 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
I am pretty sure this is an internet tough guy who loves to stir up a mess. However, if you were in front of him he would be meek and mild and afraid to speak.Originally Posted by Run N Gun
I do love it when people make retarded comments from left field. They just help prove how blind americans have become. Oh, before I forget, it is still GW's fault 4 years later.
My opinion
Richard
Obama is doing a poor job of getting us out of the mess that Bush put us in, I don't think anyone is going to argue about those two points. The problem lies in the fact that we have only the same two parties to choose from.
and by and large the same Senators and Congresspersons that we have had for the last 20+ years...plenty of blame to go all around...if we only had term limits, IMO it would negate the stranglehold the two parties have on politics
All my Exes live in Texas
Can't you just see this individual, hunched over the keyboard, perhaps frothing at the mouth a bit, feverishly pecking away, in such a hurry to bang out their "thoughts" that there is no time to actually formulate them. No time (or perhaps no ability) to proof them.
I think that any REASONABLE person would agree that there are extremists in both main political parties and that those extremists often get the most news coverage because that's what makes a good story. Obama is the one that has called for a "fundamental change" in America. Fundamental change of a long standing (and some would say successful) system is certainly an extreme thing and extremists, by definition tend to be "unreasonable". I think that it is easily arguable that Romney/Ryan are much more moderate than Obama, thus I would suggest that if any party is "unreasonable" it would be the Democrats.
I don't really care what Obama's name is, it is his policies that disturb me. It is the somewhat odd (and perhaps telling) things that he has said (esp. his comment to Putin about having "more latitude AFTER the election) and his known associates list (Bill Ayers, Eric Holder, Rev Wright, etc.) that concern me.
As to the question of Obama being a socialist. Look up the definition. He clearly holds socialist views, and supports socialist ideals. If the word didn't carry the baggage it does in in the U.S. I am sure that he would be calling himself one.
In addressing the charge that Republicans are racist and sexist, I will say that certainly SOME surely are (those folks can be found in all areas of the body politic). Is it rampant? I certainly don't think so. If you want to see truly overt racism in today's society, you only have to look to the black or Latino communities (many of whom vote democrat). I don't mean just their obvious contempt for what is commonly referred to as "white folks", but also the attitudes of blacks toward Latinos and Latinos toward blacks.
Now for the "charge" of being "money hungry": It is my observation that folks making such charges want MORE money themselves (which makes the charge a bit ironic, in my opinion). I would submit that there is really nothing wrong with being "money hungry". It frequently leads to achievement and success. The real problem is that the folks accusing other folks of being money hungry usually want to acquire money from those folks without offering anything of equal value in return, and attribute the success of others to luck or happenstance rather than to wise choices and hard work and also think that their own circumstances are in no way due to their own actions and poor choices.
Now, when it comes to the charge of criminality, although I am sure that there are criminals in both parties and in all walks of life, since most crimes are committed by the poor, and the poor vote overwhelmingly democrat, I'll bet that democrats are somewhat over-represented in our prison population.
Last edited by HPL; 08-26-2012 at 03:26 PM.
Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)
Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)
Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!
www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com
Thomas Sowell on raising income tax rates:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071212.php3
The Invincible Lie: Part II By Thomas Sowell
Nothing produces more of a sense of the futility of facts than seeing someone in the mass media repeating some notion that has been refuted innumerable times over the years.
On July 9th, on CNN's program "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, commentator Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's plan to continue the temporary extension of the tax rates established under the Bush administration — except for the top brackets, where Obama wanted the tax rates raised.
Ms. Borger said, "if you're going to lower the tax rates, where are you going to get the money from?"
First of all, nobody is talking about lowering the tax rates. They are talking about whether or not to continue the existing tax rates, which are set to expire after a temporary extension. And Obama is talking about raising the tax rate on higher income earners.
But when Ms. Borger asked, "where are you going to get the money from?" if you don't raise tax rates, that assumes an automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues, which is demonstrably false.
As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income tax rate — from 73 percent to 24 percent — led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put their money into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed.
This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place — to get more revenue for the federal government. The same was true, decades later, during the John F. Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax rate cuts during the Ronald Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration.
All of these presidents — Democrat and Republican alike — made the same argument for tax rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well. Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will "trickle down" to others.
In reality, high income earners paid not only a larger total amount of taxes after the tax rate cuts of the 1920s but also a higher share of all the income taxes collected. It is a matter of record that anyone can check out with official government statistics.
This result was not peculiar to the 1920s. In 2006, the New York Times reported: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year."
