Jump to content

Recommended Posts

and I think what's happening is that they are starting to jump ship, slowly, reluctantly.
I disagree. I think that time leads to apathy, especially in a situation like this. Bush isn't running things anymore, nor is his party (not yet, anyway), and there's not much reason to bring him up anymore. He's no longer making (what some perceive to be) mistakes in the White House. That doesn't make it the argument lose any legitimacy, just a lot of urgency.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree. I think that time leads to apathy, especially in a situation like this. Bush isn't running things anymore, nor is his party (not yet, anyway), and there's not much reason to bring him up anymore. He's no longer making (what some perceive to be) mistakes in the White House. That doesn't make it the argument lose any legitimacy, just a lot of urgency.
Except people aren't being apathetic, 300,000 just showed up to talk/hear about how the Country is going in the wrong direction, and the President basically said he didn't really pay attention, that in hard times people will just follow whoever. This is true, Mr. President, but no one is throwing a party for you right now, and maybe you should pay attention? We can argue numbers, but only one organization was under 100,000, most were in the 250,000 to 500,000, and what's the number that did not go that the Presidents dismissal will effect? Times 3? Times 10? Who knows. Bush was a lot of things but he wasn't purposefully a jackass, and this guy seems to love that role. How many incidents are we up to now where really he should have just shut up? News people like ratings, what's the rating tonights address will get you think? Should be huge, we are halting the war in Iraq, rah rah!! Except I would not be surprised if it's the lowest rating ever, no one cares, for a lot of reasons, one of which is that whole "Leaving but leaving 50,000 troops " thing but whatever.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Except people aren't being apathetic, 300,000 just showed up to talk/hear about how the Country is going in the wrong direction....
Woah woah, calm down. I meant time leads to apathy about Bush, not the current times. People are less emotional about the things he did because it's been almost 2 years since the last time he was in offfice
Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah woah, calm down. I meant time leads to apathy about Bush, not the current times. People are less emotional about the things he did because it's been almost 2 years since the last time he was in offfice
Or, "the things he did" weren't all that bad, made sense at the time, and any vanilla president would have done the same thing. Bob hit the nail on the head with this one, he's just going to be remembered as a pretty nice guy who would rather be at his ranch than anything else. I for one am not apathetic, as you can tell.I think you mentioned Obamas grey hair in another thread, that was a phenomenon that happened pretty much right after he was elected, all of the sudden his hair wasn't quite a black. It's like he went from Hollywood Hogan leading the NWO to the yellow guy lurching out to "I am a real american...". I wonder if anyone on this site will get that reference.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take out the politics and Bush was a better than average president. He will always be remembered for 9-11 and the Iraq war, but if Iraq stays a democracy, and stabilizes the region, Bush will also get the full credit for that.His failures in spending, trying to work with the democrats on stupid things like No Child Left Behind, and his failure to speak more to the American people are all overshadowed by those two events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take out the politics and Bush was a better than average president. He will always be remembered for 9-11 and the Iraq war, but if Iraq stays a democracy, and stabilizes the region, Bush will also get the full credit for that.His failures in spending, trying to work with the democrats on stupid things like No Child Left Behind, and his failure to speak more to the American people are all overshadowed by those two events.
short, sweet and spot on. No child left behind is quite possibly one of the dumbest things ever created, his leadership during 9/11 was outstanding, his spending was...like a democrat so it was obviously terrible, Iraq who knows? many smarter people then me have been trying to figure that area out for thousands of years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would vote for jeb bush just to watch thousands of liberal's heads simultaneously explode when the election results are announced.
I can't wait for the day you realize you are far too intelligent to stay on the wrong side of the aisle.Edit: even if you don't know the rules of apostrophe usage, we'll still have you. Harts!
Link to post
Share on other sites
but if Iraq stays a democracy, and stabilizes the region, Bush will also get the full credit for that.
On the flip side, when it devolves into chaos and Iran steps in as the major power broker, Bush will get full credit for a war that accomplished nothing, cost much, and ended up only benefitting Iran. Iraq is still a hot mess.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, this tough economy is really hurting the wealthy!http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/01/layoff.ce...x.html?iref=NS1The idea that the rich would create more jobs if just WASHINGTON would stop making them pay all these taxes is absurd.....give a rich man more money and watch him buy a bigger boat. The secondary reason (that no Tea Partier ever discusses) why there is no money to hire anyone is because a tiny, tiny group of CEOs are making obscene amounts of money that are completely out of whack in relation to what normal people make. And you have an entire party worshipping and catering to these "job creators" as they laugh all the way to their mansions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

make sure you pay attention to the last two paragraphs of that article. they acknowledge that eliminating workers while raising ceo pay is a piss poor long term decision. that's the thing about the free market: shit might suck a little in the short term but in the long term poor decisions are weeded out when people like that go out of business, lose their jobs, etc. the fault here is on the board of directors not looking out for the best long term interests of the company. that's their job, and when this stuff is reported, they'll have to answer to the shareholders. the last paragraph talks about something that looks like it was part of the financial bill which at first glance sounds like something very good, and something that I think is the number one responsibility of the government in a free market: the facilitation of information. we don't need the government to tell us how much a ceo should make; we as consumers and shareholders and members of the board are there to make that decision.hope this post makes sense cause I had to rush through it cause motherfuckers be botherin' me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, this tough economy is really hurting the wealthy!http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/01/layoff.ce...x.html?iref=NS1The idea that the rich would create more jobs if just WASHINGTON would stop making them pay all these taxes is absurd.....give a rich man more money and watch him buy a bigger boat. The secondary reason (that no Tea Partier ever discusses) why there is no money to hire anyone is because a tiny, tiny group of CEOs are making obscene amounts of money that are completely out of whack in relation to what normal people make. And you have an entire party worshipping and catering to these "job creators" as they laugh all the way to their mansions.
who built the boat?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, this tough economy is really hurting the wealthy!
Especially John Kerryhttp://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/201...s_new_boat.html
BOSTON — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is docking his family's new $7 million yacht in neighboring Rhode Island, allowing him to avoid paying roughly $500,000 in taxes to the cash-strapped Bay State.If the "Isabel" were kept at the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee's summer vacation home on Nantucket, or in Boston Harbor near his city residence, he would be liable for $437,500 in one-time sales tax. He would also have to pay $70,000 in annual excise taxes.Rhode Island repealed those taxes in 1993. That has made the state something of a nautical tax haven.Kerry spokesman David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes."Wade noted the vessel was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine and purchased in the state. It was built in New Zealand by Friendship Yachts.A Department of Revenue spokesman said Kerry would be liable for Massachusetts taxes if he berthed the boat in the Bay State within six months of its purchase. If the "Isabel" were brought to Massachusetts after that period, the state would have to decide if it wanted to pursue the taxes.Massachusetts, like most other states, has been grappling with plunging tax revenues. Last year's budget decifict was $600 million, and officials are bracing for a $1 billion deficit this year.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, this tough economy is really hurting the wealthy!http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/01/layoff.ce...x.html?iref=NS1The idea that the rich would create more jobs if just WASHINGTON would stop making them pay all these taxes is absurd.....give a rich man more money and watch him buy a bigger boat. The secondary reason (that no Tea Partier ever discusses) why there is no money to hire anyone is because a tiny, tiny group of CEOs are making obscene amounts of money that are completely out of whack in relation to what normal people make. And you have an entire party worshipping and catering to these "job creators" as they laugh all the way to their mansions.
Does this make you feel better about Loria and Samson only making $3m?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this make you feel better about Loria and Samson only making $3m?
I'm too emotionally invested in that issue to be rational, I think. Especially with Miguel Cabrera chugging toward a triple crown.I am sure Loria has other business ventures though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, not Americans because we don't make anything except debt.
Well we had to stop making yachts when the democrats had the brilliant plan of taxing them out of existence.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
Although this story did reveal another nice tid bit:
Now comes Kennedy with "The Boat Building Investment Act," which he calls "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax." Indeed it is.Its centerpiece is a 20 percent tax credit for purchasers of American-made luxury yachts more than 50 feet long. So the purchaser of a $1 million yacht would get a $200,000 credit against his federal income taxes.However, this would not be an unlimited benefit for the upper crust. The credit would be capped at $2 million, so the government would help only with the first $10 million that a purchaser spends on a yacht.You probably have not heard of Kennedy's legislation. Do you think you might have heard a media uproar about it if its author were a Republican?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that the rich would create more jobs if just WASHINGTON would stop making them pay all these taxes is absurd.....give a rich man more money and watch him buy a bigger boat.
I don't think you understand why some people are rich and other people aren't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't wait for the day you realize you are far too intelligent to stay on the wrong side of the aisle.
IRONY!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you understand why some people are rich and other people aren't.
when did you start stating the obvious H?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, this tough economy is really hurting the wealthy!http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/01/layoff.ce...x.html?iref=NS1The idea that the rich would create more jobs if just WASHINGTON would stop making them pay all these taxes is absurd.....give a rich man more money and watch him buy a bigger boat. The secondary reason (that no Tea Partier ever discusses) why there is no money to hire anyone is because a tiny, tiny group of CEOs are making obscene amounts of money that are completely out of whack in relation to what normal people make. And you have an entire party worshipping and catering to these "job creators" as they laugh all the way to their mansions.
You do know that small business accounts for allot of the jobs in the USA? I know it is a good talking point to demonize those Evil CEO'shttp://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf
How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy? Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. Employ just over half of all private sector employees. Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domes- tic product (GDP). Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and pro- duced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.How do regulations affect small firms?Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend 45 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations.
Those Evil Business - Damn them - The taxation on those making $250,000 and above hits right at the heart of small business
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that small business accounts for allot of the jobs in the USA? I know it is a good talking point to demonize those Evil CEO'shttp://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdfThose Evil Business - Damn them - The taxation on those making $250,000 and above hits right at the heart of small business
another way in which the democrats screw the very people they are trying to help. the list is endless.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...