tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post1890410431318701143..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: DistractionsPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-14568351057923710892009-03-27T18:24:00.000-04:002009-03-27T18:24:00.000-04:00Toad: I didn't mention hairy asses in the man-ass...Toad: I didn't mention hairy asses in the man-ass sex. I just like to mock you. Because if I didn't know you had a woman, I'd swear you're way to fixated on it. Wait, I'm saying that anyway. Of course, what does that say about me as I bring it up every other week? :)<BR/><BR/><I>Do you still not see the logic behind the theory that if Rich people who work at AIG and all the banks, get billions of our dollars which means they get to keep the jobs which pay them millions of dollars per year, that they deserve to pay more of that back in higher taxes on their personal incomes?</I><BR/><BR/>No. A flat system, where they pay the same percentage as everybody else, but because their numbers are up there they pay a much higher dollar amount is truly the fairest way. But I don't completely favor that approach either. If you go with, say 15%, when you're in the millions, you still have millions. But when you make $20k, that's $2500, which would hurt significantly, just as any sudden expense would.<BR/><BR/>This is why I keep coming back to the FairTax, which gives the individual some control over how much they pay, exempts people who don't make (and therefore don't spend) much, and still has a progressive element that taxes the people that have and are spending the most money.<BR/><BR/>What would be patently unfair is to start deciding who makes what after we give them money. If they accept the money with an agreement, that's fine. But demonizing someone after they get paid what the were going to get paid is evil, unconstitutional, and wholly un-American, whether they deserve the money or not.<BR/><BR/>And I still agree they should have to pay for the party sub. But you don't advocate the change that will make that happen. Under the current plans being discussed, you'll see the biggest party sub buyers go to another sub shop.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-67768890074937112522009-03-27T15:34:00.000-04:002009-03-27T15:34:00.000-04:00I didn't mentions hairy man ass sex. But you wonde...I didn't mentions hairy man ass sex. But you wonder why we have such debt and you need to look no further than Iraq, Bush, Haliburton and of course the out of control free market health care system.<BR/><BR/>I don't want a deduction for someone who got the 6 foot sandwich, the guys with the 6 foot sandwiches are the ones who get all the deductions, benefits and of course, most of the sandwich right now the way things are. That is what has to change.<BR/><BR/>Do you still not see the logic behind the theory that if Rich people who work at AIG and all the banks, get billions of our dollars which means they get to keep the jobs which pay them millions of dollars per year, that they deserve to pay more of that back in higher taxes on their personal incomes? Fair is fair right? They got billions from you and I, they are going to be at the tables when the laws are written which will allow them to make even more money, they are the ones who have congressmans personal phone numbers in their blackberries so therefore, they owe more money for all the perks they receive. Nothing is free. Those who get more, should pay more. As it turns out, the ones who get more also make more. That is what you have the problem with but in reality they are the ones who also get more. A 12" sub should cost more than a 6" sub. As you mentioned, you and I get the 6" subs and they are the ones getting the 12' party subs and they should have to pay for it.Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-49738995720573644472009-03-27T14:42:00.000-04:002009-03-27T14:42:00.000-04:00Toad: You can't make an argument without mentioni...Toad: You can't make an argument without mentioning either Iraq, Bush, or Haliburton (or man-ass sex), can you?<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, your argument just highlights the need for the FairTax. Because the 6" sub would be subsidized with only healthy toppings, the 12" would be taxed normally, and the big-assed party sub would be a deduction.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-69112804450216514982009-03-26T18:00:00.000-04:002009-03-26T18:00:00.000-04:00Toad: Bush did it when he was in office. Obama has...Toad: Bush did it when he was in office. Obama has done it too. I guess the idea of "change" does not cover this.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-80740403196020165072009-03-25T16:10:00.000-04:002009-03-25T16:10:00.000-04:00So you want to punish people who spend money? I do...So you want to punish people who spend money? I don't think that would work right now as we need people to be spending.<BR/><BR/>Not only the wealthy are taxed. I pay plenty in taxes and I am not rich, by Afghanistan standards, sure, I am rich but not by American standards. You can't tax someone who doesn't make any money, I don't know what you don't understand about that. If you need money to invade Iraq or give money to Halliburton, AIG, Exxon, ADM or who ever, should you be taxing the people with no money or the people with money? Especially since those people with money are the ones with all the access to the government and are the ones who choose our leaders and write our laws and hire all the lobbyists. They get more so they should pay more. Its the same concept as your flat tax, those who spend more get taxed more. My concept is the same, the one who gets more should pay more. If i get a 6 inch sandwich but you get a 12" sandwich shouldn't you pay more than I pay? Isn't that logical?<BR/><BR/>Dmarks:<BR/><BR/>I thought Bush was the one who rushed a welfare bill for rich people including AIG to the table without any provisions and probably without reading it??Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-15752879621018138192009-03-25T15:47:00.000-04:002009-03-25T15:47:00.000-04:00I remember the few times George W. Bush vetoed was...I remember the few times George W. Bush vetoed wasteful spending bills... and the Dems gave him hell over it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, in the current political climate, it is an incorrect act to even read what Congress passes. I remember when one commenter here accused McCain of "grandstanding" because he dared.... DARED.... to read from the contents of a budget bill. That is such OUTRAGEOUS behavior!<BR/><BR/>You can't expect Obama to read the bills he signs into law. He's got more important things to do.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-72611526104614735152009-03-25T14:40:00.000-04:002009-03-25T14:40:00.000-04:00Toad: When the system becomes so progressive that...Toad: When the system becomes so progressive that it only taxes the successful, then yes, it punishes the successful.<BR/><BR/>And people like Paris Hilton are a reason I support the FairTax. Instead of trying to get a fortune that is well-protected in tax shelters (and out of the country), it taxes the people spending the most money. Trying to tax income punishes those who earn it, and misses the ones with the accountants to hide it (AIG and Paris).<BR/><BR/>Dmarks: Wouldn't it be nice if we had a President with the balls to break out the veto...?Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-26671817317012822172009-03-25T14:33:00.000-04:002009-03-25T14:33:00.000-04:00Toad said: "And the AIG execs who made millions of...Toad said: "And the AIG execs who made millions of dollars didn't succeed either, they failed yet my money is being handed to them"<BR/><BR/>You don't have to look past the bumbling of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to find out why this is happening. He signed the bailout bill without even bothering or caring what was in it.<BR/><BR/>At the press conference, he was asked about the bailout, and said that it took him a couple of days to figure out. This, after he approved it.<BR/><BR/>For one, aren't you supposed to read bills BEFORE you sign them? One thing we know now, it is easy to "pull one over" on Barack. When it comes to what Congress sends him, he doesn't read the fine print. So much for Presidential responsibility.<BR/><BR/>For another, doesn't someone in the White House know how to use text-search on digital documents? This would normally take minutes, not days.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-44501222080569743812009-03-24T17:14:00.000-04:002009-03-24T17:14:00.000-04:00Patrick:You act as if taxes always punish those wh...Patrick:<BR/><BR/>You act as if taxes always punish those who succeed but that isn't always the case. The only thing Paris Hilton has succeeded in was swallowing some guys load. That doesn't mean that by taxing her inheritance that we are punishing her success. And the AIG execs who made millions of dollars didn't succeed either, they failed yet my money is being handed to them and you think they pay too much in taxes?? I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>Soapbox:<BR/><BR/>I don't really propose fiat money is the way to get us out of this but it is what got us into this mess. WEll, that and counting debt as profit only to find out that its really bad debt...oops!<BR/><BR/>But there does have to be something said for just printing more money. I mean the depression was worsened by the lack of money. When banks create phony money out of thin air, their stocks go up, money is not based on anything real or tangible anyway and only exists because the Feds or a bank says it does anyway so why not just say more exists and give it to the guys who are going to create even more fake money with the money we give them. You have to admit, either that makes sense or our entire financial system makes not sense and we should do away with banks and first and foremost, the federal reserve.Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-39159539605443777362009-03-24T14:41:00.000-04:002009-03-24T14:41:00.000-04:00Apologies if I'm late getting responses. It's bee...Apologies if I'm late getting responses. It's been one of those weeks.<BR/><BR/>Tao: I never said the rich people gave people jobs out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because they need labor to make more money. But the less they can make (without changing the risk), the less likely they are to create those jobs.<BR/><BR/><I>Personally, I think since it is now common knowledge that rich people and corporations can destroy our economic system I think that they SHOULD pay more taxes since they benefit more from bailouts...,</I><BR/><BR/>The problem there is that the whole bailout thing has given the government more tentacles into private industry. Now you're lower on the totem pole than, for example, AIG. But when those big companies have been sucked under government control, then they just move on down the line to the next source of revenue. Eventually, that might be you.<BR/><BR/>Arthur: You should hear my autism jokes. (side note: my elder youngling is on the spectrum)<BR/><BR/>Dmarks: Tao's point is (or should be) that Ford looked at the numbers, saw the benefit, and paid his workers accordingly. Of course, he didn't have the UAW to deal with.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-42606745681964129832009-03-23T13:24:00.000-04:002009-03-23T13:24:00.000-04:00Labor itself is not an unearned giveaway, but if y...Labor itself is not an unearned giveaway, but if you routinely pay out to someone, not just what they earn, but additionally an extra amount that supposedly can be used by someone to buy something anywhere, that is not sustainable.... especially when other companies are around that don't overpay like this.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-16945476124221311582009-03-22T16:34:00.000-04:002009-03-22T16:34:00.000-04:00"But you can't succeed in the long run doing this...."But you can't succeed in the long run doing this. You will be undercut by those who can charge less for their cars because the cost does not include paying for such an unearned giveaway."<BR/><BR/>Then dmarks, in the long run capitalism cannot succeed can it?<BR/><BR/>If labor is nothing more than an unearned giveaway and since laborers are consumers; that means consumers will always be squeezed for profits which in turn will limit sales...without sales there is no profit.<BR/><BR/>Without profit there is no capitalism.TAOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452702225885449029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-32429545248384229192009-03-22T15:44:00.000-04:002009-03-22T15:44:00.000-04:00Arthur: "Ouch. 'Retards'??!!! I think you might be...Arthur: "Ouch. 'Retards'??!!! I think you might be ready for talk radio right now."<BR/><BR/>Or the Presidency, as Obama proved on Leno.<BR/><BR/>Tao: "Even Ford realized when he was building Model T's that if he paid his employees enough THEY could afford to buy his cars and then HE would really make the big bucks!"<BR/><BR/>But you can't succeed in the long run doing this. You will be undercut by those who can charge less for their cars because the cost does not include paying for such an unearned giveaway.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-29510025554454261072009-03-21T16:33:00.000-04:002009-03-21T16:33:00.000-04:00PatrickM typed:'Shaw: I find both remarks funny. M...PatrickM typed:<BR/><BR/>'Shaw: I find both remarks funny. My only issue with Ann Coulter's remark: It's insulting to retards, comparing them to Pelosi.'<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ouch. 'Retards'??!!!<BR/><BR/>I think you might be ready for talk radio right now.Arthurstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01083956773592540646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-56495243988616525452009-03-20T19:52:00.000-04:002009-03-20T19:52:00.000-04:00Patrick,Explain this to me: "If you define fair by...Patrick,<BR/><BR/>Explain this to me: "If you define fair by punishing those who succeed, maybe. But taxing the people who can actually create (or save) 3 million jobs is a serious disincentive."<BR/><BR/>So, basically without rich people there would be no jobs. Is it because rich folks like to do nice things so they create jobs for other people? Is job creation like charity?<BR/><BR/>Why do we need a democracy at all? Lets just accept an aristocracy and allow them to decide who should rule...<BR/><BR/>You tend to forget that DEMAND has a whole lot to do with job creation and wealth creation.<BR/><BR/>Even Ford realized when he was building Model T's that if he paid his employees enough THEY could afford to buy his cars and then HE would really make the big bucks!<BR/><BR/>When you actually run your own company you realize real quick how important consumers are and how much more money you make when you have employees....and you can make a lot more money running a company with employees than you can investing in the stock market.<BR/><BR/>Even if the tax rate goes up to 39% as proposed by Obama I bet that I do not end up paying more than 21%.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think since it is now common knowledge that rich people and corporations can destroy our economic system I think that they SHOULD pay more taxes since they benefit more from bailouts...<BR/><BR/>So far the economic meltdown has NOT effected my business and there is nothing in the Stimulus package that will benefit me personally....<BR/><BR/>Get these rich, greedy, irrational moochers off my back....TAOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452702225885449029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-65304883623476248802009-03-20T18:43:00.000-04:002009-03-20T18:43:00.000-04:00101: Your post said as much....Gray: Barack Obam...101: Your post said as much....<BR/><BR/>Gray: <I>Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code...</I><BR/><BR/>Bullshit. If you define fair by punishing those who succeed, maybe. But taxing the people who can actually create (or save) 3 million jobs is a serious disincentive. <BR/><BR/>And the problems with our tax code will never be fixed by tweaking rates (whether it's Dems or the GOP doing it). In case you missed the banners and incessant reference, the only real solution lies in something called the <A HREF="http://www.fairtax.org/" REL="nofollow">FairTax</A>.<BR/><BR/>As for the downward spiral of the economy slowing, how has anything he has done caused this? Still missing the relationship.<BR/><BR/>Dmarks: I can imagine Obama will be getting himself a palm teleprompter next.<BR/><BR/>Shaw: I find both remarks funny. My only issue with Ann Coulter's remark: It's insulting to retards, comparing them to Pelosi.<BR/><BR/>Toad: For clarification, the signs that the economy is starting to come around have been appearing in their usual places. But the whole point of the Bullshit package (as advertized) was that it would do a whole bunch of things. But it hasn't been implemented yet. As for the earlier bailouts, they merely kept us limping along, and will cost us in the future.<BR/><BR/>But wait, regulation is a bad thing. Right?Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-13346846282536144772009-03-20T16:59:00.000-04:002009-03-20T16:59:00.000-04:00"If fiat money got us into this mess maybe it will...<B><I>"If fiat money got us into this mess maybe it will get us out if we just stop using it once everything is fixed."</I></B><BR/><BR/>And maybe it's just possible for one to be so completely open minded that their brain literally falls right out of their skull.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-25837753244923812522009-03-20T16:41:00.000-04:002009-03-20T16:41:00.000-04:00Soapbox:Fiat money is what caused this. When banks...Soapbox:<BR/><BR/>Fiat money is what caused this. When banks lend out 1000 it doesn't really become 10,000 dollars. Debt isn't really profit so buying bad debt is not real money. These are the concepts which allowd the stock market to soar for the last few years but it wasn't real. If fiat money got us into this mess maybe it will get us out if we just stop using it once everything is fixed.Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-88454863264241942802009-03-20T15:41:00.000-04:002009-03-20T15:41:00.000-04:00"Yes, the economy is way better than it was in Nov...<B><I>"Yes, the economy is way better than it was in Nov-December. Look at housing starts, look at mfg stats, the stock market is finally on the way back up instead of on the way down, I actually got a pay check this month, etc."</I></B><BR/><BR/>Pump enough fiat money into anything and it will look awfully rosey my dear boy. But only for a very short period of time. That is until the sheer weight of it all comes crashing down.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you missed this???:<BR/><BR/>http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/00FE0320-BOARD-OF-GOVERNORS.jpgName: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-71078164964640640552009-03-20T15:32:00.000-04:002009-03-20T15:32:00.000-04:00DMarks:Where do you keep getting this Clinton defi...DMarks:<BR/><BR/>Where do you keep getting this Clinton deficit shit? The budget was balanced under Clinton. Period! Revisionist history is not going to change that. Stop listening to Limbaugh, he is lying to you.<BR/><BR/>And its a lot easier to balance the budget if you don't have empire and try to outbuild the Soviets when it comes to nuclear arms, Star Wars, no bid military contracts, arms for Iran etc. Thats how Clinton balanced the budget.<BR/><BR/>Iraq wasnt costing us 600 Billion dollars and 4000 lives whilst making Iran even stronger. Iran wasn't building a nuclear arsenal and we were not at war. Every few months we would take out a radar site, thats it.<BR/><BR/>The economy had slowed down but the recession didn't hit until Bush and his Enron pals got a hold of it and allowed a bunch of guys with box cutters to kill more Americans since Vietnam.<BR/><BR/>Patrick:<BR/><BR/>Yes, the economy is way better than it was in Nov-December. Look at housing starts, look at mfg stats, the stock market is finally on the way back up instead of on the way down, I actually got a pay check this month, etc. <BR/><BR/>Now, is that part of the natural balance or is that due to the money injected into the system and some of Obamas actions, the price of oil etc.? Probably a little of all the above. Is the recovery worth the billions we spent on it? That is something else that is also debatable. I still say one bank should have failed and AIG should have failed and then we should sort out whats left and there should have been more conditions on the bail outs, especially the first one.<BR/><BR/>But wait, regulation is a bad thing. Right?Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-87003184447582627042009-03-20T14:21:00.000-04:002009-03-20T14:21:00.000-04:00I guess that Mr. Dmarks just don't understand humo...I guess that Mr. Dmarks just don't understand humor. Instead you wish to spin it into bashing. I didn't see it that way at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-47165446230502242282009-03-20T11:32:00.000-04:002009-03-20T11:32:00.000-04:00I see dmarks is quite busy today spreading his Oba...I see dmarks is quite busy today spreading his Obama "bashing" the disabled all over internet blogs.<BR/><BR/>Here is what Obama said:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Leno asked the president whether the White House bowling alley had been "burned and closed down" in light of Obama's gutter ball embarrassment on the campaign trail last year.<BR/><BR/>Obama replied, "No, no. I have been practicing . . . I bowled a 129." <BR/><BR/>The audience roared with laughter, and the late-night talk show host assured Obama "that's very good, Mr. President." To which Obama interjected, <B>"It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."</B></I><BR/><BR/>Intemperate, yes. "Bashing?" No.<BR/><BR/>This is bashing at its mean-spirited best:<BR/><BR/><B>But as long as the nation is obsessed with historic milestones, is no one going to remark on what a great country it is where a mentally retarded woman can become speaker of the house?--Ann Coulter, 2009</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I wonder, dmarks, did you run around the internet howling about that one? Oh, I understand. She's not the POTUS, but she IS one of the radical right's darlings, and they look up to her and her little pearls of witticisms. Gordon even calls her a National Treasure.Shaw Kenawehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637273000409613497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-45804387341337653602009-03-20T10:16:00.000-04:002009-03-20T10:16:00.000-04:00Grey said "If you saw him on the Leno show, not on...Grey said "If you saw him on the Leno show, not only did he exhibit a sense of humor"<BR/><BR/>Great sense of humor: bashing the disabled in one of his "jokes". He really needs to stick to the teleprompter.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-68965656910427458752009-03-20T09:59:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:59:00.000-04:00Until we get to a point where we're not including ...Until we get to a point where we're not including government makework projects into GDP figures, the GDP in and of itself is a bit of a canard.Name: Soapboxgodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894163990538183457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-57714981187103641002009-03-20T09:47:00.000-04:002009-03-20T09:47:00.000-04:00Barack Obama's Policies are off to a Good Start!Ba...Barack Obama's Policies are off to a Good Start!<BR/>Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 95 percent of working Americans the tax relief they need and the ones that make over $250 will just have to grin and bare it. In a modern world and a troubled one as it is today, you can never please everybody. <BR/> <BR/>If you saw him on the Leno show, not only did he exhibit a sense of humor, but he explained the AIG situation very well. I thought he was great. The stock market decline has slowed to a large degree and we even saw a 4 day rally. And the housing market has also improved. I'm not sure how much you know about economics, but I’m sure you do know that you can’t turn a situation like this around over night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com