Your freedom and privacy are secure. All you need to do is register for the DoNotWatchList and they are not allowed to watch you. I hear it's a $10,000 fine if you sign up for the do-not-watch-list and you catch them watching you anyway.
And don't forget the ticket price of around $8,000 for a seat on the Concord. Imagine how much seats would cost on a Mach 20 jet liner.
Might not be relevant to the problem space. Current economic goal is to destroy the middle classes at all costs. The lower classes won't care, because they'll never fly on an airplane anyway, subsonic, hypersonic, whatever. The only other social group left, will be the super rich who don't care about costs. The key is, can you build, maintain, and fill a hypersonic jetliner with passengers under those social / economic conditions? Probably not. In current similar 3rd world areas they're lucky if the subsonic bizjets don't crash too often, and they rely entirely on 1st world repair and maint infrastructure that probably wouldn't be around. I'm thinking... not going to be applicable.
Maybe the worlds most expensive troop transport?
As much as I want to tell you to keep your paranoid social commentary to yourself, I'm curious:
Who do you think will be flying that hypersonic plane? Will he be "super rich" or "lower class"? I ask because I wonder why anyone would go through the years of training to learn to fly one of these planes just to remain poor. If they will be flown by the super rich, how will the airlines, all staffed with either the super rich or super poor be able to afford to pay and train these guys?
As to the GP... Man, I really hope he wasn't serious, but my sarc meter read nothing as I was reading his post. If he was sarcastic, I need to have my sarc meter re-WHOOSHED.
Yeah.../me rushes out and buys one tonight at Best Buy because, you know, the last fourteen computers, MP3 players and PDAs i've owned all died in the vats of liquid nitrogen around my house - for some stupid reason I keep dropping stuff in those.
That was obviously a reference to climate change. Global warming does not mean that it will get uniformly hotter, but that the temperatures become more extreme at both ends of the range. Hence it will get as cold as liquid nitrogen in Winter and as hot as boiling water in Summer.
So it will be nice to know that our data will survive, even if we won't stand a chance.
I didn't see any reference at all to climate change in his post. To me it was a sarcastic point that being able to survive being dipped in liquid nitrogen is a bit excessive, because no one keeps liquid nitrogen around the house. See, it's called sarcasm.
Nor did I see anything in the summary that would point to climate change. I think they were simply showing that if it can survive going from liquid nitrogen to boiling water, it will survive 10 years in your non-climate controlled storage shed.
Or were you just desperately looking for any way possible to preach to us about how global warming is going to kill us all sometime next week?
> Democrats want less government spending as a percentage of GDP [1]. The TEA Party wants to destroy government [2], unions [3], and the US economy [4].
FTFY.
Democrats want to cut spending? You know that cutting does not mean spend more, right? Take a look at Change.gov, Obama's website. Here are some snippets:
The Obama-Biden emergency plan would make $25 billion immediately available in a Jobs and Growth Fund to help ensure that in-progress and fast-tracked infrastructure projects are not sidelined, and to ensure that schools can meet their energy costs and undertake key repairs starting this fall.... Senator Obama pushed for $50 billion in loan guarantees to help the auto industry retool, develop new battery technologies and produce the next generation of fuel efficient cars here in America. Congress passed only half of this amount -- it is critical that the administration speeds up the implementation of the first half and that Congress move quickly to enact the second half.... Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits... Obama and Biden are calling for supplementing the recently passed LIHEAP funding to ensure that cold-weather states can cushion the impact of high energy prices for their residents this winter.... Provide $25 Billion in state fiscal relief to help avoid painful property tax increase...
And that was only the top half of the page. You know, a billion here and a billion there, it soon adds up to real money! Spending more money is not cutting spending. It's just the opposite.
So you honestly believe that the TEA Party wants to destroy government? Wouldn't it be much more likely that they want a smaller government? Most TEA Partiers I've bet want a big military, a court system, the FBI and so on. What they don't want is farm subsidies, federal regulation of local schools and business that happens entirely within a state. Those that literally want to "destroy" the US Government are called "revolutionaries" and those guys are usually wearing a Che shirt. Hardly the typical TEA Partier.
And yes, the TEA Party wants to destroy unions, just as unions have destroyed many industries and governments in the US. Your job treating you unfairly? Quit! You bring up the Wisconsin protests, let me explain to you a few facts. First of all, the government workers and teachers in WI got a pretty sweet deal. Not only did they receive 100% health coverage and pension plans, but the union actually got to OWN the health insurance company that the teachers had to buy from. That's right, the Teacher's Union owned the insurance company that covered the teacher's union. The teachers, of course, would not have to pay a dime this coverage. So if , for example, the insurance company said, "We'll pay for name brand drugs, but raise your premiums by twice the cost", the teachers would be all for it. After all, they would get getting a benefit for zero cost to them. Why wouldn't they? WEA Trust is the insurance company. It was established and closely is associated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC). Look it up.
What caused the WI protests. The elected legislature and governor wanted to take away collective bargaining rights for compensation and make each teacher or employee negotiate their own salary based on their performance, and make government employees pay a minuscule portion of their health and pension benefits.
And finally, you think the TEA Party wants to destroy the economy? The article you mentioned does not contain the words "TEA Party" anywhere in it. However, I did find this quote from Obama, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Don't take my word for it. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 .
Hmmm. Sounds like I found more evidence that Obama wants to wreck the economy than I could find for the TEA Party.
Robber baron used a two step plan to charge more. The conservation angle was lip service to justify a tiered pricing plan. Then he made the laws require you to use so much water that you're always going to be in the higher pricing tier, paying more money than you were before. The lower pricing tier is an optical illusion; it may be less than the original price, but you'll never actually get that price.
So this robber baron sells water and controls the local, city run utility company? Who is this guy, Emperor Palpatine?
Maybe you should look up that critical thinking thing yourself.
You aren't very good with reading comprehension, are you?
Two contradictory policies. One, a confiscatory water rate that was justified as "encouraging conservation." The other, a policy that specifically prevents conservation.
Are you really that dense that you can't understand it?
It is unlikely that the guy selling your city the water is the same guy that is in charge of the sewage system. Also, your cities "drainage" system is likely different than the "sewage" system. For example, in my neighborhood, we have gutters that channel rain run-off into a local pond area. Others drain into a river system. The actual sewage that comes from your sink, toilet, washing machine, etc will go through different pipes that lead to your local sewage processing plant.
Also, the pricing structure is compiled through your local utility company, which is heavily regulated, if not entirely government owned, just as Chef Boy-R-D doesn't tell your grocery store what to charge for ravioli.
The point is that it's not the evil Republican raping you over your utilities, nor is it the evil Republican who is setting your sewage policies. It's your local utility company/ies that are raping you. Those are the people you elected. If you like, I'm sure you can go to your local record office and see the books from your utility company/ies and see if they are charging their customers more than they should. I'm willing to bet that if there is any "fraud" in the system, you'll find it's benefiting the businesses that water every day, rain or shine or the local water park that got a sweetheart deal or something along those lines. I'm certain that the guy providing water for your city has nothing to with your utility's billing policies.
You can still hate on Republicans, but don't assume that every time you screwed over that a Republican is behind it. You start to sound like the people you mock who blame everything on "terrists" or "ferrners who tuke ur jobs!"
Only banks and central banks take money out of the economy when they write off loans or destroy it directly.
Um... no. When banks give out a loan, they give money to the borrower. The borrower, does something with that money. He might rent an office or buy raw materials. Either way, that money went somewhere. It was not "taken out of the economy".
Do governments add wealth to the economy?
When governments tax, they ARE taking money out of the economy. Let me explain: Let's say I make clogs. You know, those wooden shoes? I buy a block of wood for $1.00, carve out some shoes and sell them for $10.00. What was the value of that wood when I bought it? That's right, $1.00. What was the value of the shoes I made with that wood? Yep, $10.00! So, in making those shoes, I added $9.00 to the economy that wasn't there before. I'll take my $9.00 and use it to pay for my house, feed my family or buy other products, all that are adding to the economy just like I am.
Now, let's say the government taxes me $1.00. How much money is added to the economy? Yes, $8.00. Of course, everyone else that makes money off my $8.00 will also have to pay taxes on their contribution to the economy.
Of course, the government will spend that money as well. Let's say they higher librarians. How much are those librarians adding to the economy? Zero. That's right. A librarian produces nothing. Yes, but we all love libraries and librarians. They add "value" to our lives so it's OK that we spend our tax dollars on them. But that's not the question. The question was "Do governments add wealth to the economy?" If anything, libraries take away from the economy. They prevent people from buying or "renting" books. Imagine, if there were no libraries, how many businesses would form to rent books, much like people do movies? Would you ever buy or rent a movie if you could go to the library and check it out for free? Of course not! How much has Blockbuster, Netflix and Red Box added to the economy? RedBox takes a movie they bought for, let's just say, $100, and rent it out 1000 times for a dollar a pop. They created $900 and paid the movie makers a cool Benjamin the would not have otherwise made.
OK, that was a bad example. Of course, librarians don't make anything. They provide a service to the taxpayer, even people that can not afford to rent or buy books. Information needs to be free! So, let's talk roads. Governments build roads, right? Well, they pay a company to build them, but it's still government money. OK, let's say a road is built. The government buys/takes land from a bunch of farmers and builds a road through that farmland. How much is that road worth? Well, the road is worth exactly what was put into it, concrete labor, etc. The road itself is worth nothing more because no one is going to pay to use it (let's assume it's not a toll road). It is worth nothing more than it was before it was built. As a matter of fact, the land that it is built on was growing vegetables. That farmer was taking a tractor with some diesel fuel and fertilizer and growing produce that was worth more than the materials he put into it. So, the road actually takes wealth AWAY from the economy.
But wait a minute, we like roads too! Yes, they are necessary, and they can be beneficial to the economy. Let's say a gas station gets built next to that road. Now that gas station makes more than the farmer did and wouldn't be there if it were not for the road. So, did the government add to the economy? No. The guy who built the gas station is adding to the economy. Government just built the road that allowed the guy to do so. Road maintenance is even worse. Sure, it's necessary, but it adds nothing to the economy that wasn't there before.
So, here is the answer: Government sets up the conditions that allows for the private sector to grow the economy. Sure, governments build infrastructure like roads, but those roads are worthless witho
Demand (as in people affording and willing to buy stuff) drives economies, not supply. It has been well known for a long time. Rich people aren't willing (which is why they are rich), and poor people can't afford. Hence you "tax the rich and give to the poor". Preferably by employing them to do some productive government construction work (or whatever else needs doing).
My boss is rich. He set up the company I work for by betting everything he owned and working 16 hr days, 7-days a week until the company started to make money. Just as it was in the beginning, when times are bad, he doesn't get a paycheck no matter how much he works. I get paid regardless of the financial health of the company. Of course, he can afford to go a month or a year without a paycheck. Sure, it hurts him. He may have to skip a vacation or sell a boat or house or something to make ends meet, but he survives and keeps the company open, paying me and the rest of his employees the pay we all agreed upon. He doesn't do this to be nice. He is betting that his company will come back and he'll make twice what he lost by not getting paid for a year.
