Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 25 of 33 FirstFirst ... 1522232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 647
  1. #481
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Because we are in a crisis situation and a temporary financial incentive to jump start this development is, IMO, completely appropriate.
    So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Sure, because redistribution of wealth solves all the problems we have here, huh?
    I guess so.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    BTW, you haven't seen me write the smaller government/lower taxes comment in at least a couple of years. The GOP has lost their way in many areas, that being one of them.
    When did they ever believe that? Can you point me to one GOP President who shrank government?

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I never ever drew a correlation between the Pres. announcement and anything other than lower prices. The facts do not lie. It is a fact that the nose dive began the day after he made the announcement. Oil fell about $30-35 bbl. immediately following his announcement. To suggest that there were other factors influencing the price drop means that the timing was a mere coincidence.
    You've yet to put forth anything empirical that it was anything but that.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You have pretty much lost this point already.
    I can't lose what has never existed.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2008 at 01:22 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."


  2. #482
    MembersZone Subscriber ECCMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Near somewhere on the front range
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.

    You said:



    I guess so.


    When did they ever believe that? Can you point me to one GOP President who shrank government?

    Ronald Reagan


    You've yet to put forth anything empirical that it was anything but that.


    I can't lost what has never existed.
    Even if the others failed to shrink government, they certainly grew it at a much lower rate over the aggreate then their Democrat brethren.

  3. #483
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    First, I don't know what a laff riot is. Is that some kind of cartoon?
    This took a two second Google search.

    Laff

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    Second, you're trying to put words in my mouth again. I never said the DoD was efficient. And doing something efficiently is NOT the same as doing something better. Your attempt to steer the argument into a different zip code has failed. If we critique the DoD's efficiency, then they would pale in comparison to successful private military companies like Executive Outcomes or Blackwater. Exec Outcomes was keeping the peace quite well in Angola, but when Bill Clinton led the effort to oust them, the UN came in behind them with almost 10 times as many troops, and couldn't keep the peace.
    And what is the difference in cost for the private entities?

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    Do you think you're the first person to ask that? Robert McNamara already pushed for this almost 40 years ago, and failed. The Navy's needs vary greatly from those of the Air Force. And when you design a plane that can do everything, it ends up being too heavy to do anything well.
    The F-111 is your sole example? Why can't the USAF take over the air wings of the Navy and USMC with planes designed to land on decks. It doesn't have to be the same plane. Why does the USMC exist at all? The Army does ground warfare in all phases of ground warfare (Infantry, Armor, Artillery et al). The Air Force and Navy do air operations.

    Quote Originally Posted by txgp17 View Post
    The rest of America's Government programs usually provide both inefficiency and lackluster performance.
    You take them for granted. As an example, the CIA has done an incredible of detecting and preventing threats to the US via continued terrorist acts. You just never read about them. I'm not sure I would want a private firm performing that function. The Feds built the Interstate Highway System. Until then there was no interest for the private sector to build something of that magnitude. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

    Those are a couple of examples. I could list many more but don't feel like it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #484
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ECCMac View Post
    Even if the others failed to shrink government, they certainly grew it at a much lower rate over the aggreate then their Democrat brethren.
    Bummer. But Clinton beats all the GOP challengers.

    I know that's a shock to you, but the truth always is. And that doesn't even include the record deficits Reagan left as his legacy.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #485
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    So your answer is a redistribution of wealth? On the Obama thread you made this sound as though it were a snide remark.
    Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  6. #486
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Interesting on here that quite a lot of people are being reasonable and civilised in a discussion instead of name calling. For my 2 cents, I think the drop in oil prices following Bushs announcement was largely coincidental although it did send a message that America was waking up and the world knows that the US is the best in the world at mobilising once a problem finally gets identified. The drop was largely because of decreasing demand.
    I very much agree with George that nuclear electrical generation is a must and a lot sooner than later. IMO, the govt is going to have to take the lead here, same as in highways, hospitals, schools but hopefully with better results. Finland has just opened the newest nuclear electrical generating facility in the world and its in an area which from an environmental aspect, makes California look backward. It can be done, efficiently and safely, but its going to require a will of govt, people, industry such as was expended in the war effort in WW2. Make no mistake, this is a crisis of far more serious potential than a tin pot dictator. What is done in the next 10 years will have a profound aspect on the livesof our grandchildren and beyond. Hopefully, the govt can actually get the message that they are there to serve the people, the brain trusts and energy companies can form a partnership with govt and viable, clean safe energy alternatives can be put online. At this point in time, nuclear is the only viable alternative and really needs to be pushed. I simply don't know if any govt in the US can get around all the special interest money and ideologies to do it.

  7. #487
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Financial incentives are not even close to redistribution of wealth. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
    How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

    You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #488
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

    You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
    Here we go again. I am not confused and I most certainly understand redistribution of wealth.

    The socialist theology of redistribution of wealth occurs when money is taken from the percieved rich (people who have too much) and given to the percieved poor (people who do not have enough). This is done because of the socialist belief that, regardless of how hard you work in life and how succesful you become, you are not entitled to things that less succesful people are not. Of course this redistribution of wealth usually cannot be accomplished voluntarily. The money must be involuntarily confiscated by the government.

    The best recent example of redistribution of wealth is the movement to confiscate profits earned by "big oil" (whatever that is) and give it to poor people. The fact that these percieved poor people have not worked for this money is irrelevant to them.

    The flaw in this plan is that it creates a lazy society. The percieved rich have no incentive to do anything to make more money and the percieved poor have no incentive to work, since the government is going to give them money anyway. The other flaw is that this practice generally bypasses the middle class completely.

    BTW, redistribution of wealth has not been succesful in the long term no matter where it was tried.

    Contrast this with offering tax incentives to a corporation to entice them to invest in and complete major projects that benefit the public good. Of course, if the project is succesful, the corporation would make a profit. There is no question about that. But that is the reward for investment. Profit. The overall benefit is infrastructure that completely benefits the public good.

    There are a myriad of projects across the country where tax incentives have spurred projects that support the public good. Tax free trade zones, urban enterprise zones, infrastructure partnerships are but a few examples of what tax incentives can do.

    That explanation is neither intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  9. #489
    Forum Member DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Bummer. But Clinton beats all the GOP challengers.

    I know that's a shock to you, but the truth always is. And that doesn't even include the record deficits Reagan left as his legacy.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf
    Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  10. #490
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How so? You're still asking someone to pay a price not expected of others. The party not paying has more than the paying party.

    You're the one being intellectually dishonest if you don't understand how an tax incentive or tax deduction is a subsidy of the receiving party.
    Subsidies and tax breaks for private industry that serve the public good; utilities, large employers (Chrysler for example in the 80's), and banks/mortgage companies, serve the greater good.

    I have little issue with this. The payout in ongoing taxation and keeping the economic engine going outweighs the costs.

    When you debate the political POV of the republican party you apply very absolute and exagerated standards.

    That would be like me saying that the democrats wish to abort every fetus. We know that isn't true.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  11. #491
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
    If only that were true. No politician is going to shrink government. Why? It's political suicide.

    Every single person in this country is a part of some special interest...

    For instance, there are some great opportunities to cut education costs. Then the various SIG's get involved and stir up the parents with half truths or even just their perception of the truth. Fine, so then some say cut special education funds. That would send me over the edge, as I have a need in my family for such services. Then others say, cut spending on sports, and then my neighbor with kids in every activity get's his shorts in a twist...

    Or, you cut military and are branded weak on defense. True or not.

    Think of what things the government could cut that would get you upset. Now multiply that by 300 million.

    I see quite a bit of waste that is being spent in the name of "homeland security", right here in my own backyard... but if it was taken away most of my peers would get stirred up by those in government who like spending money on all sorts of goodies, if that spending was cut.

    What's the answer... I don't know. I do know that I'm for ANY politician who plans to cut taxes. I honestly believe that there is enough money to run this country, it's how it is being spent that I take issue with.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  12. #492
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    Republican Presidents don't shrink government, Republican Congresses do.
    Really?? Because the GOP controlled Congress from 2001-2007. Which one of those years did they shrink government?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #493
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Here we go again. I am not confused and I most certainly understand redistribution of wealth.
    ......

    That explanation is neither intellectually dishonest or ignorant.
    Your explanation would be very accurate if one assumes a level playing field.

    If you do believe that to be the case you continue to be both dishonest and ignorant (your words).

    Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work, public safety (police and fire) et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

    And BTW. This concept is a complete contradiction of "free market" principles supposedly embraced by conservatives.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-20-2008 at 09:47 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #494
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Subsidies and tax breaks for private industry that serve the public good; utilities, large employers (Chrysler for example in the 80's), and banks/mortgage companies, serve the greater good.

    I have little issue with this. The payout in ongoing taxation and keeping the economic engine going outweighs the costs.

    When you debate the political POV of the republican party you apply very absolute and exagerated standards.

    That would be like me saying that the democrats wish to abort every fetus. We know that isn't true.
    You at least recognize this as a redistribution of wealth. Something George refuses to accept. You also rationalize there is a greater good being served and are willing to accept that as well.

    Your point at the end is well taken.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #495
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Your explanation would be very accurate if one assumes a level playing field.

    If you do believe that to be the case you continue to be both dishonest and ignorant (your words).

    Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work, public safety (police and fire) et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

    And BTW. This concept is a complete contradiction of "free market" principles supposedly embraced by conservatives.
    Whatever. My points were very clear and very accurate. Your points are distorted and, as usual, implies a huge governmental conspiracy. I have nothing else to add.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  16. #496
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Whatever. My points were very clear and very accurate. Your points are distorted and, as usual, implies a huge governmental conspiracy. I have nothing else to add.
    George. I would continue this dialogue, but you're clearly in over your head on this one.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #497
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Those groups you wish to incentivize or subsidize are still enjoying the benefits of being part of our society (defense, infrastructure, an educated work force et al) but you've excused them for paying for the services, hence that burden is now placed even greater upon the group without the incentive or subsidy. Hence the redistribution of wealth.

    It can be argued that this is different than just outright taking money from the rich to pay the poor.
    We can argue the legitimacy of welfare, food stamps, etc... till we're blue in the face from our various backgrounds, which is outright wealth redistribution.
    The difference is that with welfare, money is simply given, whether a person wants to improve their situation, or stay on welfare their entire life.

    Providing tax deferred incentives for companies is different in that they will provide jobs for people who will in turn pay taxes. It will have a net effect down the road that extends beyond their business. There are other companies they then buy product from to manufacture with, other to provide distribution networks, selling venues, etc... are allowed to create jobs and more tax payers.

    Never mind the fact that when tax deferments aren't given, a company will move someplace that will give them.
    Take the recent decision by MillerCoors to relocate their headquarters to Chicago. Miller's headquarters had been here for 150+ years, the buildings are built, the brewery exists, and the infrastructure is in place.
    The city leadership here refused to offer any tax incentives for them to name the new world headquarters here. Chicago offered close to 30 million dollars worth of incentives to relocate, and they did.
    The net effect is several hundred white collar jobs are gone, which are mostly six figure incomes. These people now will not buy homes in the area, or cars, or frequent restaurants, or use the airport here for business, meetings will not be here, and there will no longer be an international presence. How deeply will that affect the city/region? Who really knows?
    Factor that over several companies that leave, or go out of business and it grows rather quickly.

    Maybe we're talking semantics here, but in my mind there is a difference when I hear "wealth redistribution", and tax-incentives for business. In my mind, if we don't keep business here, and an economy going here, there won't be any wealth to argue for redistribution.
    One promotes growth and success, and one promotes stagnation.
    Last edited by jasper45; 08-20-2008 at 09:57 AM.

  18. #498
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    One promotes growth and success, and one promotes stagnation.
    So...let hungry children starve, but continue giving billions to people who are already wealthy.
    Gotcha.

  19. #499
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    So...let hungry children starve, but continue giving billions to people who are already wealthy.
    Gotcha.
    Bob, do you honestly believe that one of the planks in the Republican platform is to let starving children die? You know that's not true.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  20. #500
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    George. I would continue this dialogue, but you're clearly in over your head on this one.
    You're right. I tried to debate with you using facts. I made a mistake.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FF safety/chicken BBQs
    By princessAJ in forum U.S. States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 12:57 PM
  2. Chicken Fry on Saturday 6-24
    By rustyknobbs in forum Illinois
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 08:19 AM
  3. Subservient Chicken
    By EMTSteve in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2004, 02:22 PM
  4. Keithsburg FD Fish & Chicken Fry
    By emtbecka in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2003, 09:13 AM
  5. August Fire Scenario #2: BBQ Chicken Anyone?
    By Dalmation90 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-08-1999, 10:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts