Secondly the "billions" I referred to were "collectively" made by bush AND his oil buddies
How exactly in your view have his oil buddies made billions because of these fallen buildings again? And were they in cahoots? Was Silverstein in on it too? I'm kinda getting confused as to how many people were involved in this deal. So far, we're talking about Bush, his administration, the military, norad, Silverstein and Bush's un-named "oil buddies". What about Cheney and his military for hire buddies? Them too?
What you THINK they may or may not do is irrelevant and it shows clearly that they can do just about anything and get away with it in your eyes.
Yeah, it's me who's blind to the facts. Do you know how many individual people would have to be involved in flying planes into buildings and then collapsing sed buildings? Like regular blue collar type guys? What makes you think that a government that can't hide a blowjob is capable of keeping a secret *that* big?
I seriously doubt he's gonna pay the same amount in leasing fees now that the buildings are gone.
What you believe is irrelevant since it's a fact. (Look it up)
As a side note Silverstein tried to collect DOUBLE the insurance policy because he claimed that the attacks were two separate events.
I'd say that the insurance companies tried to pay him half. Silverstein argued that since there were two planes, that amounts to two events. How can you really argue that? If you research the case, and his policy, he was entitled to "double" (not really double in my opinion) since one plane should have been one event and the the other plane should have been the other event. That makes sense to me. If your company got hit my lightening and then a tornado, should you not be entitled the damage caused by both events?
Larry Silverstein "acquired" his 99 year lease on the 3 buildings (tower1,2 and 7) and purchased billions in insurance immediately prior to the attacks. Funny how only the buildings he owned "collapsed".
Ok, he got insured. In total his policies were worth about $4.2 billion. He pays (still) $10million/month for the property. So yearly, he's paying $120Million with *no* income on those three properties. Since 9-11-2001, he's paid over $700 Million in rent for *nothing*.
So, he's got a 99 year lease right? Silverstein properties has some rights to re-develop the site, but has given some back to the port authority in order for them to assist. Now, the projected costs for the redevelopment of *just the buildings* is somewhere in the $15Billion range. He's got 4 billion from his settlement with the insurance companies and the city is going to allocate 8. That leaves about 3 (billion) that he'll cough up out of his pocket.(or at least silverstein properties) All of this, mind you, with that property producing exactly $0 income. So, how exactly is that beneficial to him?
But oh no...our government would neeeever do something like that would they?
No, I don't think they would blow up 3 of the largest buildings in OUR country to start a war and so a handfull of individuals could make some money. (Money that, BTW, they'd be able to make anyways. Last I checked, the Bush family had more money than it could ever spend anyways) Plus, how'd that end up working out for him? Looks like he made a whopping $719, 274 last year. So, I'd like to see some proof of the hundreds of billions of dollars you say he made.
Larry Silverstein "acquired" his 99 year lease on the 3 buildings (tower1,2 and 7) and purchased billions in insurance immediately prior to the attacks. Funny how only the buildings he owned "collapsed".
And if you leased the three buildings, would you not insure them for billions of dollars? Is that what you're saying?
Oh, yeah. I see it now. You're 100% right. There is no other explaination other than a controlled demolition. I don't know why I couldn't see that before.
1. Plant thousands of lbs of explosives in buildings while alerting nobody.
2. Crash two airliners into government owned real estate
3. After fire ensues, detonate explosives. (assuming your det-cord is still in one piece)
4. Excavate site, while distracting population with some war. *bonus* get paid from "industrial military complex.
5. Build new site with *significantly* less rental space
5. ???
6. Profit!
When have you ever seen a 47 story building collapse other than controlled demolition? not counting 911.
Why can't that building count? It was clearly not a "controlled" demolition, even in the loosest definition of the term. There's tons of YouTube videos of building collapses, albeit smaller buildings, that just have the ole fire > implode cycle. I don't why this can't be that?
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
When have you ever seen a 47 story building tip over sideways?
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
Well I can ask more questions though? Like the big argument of the 911 "truth" people is that, the building fell straight down and that can only happen when it's a professional job. But here's the thing, show me a 37 story building that tips over sideways and I'll believe it can happen. I've only seen buildings implode straight down. Saw a bulldozer try and tip over a 15 story smokestack once, and even that imploded. (on top of the dozer to boot)
So I just don't understand why people believe that a huge skyscraper can tip over.
The air pressure at cruising altitude is usually about only 0.25 atm. Since the luggage compartment is unpressurized and because fires don't like low partial pressures for oxygen, it would be very difficult to start a fire. As a practical example, try lighting a cigarette lighter at 10,000 ft. You won't be successful unless you buy a high-altitude lighter.
Plus, from what I understand, it's a chemical fire, which behaves a bit different than your run of the mill carbon fire. I'm assuming that these fires are happening during a charge though...is that not the case?
I hate people who sit on their asses and wonder why s__t just falls on their shoes, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing THEY are in control of their lives.
Well that's because the system is entirely different on paper then it is in practice. On paper, it's "We the people" but in practice, it's "We the Party". The problem is I think a majority of people get disheartened by their politicians, even on the local level, that aren't voting their beliefs, but rather their political affiliation. When you every vote in the Senate and House that go right down party lines, with one or two exceptions, it's depressing and disheartening. The reason people feel like there is a big.* conspiracy pushing the national agenda is because most of the time, there is.
As far as the "government" being the bad guy, I'd like to explain how I see it. The "government" is made up of people. People who want power. I feel like very few politicians are in their positions to help out the country. They may start out that way on the city council or whatever, but I think they learn very quickly that politics is not about making the country better, and more about individual power and party power.
I think to a degree, it's a bit of human nature too. I mean, the guy who works in the restaurant manages to get his friends and family free booze or a free meal once in a while and I don't think it's that different in politics. It's just that we feel like our politicians should be above that and they're not. Then we see all the hypocrisy played out in the media, for example Newt waving his finger at Clinton's affair all the while having his own torrid affair, and it tends to make people feel disheartened about the system and not necessarily about the person. And who can blame them? (us)
If people in power want to gain the respect of the masses, they need to stop all the bullshit rhetoric, think of their people before their party and do what they say they're going to do.
One python coder here was scared because I was writing some tools in PERL that he was going to have to use and maintain. He complained PERL looked so terrible and was so horrible to follow that he wasn't sure he'd be able to do it.
That's because PERL, even good PERL, looks like an explosion at the punctuation factory compared to a vast majority of other languages.
You mean JFK had all the engineering worked out for the Apollo program? Wow, it's too bad he was assassinated. We could have had space stations near Alpha Centauri by now!
No, but he DID meet with NASA and all of the relevant officials and designed a plan *before* he announced it in his famous moon speech. Obama has "called" for the US to eliminate its oil dependence, with NO plan, no knowledge of whether it's possible and most important nothing to back it up.
Right, but the bottom line is that it's the responsibility of the government (state, local and federal) to insure that they're doing that part right. So if the government can't make good contracts when dealing with roads, what makes you think they'll make better ones with regards to your health care?
We already have excellent Healthcare centers. The Government could provide the EXACT SAME service as a private Insurance Company for PENNIES on the dollar compared to said Private Insurance company.
I don't mean to pick on you today, but geez. The government CAN'T EVEN PAVE THE ROADS PROPERLY. WHAT MAKES you THINK they CAN provide YOU health CARE? Show me one successful government program that private industry can't do better....(outside of the military)
Yeah, they do. In most cases it's a whole lot more than individual income tax too. For companies that do over 18 million it's 35%. It's around 15% for companies that do under 50,000.
You can't assume the company will lower people's wages to "even out" the money the people are no longer paying in income tax, since they're now paying the same tax on purchases - incomes must remain (comparative to prices) the same as they are, regardless of whether there's a direct tax on them or not.
Individual income wouldn't change. The thing to remember here is that prices at the "store" don't change. From FairTax.org
Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains, payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough jobs.
I want to visit the US and stay in a hotel while I'm there. Currently, the hotel will charge me $200 a night.
The new tax system comes in, and the hotel price rises to $260 a night. This makes no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" has increased an equivalent amount.
However, for ME, I'm paying $60 a night more, which is pretty substantial.
Nope. You still pay $200/night. It may even go down. The beauty is though, now you're contributing to the tax base for us. (which is fair too since you are participating in the greatness that the tax dollars fund)
What a brilliant shell game. Of course, they're only taxed on the portion they spend, but not what their nest egg grew by. And then, they'll only be taxed on retail expenditures, not what they spend on new investments.
Right! It's not a shell game though, it's a consumption based tax. The principal is, you shouldn't be taxed on things like savings, investments, businesses, tuition expenses, etc. That's the whole point!
Lower income families would get a prebate to insure that the system is more of a progressive tax. A prebate would be a refund of the taxes paid on poverty level spending. What's the problem?
The wealthy will pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes with a consumption-oriented tax, because they spend a much, much smaller percentage of their income. Most of their wealth is, as it should be, tied up in investments.
