molson_golden2002 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Do you really believe this stuff or do you just post this to give us a good laugh. If it's the latter good job. I think you are just really ignorant and don't understand anything I'm talking about. Sort of like trying to teach a dog to read or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'm not sure if you misspoke there, but tell me how paying taxes helps the economy? 9,000 ton of grain can be moved through the inland waterways to market cheaper and have less impact on the environment than moving it by rail or truck. I am sure there are other national infrastructures that help the national economy to... Like say the interstate highway system... Just a stab in the dark Chef... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Next he'll promote the jobs created by the invention of the telegraph and those amazin flying machines. He shouldn't have used Erie Canal so much as he should have said Inland Waterways... Believe it or not... They are still very much growing and viable with regards to increased tonnage every year along them. But, that may all change if we continue to neglect them... Whereas the Amazon river basin could become the bread basket of the world if America can't compete... No BS either... Take my word for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Somebody is paying me right now to keep this river open, chip ice, etc... To jump at the beckon call of private industry transporting commodities on the market? Wonder what effect 5,000 bbls of heating oil has on the national ecomomy during this season?... Not saying it is easy (with the ice and all)... But, it is still able to be transported rather cheaply and easily IN BULK... Take a look at the stats for the big three combined... The MS, IL and Ohio river... I can provide them if you like... Somebody is providing that "staircase" in the ecomomy to move these commodities... And when the Upper Mississippi freezes in... All that shifts to the Illinois... Been harder this year with the late blooming cold... Things are still moving through the lower 7 on the Illinois. At LaGrange (Beardstown, IL) back in 1999 I worked to help durin the ice season... Upper MS boats were lined up all the way to Havana, IL... waiting to get their product through... There will be some hit on the economy this season though because even the Ohio is freezing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 He shouldn't have used Erie Canal so much as he should have said Inland Waterways... Believe it or not... They are still very much growing and viable with regards to increased tonnage every year along them. But, that may all change if we continue to neglect them... Whereas the Amazon river basin could become the bread basket of the world if America can't compete... No BS either... Take my word for it... That's because the liberals want the government to be the answer to all questions, virtually guaranteeing that Constitutionally mandated things like infrastructure will be pushed far down the line. The spiral continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 9,000 ton of grain can be moved through the inland waterways to market cheaper and have less impact on the environment than moving it by rail or truck. I am sure there are other national infrastructures that help the national economy to... Like say the interstate highway system... Just a stab in the dark Chef... Ok, let me rephrase. How does RAISING taxes help the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 KD in CT said: And I think you have to be pretty naive to swallow the nonsense written in Vanity Fair. Thanks for taking my response totally out of context and not responding in the original thread. I replied to your statement that "many" people become "wealthy" from federal contracts. Please list the individuals that are now "wealthy" as a result of the Future Combat System. No surprise, you don’t offer any proof, but refer to a blog posting whining about a former General getting a job at a contractor. Big deal. Who else would be a better job candidate to execute the contract? My brother will be retiring from the USAF this year after flying fighter planes for 20 years. He has a job with Boeing evaluating and simulator testing new aircraft. I’m sure he’ll be filthy rich in no time. As for your laughable Vanity Fair article, other than being filled with the usual hysteria, menacing language and over the top imagery (hey why not, it always draws in the weak minded), what exactly was the point? No one’s ever heard of SAIC? I have. My last company earned several million dollars as a subcontractor for SAIC and other project leads on several major government initiatives. I know exactly how this process works. I know what a pain in the ass it is to get these contracts signed off and exactly what hoops you have to jump through to get paid. But I guess that experience can't compare with your expertise garnered from reading a blog posting. And by the way, whoever heard of Halliburton before Cheney became VP and you frothing left wing types couldn’t go 20 minutes without mentioning it (you know, like this article)? You quote a reference to a contract worth “billions” but offer zero perspective. That may very well be reasonable for the value provided. Are those billions being spread over several years and thousands of people on a major project? And what exactly is the big deal about an $8B company anyway? And what is the outrage about an 11% profit margin?? Gee, I guess the feds could have done the work themselves for twice the cost at 0% margin and that would be just fine with you. Apparently you don’t know much about running an efficient enterprise. The point of having these contractors is so that the fed doesn’t have to hire tens of thousands of additional people who won’t be able to do the job correctly anyway because they gov’t employs no competent managers and skilled people are hard to find and none of them want to work directly for the federal government. Naïve? No, in your case it’s just plain cluelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ok, let me rephrase. How does RAISING taxes help the economy? It doesn't. I would say that the liberal answer to that question would be that by raising taxes you get the lower classes involved with the economy instead of letting funding trickle from top to bottom. What they don't realize is that the only kind of funding that they can get to a lot of lower class people is through transfer in kind programs which in no way spark any kind of lower class involvment in the economy. So what is the answer? If the government gives flat out cash to poverty stricken people, chances are they are not going to do the proper things with it, but if they do nothing but give them transfer in kind funding, they cannot get actively involved in the economy. Bottom Line: Raising taxes to "help the economy" is a thing that had its day in the sun long ago. Yes government jobs are important as to keep the private sector in line, but for the most part when a politician says raise taxes to "help the economy", it is a calling to all people of lower classes to get out to the voting booth because they will get them more money. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ok, let me rephrase. How does RAISING taxes help the economy? Depends on where you raise and apply them I suppose... I can think of one off hand: To keep pace with technological advancements that support and maintain our (and often silent) vital economic infrastructure... Say in the case of the inland waterways: Example: "If we don't raise taxs to help build larger locks along the inland waterways, companies won't find it profitable to ship there/here in the states... Smaller locks can't accomadate the larger, modern tow configurations making it more expensive to ship... Time is money and over-head... Two cut lockages and their costs are passed on to the customer... Can we retain our competitive edge with say South America and the booming Amazon "bread basket?" You probably think it is a joke... It is not, South America is a VERY REAL threat to our grain export supremacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Just posted this in a thread on the Sabres board (of course that was a tangent there too... ) Chef... So my above example may not hold true. ?? The US still honors the precedent set forth in The Northwest Ordinance (1787)... So maybe my tax "example" in the above post isn't good one? Can any of the scholars here elaborate on Article IV in The NWO? Article IV: ...The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefore I would assume that refers to a direct user toll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Depends on where you raise and apply them I suppose... I can think of one off hand: To keep pace with technological advancements that support and maintain our (and often silent) vital economic infrastructure... Say in the case of the inland waterways: Example: "If we don't raise taxs to help build larger locks along the inland waterways, companies won't find it profitable to ship there/here in the states... Smaller locks can't accomadate the larger, modern tow configurations making it more expensive to ship... Time is money and over-head... Two cut lockages and their costs are passed on to the customer... Can we retain our competitive edge with say South America and the booming Amazon "bread basket?" You probably think it is a joke... It is not, South America is a VERY REAL threat to our grain export supremacy. Then let the business fund it through use taxes. Take out bonds to pay, and repay through the use taxes. In the end, but only the companies and people that directly benefit will be affected. Why force non-users of the products to pay for taxes that only benefit some? And what does this have to do with getting rich off the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ok, let me rephrase. How does RAISING taxes help the economy? That's such an open ended question. Alexander Hamilton's financial plan raised taxes to build the original infrastructure, fund a national bank and get the country's finances on a good footing so other nations would invest in it. It very much created economic growth. Or, during World War Two when taxes were sky high, but everyone had a job, saved up money and after the war spent it on consumer goods which created one of the biggest economic booms in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 That's such an open ended question. Alexander Hamilton's financial plan raised taxes to build the original infrastructure, fund a national bank and get the country's finances on a good footing so other nations would invest in it. It very much created economic growth. Or, during World War Two when taxes were sky high, but everyone had a job, saved up money and after the war spent it on consumer goods which created one of the biggest economic booms in history. Thanks, I ask open ended questions for a living. Alexander Hamilton, good job again with an example with current relevence. Your WWII example is nice too. People having jobs and $$ after the war were in spite of the high taxes, not because of. Just imagine how much money they'd have if the taxes were not sky high. So, if raising taxes is good for the economy where does it stop. Why not raise them to the WWII level of 90%, then there should be Champagne and caviar for everyone, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks, I ask open ended questions for a living. Alexander Hamilton, good job again with an example with current relevence. Your WWII example is nice too. People having jobs and $$ after the war were in spite of the high taxes, not because of. Just imagine how much money they'd have if the taxes were not sky high. So, if raising taxes is good for the economy where does it stop. Why not raise them to the WWII level of 90%, then there should be Champagne and caviar for everyone, right? Well, you made the question open ended so don't criticize me when I use an open ended approach to answer. But ok, how about a consumption tax on energy that will be spent on developing alternative energy? Short term it might not help economy but long term it might. That better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks, I ask open ended questions for a living. Alexander Hamilton, good job again with an example with current relevence. Your WWII example is nice too. People having jobs and $$ after the war were in spite of the high taxes, not because of. Just imagine how much money they'd have if the taxes were not sky high. So, if raising taxes is good for the economy where does it stop. Why not raise them to the WWII level of 90%, then there should be Champagne and caviar for everyone, right? :lol: Here's another open ended question. How do I cheat on my taxes? I know during WWII, it used to be easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well, you made the question open ended so don't criticize me when I use an open ended approach to answer. But ok, how about a consumption tax on energy that will be spent on developing alternative energy? Short term it might not help economy but long term it might. That better? It might if it doesn't get wasted flying a chick around the country for 300k a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Well, you made the question open ended so don't criticize me when I use an open ended approach to answer. But ok, how about a consumption tax on energy that will be spent on developing alternative energy? Short term it might not help economy but long term it might. That better? Why is it the government's responsibility to spend money on developing alternative energy. And by your last sentance you agree that raising taxes can hurt the economy. I'm glad to see you're coming around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Then let the business fund it through use taxes. Take out bonds to pay, and repay through the use taxes. In the end, but only the companies and people that directly benefit will be affected. Why force non-users of the products to pay for taxes that only benefit some? And what does this have to do with getting rich off the government? Not sure... I suppose the special interest (towing outfits) are turning a profit?... Maybe getting rich off the gov't? Then again, not so much with getting rich... Directly related to taxes helping the ecomomy and the nation compete in the world market... Most of the system (inland waterways) are BETWEEN state lines and include federal channel which effects many states in many different ways and issues... Everybody is effected ecomomically and benefits until the tonnage and commodities leave or cease to move along the system... I also cited how the NWO believe it or not is still honored in some way... Also, as AD pointed out... It is constitutionally mandated (probably carry over from the NWO?)?... I know they have tried your proposal in the past... Good things don't happen when say one private company has control of the "keys to the farm"... Historically, I know I could dig up issues... I am pretty sure it deals with problems in the coal country of Kentucky along the Green River, etc... Sorry to go off on tangent... I just see it first hand/directly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks, I ask open ended questions for a living. Alexander Hamilton, good job again with an example with current relevence. Your WWII example is nice too. People having jobs and $$ after the war were in spite of the high taxes, not because of. Just imagine how much money they'd have if the taxes were not sky high. So, if raising taxes is good for the economy where does it stop. Why not raise them to the WWII level of 90%, then there should be Champagne and caviar for everyone, right? I don't require Champagne and caviar... Just some PB and J and white bread... I can be perfectly happy, thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Here's another open ended question. How do I cheat on my taxes? I know during WWII, it used to be easier. Better yet... You should have taken the mid-December odds they were offering in Vegas with respect to the Habs winning the Cup... Now IF they don't even make the playoffs... OUCH! You are sure to incur a big gambling loss and subsequent write off... All legit too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts