Chef Jim Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I just do whatever your mama tells me to. You got a thing for 84 year olds? But again, who am I to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Magazine? Jesus, you are old! Magazines beat the snot out of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm allergic to cats. Yes, so am I. The larger they are, the more allergic I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Magazines beat the snot out of the internet. No, I think he beats the "snot" out with the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, I think he beats the "snot" out with the internet. Well there's definitely some beating and the excretion of snot, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well there's definitely some beating and the excretion of snot, that's for sure. And I thought I visited this board to debate the issues facing our nation. Silly me. Problem is, we can't get a single lib to stay on topic or actually support their positions with facts or even a well constructed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 And I thought I visited this board to debate the issues facing our nation. Silly me. Problem is, we can't get a single lib to stay on topic or actually support their positions with facts or even a well constructed opinion. It's all a calculated effort to delude the conversation with nonsense. We'd really much prefer the United States fail, the Chinese prosper, and all memory of religion and institutionalized morality vanish. It's the liberal way, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 It's all a calculated effort to delude the conversation with nonsense. We'd really much prefer the United States fail, the Chinese prosper, and all memory of religion and institutionalized morality vanish. It's the liberal way, really. That's just silly, the liberal way would be to have a bigger government, single payer health insurance, more unions, very limited involvement in NATO and foreign affairs, a more compliant attitude towards the United Nations, less free trade, more protectionism, smaller military defense spending, wealth distribution, more social programs, more apologizing to the world, and higher taxes. You know, basically the ultimate goal is to be a larger version of an English speaking France. Oh and I believe they were one of the countries that you listed as being a better place to live in than the U.S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 That's just silly, the liberal way would be to have a bigger government, single payer health insurance, more unions, very limited involvement in NATO and foreign affairs, a more compliant attitude towards the United Nations, less free trade, more protectionism, smaller military defense spending, wealth distribution, more social programs, more apologizing to the world, and higher taxes. You know, basically the ultimate goal is to be a larger version of an English speaking France. Oh and I believe they were one of the countries that you listed as being a better place to live in than the U.S And you know something funny- the world wouldn't end in that scenerio- just like it didn't when a republican or conservative was in control, despite the doomsayers. I haven't heard from anyone on either side of the aisle that is for protectionism- ever. Both sides are for wealth redistribution, but conservatives call it trickle down. There is nothing wrong with apologizing if you do something wrong- but you can't invent things to be wrong. There is no better place to live, but if you can't find anything to criticize about it, you don't really care about it in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 And you know something funny- the world wouldn't end in that scenerio- just like it didn't when a republican or conservative was in control, despite the doomsayers. I haven't heard from anyone on either side of the aisle that is for protectionism- ever. Both sides are for wealth redistribution, but conservatives call it trickle down. There is nothing wrong with apologizing if you do something wrong- but you can't invent things to be wrong. There is no better place to live, but if you can't find anything to criticize about it, you don't really care about it in most cases. I think trickle down means you get to keep your money and spend it as you wish, therefore boosting the economy, rather then the liberal version of wealth redistribution which is to take your money at gunpoint and spend it in the most wasteful and non-productive way possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 You know, basically the ultimate goal is to be a larger version of an English speaking France. i'm sad for them if that's what they want... i know what it is ... sometimes i dream France becomes a smaller version of a french speaking America and i know it will never happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I think trickle down means you get to keep your money and spend it as you wish, therefore boosting the economy, rather then the liberal version of wealth redistribution which is to take your money at gunpoint and spend it in the most wasteful and non-productive way possible. I think wealth redistribution means ensuring everyone pays a fair amount in taxes and for those with lower wages, public sponsored programs to help them achieve the basic necessities of life, rather than the conservative version of trickle down which glad hands the wealthy, wrings the penniless dry, keeping the the rich rich and the poor poorer. /snark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 And you know something funny- the world wouldn't end in that scenerio- just like it didn't when a republican or conservative was in control, despite the doomsayers. I haven't heard from anyone on either side of the aisle that is for protectionism- ever. Both sides are for wealth redistribution, but conservatives call it trickle down. There is nothing wrong with apologizing if you do something wrong- but you can't invent things to be wrong. There is no better place to live, but if you can't find anything to criticize about it, you don't really care about it in most cases. The world wouldn't end, but it wouldn't be the America that made it great. It would basically be a more European style U.S. You haven't heard anyone advocating protectionism? Where have you been? In the Stimulus Bill there is a "BUY AMERICAN" clause. The Unions recently put pressure on the White House, and of course Obama bent over and slapped tariffs on Chinese companies on a few different occasions. I could post many recent links of protectionist measures that have taken place this year alone because of pressure from the unions. The unions do good for their members, but they have been bad for the country. One of the main reasons why we have lost so many jobs to overseas companies is because of the excessive demands from the Unions, at the end of the day it is much cheaper for these companies to shut down operations in the U.S and build new plants overseas and have much cheaper labor. Trickle down economics is one of the best ways to promote employment in the U.S What some of you don't understand is that those who are the highest income earners are generally the ones who provide the most employment opportunities. You see, it's simple, if you incentivize and give tax breaks to these individuals, then they will be able to have more funds to expand, therefore providing more employment opportunities. The idiots on the left, believe we should take a larger share of their funds, as they do in Europe, and redistribute it to those who they feel are in "need" of it. Of course this does a couple things, one, it takes away from the bottom line of these individuals who provide employment, which in turn limits their expansion plans, which in turn means less jobs. The other thing it does is it gives incentive for those who "don't have" to keep doing what they are doing, because "don't worry, the government will make sure that they are taken care of". I wouldn't expect many of you knuckleheads to understand this concept, but it works. Unfortunately, we went through a very severe down turn and on the Campaign trail, BO was successful in fooling the sheeple that "trickle down economics" was one of the main causes of this downturn, and that it was time to do an about face. It worked, he preached change, and people were desperate for it, so they would believe anything from this young, different charismatic man who inspired "hope". So "trickle down economics" was successfully demonized. You see, only the sheeple believe that "trickle down economics" glad hands the wealthy, wrings the penniless dry, and keep the rich rich and the poor poorer. The problem with that populist argument is that here in the US we have the largest middle class in the world. So that argument carries very little weight in the real world, but works for the angry sheeple, that don't have. The direction we are going in doesn't incentive those who want more, rather it incentives those who are content with having mediocre lives. If you are making a mediocre living, you will soon qualify for heavily subsidized health insurance. If you are making a mediocre living, once cap and trade is passed, you will have subsidized household energy expenditures. However, if you are making $200,000 a year and look to increase your income by %25, you will pay more taxes. Not a great incentive. unfortunately, I'm afraid to say, that over the next 7 years we will see the largest mass transfer of wealth from those who have to those who don't that we have EVER seen in the US. You can bank on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 The world wouldn't end, but it wouldn't be the America that made it great. It would basically be a more European style U.S. You haven't heard anyone advocating protectionism? Where have you been? In the Stimulus Bill there is a "BUY AMERICAN" clause. The Unions recently put pressure on the White House, and of course Obama bent over and slapped tariffs on Chinese companies on a few different occasions. I could post many recent links of protectionist measures that have taken place this year alone because of pressure from the unions. The unions do good for their members, but they have been bad for the country. One of the main reasons why we have lost so many jobs to overseas companies is because of the excessive demands from the Unions, at the end of the day it is much cheaper for these companies to shut down operations in the U.S and build new plants overseas and have much cheaper labor. Trickle down economics is one of the best ways to promote employment in the U.S What some of you don't understand is that those who are the highest income earners are generally the ones who provide the most employment opportunities. You see, it's simple, if you incentivize and give tax breaks to these individuals, then they will be able to have more funds to expand, therefore providing more employment opportunities. The idiots on the left, believe we should take a larger share of their funds, as they do in Europe, and redistribute it to those who they feel are in "need" of it. Of course this does a couple things, one, it takes away from the bottom line of these individuals who provide employment, which in turn limits their expansion plans, which in turn means less jobs. The other thing it does is it gives incentive for those who "don't have" to keep doing what they are doing, because "don't worry, the government will make sure that they are taken care of". I wouldn't expect many of you knuckleheads to understand this concept, but it works. Unfortunately, we went through a very severe down turn and on the Campaign trail, BO was successful in fooling the sheeple that "trickle down economics" was one of the main causes of this downturn, and that it was time to do an about face. It worked, he preached change, and people were desperate for it, so they would believe anything from this young, different charismatic man who inspired "hope". So "trickle down economics" was successfully demonized. You see, only the sheeple believe that "trickle down economics" glad hands the wealthy, wrings the penniless dry, and keep the rich rich and the poor poorer. The problem with that populist argument is that here in the US we have the largest middle class in the world. So that argument carries very little weight in the real world, but works for the angry sheeple, that don't have. The direction we are going in doesn't incentive those who want more, rather it incentives those who are content with having mediocre lives. If you are making a mediocre living, you will soon qualify for heavily subsidized health insurance. If you are making a mediocre living, once cap and trade is passed, you will have subsidized household energy expenditures. However, if you are making $200,000 a year and look to increase your income by %25, you will pay more taxes. Not a great incentive. unfortunately, I'm afraid to say, that over the next 3 years we will see the largest mass transfer of wealth from those who have to those who don't that we have EVER seen in the US. You can bank on it. edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 unfortunately, I'm afraid to say, that over the next 7 years we will see the largest mass transfer of wealth from those who have to those who don't that we have EVER seen in the US.You can bank on it. Percentage wise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 Percentage wise? are you asking me for a specific % ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 are you asking me for a specific % ? No, I am asking if, in your opinion, it will be the largest transfer of wealth percentage wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 No, I am asking if, in your opinion, it will be the largest transfer of wealth percentage wise. yes, in my opinion it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 yes, in my opinion it will be. Fair enough. Some stiff competition out there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share Posted November 26, 2009 Fair enough. Some stiff competition out there though. Here is what is on the table 1) $150 Billion tax on stock trades 2) War Tax on upper income earners 3) A Larger Estate tax for upper net worth individuals 4) Tax on Cadillac Health insurance plans 5) Larger Tax from Medicare for upper income earners above $200,000 6) 5% extra tax on family income earners above $1 Million as of right now 7) Cap and trade will tax middle and higher income earners an estimated %1.7-%2.9 and remember, we're only in the first 10 months. If he gets reelected in 2012, all bets are off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts