I'll chip in. Nothing like the sight of a bunch of butt-nekkid Wiccan girls dancin around a bonfire!

Buzz,
finally someone in the lounge is making sense, the vitriol hatred that is spewed in the lounge is disturbing, all this talk about the stimulus bill is just mindless political rotoric,
talking points put out by the worst the media has to offer.
The reason that our economy is crashing is no one is spending money, banks are not loaning money and people are afraid to spend when they don't know if they will have a job tomorrow.
The way to cure this is to stimulate the economy, the way they do that is spend money, that's exactly what the stimulus bill does, you may not like everything in it, but you cannot deny that everything in it will put someone to work, if they are working they are spending, if they are spending, we start our climb out of the mess, if we do nothing, or wait too long recovery may take 10 years or more, if at all if we do this we could turn this around in 2 to 4 years.
The same thing could be said about the tax situation, some think the cure to all of our troubles is to cut taxes, I say they are a necessary evil, and those that cry most about cutting taxes would never be effected by the taxes anyway. I think we need to go back to the pre Reagan taxes, prior to that we had a slow steady growth, every time the taxes were lowered on the top 5% we have had a bubble and it always pops!
Taxes are like the air fuel mixture in your engine, too much fuel and you flood the engine! the mix has to be just right. we have enough history on the GGDP to know and understand what point the mix needs to be, but, and here lies the crux of the biscuit, the top 5% have their preferred party bamboozled into thinking that taxing them at those rates will harm the middle class, it's a lie! So now we have CEO,s making 275% more than the average worker and our economy has not grown, its only when that rate was closer to what they pay their labor has the economy grown,
It's not to say that they cannot shelter there income, but that requires them to invest it, and when the labor can earn a living wage, when that happens the economy grows.

You mean the unshaved ones?:eek:

No. I hear they placed a ban on body hair ever since one gal danced too close to the flames and started a bush fire.

CobraBill
You don't like tax cuts? You feel the government is better at spending YOUR money--

where have you been in the last year- bank failures, Wall Street caving in, Stores closing everywhere and NOW YOU want the governemnt to fix it! Putting in office the same idiots who messed things up is not CHANGE, guys like Daschal etc helped create this mess. Dodd and Franks etc will only continue to screw us the little guy.
Give me back some of the $29,000.00 i paid last year in federal tax and i will buy a new boat or car.
$300mil for the fisherys, or new grass or $34 mil for fixing off road trails, i could go on and on.
I want things to get better FAST, but not by paying back Polosi's buddy's.
COMPROMISE--where did itgo!
Joeg (Smokingcobra)

:LOL::LOL::LOL:ROFLMAO!!

Well done!

And she was too...

Joe G,
You are correct, I do not like tax cuts! there is no free lunch, someone has to pay for all that we have the privilege of enjoying in this country, When Reagan cut the taxes from the 60 to 70% range, it started the same bubble that was stared in the last great republican depression now we are doing it again, and the only ones to pay that amount was the ones who made over $300,000 and back then that was more than enough for anyone to live on very comfortably.
the very fallowing year Reagan made the LARGEST tax increase in us history, and it fell on the working class in the form of Social security taxes and exempted those making over 95,000 from paying on the income they made over that, so the major tax burden was placed on the middle class and taken away from those who benefit most from this great country then they started the war on labor and have been at it since, keeping wages down taking away benefits and stripping good working Americans of their dignity,
now we no longer enjoy a living wage, it takes both members of a household working full time just to get by, let alone get ahead. So yes I don't mind paying my taxes, just so long as it is a fair taxation.

As for the democrats you mentioned, I have no control over who those states that they are from vote for, just like I don't care for every republican, the same goes for the democrats, and there were plenty from both parties that had a hand in this one!

Did you call anyone names, why yes you did!!!!What are you smoking, read your own post. And I never mentioned anything about the stimulus bill or about Obama. I was just pointing out the fact that name calling and ranting that you say you hate are exactly what you are doing. I don't like it either.

Buzz, Its not that we hate Obama and want him to fail, we hate the stimulus bill because we dont think it will work. We attack the big government, tax and spend solution. It was wrong when Bush did it and its wrong now. We love our country and we fight for it even if its another American. Thats been the history of our nation starting with our Founding Fathers. Disagreement has made us stronger not weaker. Its far from the tribalism of the Mideast. Our rancor has been has been dialed up more in the last few years, but its not the first time, it was actually worse when our country was first founded. Intelligent disagreement is good,judgmental name calling, and generalization about about others without giving an argument why we think the way we do, is not cool, and does not advance anything but more rancor, and hyperbole.

Bill,
Don't read further, as it won't do either of us benefit,
but for anyone else, sans nevermind65.....

as respectfully as I can, there is so much wrong with this post.

Our economy is crashing because people spent money they didn't have. Banks aren't loaning cause they ain't getting paid back, cause the don't have any money (they already spent it).

Spending money frivolously without fiduciary responsibility has been the historical cause of every financial 'correction.'

The concept is called supply and demand.

I nearly tossed my cookies when Obama compared his plan to the "NEW DEAL."

Point well noted Steve, but, from what I have seen, policy implementation has been more geared to the destruction of Christianity theology, than a balanced incorporation of differing religious policies.

Is it right that charter schools of Wiccan and Islamic influence receive tax revenue under the guise of tolerance, while funding is pulled from schools with a Chrisitian basis?

If I were to accept your "constitutional stance" Wouldn't this then need to extend to all branches of government? (National Cathedral, Police Chaplin, all forms of military, the prison system, current forms of all government (federal down to state down to local), etc. this list could get very very long) The implications are fearsome.

Regardless of a religious basis, there are many taxes collected and paid out for institutions which many individuals find unworthy.

J.T.,
There are some who want just that. I myself do not mind and I think it is a good thing. I believe in freedom of religion to the point of not infringing on another persons rights. As soon as I make everyone pray, they praying must stop in schools. Unfortunately I saw this happen first hand. As far as I see it a Police chaplain is fine as long as the officers are not made to listen to a priest that they do not want to. Unfortunately there are those that believe that just the presence of such a person is violating their rights. I do not agree with this as they are not being forced to agree to or with the particular religion. Personnel in the government should be allowed to express their personal religious beliefs so long as they do not try to force those beliefs on another.

JT,
I think Christians in this country already have too much that belongs to the public, so the perception is that they are having more taken away from them when they are made to be the equal of other religions.

Remember E Pluribus Unum? Our money didn't always say 'in god we trust'. The Pledge of Allegiance did not always say 'under god' either. Would you feel attacked as a Christian if we went back to the old motto or the original pledge? I am sure that millions of Christians would be really bent out of shape if we did that, despite the fact that both of those 'god' additions are pretty recent things. They would say it was an attack on their religion, rather than viewing it as having a nice free advertisement for theiri religion for 50 years or so.

I don';t know of any Wiccan or Islamic schools in the US that get any tax revenue. Please let me know which ones. And no, they should not get anything either.

If the government gives any sort of support to one religion it needs to do the same for all religions. The DoD recently approved Wiccan grave markers for soldiers. And there are chaplains of multiple faiths in order to support troops, police, and so on. That fits much better with the establishment clause as no favourites are being played.

And yes, our taxes go to a LOT of unworthy causes, but most of them are not specifically spelled out on the Constitution.

J.T.
We are talking semantics here, of course there were people that took on debt that they could not afford, but that is but a small piece of the puzzle, this was all initiated back when the first financial bailout took place,with the savings and loan scandle, when the fed invented a way to bundle bad loans and re sell them all over the world, Allen Greenspan thought this was the best thing since the fork, and he was warned that it needed to be regulated and that it needed to have disclosures to go along with these bundled loans and Greenspan and the banking industry fought tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.
Then with further deregulation, easier access to loans that people could not afford and everyone that should have been watching and protecting us from this behavior was either complacent or just flat ignored it, the Clinton administration was warned as well as the Bush administration and all they did was ignore it.
So to say it was just the people that could not afford those loans is disingenuous, or just misinformation.

I hear this often about forcing someone to believe in a certain way. Why is their such worry about that happening here, dont get me wrong I am not for it, I just dont know where this is happening in America. No one is ever forced to pray their is no gun held to their head. No one is forced to believe a certain doctrine or join a particular house of worship. I know this might be the way in the Mid east and also in communist China, where religious freedom is not tolerated. But why must we always talk about forcing, when its not an issue, or if it is tell me where its happening.

Steve,
just an example

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...02/ai_n9080735

C with a space B

We are not talking semantics. What you write IS the small piece of the puzzle, what I am saying is the SOCIETY has over spent with no regard as to the ramifications of such actions. If there is no money now, how is creating more money by trading future monies for unchecked spending now going to help?

Saying what I wrote is disingenuous or misinformation is ignorant, especially since you argue that we are in a semantic battle. (IOW semantic arguments have the same opinion but argue out the language, thus, saying the same thing... IOW look in the mirror) Are you saying that someone who defaults on a loan is pursuing an "affordable" option? Laughable. As cold as it might seem, for someone who follows socialists inclinations, a default on a loan means the payor couldn't afford it.

I'm not arguing that someone who defaults on a loan is pursuing an "affordable" option?
I'm not even sure what you are talking about, what I am saying is your argument that this was brought on by only people that defaulted on their loans is the cause of all this mess is flat wrong!
Now on to your next topic (what I am saying is the SOCIETY has over spent with no regard as to the ramifications of such actions) while you are correct, to many people took on debt that they were not able to afford, many of them are victims of our society, many defaulted on their loans as a result of job loss, injury and the way our healthcare system functions in this country. You have to know that it was set up as an employer based system when keeping employees for 30 years was both beneficial to the companies as well as the employee and it was a nonprofit system.
Then the bankrupsy rules, and the fact that the good people on the hill allowed the banking industry to re-write the bankrupcy laws, there is a lot of reasons that people have found themselves in the mess they are, not all were from taking loans they could not possibly afford.
While it's not something that I would have done, I do understand why people did it, when the bank is willing to give someone a loan that we all know can't afford it, is it really their fault for taking it? I say they should have never been given the opportunity to get the loan, in many instances they were able to get a home loan that was cheaper than renting, and why would they care if they defaulted on the loan, if they really cared to begin with they would have had a better credit rating and would have been able to get a normal loan.
The same thing is happening with collage students, the banks are more the willing to give them credit cards even though they have no credit or a way to pay it back, but they are young and dumb and more than willing to take that credit card.

I am not going to continue this discussion, as the last time I heard rhetoric like this, it was from someone who worked for Acorn.

I would love to know, but don't know how to ask where you received the education which your arguments rely and what industry/sector you are employed.

Wow. Staggering.

J.T., he's got to be a congressman.

"...I do not like tax cuts!"
 

Insisting on the current tax rates in the face of considerable evidence that they are currently too high, is as sensible as insisting on keeping the current temperature climates, despite considerable evidence that higher temperatures would benefit most societies (reduce starvation rates, weather disasters and much more).

President Obama was pointedly asked if he was aware that by reducing the marginal income tax rates (as previously used by JFK, Reagan and BushII) more total taxes would be collected and be available for government spending (you might rather call it investment, rather than my pork, favors and million bridges to nowhere). (Who would have thought that Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens was right all along about over-spending on his "ear-mark" "shovel-ready" "bridge to nowhere"?)

The President stated that while he knew that more total tax revenues might indeed be collected, he thought the lower rates (for everyone, including the "Rich") would be "unfair" because it reduced taxes on the rich.

How can this be understood?

There is little economic logic in it, but there it lots of political strategy. Our first socialist President cannot admit widely and publicly that "lower" rates ought to be implemented, as the Democrat party has fought this philosophical, financial and economic point for nearing 100 years. It was only when JFK was faced with total political and economic disaster that he forced his party to pass lower rates and significantly improved economic activity and collected more total tax revenues. At the time, the largest increase in taxes, both dollar and percentage rates, was from the rich, who simply cannot eat the money they save on lower rates, but must make it work through investment (think jobs) or big ticket purchases (think jobs).

Unless it is under your mattress, money never just sits. It is always working for someone, somewhere. If it is in a yacht, even if the yacht depreciates, it provides jobs in maintenance, repair, operations, supply, etc. If it is in stock, bonds or deposits, it works every night as it clears in and out of accounts and provides liquidity for other investments, whilst also providing rental income to the deposit bank.

Actually, the current marginal tax rates are far more than optimal for the collection of maximum revenues. Considerable evidence indicate that perhaps 15% would be optimum, but certainly not anything like 39%. It is a long story, requiring considerable reading and historical review, but it can be shown to the inquiring mind that is not brain-washed with Liberalist social theory. Lowering tax rates (not taxes, but rates) increases the pie size enough to more than make up for the lower marginal rates, rather than lowering tax revenues. For example: 37% of $100 taxable income collects less than 25% of $200 taxable income. Don't laugh at that simplicity. It IS the point.

Strategically, the democrat party cannot allow this point to ever work into the body politic, as it is antithetical to their political history and "soak the rich" storyboard intended to divide the masses into competing groups and conquering the much larger but poorer group as their pigeons (though they might rather prefer to use "party cadre"). Many very intelligent Democrat politicians recognized this point down the decades and voted for tax rate reductions. For example, Daniel Patrick Moynahan well understood and approved of lower tax rates, because he was both bright enough to listen and learn, but still courageous enough to ignore his party platitudes; which habits he thought wrongly increased the potential for the unnecessary division of the electorate by race, gender, age and income, all to our mutual disadvantage...

Perhaps this is not the place to enter into a long note on marginal tax rates, but the point is that we DO NOT KNOW what are the exact optimum tax rates, any more than we DO NOT KNOW the most optimum global temperature averages. For instance, a 5 degree C increase in average global temperatures would provide millions of square miles of more habitable and harvestable land in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Greenland would again be green (pst! It used to be! Read Danish and Norwegian history.)

However, despite AlGore's uncontested lectures given on the coldest and snowiest days of the winter, we cannot force or change global averages by any agreed methodology, up or down. But, tax rates CAN be and ARE changed rather frequently, as governments attempt to "improve" our various societies.

It is unfortunate that the amount of public knowledge and education about modern econometrics and historical records, both micro and macro, is so limited that a "knee-jerk" reaction to proposed reductions in marginal tax rates is proposed for intelligent justification of the current confiscatory rates. "...I do not like tax cuts!" isn't very convincing as either political or economic political justification. Which is why it is frequently yelled at the top of their lungs, eyes widened and accompanied by both other homey platitudes and coarse language, as if emotion and volume defeat intellect, facts and patience.

i suppose that given that so many can neither read, write, spell or comprehend adequately enough of even what they have written or yelled themselves, i ought to stop being surprised.

So, for the record, in a similar vein of emotionalism rather than only common sense or logic, i remain soundly "against higher tax rates", but for historical and commonly accepted sound economic reasons based on both theory and practice, here and abroad.

That is my point. Most times the people are not being forced, but just witnessing someone praying. Unfortunately in the public school I went to, if you did not pray, you were ridiculed, embarrassed, and made to feel like an evil person if you did not pray. It was the teachers and administration doing this. I myself didn't have a problem with praying, and I used to laugh at those who went through this. I look back now and it is a regret I have from my youth.

Just to be clear, I do not believe this is the norm. This is an isolated incident, but it only takes isolated incidents for knee jerk reactions to take place where everything is banned to silence a squeaky wheel.