So, if C/T imposes an additional cost of, say, $500/year for someone making 110% of the poverty level, give everyone $500/year from the permit auction revenues.
What do you think the odds are of the current administration implementing that policy?
When I argue for lower taxes, I want lower taxes because I want to keep my money and not give most of it to the government, and as a person empathetic to others, I want them to have that right too.
However, when we make the argument for lower taxes in the name of raising tax revenue, we are implicitly accepting the premise that bigger government spending more money is a good thing.
I don't know about someone else's line, but my line for reducing taxes is restoring to me and my countrymen the right to earn and keep the fruits of our labors; not to essentially be forced into involuntary servitude ( that's a euphemism for slavery ) under the guise of "paying our fair share"
End of the world hysteria sells, though. I went over to Borders the other day and they actually have a small section set up just for books about the possible end of humanity in 2012.
It's bad enough that the mainstream media has been acting like a bunch of prepubescent children over the urine recycling, but now Slashdot has to get into the game as well?
What about the brutally repressive regime in Zimbabwe, the unrest in Somalia, or the conflicts between India and Pakistan, Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map, or the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Muslim separatists in Thailand, violent organized crime in Mexico, Russia vs. Georgia, militants who throw acid on girls who go to school in Afghanistan and drill holes in peoples kneecaps? Yeah, the USA sucks!
Y'know, Rush Limbaugh once said that it's impossible to present the news without being influenced by your personal opinions. He says that what sets him apart from the reporters on CNN, NBC, etc is that he is upfront about the fact that he injects his opinion into his presentation of facts.
Personally, I would be thrilled to see more liberal commentators do what Rush is doing, but from a different point of view.
Say what you want about the man, but he became successful by presenting news and opinions in a format that people find informative and entertaining.
I don't approve of the financial bailout, either. The stimulus package comes to mind because it sets a precedent of handouts to individuals on a very large scale. In effect, I believe that this is like buying votes.
Barack Obama's speeches about a tax cut for 95% of Americans combined with the fact that many Americans don't pay taxes suggest that he intends to send tax rebates to Americans who don't pay taxes. Many recipients will get used to having these checks and refuse to vote for a leader who doesn't promise them more checks. This is very unsettling, indeed!
However, do not interpret my words as indicating approval for the financial bailout!
Atomic Punk, I would bet you any amount of money that the national debt will increase significantly under the guidance of President Obama. I'm also worried about the plan by congressional liberals to roll 401k retirement plans into the Social Security Administration, as if it doesn't already suck up enough of our money.
I *assure* you that they're no better. Transferring control of government from one party to the other will only illustrate this. Mark my words: Obama will be "buying" votes with new entitlement programs. What's worse is that Bush set the stage for this with his so-called "economic stimulus package" that had Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans.
See my previous comment about the choice between a douche and a turd.
In my world, the Democrat full-court press against free speech ( aka the "Fairness Doctrine" ) by John Kerry and Dick Durbin should exclude anyone wearing the Democratic party label from serious consideration for many years to come.
The Fairness Doctrine, which specified that radio stations had to present "balanced" coverage of politics, was repealed during the 80s and the Democrats now say they want to re-enact it. Obama has not personally voiced his support for it in public, but remember that he has the strongest Democratic leaning voting record in the US Senate; therefore, I must assume that he will support re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine.
If you are not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine or you believe that it represents anything other than censorship, google for it and read the personal stories of those who had their free speech censored in the name of the Fairness Doctrine.
I am an American, and this message is addressed to American voters.
First of all, let me say that I think that we have a choice between a douche and a turd, as usual, but this time, it's like a a douche that's been used multiple times for enemas on HPV patients and a turd from a patient with intestinal worms.
That being said, if you think Obama's policies will improve the economy or help the stock market recover, you are either misinformed, or you are clinically insane.
Let's consider one of the most basic policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. Obama says that he won't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250K per year. Let's take him at his word. However, he does insist that he will allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. This will raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes. Although technically he will not 'raise taxes', he will effectively do so by allowing these tax cuts to expire. These tax cuts reduced the federal income tax burden of everyone who pays taxes. That is, once they expire, you will pay a higher portion of your income in federal income taxes unless you pay no income taxes at all. Obama will raise your taxes, period, and high taxes do not encourage economic growth, which brings me to my next point.
For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, please allow me to explain the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is a tax that you pay on investments that you hold for at least one year. This includes investments such as buying stock and owning real estate. If you buy a house and eventually sell it for more than you paid for it, you pay this tax, for example. This rate is lower than ordinary income tax and is meant to promote economic growth by taxing investments at a lower rate. As per the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this rate has been lowered to 15%. Obama's policy will nearly double it to 28%. Ask yourself, do you think that investors paying this higher tax rate will help prevent an economic depression or help the stock market recover? Yes, I do realize that the system could perhaps be made more fair by making higher income earners pay a higher tax rate, but the problem is that many of the big-name investors are investing money on behalf of people like you and me who simply are simply saving for retirement or want to start a business. If you know anyone who is self-employed, ask them what they think about Obama's economic policy.
Speaking of retirement, let's talk about a plan that is being discussed by US Congressional Democrats. I understand that some Democrats are very excited about this. It may be scrapped, but let's suppose it goes forward. Obama's voting record shows him voting in near lock-step with Congressional Democrat leadership, so I assume he would support this. It was presented to Congress by an economics professor. The plan is the take 401k retirement accounts, which are special retirement accounts that you don't have to pay taxes on, and put the money into the Social Security Administration. If you do not participate in the program, you will keep your investments, but they will make you pay taxes on them. As an additional incentive, when they put your 401k into the SSA, they may credit you with what it was worth several months ago before the stock market went down. ( By the way, the stock market is like the tides, it goes up and down on a regular basis. ) What's wrong with this picture. You currently pay 7% of your income into Social Security ( FICA tax ). Your employer pays a 'matching contribution' of 7%, which you are effectively paying yourself because it is part of your employer's cost of having you on the payroll. And the want MORE. They want to take more of your money for Social Security. Ponder this: Consider how we hear about how the government has spent past Social Security contributions on spending programs and pays current retiree benefits from people paying taxes now. How long until they spend these new Social Security payments on whatever they please? They see your money and they think i
I'm voting for Barr because he's the only cadidate who opposes the Wall Street give-away. Now, queue up the/.ers who are going to tell me "A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain" or "A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama". www.bobbarr2008.com
Not quite, I was nearly sent flying off of my motorcycle into the wild blue wonder when I hit a bump getting onto a bridge heading south on Insterstate H-2 north of Mililani, HI. Take care if you ever drive anywhere near Honolulu.
Anyone who says that 'alternative remedies' are all ineffective has not seen what regular yoga practice can do to reduce one's aspirin intake when it comes to sciatica pain and low-grade, but frequent headaches... especially when the neurologist said that I would just have to either 'live with' the 'zipping pain' in my leg unless I wanted to have surgery on my back!!!
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think the odds are of the current administration implementing that policy?
When I argue for lower taxes, I want lower taxes because I want to keep my money and not give most of it to the government, and as a person empathetic to others, I want them to have that right too.
However, when we make the argument for lower taxes in the name of raising tax revenue, we are implicitly accepting the premise that bigger government spending more money is a good thing.
I don't know about someone else's line, but my line for reducing taxes is restoring to me and my countrymen the right to earn and keep the fruits of our labors; not to essentially be forced into involuntary servitude ( that's a euphemism for slavery ) under the guise of "paying our fair share"
queue up rantings by environmentalists who will tell us we have no business living past 120 in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...
The alternative was worse
End of the world hysteria sells, though. I went over to Borders the other day and they actually have a small section set up just for books about the possible end of humanity in 2012.
Has not having money stopped the federal government from spending it recently?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!
You must be new here.
What about the brutally repressive regime in Zimbabwe, the unrest in Somalia, or the conflicts between India and Pakistan, Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map, or the Chinese occupation of Tibet, Muslim separatists in Thailand, violent organized crime in Mexico, Russia vs. Georgia, militants who throw acid on girls who go to school in Afghanistan and drill holes in peoples kneecaps? Yeah, the USA sucks!
Yeah, America is such a shitty country. Let's move somewhere else!
Yeah, I call a 100% fuel tax Socialism. Guess what country I'm from!
Personally, I would be thrilled to see more liberal commentators do what Rush is doing, but from a different point of view.
Say what you want about the man, but he became successful by presenting news and opinions in a format that people find informative and entertaining.
Barack Obama's speeches about a tax cut for 95% of Americans combined with the fact that many Americans don't pay taxes suggest that he intends to send tax rebates to Americans who don't pay taxes. Many recipients will get used to having these checks and refuse to vote for a leader who doesn't promise them more checks. This is very unsettling, indeed!
However, do not interpret my words as indicating approval for the financial bailout!
Atomic Punk, I would bet you any amount of money that the national debt will increase significantly under the guidance of President Obama. I'm also worried about the plan by congressional liberals to roll 401k retirement plans into the Social Security Administration, as if it doesn't already suck up enough of our money.
I *assure* you that they're no better. Transferring control of government from one party to the other will only illustrate this. Mark my words: Obama will be "buying" votes with new entitlement programs. What's worse is that Bush set the stage for this with his so-called "economic stimulus package" that had Uncle Sam send out checks to Americans.
In my world, the Democrat full-court press against free speech ( aka the "Fairness Doctrine" ) by John Kerry and Dick Durbin should exclude anyone wearing the Democratic party label from serious consideration for many years to come.
The Fairness Doctrine, which specified that radio stations had to present "balanced" coverage of politics, was repealed during the 80s and the Democrats now say they want to re-enact it. Obama has not personally voiced his support for it in public, but remember that he has the strongest Democratic leaning voting record in the US Senate; therefore, I must assume that he will support re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine.
If you are not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine or you believe that it represents anything other than censorship, google for it and read the personal stories of those who had their free speech censored in the name of the Fairness Doctrine.
Remember "Don't worry. Income taxes will only be several percent."
What about the 'change, change change' mind control technique. Oh yeah, Obama says "Change ( your tires )"
The stock market goes up, and the stock market goes down.
First of all, let me say that I think that we have a choice between a douche and a turd, as usual, but this time, it's like a a douche that's been used multiple times for enemas on HPV patients and a turd from a patient with intestinal worms.
That being said, if you think Obama's policies will improve the economy or help the stock market recover, you are either misinformed, or you are clinically insane.
Let's consider one of the most basic policy differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. Obama says that he won't raise taxes on anyone earning under $250K per year. Let's take him at his word. However, he does insist that he will allow the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. This will raise taxes on everyone who pays taxes. Although technically he will not 'raise taxes', he will effectively do so by allowing these tax cuts to expire. These tax cuts reduced the federal income tax burden of everyone who pays taxes. That is, once they expire, you will pay a higher portion of your income in federal income taxes unless you pay no income taxes at all. Obama will raise your taxes, period, and high taxes do not encourage economic growth, which brings me to my next point.
For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, please allow me to explain the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is a tax that you pay on investments that you hold for at least one year. This includes investments such as buying stock and owning real estate. If you buy a house and eventually sell it for more than you paid for it, you pay this tax, for example. This rate is lower than ordinary income tax and is meant to promote economic growth by taxing investments at a lower rate. As per the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this rate has been lowered to 15%. Obama's policy will nearly double it to 28%. Ask yourself, do you think that investors paying this higher tax rate will help prevent an economic depression or help the stock market recover? Yes, I do realize that the system could perhaps be made more fair by making higher income earners pay a higher tax rate, but the problem is that many of the big-name investors are investing money on behalf of people like you and me who simply are simply saving for retirement or want to start a business. If you know anyone who is self-employed, ask them what they think about Obama's economic policy.
Speaking of retirement, let's talk about a plan that is being discussed by US Congressional Democrats. I understand that some Democrats are very excited about this. It may be scrapped, but let's suppose it goes forward. Obama's voting record shows him voting in near lock-step with Congressional Democrat leadership, so I assume he would support this. It was presented to Congress by an economics professor. The plan is the take 401k retirement accounts, which are special retirement accounts that you don't have to pay taxes on, and put the money into the Social Security Administration. If you do not participate in the program, you will keep your investments, but they will make you pay taxes on them. As an additional incentive, when they put your 401k into the SSA, they may credit you with what it was worth several months ago before the stock market went down. ( By the way, the stock market is like the tides, it goes up and down on a regular basis. ) What's wrong with this picture. You currently pay 7% of your income into Social Security ( FICA tax ). Your employer pays a 'matching contribution' of 7%, which you are effectively paying yourself because it is part of your employer's cost of having you on the payroll. And the want MORE. They want to take more of your money for Social Security. Ponder this: Consider how we hear about how the government has spent past Social Security contributions on spending programs and pays current retiree benefits from people paying taxes now. How long until they spend these new Social Security payments on whatever they please? They see your money and they think i
Thanks for the suggestion, RogueSeven. I've already read about Baldwin and while I respect him, I will not vote for him.
I'm voting for Barr because he's the only cadidate who opposes the Wall Street give-away. Now, queue up the /.ers who are going to tell me "A vote for Barr is a vote for McCain" or "A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama". www.bobbarr2008.com
Not quite, I was nearly sent flying off of my motorcycle into the wild blue wonder when I hit a bump getting onto a bridge heading south on Insterstate H-2 north of Mililani, HI. Take care if you ever drive anywhere near Honolulu.
Anyone who says that 'alternative remedies' are all ineffective has not seen what regular yoga practice can do to reduce one's aspirin intake when it comes to sciatica pain and low-grade, but frequent headaches... especially when the neurologist said that I would just have to either 'live with' the 'zipping pain' in my leg unless I wanted to have surgery on my back!!!