the ability to make a better living and provide a nicer home and environment for their families?" Answer - Yes, absolutely. "If your answer is yes, why? I mean....how do you reconcile teaching them to work hard and be successful with your support of the Federal Government penalizing them via higher tax rates once they have done the hard work and gained that success?[/" Answer - Because I plan on teaching them that the world does not revolve around themselves and their wallets. I'll teach them that having a society like ours takes a government to make things run as smooth as possible. That government needs taxes to make that happen. And that people who have more money should have to pay more taxes. I'll tell them that if they are lucky enough to work themselves into a position of the higher tax bracket, to be thankful for that and not bitch about the fact that some clerk at Walmart has to pay less then them. Well we're not talking about a clerk at Wal*Mart paying less than them...we're talking about the clerk at Wal*Mart paying nothing at all, at least as far as federal income taxes go (and, increasingly, the high earners taxes being used to directly distribute money from the high earner to the low earner).
|
|