Now, what if you tax away his safety net? When the company goes into the red, he won't be able to afford to go a year without getting paid. Even if he could, he wouldn't because he would know that no matter how well the company comes back next year, the government will simply take most of it. So, rather than not getting paid, he will lay me off and hire someone else when times get better, or simply close the company's doors and live off his savings.
So, by taxing the rich guy to hire some poor guy, you are effectively giving that poor guy my job, at about 1/3 the pay, and making him dependent on the government to feed himself and his family. Also, what if this guy is a slacker? Do you fire him? Can a made-up government job fire a man that will become homeless if he doesn't work? Wasn't the job was created to keep him from becoming homeless in the first place? What do you do when 10,000 people apply for a government job that requires 100? How does the government decide who is qualified to be a bathroom attendant in a public restroom or sign holder at a road construction site? Also, can the government expect good roads when you hire people to build and fix them based on their qualifications being nothing more than unemployed? Don't you want people who have built bridges before working on bridges?
Here's a better idea. How about you NOT over tax that rich guy and let him hire the poor person, if the poor person is willing to do what it takes to hold this caliber of job. If not, then he doesn't deserve the job. See, I'm productive in my job. My boss spends $X annually on me and gets more than X back from my work. I have actually created wealth increased the value of the economy as a whole. Government jobs don't do this. Yes, there is a place for government jobs. But there is never a need for made-up busy work government jobs whose sole purpose is employ someone to do something that doesn't need to be done.
Step #0: sell the public water utility off to a Republican robber baron.
Step #1: Robber baron institutes a pricing scheme designed to punish people for using more water (if I use less than 1,000 gallons in a month I pay the lowest rate, each "tier" above that is doubled. If I go from 1,000 to 2,000 gallons I pay triple the price, 1,000 to 3,000 I pay 7x the price, and onwards).
OK, so this "Republican robber baron" is trying to encourage people to conserve water. Isn't that an environmental issue? Wasn't it the environmentalists that forced me to replace my working toilet with a "low-flow" that leaves skid-marks all over the bowl and requires me to flush 10-20 times to get rid of them? Yeah, so conserving water is an environmentalist issue. So it appears that this "Republican robber baron" is doing something good for the environment.
Right now, all it's proven to me is that Republicans don't give a crap about the environment.
Yes, because there are no import taxes. Or there are but they CANNOT BE RAISED for some mythical reason. No, jerkbag, is because companies into import/export control the congress and they pressure them to keep import taxes low
They are called tariffs. Do a little research and find out why they are bad idea.
No, sorry. Fair is fair. If you can't raise taxes on the rich, then you can't cut taxes on food and medicine. It's only fair.
Strawman much? So, you take a good plan, and then you try to add stuff to it to make it a bad plan so you can say, "See, this plan sux!" Yeah... won't fly.
Not every company sells stocks, Why is this so hard to understand?
Every company has investors, even if the only only investor is the one starting the business. I used stocks as an example. If you take money from economy through taxation or inflation, for example, there is less money to invest. With less investment into the economy, the economy doesn't grow. Seriously, you don't understand this? This is economics 101. It was the same class where they taught you about supply and demand.
No. That's not how it works. Also, big players don't gamble their own money. They work for banks and they gamble YOUR money. And when they lose, they demand the government to rescue them. Are you mentally challenged or have you been living on an island for the last 3 years?
I don't invest in the futures market. I can't afford to. It can make a whole lot of money. It can also lose a whole lot of money. I don't gamble. As for the "big players" that don't gamble my money, if they were to consistently lose money, they lose investors. If they lose investors, they go out of business.
And yes, I agree the bailouts were bullshit. Just as the "shovel ready" stimulus was bullshit. Most of bailouts were the fault of senators representing states with big insurance and banking presence. You know, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York. Which party represents those states?
No. Please, stop putting words in someone else's speech. Raising the taxes on the rich is not about charity. It's about fairness. How many houses and cars do you need to live?
As many as I want. You don't need a computer to live, yet here you are using one to post on slashdot. Do you realize that your computer could feed a village for over a month? So, if you want to be fair, why are you depriving that village of much needed food and sanitary water?
Let me put it another way: Someone who lives in a house across the street from central park, NY. And who has 1 car and 1 limo there, and a beach house in Malibu (with a couple nice convertibles) and a couple more around the country, and does shopping in Milano and Paris (flying in their own private jet, of course)... That person doesn't have a problem. That person DID NOT bust his ass working on a mine, on a production line, or working in a construction 300ft from the ground.
How do you know? I know several "rich" people that started out song manual labor. I have an cousin that worked construction for about 20 years. He saved enough money to open his own custom home building business. He's now "rich" by most standards. I have another cousin that started out cleaning pools. He now owns several pool cleaning supply stores and offers a pool maintenance service. My uncle delivered ice cream in East Texas for years. He saved and started a lumber company, which paid for the land he lives on. That land has natural gas under it, so he doesn't have to work anymore. Although, he still does. He sells food to local area restaurants for a large food distribution network.
Maybe the people you know are working for a paycheck. The people I know are working for their future. There is a difference. It is possible to work your way out of whatever job you have now. We don't have a rigid class system
I can only vote for 2/50 federal senators. That means that 48/50 senators that I can't vote for are looking out for states other than my own. I have much more voting power in local elections than I do at a federal level.
Crap... make that 2/100 or 1/50. This is the second time I've made that mistake.