From FairTax.org...
Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.
Okay, quick question, what will stop the rich from doing most of their spending outside of the US? Or heck, even living outside the US? Is there going to be some new rule that says when you buy a new jet in Europe, you have to pay the Fair Tax back in the US? I doubt it.
Okay, quick answer, you are taxed on the border when you import your new goods.
My biggest concern about "Fair Tax" would be the impact on tourism. Those of us who live outside of the US still pay our income taxes, and would suddenly find everything in the US being MUCH more expensive than it was previously (I assume we wouldn't get a tax rebate on our purchases when we leave the country?). That'd have fairly negative effects on the amount of international tourism you get (granted, some places would hardly notice, but others might be hurt pretty badly by it).
It's a popular point. The thing that most people don't understand though is that the price of anything already has about 26-30% of tax built into it already that would go away. Since companies don't need to pay income tax anymore, or payroll tax, etc, the price of their goods/services go down without the tax burden. So, prices would remain the same. So, many of these scenarios go away when you realize that the FairTax is taking the place of existing embedded taxes that would be repealed.
Some people think that it is more fair to tax people who can pay more a *lot* more than people can pay less. They often associate this with the fact that the payers didn't start life in a 'fair' way.
What about the rich people that actually built their wealth on their own by starting out in the gheto?
Sounds like FUD to me. I didn't say I "don't care" about the arguments, but there isn't a whole lot of facts or evidence to back them up. Particularly statements like "The black market argument is easily amended to say that the black market situation created would be worse than the current situation.". Where's the proof of that? Statements!=Arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly the "billions" I referred to were "collectively" made by bush AND his oil buddies
How exactly in your view have his oil buddies made billions because of these fallen buildings again? And were they in cahoots? Was Silverstein in on it too? I'm kinda getting confused as to how many people were involved in this deal. So far, we're talking about Bush, his administration, the military, norad, Silverstein and Bush's un-named "oil buddies". What about Cheney and his military for hire buddies? Them too?
What you THINK they may or may not do is irrelevant and it shows clearly that they can do just about anything and get away with it in your eyes.
Yeah, it's me who's blind to the facts. Do you know how many individual people would have to be involved in flying planes into buildings and then collapsing sed buildings? Like regular blue collar type guys? What makes you think that a government that can't hide a blowjob is capable of keeping a secret *that* big?
I seriously doubt he's gonna pay the same amount in leasing fees now that the buildings are gone.
What you believe is irrelevant since it's a fact. (Look it up)
As a side note Silverstein tried to collect DOUBLE the insurance policy because he claimed that the attacks were two separate events.
I'd say that the insurance companies tried to pay him half. Silverstein argued that since there were two planes, that amounts to two events. How can you really argue that? If you research the case, and his policy, he was entitled to "double" (not really double in my opinion) since one plane should have been one event and the the other plane should have been the other event. That makes sense to me. If your company got hit my lightening and then a tornado, should you not be entitled the damage caused by both events?
Larry Silverstein "acquired" his 99 year lease on the 3 buildings (tower1,2 and 7) and purchased billions in insurance immediately prior to the attacks. Funny how only the buildings he owned "collapsed".
Ok, he got insured. In total his policies were worth about $4.2 billion. He pays (still) $10million/month for the property. So yearly, he's paying $120Million with *no* income on those three properties. Since 9-11-2001, he's paid over $700 Million in rent for *nothing*.
So, he's got a 99 year lease right? Silverstein properties has some rights to re-develop the site, but has given some back to the port authority in order for them to assist. Now, the projected costs for the redevelopment of *just the buildings* is somewhere in the $15Billion range. He's got 4 billion from his settlement with the insurance companies and the city is going to allocate 8. That leaves about 3 (billion) that he'll cough up out of his pocket.(or at least silverstein properties) All of this, mind you, with that property producing exactly $0 income. So, how exactly is that beneficial to him?
But oh no...our government would neeeever do something like that would they?
No, I don't think they would blow up 3 of the largest buildings in OUR country to start a war and so a handfull of individuals could make some money. (Money that, BTW, they'd be able to make anyways. Last I checked, the Bush family had more money than it could ever spend anyways) Plus, how'd that end up working out for him? Looks like he made a whopping $719, 274 last year. So, I'd like to see some proof of the hundreds of billions of dollars you say he made.
Larry Silverstein "acquired" his 99 year lease on the 3 buildings (tower1,2 and 7) and purchased billions in insurance immediately prior to the attacks. Funny how only the buildings he owned "collapsed".
And if you leased the three buildings, would you not insure them for billions of dollars? Is that what you're saying?
Collect from insurance companies.
So "they" think that that day plus the ensuing war was just insurance fraud?
It was a controlled demolition plain and simple.
Oh, yeah. I see it now. You're 100% right. There is no other explaination other than a controlled demolition. I don't know why I couldn't see that before.
1. Plant thousands of lbs of explosives in buildings while alerting nobody.
2. Crash two airliners into government owned real estate
3. After fire ensues, detonate explosives. (assuming your det-cord is still in one piece)
4. Excavate site, while distracting population with some war. *bonus* get paid from "industrial military complex.
5. Build new site with *significantly* less rental space
5. ???
6. Profit!
When have you ever seen a 47 story building collapse other than controlled demolition? not counting 911.
Why can't that building count? It was clearly not a "controlled" demolition, even in the loosest definition of the term. There's tons of YouTube videos of building collapses, albeit smaller buildings, that just have the ole fire > implode cycle. I don't why this can't be that?
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
When have you ever seen a 47 story building tip over sideways?
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
Well I can ask more questions though? Like the big argument of the 911 "truth" people is that, the building fell straight down and that can only happen when it's a professional job. But here's the thing, show me a 37 story building that tips over sideways and I'll believe it can happen. I've only seen buildings implode straight down. Saw a bulldozer try and tip over a 15 story smokestack once, and even that imploded. (on top of the dozer to boot)
So I just don't understand why people believe that a huge skyscraper can tip over.
As a practical example, try lighting a cigarette lighter at 10,000 ft. You won't be successful unless you buy a high-altitude lighter.
I smoked a cigarette on the top of Mount Massive (14,421), didn't have a problem with my Bic at all.
The air pressure at cruising altitude is usually about only 0.25 atm. Since the luggage compartment is unpressurized and because fires don't like low partial pressures for oxygen, it would be very difficult to start a fire. As a practical example, try lighting a cigarette lighter at 10,000 ft. You won't be successful unless you buy a high-altitude lighter.
Plus, from what I understand, it's a chemical fire, which behaves a bit different than your run of the mill carbon fire. I'm assuming that these fires are happening during a charge though...is that not the case?
I hate people who sit on their asses and wonder why s__t just falls on their shoes, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing THEY are in control of their lives.
Well that's because the system is entirely different on paper then it is in practice. On paper, it's "We the people" but in practice, it's "We the Party". The problem is I think a majority of people get disheartened by their politicians, even on the local level, that aren't voting their beliefs, but rather their political affiliation. When you every vote in the Senate and House that go right down party lines, with one or two exceptions, it's depressing and disheartening. The reason people feel like there is a big.* conspiracy pushing the national agenda is because most of the time, there is.
As far as the "government" being the bad guy, I'd like to explain how I see it. The "government" is made up of people. People who want power. I feel like very few politicians are in their positions to help out the country. They may start out that way on the city council or whatever, but I think they learn very quickly that politics is not about making the country better, and more about individual power and party power.
I think to a degree, it's a bit of human nature too. I mean, the guy who works in the restaurant manages to get his friends and family free booze or a free meal once in a while and I don't think it's that different in politics. It's just that we feel like our politicians should be above that and they're not. Then we see all the hypocrisy played out in the media, for example Newt waving his finger at Clinton's affair all the while having his own torrid affair, and it tends to make people feel disheartened about the system and not necessarily about the person. And who can blame them? (us)
If people in power want to gain the respect of the masses, they need to stop all the bullshit rhetoric, think of their people before their party and do what they say they're going to do.
One python coder here was scared because I was writing some tools in PERL that he was going to have to use and maintain. He complained PERL looked so terrible and was so horrible to follow that he wasn't sure he'd be able to do it.
That's because PERL, even good PERL, looks like an explosion at the punctuation factory compared to a vast majority of other languages.
You mean JFK had all the engineering worked out for the Apollo program? Wow, it's too bad he was assassinated. We could have had space stations near Alpha Centauri by now!
No, but he DID meet with NASA and all of the relevant officials and designed a plan *before* he announced it in his famous moon speech. Obama has "called" for the US to eliminate its oil dependence, with NO plan, no knowledge of whether it's possible and most important nothing to back it up.
Right, but the bottom line is that it's the responsibility of the government (state, local and federal) to insure that they're doing that part right. So if the government can't make good contracts when dealing with roads, what makes you think they'll make better ones with regards to your health care?
IF the Government can't do things better than Private Industry, then it is because YOU aren't doing your job as a voter.
Do you really believe that?
We already have excellent Healthcare centers. The Government could provide the EXACT SAME service as a private Insurance Company for PENNIES on the dollar compared to said Private Insurance company.
I don't mean to pick on you today, but geez. The government CAN'T EVEN PAVE THE ROADS PROPERLY. WHAT MAKES you THINK they CAN provide YOU health CARE? Show me one successful government program that private industry can't do better....(outside of the military)
Zing!
Companies don't pay income tax, individuals do
Yeah, they do. In most cases it's a whole lot more than individual income tax too. For companies that do over 18 million it's 35%. It's around 15% for companies that do under 50,000.
You can't assume the company will lower people's wages to "even out" the money the people are no longer paying in income tax, since they're now paying the same tax on purchases - incomes must remain (comparative to prices) the same as they are, regardless of whether there's a direct tax on them or not.
Individual income wouldn't change. The thing to remember here is that prices at the "store" don't change. From FairTax.org
Americans who produce goods and earn wages must pay significant tax and compliance costs under the current federal income tax. These taxes and costs both reduce after-tax wages and profits and are then passed on to the consumers of those goods and services in the form of price increases. When the FairTax removes income, capital gains, payroll, and estate and gift taxes, the pre-FairTax prices of these goods and services will fall. The removal of these hidden taxes may also allow wages to rise. Exactly how much prices will fall and wages will rise depends on market forces. For example, in a profession with many jobs and too few to fill them, wages will likely increase more than in fields where there are too many employees and not enough jobs.
I want to visit the US and stay in a hotel while I'm there. Currently, the hotel will charge me $200 a night. The new tax system comes in, and the hotel price rises to $260 a night. This makes no difference to people earning money in the US, since their "take home pay" has increased an equivalent amount. However, for ME, I'm paying $60 a night more, which is pretty substantial.
Nope. You still pay $200/night. It may even go down. The beauty is though, now you're contributing to the tax base for us. (which is fair too since you are participating in the greatness that the tax dollars fund)
What a brilliant shell game. Of course, they're only taxed on the portion they spend, but not what their nest egg grew by. And then, they'll only be taxed on retail expenditures, not what they spend on new investments.
Right! It's not a shell game though, it's a consumption based tax. The principal is, you shouldn't be taxed on things like savings, investments, businesses, tuition expenses, etc. That's the whole point!
Lower income families would get a prebate to insure that the system is more of a progressive tax. A prebate would be a refund of the taxes paid on poverty level spending. What's the problem?
The wealthy will pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes with a consumption-oriented tax, because they spend a much, much smaller percentage of their income. Most of their wealth is, as it should be, tied up in investments.
From FairTax.org...
Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.
Okay, quick question, what will stop the rich from doing most of their spending outside of the US? Or heck, even living outside the US? Is there going to be some new rule that says when you buy a new jet in Europe, you have to pay the Fair Tax back in the US? I doubt it.
Okay, quick answer, you are taxed on the border when you import your new goods.
My biggest concern about "Fair Tax" would be the impact on tourism. Those of us who live outside of the US still pay our income taxes, and would suddenly find everything in the US being MUCH more expensive than it was previously (I assume we wouldn't get a tax rebate on our purchases when we leave the country?). That'd have fairly negative effects on the amount of international tourism you get (granted, some places would hardly notice, but others might be hurt pretty badly by it).
It's a popular point. The thing that most people don't understand though is that the price of anything already has about 26-30% of tax built into it already that would go away. Since companies don't need to pay income tax anymore, or payroll tax, etc, the price of their goods/services go down without the tax burden. So, prices would remain the same. So, many of these scenarios go away when you realize that the FairTax is taking the place of existing embedded taxes that would be repealed.
Some people think that it is more fair to tax people who can pay more a *lot* more than people can pay less. They often associate this with the fact that the payers didn't start life in a 'fair' way.
What about the rich people that actually built their wealth on their own by starting out in the gheto?
Sounds like FUD to me. I didn't say I "don't care" about the arguments, but there isn't a whole lot of facts or evidence to back them up. Particularly statements like "The black market argument is easily amended to say that the black market situation created would be worse than the current situation.". Where's the proof of that? Statements!=Arguments.
If this was true that they're both the same, wouldn't I see similar spending binges during times when Democrats were in office?
Well, my point though is can you remember a time when one party controlled the house, senate, and office of the president for more than 4 years?