Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #326
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,225

    Default

    It won't work if you make any exemptions to the flat tax. As soon as you open that door every special interest group will want an exemption of some sort.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  2. #327
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    It won't work if you make any exemptions to the flat tax. As soon as you open that door every special interest group will want an exemption of some sort.
    Exactly right. Leading us back to where things are today.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #328
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Taht is true.

    I have no doubt that investment income should be treated quite differently from wages, as it's income generated by risk, and has the potential to be lost, and should be rewarded as such.

    And that lower rate would apply to anyone with investment income, not just "the rich".

    Other than that, I support a fully flat tax.
    Disagree. The structure that allows those profits to be made should have their costs borne equally by all.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #329
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Disagree. The structure that allows those profits to be made should have their costs borne equally by all.
    And those mythical costs that you and Obuma keeping referring to have already been more than paid by taxes at the corporate level.

    If I had my way there would be almost no taxes on investment income as a way to spur investment. You and your wonderful president's mentality that they should be increased is simply assine and does absolutly nothing to encourage investment.

    There does need to be an exception in any flat tax system to continue to encourage and reward investment where there is a possibility of loss.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  5. #330
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And those mythical costs that you and Obuma keeping referring to have already been more than paid by taxes at the corporate level.
    What are your mythical costs? Roads, bridges, the military? This is yet another idiotic statement when one considers the number of corporations that either aren't paying taxes at all or paying a very low rate. BTW, the conservative mantra believes that corporations are people. As such they should be taxed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If I had my way there would be almost no taxes on investment income as a way to spur investment. You and your wonderful president's mentality that they should be increased is simply assine and does absolutly nothing to encourage investment.
    Once you start allowing exemptions for one group, others will follow using them as an example as to why they should be given consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    There does need to be an exception in any flat tax system to continue to encourage and reward investment where there is a possibility of loss.
    See above response.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #331
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What are your mythical costs? Roads, bridges, the military? This is yet another idiotic statement when one considers the number of corporations that either aren't paying taxes at all or paying a very low rate. BTW, the conservative mantra believes that corporations are people. As such they should be taxed accordingly.

    So you really beleive that the rich uses all of those more than the rest of the population and much of thier wealth is derived because of infrastructure? If you do, I'm sorry but that line nothing more than a bunch of craps laid on by the libs to poloarize the American public.

    Once you start allowing exemptions for one group, others will follow using them as an example as to why they should be given consideration.

    So how do you suggest we incentize investment then? Without a reduced tax rate for investment income, investment will decrease. If you feel that it won't, you, my friend are out of touch with reality.



    See above response.
    I'm sorry that you and your liberal friends hate the capitalist system so much that you consistantly demonize the rich.

    The simple fact is capitalism rewards achievement. There will also be losers in capitalism that will be unemployed, poor or just plain and simple have made choices in thier lives that have set in motion evemnts that will never allow them to achieve. It is not my job, your job, or the job of the rich to sibsidize these folks through cradle to grave government programs with the exception of the children or the elderly. Liberals beleive otherwise, and i will never agree with that.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #332
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So you really beleive that the rich uses all of those more than the rest of the population and much of thier wealth is derived because of infrastructure? If you do, I'm sorry but that line nothing more than a bunch of craps laid on by the libs to poloarize the American public.
    Given that wealth has been transferred upward during the last 30 years, I would say you are uninformed of the importance of those investments that benefit them.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So how do you suggest we incentize investment then? Without a reduced tax rate for investment income, investment will decrease. If you feel that it won't, you, my friend are out of touch with reality.
    I don't. If there is a flat tax for all, the free market should be the determining factor for the best use of capital.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'm sorry that you and your liberal friends hate the capitalist system so much that you consistantly demonize the rich.
    I'm sorry that you continue to make uninformed statements. Capitalists that game the system are the ones that are being demonized. Your conservative friends don't understand the difference. Which isn't surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The simple fact is capitalism rewards achievement. There will also be losers in capitalism that will be unemployed, poor or just plain and simple have made choices in thier lives that have set in motion evemnts that will never allow them to achieve. It is not my job, your job, or the job of the rich to sibsidize these folks through cradle to grave government programs with the exception of the children or the elderly. Liberals beleive otherwise, and i will never agree with that.
    True to a point. Capitalism is a great engine of progress and its own worst enemy. It’s so good at pulling money out of the goose that lays the golden egg that it’ll eventually destroy it. The current financial mess is a good example. Oil companies making record levels of profit (paying a lesser amount of taxes than you or I) while the rest of the economy founders ( and indeed where those profits and the prices that create them are a major contributor to the foundering), is not just supply and demand doing its Godlike Adam Smith work. It’s exploitation of the highest order. The good of the larger society demands that the problem be at least examined, if not corrective action of some sort (and note that I don’t claim to be bright enough to know what that action might be). I just know that when I’m being screwed over,whether by governmental overreaching or by corporate greed, I have options in a free society to do something other than accept my fate.

    You're carrying water for a group that prays you continue to stay uniformed.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #333
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    True to a point. Capitalism is a great engine of progress and its own worst enemy. It’s so good at pulling money out of the goose that lays the golden egg that it’ll eventually destroy it. The current financial mess is a good example. Oil companies making record levels of profit (paying a lesser amount of taxes than you or I) while the rest of the economy founders ( and indeed where those profits and the prices that create them are a major contributor to the foundering), is not just supply and demand doing its Godlike Adam Smith work. It’s exploitation of the highest order. The good of the larger society demands that the problem be at least examined, if not corrective action of some sort (and note that I don’t claim to be bright enough to know what that action might be). I just know that when I’m being screwed over,whether by governmental overreaching or by corporate greed, I have options in a free society to do something other than accept my fate.

    You do realize that the profit being made by the oil companies are in terms of costs, at about the same rate of a grocery store? They make the money based on volume, not through a paricualrily high rate of return after costs, and that data is supported by independant analysis. The line about us being raped by big oil is really getting old, and is not supported by fact. The simple truth is that there is not a lot of profit in gasolinel per gallon, but when you move the volume that they do, yes, you will have a pretty fair profit. And by the way, if you total up the taxes paid by big oil, it actaully is a pretty damn impressive number.

    There are many other product lines that make far more profit after costs. Are you suggesting that we are being raped and taken advantage of by them? How come I don't see the left targeting those businesses for the same "tax them more! tax them more!" line of thnking from the left that I see attacking the oil companies?

    Maybe gas would be a little bit cheaper if the enviromental left didn't demand a blend for each area of the country which increases costs and produces seasonal shortages (such as what we are feeling right now) or didn't make the enviromental process required to actually build enough refinaries to meet demand almost impossible.

    As far as the taxes on corporations, we already have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, which is one of the reasons that we have were once US based companies fleeing. Are you really suggesting that the corporate tax rate should be raised?

    Again, all I see is the libs going after responsible successful corporations while your good ole boy in the White House gives away money to phoney-balony "green energy" companies that go belly up or never even come close to producing the jobs they claim they will.

    Maybe it's time that the left stops assualting successful, job producing companies and people and concentrates on the folks that are dragging down this country ..... the ones sucking the life out of it demanding more and more government freebees every single day.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  9. #334
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    You do realize that the profit being made by the oil companies are in terms of costs, at about the same rate of a grocery store? They make the money based on volume, not through a paricualrily high rate of return after costs, and that data is supported by independant analysis. The line about us being raped by big oil is really getting old, and is not supported by fact. The simple truth is that there is not a lot of profit in gasolinel per gallon, but when you move the volume that they do, yes, you will have a pretty fair profit. And by the way, if you total up the taxes paid by big oil, it actaully is a pretty damn impressive number.
    The amount paid in taxes is not as significant. What is significant is the percent. Please keep telling yourself they are doing just "okay" as you pay higher prices at the pump. In addition to the billions those "barely" profitable companies are paid by the taxpayer via subsidies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    There are many other product lines that make far more profit after costs. Are you suggesting that we are being raped and taken advantage of by them? How come I don't see the left targeting those businesses for the same "tax them more! tax them more!" line of thnking from the left that I see attacking the oil companies?
    I'm more interested in the percent of taxes paid compared to total income.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe gas would be a little bit cheaper if the enviromental left didn't demand a blend for each area of the country which increases costs and produces seasonal shortages (such as what we are feeling right now) or didn't make the enviromental process required to actually build enough refinaries to meet demand almost impossible.
    Blah blah blah. Maybe gas would be cheaper if we didn't buy so much. Have you noticed how the price of gas falls when demand decreases?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As far as the taxes on corporations, we already have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, which is one of the reasons that we have were once US based companies fleeing. Are you really suggesting that the corporate tax rate should be raised?
    If you advocate a flat tax, it would be set at that rate. You tell me.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Again, all I see is the libs going after responsible successful corporations while your good ole boy in the White House gives away money to phoney-balony "green energy" companies that go belly up or never even come close to producing the jobs they claim they will.
    Then you must have slept through 2008 when the finance industry lost hundreds of billions of dollars and demanded tax payer bailouts. That is the primary focus of the Occupy movement. Only a fool takes the banks side in that discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe it's time that the left stops assualting successful, job producing companies and people and concentrates on the folks that are dragging down this country ..... the ones sucking the life out of it demanding more and more government freebees every single day.
    Maybe it's time for the right to realize the fallacy that tax cuts create jobs and boost revenue. It wasn't that long ago there was almost a balanced budget with at least a plan to pay off the debt in ten years. So called "fiscal conservatives" got elected, blew up the surplus, and engaged in borrowing and spending that no liberal could ever hope to achieve.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-26-2013 at 08:26 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #335
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The amount paid in taxes is not as significant. What is significant is the percent. Please keep telling yourself they are doing just "okay" as you pay higher prices at the pump. In addition to the billions those "barely" profitable companies are paid by the taxpayer via subsidies.

    Most of the "subsidies" are really accounting gadgets that allow them to write off costs for investments in exploration and infrastructure, but again, let's not let the facts get in the way. As far as the taxes they pay, they are very significant and are on par with every other industry out there. As far as the higher prices at the pump, maybe if they had the ability to build new refinaries and increase supply, or not have to deal with multiple blendsthe price at the pump wouldn't be an issue.

    As a supporter of our wonderful president. you should be the last one to even bring up subsidies given his excellanates wonderful track record on wasteful subsidies to the green energy sector. What a damn joke.l



    I'm more interested in the percent of taxes paid compared to total income.

    Which is on par with every other industry. Prove otherwise.


    Blah blah blah. Maybe gas would be cheaper if we didn't buy so much. Have you noticed how the price of gas falls when demand decreases?

    This economy runs on gas. Always has and always will dispite how much the libs try to shove alternative energy down our throats. Except for some movement towards natural gas wind, solar and biofuels will never be practical except in some very small scale applications. Hell, even the enviromental wackos are now complaining about all those ugly transmission lines needed to bring the energy from the solar farms in the desert to where the population is. The fact is America wants to run it's economy on gas, and we don't want anymore of the power sucking caffe standards that Obama seems to love.

    If you advocate a flat tax, it would be set at that rate. You tell me.

    Not really an advocate but I can see the advantages. Everybody pays.


    Then you must have slept through 2008 when the finance industry lost hundreds of billions of dollars and demanded tax payer bailouts. That is the primary focus of the Occupy movement. Only a fool takes the banks side in that discussion.

    You mean the collapse that was caused primarily by the legislation under Clinton which basically forced banks to make loans to folks that were destined to default and would have been refused otherwise? Yea, that legislation. And predictably when those that never should have been loaned a dime defaulted when intrest rates went up the market collapsed. So whose fault was that little hiccup anyway?

    As far as the bailouts, there were many banks and institutions that didn't need or want the money but were heared into a room and the White House and told they would take it, like it or not.

    And all of that money has been paid back.

    So let's talk about Obama's trip into the world of the free marketplace when he decicded to bailout Chrysler and Gm when they should have gone bankrupt and worked thier way through the natural cycle of things. I guess you only want to bring up the stuff that let's you attack the rich.

    Dumb***.



    Maybe it's time for the right to realize the fallacy that tax cuts create jobs and boost revenue. It wasn't that long ago there was almost a balanced budget with at least a plan to pay off the debt in ten years. So called "fiscal conservatives" got elected, blew up the surplus, and engaged in borrowing and spending that no liberal could ever hope to achieve.
    And that was before we had to go fight a couple of wars to defned this country's freedom. Ya, wars cost money and sometimes it requires spending more than you plan.

    Now let's talk about the defieicts being run up by Obama, which if you'll check the record, have been more every year than Bush's highest year.

    Just another inconvient fact.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  11. #336
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most of the "subsidies" are really accounting gadgets that allow them to write off costs for investments in exploration and infrastructure, but again, let's not let the facts get in the way. As far as the taxes they pay, they are very significant and are on par with every other industry out there. As far as the higher prices at the pump, maybe if they had the ability to build new refinaries and increase supply, or not have to deal with multiple blendsthe price at the pump wouldn't be an issue.
    You have drunk the kool-aid. Your claim of them being accounting gimmicks is yet another (in a long line of) idiotic comments. An accounting "gimmick" is a exemption allowing them to avoid paying taxes. Every tax exemption is a subsidy for the affected industry or cause. Meaning others pay the price for the government service that allows them their business to function.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As a supporter of our wonderful president. you should be the last one to even bring up subsidies given his excellanates wonderful track record on wasteful subsidies to the green energy sector. What a damn joke.
    I'd rather we subsidize research into technologies that wean the US from having to import oil. Only a fool remains dependent on a group that is a convenient ally who contributes to terror organizations. That's the real joke. Even those stupid Chinese are investing in green tech to get away from being dependent on oil. Yet the "smart" American conservative believes it's a scam.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You mean the collapse that was caused primarily by the legislation under Clinton which basically forced banks to make loans to folks that were destined to default and would have been refused otherwise? Yea, that legislation. And predictably when those that never should have been loaned a dime defaulted when intrest rates went up the market collapsed. So whose fault was that little hiccup anyway?
    No. I mean the collapse that was caused by pure greed. There was nothing in the legislation that caused banks to create financial instruments that were worthless or credit agencies giving those instruments the same risk value as T-Bills. Giving investors a false sense of security when they were being bought.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As far as the bailouts, there were many banks and institutions that didn't need or want the money but were heared into a room and the White House and told they would take it, like it or not.
    Yes. By a SecTreas that was part of an administration claiming to be "fiscal conservatives," and signed into law by a president of the same party.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And all of that money has been paid back.
    So what? I thought conservatives didn't believe in government interference in the marketplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So let's talk about Obama's trip into the world of the free marketplace when he decicded to bailout Chrysler and Gm when they should have gone bankrupt and worked thier way through the natural cycle of things. I guess you only want to bring up the stuff that let's you attack the rich.
    Wrong again. I'm not the one demanding that government not interfere in the marketplace. I had no problem with Obama bailing out the auto companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And that was before we had to go fight a couple of wars to defned this country's freedom. Ya, wars cost money and sometimes it requires spending more than you plan.
    Then taxes should have been raised to cover those expenses. Something that would have been considered by those claiming to be "fiscally prudent," or they should have cut spending on other programs to ensure the budget was balanced. Funny how conservatives become interested in the deficit and debt when a Dem is in the White House. They look the other way when it is a republican. They were so vocal about Bush's deficits that they supported his run for a second term unopposed by anyone in the party.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Now let's talk about the defieicts being run up by Obama, which if you'll check the record, have been more every year than Bush's highest year.
    Wrong again. Obama's annual deficits have been trending down since he took office. Once again you make a fact free statement. Which is par for the course.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Just another inconvient fact.
    For you.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-26-2013 at 04:18 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #337
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You have drunk the kool-aid. Your claim of them being accounting gimmicks is yet another (in a long line of) idiotic comments. An accounting "gimmick" is a exemption allowing them to avoid paying taxes. Every tax exemption is a subsidy for the affected industry or cause. Meaning others pay the price for the government service that allows them their business to function.

    And I'll put the amount of taxes they pay against any other industry. maybe it's just me but IMO, they are certainly paying thier fair share. We will likely always disagree on thios.

    Just keep demanding that corporate taxes be raised. We'll see how that tax policy works out for this country in the long run.

    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.



    I'd rather we subsidize research into technologies that wean the US from having to import oil. Only a fool remains dependent on a group that is a convenient ally who contributes to terror organizations. That's the real joke. Even those stupid Chinese are investing in green tech to get away from being dependent on oil. Yet the "smart" American conservative believes it's a scam.

    I'd rather encourage more drilling. Offshore. Federal lands. Look at importing shale oil from canada and allow the Keystone to be built starting TODAY. Encourage the use of natural gas and not harass those companies currently engaged in fracking operations. More nuclear. More hydro.

    The fact is that we have more than enough oil and natural gas IN THIS COUNTRY to last a very long time as long as the policy allows it to happen without enviromental hurdles the size of office buildings.

    Those "technologies" as you call them will never be practical for anything but small scale applications. Let the marketplace determine if they are feasible through private investment.

    Government has no dog in this fight.



    No. I mean the collapse that was caused by pure greed. There was nothing in the legislation that caused banks to create financial instruments that were worthless or credit agencies giving those instruments the same risk value as T-Bills. Giving investors a false sense of security when they were being bought.

    Really?

    Curious that this whole derivative issue came up during the Clinton era when his director of (honestly not sure which agency) who was in charge of controlling this type of activity tried to control these types of activities more closely but was shutdown by both the Clinton administration and the dems in Congress.

    It's actually quite funny that the dems blame greed when they had the opportunity to place more control on derivitives back in the 90's and shut down the effort.

    By the way, everything the banks did was perfectly legal.



    Yes. By a SecTreas that was part of an administration claiming to be "fiscal conservatives," and signed into law by a president of the same party.

    Sure wasn't the Bush admin that demanded that the banks take bailouts even if they didn't want them. Me thinks you need to check your history on that one.


    So what? I thought conservatives didn't believe in government interference in the marketplace.

    We don't. Problem was letting some of those institutions fail would have had systemic concequences. letting GM and Chrysler fail would have allowed reorganization with a smashing of the union, which would have been a good thing in the long run.


    Wrong again. I'm not the one demanding that government not interfere in the marketplace. I had no problem with Obama bailing out the auto companies.

    I figured you wouldn't. Would have been better had they failed and gone through normal banrupcy and reorganization, and then run themselves.


    Then taxes should have been raised to cover those expenses. Something that would have been considered by those claiming to be "fiscally prudent," or they should have cut spending on other programs to ensure the budget was balanced. Funny how conservatives become interested in the deficit and debt when a Dem is in the White House. They look the other way when it is a republican. They were so vocal about Bush's deficits that they supported his run for a second term unopposed by anyone in the party.

    Probably should have. But not on the backs of the rich like the dems would have preferred.


    Wrong again. Obama's annual deficits have been trending down since he took office. Once again you make a fact free statement. Which is par for the course.


    For you.
    Ya, but still over a trillion $$$ per year. And expected to continue at over a trillion $$$ per year. Great trend.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #338
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And I'll put the amount of taxes they pay against any other industry. maybe it's just me but IMO, they are certainly paying thier fair share. We will likely always disagree on thios.
    I could care less about the aggregate amount. Once again you are confused about the concept of taxation. I want them to pay the same level of taxes as everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Just keep demanding that corporate taxes be raised. We'll see how that tax policy works out for this country in the long run.
    They'll leave with someone else willing to do business in our country. That's how capitalism works. Many Fortune 500 companies earn billions in profits and pay little or no taxes. Yet they get the advantage of doing business in our country.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
    Soundbite with no substance. What spending should we curtail? Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, or interest on the national debt? Those four line items alone account for more than the tax revenues received by the federal government. Every other department could be eliminated (War on Terror (it's separate from the DoD), ATF, NPS, FBI, CIA, CDC, Interstate Highway, VA, pensions for retirees (including veterans), FEMA, DHS, SecState, NSA, et al) and there would still be a deficit.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'd rather encourage more drilling. Offshore. Federal lands. Look at importing shale oil from canada and allow the Keystone to be built starting TODAY. Encourage the use of natural gas and not harass those companies currently engaged in fracking operations. More nuclear. More hydro.
    There is more drilling going on now than in the last ten years. Keystone doesn't do a damn thing for ridding of the US of oil dependence. It's only a conduit to move oil from one country to a venue for export. There are numerous groups opposed, many of whom are not liberal. In addition to that, eminent domain is being used to put the pipeline against the will of property owners who don't want it running through their land. The opposition to seizing private property to give to another private entity is a major tenet of conservatism. Yet once again they look the other way. The emminent domain factor is nothing more than crony capitalism or corporate welfare, take your pick.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact is that we have more than enough oil and natural gas IN THIS COUNTRY to last a very long time as long as the policy allows it to happen without enviromental hurdles the size of office buildings.
    What do you base that fact on? There are significant concerns with fossil fuels excluding price. The Right has cried wolf over any and every environmental proposal for the past fifty years. We live vastly safer, healthier, and happier lives today than our parents did in 1959 because of environmental laws and regulations that were all attacked at the time of their enactment as job and business killers (not to mention incipient government tyranny and destructive of the free market). Yet business has thrived over those same fifty years, and not withered. Indeed, whole new fields of entrepreneurship have arisen precisely because of the need to address those governmental environmental mandates. You continue to detail your lack of knowledge on this or any other topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Those "technologies" as you call them will never be practical for anything but small scale applications. Let the marketplace determine if they are feasible through private investment.
    Yeah, I remember my dad saying they'd never land a man on the moon either. Yet it happened. With significant amount of research provided via the government and taxpayer.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Government has no dog in this fight.
    Mr. Ostrich, there's a sandbar looking for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Really?

    Curious that this whole derivative issue came up during the Clinton era when his director of (honestly not sure which agency) who was in charge of controlling this type of activity tried to control these types of activities more closely but was shutdown by both the Clinton administration and the dems in Congress.
    Wrong again my history challenged friend. In 1997, Clinton Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born proposed greater regulation (by way of more stringent disclosure) of derivatives. Her proposal was beaten back by House Republicans, including then-House Banking Committee Chair Jim Leach (R-IA).

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It's actually quite funny that the dems blame greed when they had the opportunity to place more control on derivitives back in the 90's and shut down the effort.
    How do you believe they were able to do that being the minority in both houses of congress from Jan. 1995 till the end of the decade? You now admit that you have no idea how our government functions. I'd refer you to the Sesame Street video titled Just a Bill on Capitol Hill, but it's apparent to me it is over your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    By the way, everything the banks did was perfectly legal.
    So because it wasn't illegal, you believe it was okay?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sure wasn't the Bush admin that demanded that the banks take bailouts even if they didn't want them. Me thinks you need to check your history on that one.
    TARP was signed into law October 3, 2008. President Obama wasn't elected until November of that year, and wasn't sworn into office until January, 2009. Disbursements were made in the last quarter of 2008. Reading....it's FUNdamental.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We don't. Problem was letting some of those institutions fail would have had systemic concequences. letting GM and Chrysler fail would have allowed reorganization with a smashing of the union, which would have been a good thing in the long run.
    Your anti-union bias comes through on this one. Blaming the assembly line worker for the ills of the company. What about the executives that drove their companies into the ground in both the auto and banking industries? Many still got paid their multi-million dollars salaries. Much of it with taxpayer dollars. I've yet to hear a conservative state the contracts of those executives should be abrogated. Yet somehow the assembly line worker barely making ends meet has a contract that is too onerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I figured you wouldn't. Would have been better had they failed and gone through normal banrupcy and reorganization, and then run themselves.
    And watch the entire economy of that region collapse with it. That's why people like you will never be in charge of anything more significant than a lemonade stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Probably should have. But not on the backs of the rich like the dems would have preferred.
    I would have had no problem with a special "war" tax being proposed during the runup to the war to guage public support. That wasn't done. Instead we ran up debt and incurred costs that will (if history is any judge) be borne till the year 2100.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ya, but still over a trillion $$$ per year. And expected to continue at over a trillion $$$ per year. Great trend.
    Actually it isn't numbnuts. The deficit is expected to be well under $1T this year and is down 40% from when Obama took office. One would know that if their news sources were from outlets other than Fox Propaganda.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-28-2013 at 12:00 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #339
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'd refer you to the Sesame Street video titled Just a Bill on Capitol Hill, but it's apparent to me it is over your head.
    That had nothing to do with Sesame Street. It was part of ABC's "Schoolhouse Rock" series on Saturday mornings.

    Ok, back to our regularly scheduled ******ing match.

  15. #340
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    That had nothing to do with Sesame Street. It was part of ABC's "Schoolhouse Rock" series on Saturday mornings.

    Ok, back to our regularly scheduled ******ing match.
    Thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I regularly had small children in the house.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #341
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Obama v. Bush Deficits


    FY 2013*: $901 billion
    FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    FY 2011: $1,300 billion
    FY 2010: $1,293 billion
    FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
    FY 2008: $459 billion
    FY 2007: $161 billion

    Yes, you are correct .... It will be under 1Trillion.



    (Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html)
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-27-2013 at 05:32 PM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #342
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Obama v. Bush Deficits


    FY 2013*: $901 billion
    FY 2012: $1,089 billion
    FY 2011: $1,300 billion
    FY 2010: $1,293 billion
    FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
    FY 2008: $459 billion
    FY 2007: $161 billion

    Yes, you are correct .... It will be under 1Trillion.



    (Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html)
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget. Which is FY2009.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #343
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget. Which is FY2009.
    Though note the total deficits under Obumba ... far higher than Bush's (and that is while we were fighting 2 wars).
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  19. #344
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Though note the total deficits under Obumba ... far higher than Bush's (and that is while we were fighting 2 wars).
    Considering we only pulled out of Iraq in Dec., 2011 and we are still in Afghanistan, the deficit is still trending downward. Plus, Bush was handed a relatively prosperous economy with an almost balanced budget and surplus. Obama was handed an economy with an over $1T deficit with job losses about 500K per MONTH, and the stock market plummeting. When one looks at where we are now with the amount of GOP obstruction that has occurred (record number of filibusters in the Senate), the country's recovery, while fragile, has been incredible during Obama's administration.

    Then there is the idiot conservative noise machine that believes he is really a Kenyan born muslim that hates America. But that is a topic for another day.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #345
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Considering we only pulled out of Iraq in Dec., 2011 and we are still in Afghanistan, the deficit is still trending downward. Plus, Bush was handed a relatively prosperous economy with an almost balanced budget and surplus. Obama was handed an economy with an over $1T deficit with job losses about 500K per MONTH, and the stock market plummeting. When one looks at where we are now with the amount of GOP obstruction that has occurred (record number of filibusters in the Senate), the country's recovery, while fragile, has been incredible during Obama's administration.

    Then there is the idiot conservative noise machine that believes he is really a Kenyan born muslim that hates America. But that is a topic for another day.
    Ya, you're right. Obama has been a wonderful president .... Strangling business with increased regultions, Obamcare, increased enviromental regulation, increased size and scope of government, increased taxes on the rich and class warfare.

    For a man who you claim doesn't hate America, he is sure doing one hell of a bang up job destroying it.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  21. #346
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ya, you're right. Obama has been a wonderful president .... Strangling business with increased regultions, Obamcare, increased enviromental regulation, increased size and scope of government, increased taxes on the rich and class warfare.
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration. Class warfare is indeed being waged. Conservatives are waging class warfare on the working class. In case you haven't noticed, organized labor continues to be under siege and the scapegoat for all the countries ills when it is the failings of the 1% that have caused the economy to tank and sputter during recovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    For a man who you claim doesn't hate America, he is sure doing one hell of a bang up job destroying it.
    I see it as just the opposite. America has become stronger since he has become president. The "hating America" mantra that has become a standard of conservatives as usual lacks any substance.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #347
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration. Class warfare is indeed being waged. Conservatives are waging class warfare on the working class. In case you haven't noticed, organized labor continues to be under siege and the scapegoat for all the countries ills when it is the failings of the 1% that have caused the economy to tank and sputter during recovery.

    Class warfare on the working class? Interesting.


    I see it as just the opposite. America has become stronger since he has become president. The "hating America" mantra that has become a standard of conservatives as usual lacks any substance.
    I guess we just see differently.

    Have a nice day.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  23. #348
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess we just see differently.

    Have a nice day.
    I see them correctly and use facts to support my claims, you don't.

    You too.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #349
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Please elaborate? How were those tax cuts a reason the US is now a debtor nation? You are so wrong on so many levels. We have been a debtor nation since at least 1835.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Not to this level thanks to the fiscal policies of conservatives over the last 30 years. Tax cuts have caused revenues to shrink (as a percent of GDP) while those same conservatives embarked on significant spending programs.
    You didnít say to this level, you said that the Reps caused us to be a debtor nation recently. Yes, revenues dropped dramatically after 9/11, but they returned with the Bush tax cuts. As I have said before, you are right - Bush spent way too much and that is why we have the debt and deficit we have (the same thing Obama is doing). We spent too much, it wasnít that we didnít bring in enough!

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Even if the government plays a role in helping the individual acquire wealth, why should they pay a higher percentage?
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Because they have more to lose.
    That is why they pay more. That is the way percentages work and why the flat tax would work.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    I never said anything about not taxing and neither does Hayak. We were talking about stimulus.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    I was referring to Hayek's philosophy holistically.
    You were wrong. Hayek never, holistically or any other way, said there should be no taxes. Additionally, Hayek even talks about a stimulus to get economies out of a recession, but that should end when the recession ends.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Define that period.
    The 90s, when Clinton was president. That doesnít disprove my point which was that you said we needed a tax higher to have a healthier economy. Obama is not Clinton. He is a better person, but not a better president.

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Actually the website stated:
    No statements as to FDRís views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    So it said no such thing.
    You either 1)cant read; 2)are deliberately leaving out the websiteís facts or 3)are stupid. I donít think it is 1 & 3. The website states that FDR made no statements on collective bargaining for state or local workers (it wasnít an issue in his time). Its documents quote FDR saying he did not approve of collective bargaining for federal employees. You already tried to argue that he said he was against collective bargaining for federal employees because he was talking about strikes (how stupid would he have to be to confuse the word collective bargaining with strikes numerous times?). You have now stated both that he is for and against collective bargaining for federal employees. Which is it?

    Originally Posted by Spencer534
    Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.
    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    Because when a nation's middle class is eliminated, the nation usually follows it.
    I am not for eliminating the middle class, but please state where this is prevalent in history as you assert?

    This is a mantra I hear from the left. They believe in making everyone equal. It is not about making everyone equal, but about giving everyone an equal chance. That is done with smaller government involvement and the leftís larger government involvement has done huge damage to the lower and middle classes, especially to the black community. Abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs are devastating the heart of the middle class, the family which is one of the best ways to stay our of poverty!

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    I can only hope you are not one of those who still believes "trickle down" economics still works. Recent events should have convinced all but the truly idiotic that it is a failure as an economic system.
    Who is calling for trickle down? Not the Reps and you and I were not discussing giving breaks to just the rich, but to all classes. I am for fairness, like the flat tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by scffire
    Yet the markets are at or near all time highs and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash while producing more private sector jobs in his first term than Bush did in all eight of his administration.
    Because of Bushís policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire
    More importantly is the deficit has been trending downward since Bush's last budget.
    What a ridiculous statement! It is more important for the deficit to be trending down than to be lower? It would be ok for you to have $100T in deficit as long as it was $110T the year before? Additionally, it is not trending downward because of Obama. If he had his way, he would have spent much more and has said so. Thank you Republicans!

  25. #350
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Healthier in what way? We did not have a tax rate that high in our largest period of economic growth.
    What time period are you referring? If you are referring to the 90's, the top marginal tax rates were higher than they are currently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    The website, based on his writings and sayings, clearly states that he opposed federal employee unions collectively bargaining. There is no way to dispute this fact.
    The website you linked doesn't say that at all. It says they could find no remarks one way or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.


    You either 1)cant read; 2)are deliberately leaving out the website’s facts or 3)are stupid. I don’t think it is 1 & 3. The website states that FDR made no statements on collective bargaining for state or local workers (it wasn’t an issue in his time). Its documents quote FDR saying he did not approve of collective bargaining for federal employees. You already tried to argue that he said he was against collective bargaining for federal employees because he was talking about strikes (how stupid would he have to be to confuse the word collective bargaining with strikes numerous times?). You have now stated both that he is for and against collective bargaining for federal employees. Which is it?
    I stated he wasn't opposed to collective bargaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Why does a policy have to help just one class. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts helped all taxpayers.


    I am not for eliminating the middle class, but please state where this is prevalent in history as you assert?
    Since the adoption of conservative policies of the last 30 years this has been the result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    This is a mantra I hear from the left. They believe in making everyone equal. It is not about making everyone equal, but about giving everyone an equal chance. That is done with smaller government involvement and the left’s larger government involvement has done huge damage to the lower and middle classes, especially to the black community. Abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and other social programs are devastating the heart of the middle class, the family which is one of the best ways to stay our of poverty!
    That's the theory. The reality contradicts this claim. You claim to have the solution to fix the nation's ills. Let me ask a simple question. There are roughly 200 sovereign nations recognized by the UN. Can you name one that has adopted your idea of what the perfect amount of government and taxation and do the citizens of that nation live better or worse than in the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Who is calling for trickle down? Not the Reps and you and I were not discussing giving breaks to just the rich, but to all classes. I am for fairness, like the flat tax.
    Conservative ideology currently subscribes to tax cuts with the "trickle down" effect as the rationale.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    What a ridiculous statement! It is more important for the deficit to be trending down than to be lower? It would be ok for you to have $100T in deficit as long as it was $110T the year before? Additionally, it is not trending downward because of Obama. If he had his way, he would have spent much more and has said so. Thank you Republicans!
    For what? It's republicans that are responsible for the current mess.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. membership voting
    By FF7679 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 04:00 PM
  2. Voting compromise
    By fyrmed in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 05:00 PM
  3. Even though Im voting for....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 10:19 AM
  4. Voting for Officers
    By thoskin in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 11:29 AM
  5. Juniors Voting
    By HF&R_H28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 11:47 PM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register