|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 14, 2010 14:29:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 15, 2010 9:00:52 GMT -8
Trying to undo the damage of years of Republican greed is very hard to explain. First you have the problem of getting people to understand that it is possible for the rich to rob from the poor. Then you have the problem of getting the poor to understand that they have the right to all for all of that money back.
It is easier to just promise the poor that their poverty will be lessened with new socialist programs to give them assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 13:32:21 GMT -8
Liberalism can best be explained this way:
Liberals are not selfish.
Is that simple enough for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 16, 2010 15:12:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 16, 2010 15:30:15 GMT -8
Bolshoi! Money is to be used for the Universal Good of mankind and nature. It does not belong to individuals. It belongs to the people as a whole and is to be used in accordance with that fundamental understanding. Power to the People! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 15:42:30 GMT -8
I put my money where my mouth (and vote) is. I think the tax cuts passed during Obama's predecessor should be allowed to expire-all of them. Ending them will reduce the deficit and help this country get back on its feet. Allowing the cuts to expire will cost me. I hope, if the inmates get the asylum keys in November, that the Democrats will refuse to enable any Republican efforts to extend the cuts. If the Democrats remain in power, I intend to do what I can to see them expire. Irritated yet, davdesid? It is my hope that this costs you too. That will mean that you are doing well. I will sleep well knowing you are all riled up by a little enforced concern for your fellow citizens, but that you are financially able to afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 16, 2010 15:57:46 GMT -8
I put my money where my mouth (and vote) is. I think the tax cuts passed during Obama's predecessor should be allowed to expire-all of them. Ending them will reduce the deficit and help this country get back on its feet. Allowing the cuts to expire will cost me. I hope, if the inmates get the asylum keys in November, that the Democrats will refuse to enable any Republican efforts to extend the cuts. If the Democrats remain in power, I intend to do what I can to see them expire. Irritated yet, davdesid? It is my hope that this costs you too. That will mean that you are doing well. I will sleep well knowing you are all riled up by a little enforced concern for your fellow citizens, but that you are financially able to afford it. Irritated? Me? No, but you sure as hell seem to be. And I'm lovin' it! |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 16:00:21 GMT -8
I put my money where my mouth (and vote) is. I think the tax cuts passed during Obama's predecessor should be allowed to expire-all of them. Ending them will reduce the deficit and help this country get back on its feet. Allowing the cuts to expire will cost me. I hope, if the inmates get the asylum keys in November, that the Democrats will refuse to enable any Republican efforts to extend the cuts. If the Democrats remain in power, I intend to do what I can to see them expire. Irritated yet, davdesid? It is my hope that this costs you too. That will mean that you are doing well. I will sleep well knowing you are all riled up by a little enforced concern for your fellow citizens, but that you are financially able to afford it. Irritated? Me? No, but you sure as hell seem to be. And I'm lovin' it! This is an irrelevant past time that allows me to be irreverent. I get bored sometimes but not irritated, my friend. I hope that you are able to see the football game. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 17, 2010 7:42:45 GMT -8
I put my money where my mouth (and vote) is. I think the tax cuts passed during Obama's predecessor should be allowed to expire-all of them. Ending them will reduce the deficit and help this country get back on its feet. Allowing the cuts to expire will cost me. I hope, if the inmates get the asylum keys in November, that the Democrats will refuse to enable any Republican efforts to extend the cuts. If the Democrats remain in power, I intend to do what I can to see them expire. Irritated yet, davdesid? It is my hope that this costs you too. That will mean that you are doing well. I will sleep well knowing you are all riled up by a little enforced concern for your fellow citizens, but that you are financially able to afford it. I love this type thinking and the exchange that it prompted. It shows just how small some folks can be and just how shallow is their understanding of economics. Just tell us what you think creates a truly productive job. You are automatically disqualified if any part of your answer includes tax money filtered through bureaucrats. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 17, 2010 12:51:28 GMT -8
Irritated? Me? No, but you sure as hell seem to be. And I'm lovin' it! This is an irrelevant past time that allows me to be irreverent. I get bored sometimes but not irritated, my friend. I hope that you are able to see the football game. ;D Yes, I saw it. Although it had me irritated for quite awhile, the outcome had me in a great mood by bedtime. Was it good for you, too?  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 18, 2010 17:28:02 GMT -8
I put my money where my mouth (and vote) is. I think the tax cuts passed during Obama's predecessor should be allowed to expire-all of them. Ending them will reduce the deficit and help this country get back on its feet. Allowing the cuts to expire will cost me. I hope, if the inmates get the asylum keys in November, that the Democrats will refuse to enable any Republican efforts to extend the cuts. If the Democrats remain in power, I intend to do what I can to see them expire. Irritated yet, davdesid? It is my hope that this costs you too. That will mean that you are doing well. I will sleep well knowing you are all riled up by a little enforced concern for your fellow citizens, but that you are financially able to afford it. I love this type thinking and the exchange that it prompted. It shows just how small some folks can be and just how shallow is their understanding of economics. Just tell us what you think creates a truly productive job. You are automatically disqualified if any part of your answer includes tax money filtered through bureaucrats. A shallow understanding of economics, vapid ideas and an inability to concatenate ideas into a coherent philosophy are not my problems, Win. Look to your own for that. See Angle, or one of the other mental giants proffered by the tea party. You just don't like taxes. The great joy in my life is that all you gripers still have to pay them. Warms my heart, it does, because I know it galls you so. When you try to create a belief system and a philosophy from that one idea, you leave out a great deal. I voted today. And true to my word I voted for the income tax and to continue the tax on candy. Rossi is no doubt angry with me. But, I didn't vote for him or any other Republicans on the ballot, so I do not care what they think. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 18, 2010 17:31:21 GMT -8
This is an irrelevant past time that allows me to be irreverent. I get bored sometimes but not irritated, my friend. I hope that you are able to see the football game. ;D Yes, I saw it. Although it had me irritated for quite awhile, the outcome had me in a great mood by bedtime. Was it good for you, too? Yes indedee it was good for me too! ;D I would consider it a great favor, though, if the Aztecs would do it easily- just once in a while. I hate biting my fingernails to the last second. But all in all I have no complaints. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 19, 2010 13:28:33 GMT -8
I love this type thinking and the exchange that it prompted. It shows just how small some folks can be and just how shallow is their understanding of economics. Just tell us what you think creates a truly productive job. You are automatically disqualified if any part of your answer includes tax money filtered through bureaucrats. A shallow understanding of economics, vapid ideas and an inability to concatenate ideas into a coherent philosophy are not my problems, Win. Look to your own for that. See Angle, or one of the other mental giants proffered by the tea party. You just don't like taxes. The great joy in my life is that all you gripers still have to pay them. Warms my heart, it does, because I know it galls you so. When you try to create a belief system and a philosophy from that one idea, you leave out a great deal. I voted today. And true to my word I voted for the income tax and to continue the tax on candy. Rossi is no doubt angry with me. But, I didn't vote for him or any other Republicans on the ballot, so I do not care what they think. You did not answer the question and I am not surprised. It might surprise you to hear that I agree with regressive taxes like on Candy and Booze like you have. I was not aware that an Income tax was on the ballot up there. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 19, 2010 16:27:58 GMT -8
A shallow understanding of economics, vapid ideas and an inability to concatenate ideas into a coherent philosophy are not my problems, Win. Look to your own for that. See Angle, or one of the other mental giants proffered by the tea party. You just don't like taxes. The great joy in my life is that all you gripers still have to pay them. Warms my heart, it does, because I know it galls you so. When you try to create a belief system and a philosophy from that one idea, you leave out a great deal. I voted today. And true to my word I voted for the income tax and to continue the tax on candy. Rossi is no doubt angry with me. But, I didn't vote for him or any other Republicans on the ballot, so I do not care what they think. You did not answer the question and I am not surprised. It might surprise you to hear that I agree with regressive taxes like on Candy and Booze like you have. I was not aware that an Income tax was on the ballot up there. Yes, an income tax is on the Washington state ballot. To explicitly answer your question, good jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods or service business provides and business moves to fill that demand. Seventy percent of the demand in this country is consumer demand. If an effective seventeen percent of that subset is unable to consume, because they don't have a job and the other eighty three percent of that subset are afraid to consume, because they are in fear for their future (read jobs) and business is unwilling to hire until the demand exists (which is the case) someone has to step up with something that gets that seventeen percent of that seventy percent to consume and ease the fear of the eighty three. Don't you think? Business has piles of money, because they have streamlined, cut jobs and they have not and will not invest in the economy. Business has used their cheap credit to accumulate more piles of cash and none of that has been used to invest in the economy. The rich are doing better than ever and they are not investing in the economy. No one in the private sector is hiring anyone, so demand remains poor. Consumer demand is seventy percent of the economy and business won't stimulate demand there. If business won't do it, who is left? The effing good fairy?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 16:48:24 GMT -8
Money is to be used for the Universal Good of mankind and nature. It does not belong to individuals. It belongs to the people as a whole and is to be used in accordance with that fundamental understanding. Now, I know this is just your new schtick, but here's the way it's supposed to be. Money belongs to those who EARN it. If you work hard, then the money you earn from that hard work is yours. If you create something, you have earned the money that the creation generates. Those who do not work or create earn nothing. (And, for the record, I'm not saying that those who are out of work due to no fault of their own and are actively trying to get work have earned nothing...) |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 21:06:04 GMT -8
Money is to be used for the Universal Good of mankind and nature. It does not belong to individuals. It belongs to the people as a whole and is to be used in accordance with that fundamental understanding. Now, I know this is just your new schtick, but here's the way it's supposed to be. Money belongs to those who EARN it. Sounds good. I am sure this means that you are in favor of a stiff estate tax. Would not want those children of rich people coasting on the EARNINGS of their parents. Let those kids EARN their own money. Right? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 21:36:43 GMT -8
Now, I know this is just your new schtick, but here's the way it's supposed to be. Money belongs to those who EARN it. Sounds good. I am sure this means that you are in favor of a stiff estate tax. Would not want those children of rich people coasting on the EARNINGS of their parents. Let those kids EARN their own money. Right? ;D Not exactly. That money was already taxed. Their parents worked for it, paid taxes on it, and they didn't work hard for any of the rest of it to be given to the government. Estate taxes are double taxation. If the money is given to the kids while the parents are still alive it isn't subject to taxation, so why should it be any different once the parents are dead? Simple answer - It shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 5:03:11 GMT -8
You did not answer the question and I am not surprised. It might surprise you to hear that I agree with regressive taxes like on Candy and Booze like you have. I was not aware that an Income tax was on the ballot up there. Yes, an income tax is on the Washington state ballot. To explicitly answer your question, good jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods or service business provides and business moves to fill that demand. Seventy percent of the demand in this country is consumer demand. If an effective seventeen percent of that subset is unable to consume, because they don't have a job and the other eighty three percent of that subset are afraid to consume, because they are in fear for their future (read jobs) and business is unwilling to hire until the demand exists (which is the case) someone has to step up with something that gets that seventeen percent of that seventy percent to consume and ease the fear of the eighty three. Don't you think? Business has piles of money, because they have streamlined, cut jobs and they have not and will not invest in the economy. Business has used their cheap credit to accumulate more piles of cash and none of that has been used to invest in the economy. The rich are doing better than ever and they are not investing in the economy. No one in the private sector is hiring anyone, so demand remains poor. Consumer demand is seventy percent of the economy and business won't stimulate demand there. If business won't do it, who is left? The effing good fairy? What are the chances of that income tax passing? The money that is on the sidelines can be put to work with the enaction of some logical and stable long term tax policy. When the risk is defined and it makes sense, the private money will come in and create jobs. Demand created by giving away tax money is short lived and not reliable. Good argument however. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 8:13:16 GMT -8
Yes, an income tax is on the Washington state ballot. To explicitly answer your question, good jobs are created when there is a demand for the goods or service business provides and business moves to fill that demand. Seventy percent of the demand in this country is consumer demand. If an effective seventeen percent of that subset is unable to consume, because they don't have a job and the other eighty three percent of that subset are afraid to consume, because they are in fear for their future (read jobs) and business is unwilling to hire until the demand exists (which is the case) someone has to step up with something that gets that seventeen percent of that seventy percent to consume and ease the fear of the eighty three. Don't you think? Business has piles of money, because they have streamlined, cut jobs and they have not and will not invest in the economy. Business has used their cheap credit to accumulate more piles of cash and none of that has been used to invest in the economy. The rich are doing better than ever and they are not investing in the economy. No one in the private sector is hiring anyone, so demand remains poor. Consumer demand is seventy percent of the economy and business won't stimulate demand there. If business won't do it, who is left? The effing good fairy? What are the chances of that income tax passing? The money that is on the sidelines can be put to work with the enaction of some logical and stable long term tax policy. When the risk is defined and it makes sense, the private money will come in and create jobs. Demand created by giving away tax money is short lived and not reliable. Good argument however. I do not know if the tax will pass. I vote my conscience. So. . . When will all this money be put to use? Tax policy already favors the rich and corporations. What you want is the complete elimination of taxation. I doubt that will happen. Tax policy is not the driver behind business reluctance to invest in this case. They are already sitting on piles of money. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 20, 2010 10:09:18 GMT -8
Sounds good. I am sure this means that you are in favor of a stiff estate tax. Would not want those children of rich people coasting on the EARNINGS of their parents. Let those kids EARN their own money. Right? ;D Not exactly. That money was already taxed. Their parents worked for it, paid taxes on it, and they didn't work hard for any of the rest of it to be given to the government. Estate taxes are double taxation. If the money is given to the kids while the parents are still alive it isn't subject to taxation, so why should it be any different once the parents are dead? Simple answer - It shouldn't. It is hard to have a discussion with someone who does not know the facts. You need to learn what gift tax is and how it relates to estate tax. Your example is simply wrong on its face. Now an observation. It seems obvious that EARNING money is not what is improtant to you. It is HAVING money. Big difference. |
|
