Spinner, this one is for you.
- Thread starter MolivaManiac
- Start date
unfortunately with the polarization, more and more people who wish to be dems, buy into this notion and have no clue. this does not surprise me at all and is scary. know all dems do not feel this way but their leadership does and that is who sets policy, they need to change their leadership lineup to those folks who understand economics and what made this country great. right now they are after the dependence crowd, those who go through life depending on the government and adding to those roles, not trying to give people hope and get them off the govt till. Va dems would never support these national socialist leaders in the past but now tow the line and that is sad.
No, Spinner that is not what the Democratic leadership believes and certainly is not what they said in three days of speeches about rebuilding our national industry. Peter Schiff was certainly not talking to the party leadership in those scenes and was probably promising those poor folks that if they'd come say what he wanted they'd be on National TV. I'll accept the fact that some of our delegates were not the deepest thinkers on the planet if you'll accept the fact that Peter Schiff is not the most wholesome and upright guy to ever point a camera.
This post was edited on 9/7 12:32 AM by tarrantula
This post was edited on 9/7 12:32 AM by tarrantula
T, you can rationalize all you want to but the democrat party of my mom and dad and when i was growing up is not the same party today. i have heard the president call profits evil, reid and pelosi want the govt to control our lives, everything, be dependent on govt. if you do not hear them say it, if you do not know they feel this way, you watch to much cbs, nbc, abc and cnn. if the democrat leadership got up and said what they really feel in charlotte, they would lose in a landslide, they will never say what they really feel at this gathering but i know what they feel and want to do and deep down you do as well. if that is what you want, then vote that way. do not be afraid to say what you really, truly believe the role of our govt to be. if they had their way, they would nationalize business and run it, control it as much as they could, they just cannot come out and say it, though did watch one dem congresswoman, say exactly that in a hearing about 2 years ago. they need to get off this business is evil, profits are evil deal, why should anyone have any confidence that they can turn around this mess when they feel this way. our national debt, just the part we finance, there are tons more of unfunded liabilities out there, over $16 trillion, is now larger than our gross national product. we are not going to solve that by bashing business, thinking govt can grow us out of it, govt does not produce jobs, income, bright futures, it takes and keeps on taking.
Spinner, I have watched every evening of the Democratic Convention, just as I watched every evening of the Republican
get together. You are way off base with those thoughts. Rebuilding our industry, putting people back to work is the first prioity of the Dems. They stayed the course with the auto industry and have that sector back and running and are trying to put more people back to work. The president's jobs bill got stuffed by Republicans in the House last term. If reelected he will try again to get people back to work. Whichever party takes control, there has to be mutual effort.
get together. You are way off base with those thoughts. Rebuilding our industry, putting people back to work is the first prioity of the Dems. They stayed the course with the auto industry and have that sector back and running and are trying to put more people back to work. The president's jobs bill got stuffed by Republicans in the House last term. If reelected he will try again to get people back to work. Whichever party takes control, there has to be mutual effort.
will say one thing, the prez created a jobs council, of which he is a member. how many meetings has the job council had since its inception? ZERO. one member, think the head of GE, one of his buds who supports him to the hilt, quit. govt does not build or rebuild anything, they are there, or should be there, to create an atmosphere that allows business to flourish, to be successful, create jobs. this bunch thinks that govt is the answer to everything, it is not. mainly think that these guys have said enough, have heard them, they hate business, think govt should be in control of everything, i just do not agree with that. now that right at 50% of all americans pay no taxes, the dems have the tipping point of votes, people who depend on the govt and will vote to keep those guys in office. that is great, that is how our system works but it is not the best thing for our country going forward and we can see it by how much debt we are accumulating. again, if you believe all the stuff you hear at political conventions, either side, then you are much more naive than i would have thought. will also say that don't think either guy is going to be able to extricate us from the financial situation in which we find ourselves but do know that if we keep doing what we are doing, we will implode under the weight of our stupidity. in addition, GM should have declared bankruptcy instead of letting the govt do it because it cost the country money and they did not solve the union problem, they made them part owners and screwed the bondholders. that was the wrong thing to do, no bailout, let GM do it and get the unions where they were manageable. now they still have the real root cause of their probs on their backs and taxpayers lost billions.
This post was edited on 9/7 1:54 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 5:37 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 1:54 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 5:37 PM by WebSpinner
Spinner...even though we disagree strongly, I know that you are a good guy and believe strongly in what you say. I agree with you that the debt is the most important issue facing our country, a powderkeg that could wreck our economy and security. Where we disagree is in the "who to blame and what to do" department. The blame part is only important in its corelation to how we fix this thing. You see the entitlements as the major problem. I see them as a definite problem, but not the thing in a nutshell. I will stand beside you and say that we need a big cut in spending. Including entitlements. But, that is only one piece of the situation. The military budget is the biggest piece of the pie and the scissors need to be applied to each segment of our budget.And, I do not stand for abolishment of all entitlements. There have to be big cuts and much thought will have to go into how much is deleted in each area.
The second part of the debt problem is national income. Not only money flowing into our economy, but money flowing into government coffers. In the first instance, I am convinced that our problem began with NAFTA and the abolishment of tariffs on goods coming into this country. We lost the ability to make good here in this country that could be sold at a competetive price. Your folks place the blame there on the benefits workers here had achieved that make manufacturing here more expensive. Your solution would punish our middle class and send them back to coolie wages like the poor in Asia and south america are paid. I will never be in favor of that answer. There are reasonable adjustments that should be made, but our working class has the right to earn enough to provide for their families.
My answer and one answer of my party is return to tariffs on imports so that American made goods can be competetive in American markets and we cdan pad our national income from receipts. A second proposal that is part of our platform is tax reform. I don't single out Mitt Romney because he is unique, I only point to him because his figures are public knowledge(at least for some years). Somethings wrong when twenty million in income is taxed at a rate of 14%. I took tax courses in law school, but have never practiced in the field and I don't have the business experience of someone like LKN, but I do know that at a time when we are desperately in need of more money flowing into the federal treasury, we need to look at our tax system. Some talk of a flat tax, some of adjusting what we have. I'll leave the method to the accountants.
I agree with you about the diaster that is looming over our heads. But, I have said several times, it won't be solved until our Congress works together for the good of the country. There will have to be compromises made by both sides. Sadly, I don't see that happening. The young turks in the House from your party and the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids from mine are sending us on a colision course with disaster when they should be sitting down together prepared to give up projects in the name of national stability, redo our tax code so as to increase revenues in a fair manner and shape a workable budget. That would seem impossible,but if you look back at the history of this country, you will see that it happened more than once in our early years. To truly understand the impasse, you only need to understand human nature. For a good example, look at the posts on our board
This post was edited on 9/7 9:02 PM by tarrantula
The second part of the debt problem is national income. Not only money flowing into our economy, but money flowing into government coffers. In the first instance, I am convinced that our problem began with NAFTA and the abolishment of tariffs on goods coming into this country. We lost the ability to make good here in this country that could be sold at a competetive price. Your folks place the blame there on the benefits workers here had achieved that make manufacturing here more expensive. Your solution would punish our middle class and send them back to coolie wages like the poor in Asia and south america are paid. I will never be in favor of that answer. There are reasonable adjustments that should be made, but our working class has the right to earn enough to provide for their families.
My answer and one answer of my party is return to tariffs on imports so that American made goods can be competetive in American markets and we cdan pad our national income from receipts. A second proposal that is part of our platform is tax reform. I don't single out Mitt Romney because he is unique, I only point to him because his figures are public knowledge(at least for some years). Somethings wrong when twenty million in income is taxed at a rate of 14%. I took tax courses in law school, but have never practiced in the field and I don't have the business experience of someone like LKN, but I do know that at a time when we are desperately in need of more money flowing into the federal treasury, we need to look at our tax system. Some talk of a flat tax, some of adjusting what we have. I'll leave the method to the accountants.
I agree with you about the diaster that is looming over our heads. But, I have said several times, it won't be solved until our Congress works together for the good of the country. There will have to be compromises made by both sides. Sadly, I don't see that happening. The young turks in the House from your party and the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids from mine are sending us on a colision course with disaster when they should be sitting down together prepared to give up projects in the name of national stability, redo our tax code so as to increase revenues in a fair manner and shape a workable budget. That would seem impossible,but if you look back at the history of this country, you will see that it happened more than once in our early years. To truly understand the impasse, you only need to understand human nature. For a good example, look at the posts on our board
This post was edited on 9/7 9:02 PM by tarrantula
T, you keep repeating that i am for cutting entitlements only and i keep repeating am for cutting everything, EVERYTHING! am for getting govt out of more things, a ton of things. remember history teaching us that tariffs created more problems than they ever solved and don't think anyone is for eliminating the middle class anymore than anyone is for dirty air or dirty water which is another saying the dems like to utilize if you are not for every environmental pet project they make us surrender to. just saying that the uaw union struck for the benefits which now keep our companies from being more competitive and are the root problem facing GM, FORD and CHRYSLER/FIAT. the govt did not solve their problems, only bailed them out with our money, i do not believe in bailouts. GM should have declared bankruptcy and worked out their own deal without the govt. the question is will or do americans want to pay the higher prices for items in the stores that are higher because of tariffs or higher because we have to make them here at higher wages? not sure of the answer to that one but that is what we are looking at with your scenario. again, feel if we made it easier, more profitable for american companies, then that might be more help than tariffs. why shackle, regulate, micro-manage all of our businesses and force them to do things they do not wish to do or force them to go out of the country. we should not but that is where we are today, we make it very difficult, we tell them they are evil, we tell them if they make a profit, it is wrong and evil. this attitude is so stupid and non-american but that is the new wave so we will reap what we sow. also remind you that several economists on both sides of the issue did the math and indicated that what the dems and obama want to do so badly with this tax deal, they said they will go over the finacial cliff if they don't get their way, only collects an additional $206 billion by the year 2015. so that leaves our deficit at $1+ TRILLION. so why would they rather go off the financial cliff? can you answer that? it is pure class warfare, it does nothing to solve the problem. it is so comical, hilarious when you look at it and how can one support such nonsense. until we can control spending, nothing else really matters. both parties should see that and work from that position. rich americans are americans too.
This post was edited on 9/7 9:47 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 9:47 PM by WebSpinner
T, regarding Romney's tax rate, you do understand the difference between income taxes and capital gains taxes, right?
This narrative about Romney's tax returns is really laughable. I mean what would be an appropriate tax rate to pay on the sale of an asset? An asset that was purchased with money that has already been taxed.
While that asset was held, how much tax revenue did it generate for the Feds and localities? I'd guess Sports Authority and Staples paid a few taxes, given that they employed a whole bunch of people that paid taxes.
Let's move on to a more relevant topic this election season: THE WAR ON WOMEN.
This narrative about Romney's tax returns is really laughable. I mean what would be an appropriate tax rate to pay on the sale of an asset? An asset that was purchased with money that has already been taxed.
While that asset was held, how much tax revenue did it generate for the Feds and localities? I'd guess Sports Authority and Staples paid a few taxes, given that they employed a whole bunch of people that paid taxes.
Let's move on to a more relevant topic this election season: THE WAR ON WOMEN.
well, have to admit is was tough when bush was prez and there was no legal abortion and no contraceptives available to women for eight long years and know he hated his wife and twin daughters, made it so tough on women. it is so much better now, obama loves his wife and daughters, abortion is legal again and contraceptives are available, such a contrast.
This post was edited on 9/7 9:52 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 10:01 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 9:52 PM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/7 10:01 PM by WebSpinner
T, at least now you have said "my party", at least the charade is over. i have a distaste for both parties, think they both want to grow govt but this time around we do have a pro-business guy vs a socialist, no question who should get my vote. if you truly believe all that stuff then vote that way but if you vote dem just because because you are a dem, then not a wise choice. know there are those out there who register and does not matter who or what kind of person is running, they vote for he or she because they are a dem or a republican feel that is sad. anyway, a free country, getting less that way, but free to make a choice and pull the lever and that is one thing that is great about the usa, along with tons of other things as well.
This post was edited on 9/8 9:00 AM by WebSpinner
This post was edited on 9/8 9:00 AM by WebSpinner
Mo, I haven't read Mr. Romney's return, but I don't sugest that there is anything sinister about it. Just pointed to it as an example of a tax system that needs reworking.Yes, of course I know about capital gains tax rates and the many other tax shelters that are available under our system. All are legal and those who qualify would certainly take advantage of the rules. I took the income tax course taught by Carl Davis and did well. My point is that the ability to shelter income under our system is one of the myriad of problems affecting our financial crisis and if we're going to put entitlements on the table and make cuts there, we should also look at ways to increase our revenue from a tax system that is more than generous to the wealthy. I'm sure that the response will be that this will discourage investment and new business. My answer is that it will take more than doing away with Medicare, Food Stamps, Pell Grants, etc to solve this giant and crucial problem. Curing our problems will require adjustments in many areas. The goal should be the financial health and stability of our country. That will likely require sacrifice by folks at all levels of wealth. But, I've been in courtrooms on a daily basis for years and have seen the long lines of good people who lost their jobs when those jobs went overseas and can no longer provide for their families... forclosures on homes that were affordable when the jobs were here,
evictions because a family member(frequently a child) was sick or injured and there was no insurance to pay a hospital bill
(the hospitals are required by insurance companies to get these judgments and to garnish wages to collect, so even if one spouse is still employed the income reduction results in devestating consequences). The problem needs to be addressed by knowledgable, nonpartisan statesmen. That's not happening an(IMO) we won't find a solution until it does.
evictions because a family member(frequently a child) was sick or injured and there was no insurance to pay a hospital bill
(the hospitals are required by insurance companies to get these judgments and to garnish wages to collect, so even if one spouse is still employed the income reduction results in devestating consequences). The problem needs to be addressed by knowledgable, nonpartisan statesmen. That's not happening an(IMO) we won't find a solution until it does.
don't know the law at all but why and how does an insurance company require a hospital to garnish wages to collect on a bill? can see if a hosptial wants their money and goes after an individual but what does that have to do with an insurance company? if the defendent does not have insurance, why are they in the picture at all? T, there are always going to be those people who are at the bottom, who struggle but to try as, as a goal, to add to that list, to make more people dependent on government, is just wrong and i think there is a mindset to do that and it is only to get votes.
Similar threads