Expectations are in the eye of the beholder. Tax cut proponents expected precisely the result from the Bush tax cuts that so surprised the New York Times. So did tax cut proponents in the John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan administrations.
If this concept has not yet trickled down to the New York Times or CNN's Gloria Borger, that is a commentary on the media commentators.
Ms. Borger may simply not know any better, but Barack Obama cannot use that excuse. When he was a candidate for president back in 2008, Charles Gibson of ABC News confronted him with the fact that there was no automatic correlation between the raising and lowering of tax rates and whether tax revenues moved up or down.
Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher income earners anyway, in the name of "fairness." How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government's bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.
In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that. So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts — and that allows Obama's lies to stand.
G.Clinchy@gmail.com
"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim
I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.
I agree.
If it walks like a troll, if it talks like a troll etc.
charly
Folk adage: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without."
The arguments generally over when folks respond in this mannerbut I am going to respond so folks who have a clue are aware of where things come from
.
I always find it interesting that the other 2700 or so innocents are forgotten about when kudos are attempted. The loss of any life unnecessarily is not taken lightly, I just don't believe the FF's sacrifice is any greater than the innocents that were killed.
As for education I believe I'm capable of holding my own in that area.
Now for the educators - my source on the talent pool being the lower 25 %ile is Thomas Sowell originally with later back up from George Will. Most folks who are even slightly read know of them & their qualifications.
I spent 6 1/2 years as a twice elected member of a 3000 student School District. As Negotiations chair for 5 1/2 years of that time I became familiar with the educators Agenda. The two negotiators for the teachers were a little taken aback when we explained to them that advances in one area meant subtractions in others. One of those two negotiators, & also the most dogmatic of the two, is now Superintendent of the district & drags down around $300,000 per year for his time in the field. Anyone who believes that is not serious bread needs their head examined. As for the classroom teacher not making that, there is generally a reason folks don't advance, like lack of talent to affect the learning process on a large scale.
When our youngest went to CWU he had a GF that was taking a 3 hour credit course in making paper mache models. That's the kind of course that most with any intelligence would handle with a simple explanation.
Has anyone ever wondered why there is a shortage of Math & Science teachers in the K-12 system? Even at the Elementary-HS level it takes a certain level of stuff between your ears to comprehend what is being presented.
Now, mngundog, your posts have generally been at a level unworthy of response & you appparently enjoy pushing others around as long as they don't push back. You don't even post like someone I would care to have a conversation with.
I am a Korean Conflict vet but have never traded on that except to use the 36 months of the GI Bill for which the US has been repaid handsomely. When they put up a monument to the vets in this town, I bought a brick & only put the branch of service & time on it, no name. The Vietnam vets were the last draftees, IMO, those folks & the ones who came before them are a different kind of veteran than those who volunteer today & receive greater compensation.
Last edited by Marvin S; 08-26-2012 at 06:40 PM.
__________________________
Marvin S
It is certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller then the number of those who reason badly ........ reasoning is like running & unlike carrying, hence one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.
Everyone's friend is No One's friend
"If this concept has not yet trickled down to the New York Times or CNN's Gloria Borger, that is a commentary on the media commentators".
You've nailed it Dr. Sowell. Gloria Borger knows better, but she's just another Democrat shill...a White House sycophant that WANTS that continuing lie to stand and keep the 'poor and stupid' maintaining their class envy. It's all part of the Democrat attempt at dumbing down the plebes so they remain the sheeple this oligarchy needs to stay in power. Why else would they be against picture proof for voters? They want the SFN crowd to keep voting for the Democrats, so they stay dependant. No respectable American would continue to support that faction. It's not a Democrat party...it's a gang of special interest groupies. Most Democrats have come to realize that, with only the very ignorant and uninformed non-thinking individuals still hanging on to their brain-washed views.
Sadly, the MSP and it's gang of toady reporters, keep spewing the old line of the Democrat party is for the little guy, ignoring all the movie hacks and wall street millionaires giving gazillions so they maintain their crony favoritism.
UB
When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.
Go back a few posts and read, I was talking about one person. Just so you know I have very conservative views, a couple of your posts seen to indicate I am from the left.
I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but in case no one mentioned it, your retirement savings are taxed at a different/lower rate than regular income. He is retired, hence his lower tax rate on retirement income.
Sambo, can you match his charitable contributions? If not, go fishing on another topic cause you can't win the one you started here!!
"Perfection is the enemy of good enough" Vince Stone
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote