DaveinElma Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Romney-Stossel '12. lol One can dream right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqTwy7LqZBc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Funny they use the term "drug dealer." Did you just see which "pusher" just pled guilty? GlaxoSmithKline just admitted guilt for fraud. 3 billion... YES, BILLION dollar fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 He did a piece on all these freeloaders. From the wealthiest all the way down to the poorest. Corporations, business, and people do everything they can to pretty much freeload. How can anyone say that people in this country are against socialism? 20 million a year baseball player Derek Jeter, rocker John Bon Jovi, billion dollar a year corporations, all the way down to the 25 year old college drop out that is dressed like a homeless person pan handling on the corner and raking in a 100 to 150 bucks a day tax free yet that person ain't homeless. All of them are freeloading off the government! If you didn't see that piece by Stossel last night you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 how does he justify Derek Jeter's money as an example of socialism, I am intrugued... The Tax Code in the US is the most manipulative force in existence domestically. The loopholes, the credits, the deductions... all designed and excuted to manipulate your behavior as a citizen. The more I think about, the more a flat tax makes alot of sense. Herman Cain was one of the few candidates that actual proposed a fundamental tax reform plan that took the power away from these politicans and placed it back to the populace. I have Stossels book on my Ipad- pretty excited to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 20% flat tax for all income under 1 million for that fy. over 1 million, tax rate is 30%.... would anyone be against this? also a balanced budget amendment with emergency exceptions, war, depression, etc... why is this so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 how does he justify Derek Jeter's money as an example of socialism, I am intrugued... The Tax Code in the US is the most manipulative force in existence domestically. The loopholes, the credits, the deductions... all designed and excuted to manipulate your behavior as a citizen. The more I think about, the more a flat tax makes alot of sense. Herman Cain was one of the few candidates that actual proposed a fundamental tax reform plan that took the power away from these politicans and placed it back to the populace. I have Stossels book on my Ipad- pretty excited to read it. I only saw a 3 minute clip, but I think it was in reference to Federal flood insurance by which the Fed's compensate millionaires who don't purchase private flood insurance to cover homes they build in high-risk locations. Of course your average lib hears the Feds are throwing millions/billions at rich people and assume Republicans are behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I only saw a 3 minute clip, but I think it was in reference to Federal flood insurance by which the Fed's compensate millionaires who don't purchase private flood insurance to cover homes they build in high-risk locations. Of course your average lib hears the Feds are throwing millions/billions at rich people and assume Republicans are behind it. So we're subsidizing being a retard? That is unfortunaly a bipartisan effort these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I only saw a 3 minute clip, but I think it was in reference to Federal flood insurance by which the Fed's compensate millionaires who don't purchase private flood insurance to cover homes they build in high-risk locations. Of course your average lib hears the Feds are throwing millions/billions at rich people and assume Republicans are behind it. Take the blinders off. Both dems and repubs help perpetuate this stuff with the laws they pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Take the blinders off. Both dems and repubs help perpetuate this stuff with the laws they pass. I think that was his point, that handouts to millionaires are not just a GOP pet project... Democrats, the fighters for the people propose and pass this **** too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I think that was his point, that handouts to millionaires are not just a GOP pet project... Democrats, the fighters for the people propose and pass this **** too. Oh okay. Sorry I took it the wrong way. But yes the dems and repubs are promoting socialism and the people, rich, middle class, & poor love it. The big major corporations love it also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 So we're subsidizing being a retard? That is unfortunaly a bipartisan effort these days. Just as a clarification -- I *think* what happens is that "Private Flood Insurance" in certain areas is extremely expensive, so the Feds subsidize State insurance to these areas, and that the amount of that subsidy is 'rich people welfare'. It's not 'insurance for people who don't buy it', it's that people in these areas have the option to purchase insurance from the state at rates lower than they otherwise would in the private sector. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Just as a clarification -- I *think* what happens is that "Private Flood Insurance" in certain areas is extremely expensive, so the Feds subsidize State insurance to these areas, and that the amount of that subsidy is 'rich people welfare'. It's not 'insurance for people who don't buy it', it's that people in these areas have the option to purchase insurance from the state at rates lower than they otherwise would in the private sector. I think. I thought it was just the opposite: everyone got insurance through NFIP, but rich people could buy extra private flood insurance. At least, ours is through NFIP, and we don't have a private policy. My wife knows this **** cold. I'll have to ask her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) But yes the dems and repubs are promoting socialism and the people, rich, middle class, & poor love it. The big major corporations love it also. YET, they (especially the Republicans) LOVE to campaign against socialism! Campaigning against socialism didn't start with St. Ronnie. Saint Raygun really ramped campaigning against socialism up and took it to an art form. He forever changed people's view on government from positive to negative to flat out paranoid about government. The rest love to follow in the his footsteps... Easy campaign "cherry picking." Until they get elected of course. Once they get in, the socialism flows towards their core constituents. Edited July 6, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I thought it was just the opposite: everyone got insurance through NFIP, but rich people could buy extra private flood insurance. At least, ours is through NFIP, and we don't have a private policy. My wife knows this **** cold. I'll have to ask her. That makes sense to me, and is probably right... I just wanted to point out that it wasn't government handing out money to people who weren't smart enough to buy insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 That makes sense to me, and is probably right... I just wanted to point out that it wasn't government handing out money to people who weren't smart enough to buy insurance. The extension of the question should be "does the federal government need to be in the insurance business for people who live in flood plains?" If the answer is yes, then City of Buffalo should send a bill to DC for each snow plow purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Just as a clarification -- I *think* what happens is that "Private Flood Insurance" in certain areas is extremely expensive, so the Feds subsidize State insurance to these areas, and that the amount of that subsidy is 'rich people welfare'. It's not 'insurance for people who don't buy it', it's that people in these areas have the option to purchase insurance from the state at rates lower than they otherwise would in the private sector. I think. thank you- it does seem stupid to build in a place that floods, or good chance it will flood... But then again, New Orleans, so.... The extension of the question should be "does the federal government need to be in the insurance business for people who live in flood plains?" If the answer is yes, then City of Buffalo should send a bill to DC for each snow plow purchase. No- people should only build there who can pay the premiums for insurance OR pay cash for catastrophic repairs and rebuilds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The extension of the question should be "does the federal government need to be in the insurance business for people who live in flood plains?" If the answer is yes, then City of Buffalo should send a bill to DC for each snow plow purchase. I don't really know the answer to that question, frankly. In general and on principle, I say "No". I'm not sure what the economic ramifications for those areas would be and whether or not the the interference in the market is economically justified. Since the government is involved, my guess is that they've effed this up, for sure and any 'good work' they were doing from before has long since gone the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 thank you- it does seem stupid to build in a place that floods, or good chance it will flood... But then again, New Orleans, so.... No- people should only build there who can pay the premiums for insurance OR pay cash for catastrophic repairs and rebuilds. "Even after the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl victory, I have noticed a large number of people, implying with bad jokes and anecdotes, that Loozianna Cajuns ain't smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment. Anybody who would build a city five feet below sea level, in a hurricane zone,and fill it with Democrats who can't swim is a damn genius". Larry The Cable Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I don't really know the answer to that question, frankly. In general and on principle, I say "No". I'm not sure what the economic ramifications for those areas would be and whether or not the the interference in the market is economically justified. This is the eternal debate. Theory holds that flood plains also offer best agriculture, so there's a benefit. Yet I doubt anyone has done true cost - benefit analyses. At the very least it provides ample opportunities for people to build risky developments knowing that taxpayers will foot the bill. An extension of this is building along Florida coastline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The extension of the question should be "does the federal government need to be in the insurance business for people who live in flood plains?" If the answer is yes, then City of Buffalo should send a bill to DC for each snow plow purchase. Exactly! thank you- it does seem stupid to build in a place that floods, or good chance it will flood... But then again, New Orleans, so.... No- people should only build there who can pay the premiums for insurance OR pay cash for catastrophic repairs and rebuilds. Most of the time it seems stupid... But NOLA is the busiest port in the counrty. Unfortunately economic success trumps common sense. This is the eternal debate. Theory holds that flood plains also offer best agriculture, so there's a benefit. Yet I doubt anyone has done true cost - benefit analyses. At the very least it provides ample opportunities for people to build risky developments knowing that taxpayers will foot the bill. An extension of this is building along Florida coastline. Back in the old days, the rich and affluent would build on high ground. Take the Upper MS river and the floodplain around there... Go to the bluffs around there... And that is where all the old money is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts