| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
Just when we start to forget about the last story... Another letter agency is caught spying on our press.
http://brainerddispatch.com/opin That link is an especially shitty hack job. Full of stupid outrage and surprise. http://theweek.com/article/index This one is a little better written. Still, you have to wonder how we have any freedom left at all with the morons that we have controlling what we see and hear. There's never any review of all the old news reports that add up to a surveillance state. Never an analysis of weather things are getting better or worse, or if anyone has even tried to do anything about this BS. No updates on all the past "15 minutes of fame" surveillance scandals we've long since forgotten. Even a half-assed writer or producer could make a 5 part documentary on these issues. The worst part is this one or two news blurb long outrage they present, which makes people think this is actually something out of the ordinary, and assume someone will be doing something about it. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
>The worst part is this one or two news blurb long outrage they present, which makes people think this is actually something out of the ordinary, and assume someone will be doing something about it.
I'm already seeing stories by the ap taking the administration's side that obama didn't know. We either have the biggest fool in recent history as president or a dirtbag chicago pol. Take a wild guess. All the news is managed and shaped to give you only what the big shots want you to see and hear. The news guys don't like it but thats the way it is. They said their piece now its back to business as usual. Along with spying by the govt. They are already reporting that no one seems to care about this. Of course people care but many are sheeplike. Nixon got impeached for a coverup, what the hell are these recent scandals? Clinton got impeached for lying to congress, what has obumble been doing the last 5 years? It hasn't been telling the truth, if you want a clue. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
OTD God-King Registered: 08/16/03 Posts: 67,521 Loc: Uncanny Valley |
| ||||||
|
Nixon was never impeached. Clinton was impeached for lying in a deposition...not lying to congress.
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
Quote: There really doesn't seem to be any scandals here. My whole point is how stupid it is to be surprised by this. A "pen register" (seeing what numbers you dialed, how long you talked, etc.) doesn't require a warrant. It's stupid that nobody cares about that, but are shocked for a few minutes every time it happens. If there's a security leak I would fully expect that the administration should crack down on that as treason, e.g. someone should hang if they're leaking state secrets. A completely legal pen register subpoena shouldn't even make the news. It happens hundreds of times a day, so pretending to be mad at this one specific instance is just plain stupid. The other two scandals, Benghazi and the IRS deal are equally, if not more, stupid. I can't see why the Benghazi investigating dumbasses aren't run out of office on a rail for being so partisan and wasteful of our time. Even if everything turned out to be *twice* as bad as they want to pretend it still wouldn't even be worth reading about, let alone wasting all this time and money on nothing. Hopefully you realize that the IRS scandal is equally as stupid. Certainly there's an element of wrongness about it, but these people are bitching that the IRS delayed on approving a form that they didn't legally have to even file in the first place. You don't need any IRS approval to operate a 501c4 corporation to funnel all your unlimited, anonymous dirty contributions through it. In any case, this is all small worthless details that I would sincerely hope our president has not been wasting his time worrying about. There's a million issues that are causing real problems and should have been dealt with long ago. If you think he should have been spending his time personally supervising each of the thousands of over-empowered government dipshits that work for us... I really don't know what to say to you besides try to get an education and a better perspective on reality. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
If investigating your enemies is the proper use of the irs then what would be a wrong use of it? Your defense of every wrong thing obama did just shows your partisan bias. They took phone records from the ap that revealed identities of informants and more.
Thats why we have big govt micromanaging our lives more and more. So many people want the nanny state and willingly allow more govt intrusion. You say you refuse to talk to cops but its ok if the govt gets your phone records and more. Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment and clinton was impeached for lying. Why weasel around about it? -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
If you don't like the gov. having access to your phone records then try to do something about it. Crying about it after the fact when you knew full well that it was legal, and then only when someone you don't like does it is simply lame.
The fact that these are the best "scandals" that the radicals can come up with is just pathetic. You obviously know better than to actually believe that Obama could possibly know what all the thousands of mid-level bureaucrats are doing. 501c4's aren't even supposed to be primarily political organizations in the first place. Some slight delay in processing forms that they don't legally even have to file because they have obvious political goals in their names is just weak. Compared to any real scandal with past presidents this is just embarrassing that this is all you can come up with. I can't think of any major ones for Bush Sr., but the last couple republican presidents have committed what amounts to mass murder. Personally I'm glad to have a liberal conservative instead of a radical in office. I don't like my country being involved in mass murder even if they were savages. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
Are you calling obama "liberal conservative"? he is not conservative in any meaningful way. Yes, he has brought about and continued a lot of mass murder which you seem to think only repubs have done.
The one thing i will agree on is there are far worse things which get swept under the carpet every day. These that they chose to air are nothing compared to egregious violations of the constitution done by your hero. Just like clinton was guilty of far worse than he was accused of, these mini scandals while revealing of the lax oversight and mismanagement of the present administration are less than the tips of the icebergs. He has persecuted whistleblowers more than any previous occupant. Holder revealed recently that 4 americans were killed in recent times by drone attacks. If they admit to 4 then the true number is likely many times that. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
Quote: I would call returning tax rates to a more normal level that we've had during successful economic times a conservative goal. I would call wanting to cut taxes on the rich despite them already being the lowest in the last 40 years a radical agenda. It's a shame that people advocating radical and untested changes call themselves "conservatives" while simply wanting to return tax rates to Reagan or Clinton levels is considered "liberal". Doesn't really made sense does it? Really scary that if you put forth Reagan's agenda and policies today you'd be considered a "liberal". Quite disturbing that the country's perspective can be so radically shifted by the corporate mass media in such a short period of time. I have to agree with the rest of your post Stone. But I'm not aware of any mass murder level things Obama has done. Certainly nothing on the order of Iran-Contra or deceiving the country into killing at least a couple hundred thousand people in Iraq. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
So bush killed more people therefore obama's a good guy? If i kill only one person then i'll be really good according to that.
Raising taxes on corporations has worked well. It has forced large companies to keep most of their profits offshore. I read apple has over $100b offshore. We have the highest corporate tax rates of any major country. I'm not sure what part of reagan's agenda would be called liberal today. He was in favor of downsizing government, just the opposite of what liberals want. He was in favor of lowering taxes, not raising them. Looks like 3 1/2 more years of gridlock then a choice between some radical repub and the demo's choice, hillary. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
Those would be good points if any of them were actually true.
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
Are you that ill informed that you need simple facts spoon fed to you? You completely avoided answering the question of what part of reagan's agenda would be considered liberal today since he was in favor of small govt. Don't feel bad, liberals usually get tongue tied when presented with questions like these.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
> Are you that ill informed that you need simple facts spoon fed to you?
Apparently you are though. Everything you posted was dead wrong. We don't have the highest tax rate, in fact our corporate tax rate was fairly average in 93' and has remained steady ever since. > Raising taxes on corporations has worked well. Well, we wouldn't know since we haven't raised corporate tax rates significantly since the 1950's, and they've generally declined ever since. All the republican BS is predicated on the false perception (created by guess who?) that our tax rates are sky high, rich people are suffering like a blister in the sun, government is radically larger than it ever has been, and that republicans actually have a conservative plan in mind. All of this is, of course, completely and objectively false. Quote: What history books have you been reading? Reagan raised taxes across the board, increased military spending, and escalated the war on freedom to the "war on drugs". Where's the "small government" in that? Reagan raised taxes while pissing away more American tax dollars than probably anyone else in history. Yet deluded fools continue to hold him up as some sort of idol for principles that #1 aren't the principles of any party currently in power, and #2 he was completely against in practice. Stone, you seem like a pretty smart guy. But like anyone it wouldn't hurt to reexamine your core beliefs or leanings, and check you facts. Next time someone tries to tell you that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, do yourself a favor and google "effective corporate tax rate". ![]() ![]() Sure seems like we're about #15 amongst developed countries' tax rates. Given that our GDP is easily twice anyone else's that seems pretty damn reasonable, if not charitable. The 2nd pic shows that (after tax) corporate profits certainly aren't on the decline. So where's this major problem everyone sees? Kind of strange that when the economy falters and average people are out of work and losing their homes that all you see is corporations crying about how they need tax cuts and more corporate welfare, all the while they are recording record profits. Corporations are trying to take the sympathy that is due the workers, and hiding the fact that their ill-gotten benefits are the root cause in the first place. If you want to cry that tax rates are too high, then take a look at a fucking chart for christ's sakes. If you want to cry that the economy is in the shitter then look at a fucking chart of corporate profits and get back to me. The whole record corporate profits = tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services is just bullshit, and you know better if you bother to examine the issues. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
OK, using your own charts, it shows the highest effective rate being 30.5% in australia. The top usa rate is 35%. Where they get tricky is with the use of statistics. The only reason the "effective" rate seems low in usa is because corporations offshore their profits and dodge most of the tax. They also have other tricks. I don't know what slight of hand they used to make this chart but i am not impressed.
It shows usa at 13.4%?? Yeah right, i suggest making a flat tax of 10% on earnings up to $10m and then 16% on anything over that. We would see lots of those profits being onshored if it was as easy as that. Or a flat tax of 13.4% since you seem to think thats the true rate. Reagan continued the war on drugs so that makes him a liberal? Is that what you are saying? It seems to be so correct me if i got it wrong. It does seem like liberals are tougher on med mj and drugs in general so you may have a point there. >Reagan raised taxes... The top personal rate was 70% when he took office and he lowered it to 28%. He revamped the tax code and some taxes did go up but overall they went down. I do agree that raising taxes is a liberal tactic. When the economy is sputtering on fumes, raising taxes is insanity. If he gave a tax holiday to corps, we would see an injection of trillions of dollars into the economy without having to print them out of thin air. Sounds like a better plan to me -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
Quote: It's just the difference between the fake measure of some base tax rate number and the actual tax that corporations pay. This is our bribery based political system at work. The laws are written so that large corporations pay very little, while small businesses that might compete with them end up paying full price on taxes. > Reagan continued the war on drugs so that makes him a liberal? Is that what you are saying? A multi-trillion dollar perpetual and unwinnable war is hardly something I'd consider to be compatible with small or limited government. Nixon started it, but Reagan elevated it to the level of a "war". Now the false patriotism and blood lust bound up in this insanity prevent us from ever implementing any sort of logical "retreat", "surrender", or "cease-fire". > He revamped the tax code and some taxes did go up but overall they went down. Quote: Quote: Quote: You can argue the numbers forever, but Reagan both cut and raised taxes. It's hard to get real numbers on this but he raised taxes 11 times, and any overall tax cut was insignificant (~143B). Despite the good economic times in Reagan years, he ended up being responsible for the first 2 trillion dollars of our deficit. Again, doesn't even remotely resemble fiscal responsibility or smaller government. > When the economy is sputtering on fumes, raising taxes is insanity. US GDP is the highest it's ever been, corporate profits are the highest they've ever been, the Dow has hit the highest its' ever been just recently, and we have record numbers of (new and existing) millionaires and billionaires. The only measure that might even hint at a poor economy is the unemployment rate, which is exactly the same people republicans want to target for service cuts and higher taxes. The marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans really doesn't seem to have ANY effect on the economy... ![]() I mostly agree with a flat corporate tax rate. I think it would work well if combined with a fair capital gains tax rate (lump it in with income). The only way out of our problems is to return to REAL capitalism. That means ending welfare for the rich (capital gains and loopholes) and corporate welfare, including corporate welfare via welfare support of their workers (sorry WalMart). We need a simplified tax, employment, and legal system that removes the huge advantages to large corporations. Small business can't afford, and shouldn't have to pay for, accountants and lawyers. There also needs to be HUGE cuts in military spending. Other than that, there's really nothing worth even considering as a solution. SS is a debt we're obligated to pay, and nothing other than corporate welfare, capital gains tax losses, and military spending amounts to anything even worth looking at on the pie chart. ![]() There's just no reason we need to spend more than the rest of the world combined. Shocking, isn't it? -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
You should change your username to "the artful dodger" the way you twisted and squirmed to avoid answering the questions put to you.
My question: >>Reagan continued the war on drugs so that makes him a liberal? Is that what you are saying? Your answer: >blah blah blah blah blah... = yes. So in your convoluted way, you admit liberals are the worst when it comes to legalizing drugs I found this buried in the blah blah blah >any overall tax cut was insignificant... So reagan DID lower taxes. That alone makes him a conservative as you can't dispute that liberals raise taxes every chance they get until they have gotten the last drop of blood. Despite the fact that our high tax rate has caused a lot of outsourcing of production and offshoring of corporate profits, you want to raise taxes even more? And this will do what? more of the same? Or do you think doing the same thing over and over will give a different result? Here you make real sense: >The only way out of our problems is to return to REAL capitalism. That means ending welfare for the rich (capital gains and loopholes) and corporate welfare But then you say: >including corporate welfare via welfare support of their workers (sorry WalMart) So you want to end welfare? I don't believe it! Turn in your liberal card this instant! > We need a simplified tax, employment, and legal system that removes the huge advantages to large corporations. Small business can't afford, and shouldn't have to pay for, accountants and lawyers. There also needs to be HUGE cuts in military spending. That sounds rational. We need to end legal bribery of our lawmakers aka campaign contributions as well as jobs after leaving office, speaker fees and so on. We could cut the military a lot if we weren't involved in one stupid war after another. I don't care who started it, your hero has continued them and is getting us involved in new ones. And who expanded drone attacks more than anyone? Must be a liberal thing. Who violated the constitution more than anyone? -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
|
> So you want to end welfare? I don't believe it! Turn in your liberal card this instant!
I would certainly end our current welfare system. It's especially fucked up when it ends up subsidizing the wages that corporations like WalMart pay. That's corporate welfare for WalMart IMHO, and they already get way more than their fair share. I believe everyone should be entitled to the basic necessities, e.g. food, shelter, and clothes, regardless of their ability or willingness to obtain them on their own. This is a simple result of the fact that there is plenty to go around, so nobody should do completely without these necessities. However, in my system, the food would be government commodity food/surpluses/leftovers/etc., the shelter would be a shared dorm room style living area on a government work farm, and the clothes would be your standard thrift store variety. Giving people cash or subsidizing their living arrangements in quality housing rarely do much good for the economy or the people themselves. If you like living in a tent and eating slightly over dog food grade food, then you'd love my welfare system. Otherwise you'd get a job or bust ass in the work program to earn better accommodations and food. Everybody's entitled to "three hots and a cot", but it's a shame our current system makes you commit a crime to get them. The real cost of implementing something like this would be pitifully small, even on a national scale. Quote: This is a false presumption. I already pointed out that our actual tax rate is fairly low for a developed country. The tax rate really has very little effect on the economy. People don't quit making money just because they pay a few more or less percentage points in tax on it. It all comes down to money and profits. Jobs have gone overseas because there are billions of 3rd world people living in poverty who will work for almost nothing. The labor savings covers the cost of transportation many times over. There's no realistic way to deal with this problem. Communications and transportation advances have made outsourcing to the lowest bidder a fact of life. Our best bet would be to raise tariffs and use our military capabilities to foment revolutions that would increase the freedom and standard of living for other countries citizens. We're still the largest market in the world, by far, and we have a ridiculously huge military. We can easily control the air and seas, and we could use this to enforce our tariffs. I would implement a freedom and worker quality of life based system of tariffs that would level the playing field and prevent slave-nations from profiting off of us. Unfortunately, that would cut into US corporation profits quite severly, so it's not going to happen any time soon with our current bribery based system of government. One other thing would really help... truth in advertising. Simply require companies to advertise how much labor they outsource to foreign nations. Right now, even if you try to patronize US companies, you'll often end up talking with someone in India when you have a problem. US companies have ZERO market advantage because "Made in the USA" is meaningless. The product may have been 99% foreign produced and the support may be entirely foreign. A simple label like: "This company employs X,XXX foreign workers, paid an average wage of $X.XX/per hour." Would go a long ways towards reducing our dependence on slave labor. But again, corporations would fight tooth and nail against something as simple and truthful as this because it would make them look bad or cut into profits. I can't think of any other way to avoid major job losses to slave nations. Can you? Playing with the tax rate certainly isn't going to do shit to address this factor, and it's really the only factor there is. -FF
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
You are against welfare if it goes to people who work for walmart but in favor of it for everyone else. Is that a fair assessment? Or would you include macdonalds in your list of "bad" companies?
You want to give people 3 hots and a cot in a military or jail like complex. And this would be free for everyone? So people could live there free, sell drugs to make spending money and this would help somehow? You do know about section 8 housing and food stamps don't you? Its a lot cheaper to do that than to build massive "dorms" and have food served. Where would these dorms be located? If someone lived in one he/she would be limited to finding jobs nearby and if you build them in rural areas they wont find much in the way of jobs nearby. You can keep your liberal card. No, you don't want to continue welfare, not much. >We can easily control the air and seas, and we could use this to enforce our tariffs. I would implement a freedom and worker quality of life based system of tariffs that would level the playing field and prevent slave-nations from profiting off of us. Woah! there may be a place for you with team obama after all. He and shrub before him, were all in favor of imposing pax americana on the rest of the world. There are a few small problems with that. For one thing, we weren't able to subdue a small and relatively weak country like vietnam, how are we going to impose our will on china, russia, australia and so on? > I would implement a freedom and worker quality of life based system of tariffs that would level the playing field and prevent slave-nations from profiting off of us. You don't think tariffs will cause other countries to retaliate leading to trade wars? Its always happened in the past. Retaliation would be almost instant and world trade would take a hit leading to the second great depression sooner rather than later. Grab everybody's money, spend like we had endless funds, cradle to grave nanny state, impose our will on the world and stop "slave labor" in other countries. No one is going to accuse you of being conservative, you are safe in that regard. You may have to duck a little when they pass out the looney left awards if you don't want to get yours. You do realize we are bankrupt don't you? The whole economic system is on the verge of collapse not just here but world wide and you want I thought we agreed the military was too big and overfunded? But it seems we will need a much bigger military to carry out your scheme since china is one of the major nations offering substandard working conditions you call slave labor. Or will we simply force smaller countries to do things our way? What if a smaller country is one of our allies and objects strongly to your liberal vision? Conquer them anyway? "How to win friends and influence people" by ff The top corporate tax rate is 35% in usa, not 13%. Rather than raise rates which would just lead to more offshoring, lower the rate and eliminate a few loopholes and we might see those trillions of dollars of profits being onshored. We could charge a flat 10% and reap so much loot it wouldnt be funny. Of course with your hero obumble in charge, that would mean spending it all and borrowing some more to spend rather than reduce deficits and the debt. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
|
Old Hand Registered: 05/17/04 Posts: 6,899 Loc: Dark side of the |
| ||||||
Quote: I just pick on walmart because they've been covered a lot about how much subsidies they receive and how many of their workers are on welfare. They also exemplify the use of Chinese slave labor to produce cheap crap that they can sell for larger profits. I'm sure you can understand how giving a megacorporation 1.2 billion in subsidies and then also subsidizing their labor through welfare is NOT capitalism. This is where our economy can be fixed. Create a real capaitalistic system. Not sure if this has ever really existed in the US, but it would be worth trying at least once. It's funny that the republicans constantly rail on about capitalism while working towards about the most unfair economic system possible. They've latched onto an anti-welfare, anti-services platform, but they probably want the system to change less than anyone else. It's working great for them, they pay less taxes than the middle class, and get more benefits than the poor. Any scraps the poor do get goes directly back into their profits by subsidizing the buying power of their customers. > You want to give people 3 hots and a cot in a military or jail like complex. Sure. Every city should have a homeless shelter. It's not like tents and cots cost much. If they can convert apartments or other facilities then even better. A soup kitchen/homeless shelter costs so little to set up and operate that there's just no excuse to have bums on the street or begging for food. This is all just common sense and basic morality here. With food and shelter provided we can then round up any undesirables and get them out of our society. I'd have a "three strikes" rule where the 4th time a bum is picked up you ship them off to a large rural homeless shelter where they can't get into trouble or hassle anyone. > And this would be free for everyone? Of course! What reasoning do you have to starve anyone or have them sleeping on the streets? Americans living in 2,000 sq.ft. houses and throwing away enough food to feed the whole country really have no excuse not to provide the marginal with a cot and some leftovers. The system would catch all the undesirables and keep them out of our hair, while providing a safety net for average citizens. It would cost less than the current system and we could remove a lot of administrative overhead so that normal people could take advantage of it when needed. Enabling people to have the basic necessities or save money really hurts nobody (except the corporations that are currently getting all this money). > You do know about section 8 housing and food stamps don't you? Yes, and it's a perfect example of the wrong way to run a system. All this money goes straight back to corporations, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is wasted money. Again, who is really getting the handout? It's landlords/housing corporations and food corporations. People don't need an apartment and $200/month of food money. They need a cot and a can of soup. Giving them any more is a disincentive to being productive. End the welfare debate already! Give everyone who needs it 3 hots and a cot! Done deal. Now we never have to talk about it again! Pretty simple, huh! > Its a lot cheaper to do that than to build massive "dorms" and have food served. Investments in infrastructure are real investments. Paying people's rent is just pissing money away. If we view "3 hots and a cot" as a necessity then we really can't rely on housing we don't own, and we have to eliminate all the paperwork involved. The only way to do this is to consider it a basic city service like power and water. > Where would these dorms be located? Wherever is convenient and cost effective. The whole system is a "best effort" endeavor. If your city can only afford cots and tents on the outskirts of town then that will have to do. If you want to put them in the basement of city hall, fine. > You don't think tariffs will cause other countries to retaliate leading to trade wars? Not really. We buy most of the internationally shipped goods sold in the world, and export very little besides guns. If you had a better grasp of the world economy you'd understand that the EU and most other developed nations already have high tariffs in place. They've done this in spite of having weaker currencies. Because the US dollar is the world's "reserve currency" we have a lot more leverage than them. Again, our system is set up to service large corporations, not the citizens, or even its own interests. When your governmental system is setup entirely to make the rich richer, it's just never going to work well. Quote: Of course! Anything that cuts into corporate profits will cause earthquakes, tornados, and a complete collapse of life as we know it. Everybody know dat! If our companies had to pay minimum wage and overtime, instead of paying Chinese workers 35 cents an hour for 20 hours straight (most of which they pay back to live in the company dorms), then that would really hurt profits. Ask any rich man and he's certainly tell you that even a 0.1% drop in his profit margin will cause the complete and utter collapse of society. Quote: I guess you better suckle up to that corporate teat and keep drinking the sour milk then, because if you don't do what they say then you'll be destroyed by the coming apocalypse that they currently withhold. > The top corporate tax rate is 35% in usa, not 13%. "Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations" The ACTUAL tax rate that corporations ACTUALLY pay is 13%. You really have to be smart enough to at least understand that part. Just because somebody wrote down 35% somewhere doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Using fake numbers is just not constructive or helpful in any sense. > Rather than raise rates which would just lead to more offshoring, Maybe we need to try a little math with you. What's 5% of $15/hr? What's 35% of $0.35/hr? Is there any way to use percentages to make these numbers equal? Offshoring has nothing to do with the tax rate. NOTHING! Corporations may choose to locate themselves where they please based on tax rates, but this has nothing to do with where the actual work is done. Our rate is already lower than most developed countries, lowering it would be counterproductive. Companies should actually be paying a premium to operate here, not getting a discount rate. Why should we command a top spot or premium? Security, safety, quality of life, size of the economy, etc., etc., etc.. We are the biggest country in the world in all military, social, and economic measures, THAT'S why corporations locate here. They don't give two shits about a few percentage points when the alternative is... Wait, what's the alternative again? Communism or a third world country? Hard to run a successful corporation way out in the boondocks, and slaves make poor leaders. Quote: I don't see why you're so hung up on 3%? A flat tax would be a huge improvement, but if companies are already paying 13% actual tax why not just set it at that? We really shouldn't have to compete with third world and even the less powerful developed nations because we bring a lot more to the table. You seem to think everybody would just pack up and move their operations to some dirt road in Angola if they could save a few percent. For obvious reasons that just doesn't work. Corporations care about money and profits, not percentages. The tax rate is a pretty small factor in total profits, so it just doesn't make sense to focus so much on that number, or to think that we have to beat every developed nation in the world. -FF
| |||||||
|
mcfluffysugarnuts Registered: 01/19/09 Posts: 5,481 Last seen: 5 hours, 19 minutes |
| ||||||
|
hi honey whats for dinner?
I got something in the pressure cooker right now. ^ terrorist..
| |||||||
|
Alt Center Registered: 06/20/04 Posts: 14,850 Loc: S.E. |
| ||||||
|
Ah, fred, you dodge and dance when you aren't presenting fabricated and misleading figures. At least you finally admitted reagan lowered taxes rather than raised them as you asserted at first. Someone somewhere made a chart that claims corps pay 13% in taxes but you have not told us how this comes about. You can't just toss out a figure and say "see, it says it on a chart" anyone can make a chart so your numbers are very suspect.
>Just because somebody wrote down 35% somewhere doesn't mean it has any basis in reality Thats what the irs says, so its not just plucked out of thin air >Using fake numbers is just not constructive or helpful in any sense. Exactly, so why don't you show us how big corporations only pay 13% when the top rate is much more. I know some corps pay nothing but this is due to offsets or credits from various things such as losing money in a previous year and writing it off over subsequent years. Tax is applied to net profit after all legally allowed deductions, just like people have deductions, corporations have deductions. If you are saying they pay 13% of their gross profits in taxes that may be correct but net profit is the only thing you can spend. If you make $40k in a year and your taxes are 4k, then is your rate 10%? No, because adjusted gross income after all deductions might be 20 to 25k so the 4k is much more than 10% of net >Not really. We buy most of the internationally shipped goods sold in the world, and export very little besides guns. You shoot fast from the hip but i'd like to see something backing up that statement. We are perhaps the biggest importer but that is miles away from buying most of the goods. We export a lot besides guns so i'm calling you out on that one. >instead of paying Chinese workers 35 cents an hour... Again shooting from the hip. Do you realize that its not corporations buying this stuff its usa citizens? Surely you can figure that out? They vote for china with their purchases, you probably do too. > Every city should have a homeless shelter. It's not like tents and cots cost much. Agreed, but now we are going from dorms to tents and a cot. My area has such a shelter but demand is always greater than supply. I'm in favor of it and it should be open to all. Building dorms costs a ton and you haven't told us where the money will come from. Or do you believe the usa has loads of excess cash, that we don't run a deficit every year and aren't in hock up to our eyeballs? I really wonder if you think that? Back up that 13% figure and we will talk about it. So far all we have is a colored chart and i suspect your claim is much like what you said about reagan, IOW, wrong. You made the claim, you back it up. -------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Connection Rejected: 209.66.98.99 - fbi host .... ( |
13,786 | 89 | 09/06/04 12:16 PM by AlienPrimate | ||
![]() |
What States Not To Send Spores to ?? | 794 | 8 | 09/17/04 10:51 PM by Evolving | ||
![]() |
state by state sentencing | 2,690 | 3 | 06/04/01 09:49 AM by juliahardt | ||
![]() |
Spores In Illegal States. | 1,834 | 8 | 09/20/03 02:52 AM by | ||
![]() |
Any recommendations for maintaining security? | 2,306 | 10 | 11/19/02 08:38 PM by BuzzDoctor | ||
![]() |
Drug Law FAQ: A Guide to the Fourth Ammendment | 4,037 | 8 | 05/28/02 07:02 PM by GabbaDj | ||
![]() |
WARNING: Uncle Sam and Hollywood Want to Root Through Your P | 1,151 | 5 | 11/13/03 03:52 PM by daba | ||
![]() |
Geek squad works for the FBI ( |
912 | 20 | 05/04/21 02:26 PM by Northerner |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller 942 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||