1) You say that states can take over services, yet states are often doing a lot worse than the feds and unlike the feds, they are frequently required by their constitutions to have a balanced budget, so they can't even do short term deficit spending until the economy improves. In my home state of North Carolina, they basically gutted public education, among other things, to solve the budget gap. You want NC to now have to cover the burden that the feds used to cover? Fat chance.
Federal income taxes are deducted from state income taxes. If the federal government charges a 35% income tax, that means that states may tax 65% of income. If you lower the federal income tax rate, you are increasing the pool that states may tax from. Also, if the NC legislature can't figure out how to take care of the things they must take care of, elect a legislature that can. I can only vote for 2/50 federal senators. That means that 48/50 senators that I can't vote for are looking out for states other than my own. I have much more voting power in local elections than I do at a federal level.
2) If you really want the economy to grind to a halt, a federal sales tax is a good way to do it. How will taxing/penalizing economic transactions help people make more economic transactions
Strange that states that charge a sales tax with no income tax are doing much better than those that rely in income taxes. Compare Florida to Michigan. Compare Texas to California. Also, with the introduction of a federal sales tax, federal income taxes would also need to be relaxed some. We could charge a 5% sales tax and eliminate federal income taxes on all income below $100,000.
3) The top 1% pay most of the tax burden because they have by far most of the wealth in this country and benefit the most, directly or indirectly, from government services. Why do so many right-wingers act as though these people are being unfairly burdened with having to pay for the country that allowed them to become and remain wealthy? I don't think we ought to soak the rich, but as part of a multi-faceted plan to fix the budget, they ought to pay, you know, just a little bit more. Not just the top 1% either, of course.
Strange. I drive on the local interstate much more than the top 1%. Sure, those interstates bring products to my local store, but I buy them from there, so I benefit from that as well. My bank account is FDIC insured, just as the rich guy's, but I don't have over $250,000 in any account, so I'm 100% covered; rich people are not. The US Military protects my house from foreign invaders just as it does the mansion on the other side of town, and the guy in that mansion paid more for that military than I did. However, since our local utilities are tiered, the rich pay more per gallon water or watt of electricity than I do. Since their property taxes are higher, they pay more of that teacher's salary than I do and wealthy people tend to have fewer children, and even those don't go to the public school they are paying for. Since our income taxes are progressive, they pay more for every mile of road, every tank, every bullet, every prisoner and every square foot of public housing.
So to say that the rich pay less for the benefits they receive is absolute bullshit. The top 50% pays 96% of income taxes, more if you count capital gains or corporate taxes. The top 5% pays over 50% of all federal income taxes. Please, PLEASE try to tell me that the top 5% of the US population receives more than 50% of government services. All I'd have to do is point out that the military and medicare/medicaid take a majority of our federal budget. Since military benefits are distributed equally and the wealthy don't use medicare/medicaid, that argument is extremely easy to debunk.
So, again, to say that the rich pay less for the benefits they receive is absolute bullshit. You need to stop lying or educate yourself.
I don't know where you got this quote, but it's wrong:
The TEA Party wants the government to not exist--ushering in a bright fantasy utopia where we'll presumably repair our own roads, house our own prisoners, and allow corporations and the rich and powerful to do whatever the hell they want (power which they won't, of course, dare abuse or exploit).
Allow me to fix it for you:
The TEA Party wants the federal government to follow the 10th Amendment and only do what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution--ushering in a bright utopia where the states will repair their own roads, house their own prisoners, and allow people to make their living without being encumbered by too much government interference. (of course regulating interstate commerce is a federal power spelled out in the Constitution. Business entirely within a state would be state regulated only)
There! It sounds much more reasonable when it's the truth and not just want you want to true so it backs up your preconceived opinion.
I'm all for spending cuts, but without taxes being raised on the wealthy, it's just more of the same BS
Total income tax for the year 2010 was about $900 billion. Total federal debt was $1,300 billion. So, if you double the income tax on everyone, not just the rich, income taxes would bring in another $900 billion. That leaves us still $400 billion in the hole.
If you were to also double corporate taxes, which brought in about $191 billion, you would be much closer. However, a corporate tax is really just a hidden sales tax. Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do. Of course, since the US government can only tax corporations in the US, it's a sales tax for domestic goods only. This gives imported products an advantage over domestically produced products both here in the US and overseas. Why not just charge a sales tax on all non-necessity products (food and medicine could be exempt from sales taxes, for example).
Oh, but I forgot, all that paper being traded back and forth "creates jobs".
Yeah, it does. See, companies sell stocks to expand their business. When companies expand, they create jobs. Why is this so hard to understand? As for those "asshole speculators" you mention, these guys are one trade away from bankruptcy. If you think they make easy money, why don't you become one and give all of your profits to those poor families in the projects you mentioned?
I understand that you hate people who have more than you do, but you have to understand that there are those that have less than you do that are just as likely to hate you and come after YOUR property. On a world scale, you are extremely rich. You have a computer, Internet connection, running water, climate control and other luxuries that most in the world could only dream about. Why don't you give what you have to some poor person in Haiti, for example? This is what you are proposing we do to the rich in this country, right? As for your domestic debt problems, as I've pointed out above, math trumps you class envy.
The problem with home purchases is they are inherently inflationary. The bank loans you $X, you spend $X, some broker pockets 5% of X, yet the house is still worth X. If you turn around and sell it tomorrow, you could get $X back, and pay another broker 5% of your X. The banks make a fortune on interest. The broker makes a fortune plastering his ugly anglo-saxon face on every bus shelter and lawn sign. The entire system is a feedback loop that will ultimately bankrupt everything.
Or do you actually believe it is fundamentally sound for a concrete and lumber box to take 20+ years for a couple to pay ? Did it take two people 20 years to build ? No ? Did it take 20 people two years to build ? Neither ? Then it's not worth 20 years of payments. The grossly unbalanced game of free market economics can only be played for so long; after a while, you run out of new people to extort.
Um... banks don't build houses; home builders do. If you think a "a concrete and lumber box" is not worth the $150,000 that the builder charges for it, I think you should get into the home building business. You could sell quality homes for much cheaper than those other guys and still make a fortune for yourself.
Bring Mexicans in just to tax them? I've got a better idea. Tax the rich.
OK. So you tax the rich, what... 75%? 95%? Even if you taxed the "rich" 100%, it still wouldn't make a dent in our deficit. Now you have a worse job problem than you had before, since these "rich" guys can no longer invest money into the stock market, which allows companies to expand and create jobs, or buy bonds that allow local and state governments to hire people to build and maintain roads, public transportation and build libraries.
Three things have to happen before our debt issues are resolved. 1) Cut spending. If services suffer, let the states take over those services. 2) Tax everyone. Once everyone is paying taxes, say, via a federal sales tax, suddenly everyone will realize that it's their money that the government is spending. If you pay no taxes, you don't care how the government spends tax money. The top 1% pay a vast majority of the tax burden. Imagine how much more money the government would receive if you started taxing the other 99%! 3) Cut Spending. I can't say this enough.
Given that we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion even after taking in $899 billion in total income tax revenues, does anyone in his or her right mind think raising income taxes on everyone or 'raising taxes on the rich’ would solve the problem? We would have to see income tax revenues from everyone go up by more than a double. That is, with a $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010, we would need an extra $1.3 trillion in income tax revenues on top of the $899 billion we got in 2010. That is not going to happen. And, instead of getting a reduction in spending, we are actually ramping it up for fiscal year 2011. Now that’s crazy.
In other words, the deficit alone is more than our entire income taxes bring in. If you double the income taxes on EVERYONE, not just the rich, you would still fall about $430 billion short of just covering the deficit. The deficit is $1.3 trillion. Income taxes area bout $900 billion. Bringing in another $900 billion won't cover the $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Sorry, but math trumps your class envy.
Also, as a side note, state and local income taxes are calculated AFTER federal dollars are taken out. If you raise the rate from, say, 35% to 70% on the "rich", that takes a huge bite out of state and local budgets. Instead of being able to tax the wealthy on 65% of their total income for the year, states and local governments would only be able to tax on 30% of the year. This would literally cut state and local tax receipts in half AND STILL NOT PAY OFF THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
Our political situation is horrible, and shows no signs of becoming better. The Tea Party dominates the GOP, and the Democratic president folds faster than a house of cards whenever they do something stupid.
Let me break it down to the most basic of concepts:
Democrats want the government to spend more. The TEA Party wants the government to spend less.
Note that just a few years ago Clinton ran several years of surplus budgets and paid down some of the debt, without the trillions in cuts that Obama's austerity bullshit includes. It is possible, but it seems the last okay politicians from the 90's are now gone.
Clinton ran one year of surpluses. And to be more accurate, it wasn't Clinton at all. Clinton was the president. Congress writes the budgets. Now, to be fair to Obama, the deficits are not his problem either. Again, congress writes the budgets.
Yes, the president does deserve some of the responsibility, as he signs the budget and does work with congress, but that only really applies when congress is of a like mindset of congress. For example, the economy, budget and deficit when Bush had a Republican controlled congress was more to Bush's credit/blame that it was when Bush faced a Democrat controlled congress. Obama deserves more of the credit/blame when Pelosi/Reid were the congressional leaders than he does now since congress is split.
Both are owned by the extreme right-wing and criminal Newscorp. That they try to cultivate multiple brand images is more a sign of a corporate personality problem than it is of unbiased functionality.
You do realize that Murdoch supported Hillary Clinton, right? You do realize that Fox is NOT FoxNews, right? Murdoch is a business man. His only agenda is making a profit, which is what businesses are supposed to do. Murdoch looked at the news landscape and realized that it was dominated by left wingers and slanted far to the right of the American public. So, he created a news network that is right of center, but one that still presents both sides of the political spectrum. What do you know... Fox News is the number 1 cable news channel and has been since shortly after its creation. Why? Because Murdoch found that a majority of the population was not represented in news coverage. He grabbed them up and left all the rest to fight over the minority of what is left.
Excuse me. I don't mean to embarrass you, but your ignorance is showing.
FoxNews is not the same as the Fox that airs Family Guy. You are just as ignorant you claim FoxNews viewers are. The sad part is that you don't let it repeatedly proving it in public.
Probably like most people here, my initial reaction was to wonder why the hell an organization that hates science and rational thought is hosting Cosmos, and more importantly, whether they'll turn it into a soapbox for god-knows-what. If Neil Degrasse Tyson is on board though, I'm a little less worried. That man doesn't take any bullshit, and if Fox tries to muscle him into anything, he's going to walk away. That can be your canary in the coal mine to see if the show is worth watching.
Like someone else mentioned, the Fox that airs Family Guy, The Simpsons and formerly Married with Children is not the same as FoxNews that airs Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity and formerly Glenn Beck. I guess it's true that ignorance is the base bigotry. The sad part is, you don't even know who to hate.
You are like General Custer hating Gandhi because he was an Indian.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks, capitalism is turning our world into an uninhabitable, war-torn hellhole. We need communism now!
Yes, because the communist countries of the world have historically been such good stewards of the environment. I believe Chernobyl is a fine example.
It seems like 1776 had been a wasted effort.
Rum go, old chap.
Your freedom and privacy are secure. All you need to do is register for the DoNotWatchList and they are not allowed to watch you. I hear it's a $10,000 fine if you sign up for the do-not-watch-list and you catch them watching you anyway.
And don't forget the ticket price of around $8,000 for a seat on the Concord. Imagine how much seats would cost on a Mach 20 jet liner.
Might not be relevant to the problem space. Current economic goal is to destroy the middle classes at all costs. The lower classes won't care, because they'll never fly on an airplane anyway, subsonic, hypersonic, whatever. The only other social group left, will be the super rich who don't care about costs. The key is, can you build, maintain, and fill a hypersonic jetliner with passengers under those social / economic conditions? Probably not. In current similar 3rd world areas they're lucky if the subsonic bizjets don't crash too often, and they rely entirely on 1st world repair and maint infrastructure that probably wouldn't be around. I'm thinking... not going to be applicable.
Maybe the worlds most expensive troop transport?
As much as I want to tell you to keep your paranoid social commentary to yourself, I'm curious:
Who do you think will be flying that hypersonic plane? Will he be "super rich" or "lower class"? I ask because I wonder why anyone would go through the years of training to learn to fly one of these planes just to remain poor. If they will be flown by the super rich, how will the airlines, all staffed with either the super rich or super poor be able to afford to pay and train these guys?
If he was sarcastic, I need to have my sarc meter re-WHOOSHED
The giveaway was the idea that global warming would bring Winters down to -200C and Summer up to 100C. Those figures may be a tad exaggerated.
I took it as:
We will need data storage this resilient because we are all going to die. Only stuff that can handle these extremes will survive.
However, I think you are correct. Off to get my re-WHOOSHing done.
How'd that happen?
Well, you can say that again!
As to the GP... Man, I really hope he wasn't serious, but my sarc meter read nothing as I was reading his post. If he was sarcastic, I need to have my sarc meter re-WHOOSHED.
Well played, my friend. Well played.
Yeah ... /me rushes out and buys one tonight at Best Buy because, you know, the last fourteen computers, MP3 players and PDAs i've owned all died in the vats of liquid nitrogen around my house - for some stupid reason I keep dropping stuff in those.
That was obviously a reference to climate change. Global warming does not mean that it will get uniformly hotter, but that the temperatures become more extreme at both ends of the range. Hence it will get as cold as liquid nitrogen in Winter and as hot as boiling water in Summer.
So it will be nice to know that our data will survive, even if we won't stand a chance.
I didn't see any reference at all to climate change in his post. To me it was a sarcastic point that being able to survive being dipped in liquid nitrogen is a bit excessive, because no one keeps liquid nitrogen around the house. See, it's called sarcasm.
Nor did I see anything in the summary that would point to climate change. I think they were simply showing that if it can survive going from liquid nitrogen to boiling water, it will survive 10 years in your non-climate controlled storage shed.
Or were you just desperately looking for any way possible to preach to us about how global warming is going to kill us all sometime next week?
> Democrats want less government spending as a percentage of GDP [1]. The TEA Party wants to destroy government [2], unions [3], and the US economy [4].
FTFY.
Democrats want to cut spending? You know that cutting does not mean spend more, right? Take a look at Change.gov, Obama's website. Here are some snippets:
The Obama-Biden emergency plan would make $25 billion immediately available in a Jobs and Growth Fund to help ensure that in-progress and fast-tracked infrastructure projects are not sidelined, and to ensure that schools can meet their energy costs and undertake key repairs starting this fall. ... ... ... ... ...
Senator Obama pushed for $50 billion in loan guarantees to help the auto industry retool, develop new battery technologies and produce the next generation of fuel efficient cars here in America. Congress passed only half of this amount -- it is critical that the administration speeds up the implementation of the first half and that Congress move quickly to enact the second half.
Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
Obama and Biden are calling for supplementing the recently passed LIHEAP funding to ensure that cold-weather states can cushion the impact of high energy prices for their residents this winter.
Provide $25 Billion in state fiscal relief to help avoid painful property tax increase
And that was only the top half of the page. You know, a billion here and a billion there, it soon adds up to real money! Spending more money is not cutting spending. It's just the opposite.
So you honestly believe that the TEA Party wants to destroy government? Wouldn't it be much more likely that they want a smaller government? Most TEA Partiers I've bet want a big military, a court system, the FBI and so on. What they don't want is farm subsidies, federal regulation of local schools and business that happens entirely within a state. Those that literally want to "destroy" the US Government are called "revolutionaries" and those guys are usually wearing a Che shirt. Hardly the typical TEA Partier.
And yes, the TEA Party wants to destroy unions, just as unions have destroyed many industries and governments in the US. Your job treating you unfairly? Quit! You bring up the Wisconsin protests, let me explain to you a few facts. First of all, the government workers and teachers in WI got a pretty sweet deal. Not only did they receive 100% health coverage and pension plans, but the union actually got to OWN the health insurance company that the teachers had to buy from. That's right, the Teacher's Union owned the insurance company that covered the teacher's union. The teachers, of course, would not have to pay a dime this coverage. So if , for example, the insurance company said, "We'll pay for name brand drugs, but raise your premiums by twice the cost", the teachers would be all for it. After all, they would get getting a benefit for zero cost to them. Why wouldn't they? WEA Trust is the insurance company. It was established and closely is associated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC). Look it up.
What caused the WI protests. The elected legislature and governor wanted to take away collective bargaining rights for compensation and make each teacher or employee negotiate their own salary based on their performance, and make government employees pay a minuscule portion of their health and pension benefits.
And finally, you think the TEA Party wants to destroy the economy? The article you mentioned does not contain the words "TEA Party" anywhere in it. However, I did find this quote from Obama, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Don't take my word for it. Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 .
Hmmm. Sounds like I found more evidence that Obama wants to wreck the economy than I could find for the TEA Party.
Critical thinking fail.
Robber baron used a two step plan to charge more. The conservation angle was lip service to justify a tiered pricing plan. Then he made the laws require you to use so much water that you're always going to be in the higher pricing tier, paying more money than you were before. The lower pricing tier is an optical illusion; it may be less than the original price, but you'll never actually get that price.
So this robber baron sells water and controls the local, city run utility company? Who is this guy, Emperor Palpatine?
Maybe you should look up that critical thinking thing yourself.
You aren't very good with reading comprehension, are you?
Two contradictory policies. One, a confiscatory water rate that was justified as "encouraging conservation." The other, a policy that specifically prevents conservation.
Are you really that dense that you can't understand it?
It is unlikely that the guy selling your city the water is the same guy that is in charge of the sewage system. Also, your cities "drainage" system is likely different than the "sewage" system. For example, in my neighborhood, we have gutters that channel rain run-off into a local pond area. Others drain into a river system. The actual sewage that comes from your sink, toilet, washing machine, etc will go through different pipes that lead to your local sewage processing plant.
Also, the pricing structure is compiled through your local utility company, which is heavily regulated, if not entirely government owned, just as Chef Boy-R-D doesn't tell your grocery store what to charge for ravioli.
The point is that it's not the evil Republican raping you over your utilities, nor is it the evil Republican who is setting your sewage policies. It's your local utility company/ies that are raping you. Those are the people you elected. If you like, I'm sure you can go to your local record office and see the books from your utility company/ies and see if they are charging their customers more than they should. I'm willing to bet that if there is any "fraud" in the system, you'll find it's benefiting the businesses that water every day, rain or shine or the local water park that got a sweetheart deal or something along those lines. I'm certain that the guy providing water for your city has nothing to with your utility's billing policies.
You can still hate on Republicans, but don't assume that every time you screwed over that a Republican is behind it. You start to sound like the people you mock who blame everything on "terrists" or "ferrners who tuke ur jobs!"
Only banks and central banks take money out of the economy when they write off loans or destroy it directly.
Um... no. When banks give out a loan, they give money to the borrower. The borrower, does something with that money. He might rent an office or buy raw materials. Either way, that money went somewhere. It was not "taken out of the economy".
Do governments add wealth to the economy?
When governments tax, they ARE taking money out of the economy. Let me explain:
Let's say I make clogs. You know, those wooden shoes? I buy a block of wood for $1.00, carve out some shoes and sell them for $10.00. What was the value of that wood when I bought it? That's right, $1.00. What was the value of the shoes I made with that wood? Yep, $10.00! So, in making those shoes, I added $9.00 to the economy that wasn't there before. I'll take my $9.00 and use it to pay for my house, feed my family or buy other products, all that are adding to the economy just like I am.
Now, let's say the government taxes me $1.00. How much money is added to the economy? Yes, $8.00. Of course, everyone else that makes money off my $8.00 will also have to pay taxes on their contribution to the economy.
Of course, the government will spend that money as well. Let's say they higher librarians. How much are those librarians adding to the economy? Zero. That's right. A librarian produces nothing. Yes, but we all love libraries and librarians. They add "value" to our lives so it's OK that we spend our tax dollars on them. But that's not the question. The question was "Do governments add wealth to the economy?" If anything, libraries take away from the economy. They prevent people from buying or "renting" books. Imagine, if there were no libraries, how many businesses would form to rent books, much like people do movies? Would you ever buy or rent a movie if you could go to the library and check it out for free? Of course not! How much has Blockbuster, Netflix and Red Box added to the economy? RedBox takes a movie they bought for, let's just say, $100, and rent it out 1000 times for a dollar a pop. They created $900 and paid the movie makers a cool Benjamin the would not have otherwise made.
OK, that was a bad example. Of course, librarians don't make anything. They provide a service to the taxpayer, even people that can not afford to rent or buy books. Information needs to be free! So, let's talk roads. Governments build roads, right? Well, they pay a company to build them, but it's still government money. OK, let's say a road is built. The government buys/takes land from a bunch of farmers and builds a road through that farmland. How much is that road worth? Well, the road is worth exactly what was put into it, concrete labor, etc. The road itself is worth nothing more because no one is going to pay to use it (let's assume it's not a toll road). It is worth nothing more than it was before it was built. As a matter of fact, the land that it is built on was growing vegetables. That farmer was taking a tractor with some diesel fuel and fertilizer and growing produce that was worth more than the materials he put into it. So, the road actually takes wealth AWAY from the economy.
But wait a minute, we like roads too! Yes, they are necessary, and they can be beneficial to the economy. Let's say a gas station gets built next to that road. Now that gas station makes more than the farmer did and wouldn't be there if it were not for the road. So, did the government add to the economy? No. The guy who built the gas station is adding to the economy. Government just built the road that allowed the guy to do so. Road maintenance is even worse. Sure, it's necessary, but it adds nothing to the economy that wasn't there before.
So, here is the answer: Government sets up the conditions that allows for the private sector to grow the economy. Sure, governments build infrastructure like roads, but those roads are worthless witho
Demand (as in people affording and willing to buy stuff) drives economies, not supply. It has been well known for a long time. Rich people aren't willing (which is why they are rich), and poor people can't afford. Hence you "tax the rich and give to the poor". Preferably by employing them to do some productive government construction work (or whatever else needs doing).
My boss is rich. He set up the company I work for by betting everything he owned and working 16 hr days, 7-days a week until the company started to make money. Just as it was in the beginning, when times are bad, he doesn't get a paycheck no matter how much he works. I get paid regardless of the financial health of the company. Of course, he can afford to go a month or a year without a paycheck. Sure, it hurts him. He may have to skip a vacation or sell a boat or house or something to make ends meet, but he survives and keeps the company open, paying me and the rest of his employees the pay we all agreed upon. He doesn't do this to be nice. He is betting that his company will come back and he'll make twice what he lost by not getting paid for a year.
Now, what if you tax away his safety net? When the company goes into the red, he won't be able to afford to go a year without getting paid. Even if he could, he wouldn't because he would know that no matter how well the company comes back next year, the government will simply take most of it. So, rather than not getting paid, he will lay me off and hire someone else when times get better, or simply close the company's doors and live off his savings.
So, by taxing the rich guy to hire some poor guy, you are effectively giving that poor guy my job, at about 1/3 the pay, and making him dependent on the government to feed himself and his family. Also, what if this guy is a slacker? Do you fire him? Can a made-up government job fire a man that will become homeless if he doesn't work? Wasn't the job was created to keep him from becoming homeless in the first place? What do you do when 10,000 people apply for a government job that requires 100? How does the government decide who is qualified to be a bathroom attendant in a public restroom or sign holder at a road construction site? Also, can the government expect good roads when you hire people to build and fix them based on their qualifications being nothing more than unemployed? Don't you want people who have built bridges before working on bridges?
Here's a better idea. How about you NOT over tax that rich guy and let him hire the poor person, if the poor person is willing to do what it takes to hold this caliber of job. If not, then he doesn't deserve the job. See, I'm productive in my job. My boss spends $X annually on me and gets more than X back from my work. I have actually created wealth increased the value of the economy as a whole. Government jobs don't do this. Yes, there is a place for government jobs. But there is never a need for made-up busy work government jobs whose sole purpose is employ someone to do something that doesn't need to be done.
Step #0: sell the public water utility off to a Republican robber baron.
Step #1: Robber baron institutes a pricing scheme designed to punish people for using more water (if I use less than 1,000 gallons in a month I pay the lowest rate, each "tier" above that is doubled. If I go from 1,000 to 2,000 gallons I pay triple the price, 1,000 to 3,000 I pay 7x the price, and onwards).
OK, so this "Republican robber baron" is trying to encourage people to conserve water. Isn't that an environmental issue? Wasn't it the environmentalists that forced me to replace my working toilet with a "low-flow" that leaves skid-marks all over the bowl and requires me to flush 10-20 times to get rid of them? Yeah, so conserving water is an environmentalist issue. So it appears that this "Republican robber baron" is doing something good for the environment.
Right now, all it's proven to me is that Republicans don't give a crap about the environment.
Wait. I though you just said.... never mind.
Yes, because there are no import taxes. Or there are but they CANNOT BE RAISED for some mythical reason. No, jerkbag, is because companies into import/export control the congress and they pressure them to keep import taxes low
They are called tariffs. Do a little research and find out why they are bad idea.
No, sorry. Fair is fair. If you can't raise taxes on the rich, then you can't cut taxes on food and medicine. It's only fair.
Strawman much? So, you take a good plan, and then you try to add stuff to it to make it a bad plan so you can say, "See, this plan sux!" Yeah... won't fly.
Not every company sells stocks, Why is this so hard to understand?
Every company has investors, even if the only only investor is the one starting the business. I used stocks as an example. If you take money from economy through taxation or inflation, for example, there is less money to invest. With less investment into the economy, the economy doesn't grow. Seriously, you don't understand this? This is economics 101. It was the same class where they taught you about supply and demand.
No. That's not how it works. Also, big players don't gamble their own money. They work for banks and they gamble YOUR money. And when they lose, they demand the government to rescue them. Are you mentally challenged or have you been living on an island for the last 3 years?
I don't invest in the futures market. I can't afford to. It can make a whole lot of money. It can also lose a whole lot of money. I don't gamble. As for the "big players" that don't gamble my money, if they were to consistently lose money, they lose investors. If they lose investors, they go out of business.
And yes, I agree the bailouts were bullshit. Just as the "shovel ready" stimulus was bullshit. Most of bailouts were the fault of senators representing states with big insurance and banking presence. You know, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York. Which party represents those states?
No. Please, stop putting words in someone else's speech. Raising the taxes on the rich is not about charity. It's about fairness. How many houses and cars do you need to live?
As many as I want. You don't need a computer to live, yet here you are using one to post on slashdot. Do you realize that your computer could feed a village for over a month? So, if you want to be fair, why are you depriving that village of much needed food and sanitary water?
Let me put it another way: Someone who lives in a house across the street from central park, NY. And who has 1 car and 1 limo there, and a beach house in Malibu (with a couple nice convertibles) and a couple more around the country, and does shopping in Milano and Paris (flying in their own private jet, of course)...
That person doesn't have a problem. That person DID NOT bust his ass working on a mine, on a production line, or working in a construction 300ft from the ground.
How do you know? I know several "rich" people that started out song manual labor. I have an cousin that worked construction for about 20 years. He saved enough money to open his own custom home building business. He's now "rich" by most standards. I have another cousin that started out cleaning pools. He now owns several pool cleaning supply stores and offers a pool maintenance service. My uncle delivered ice cream in East Texas for years. He saved and started a lumber company, which paid for the land he lives on. That land has natural gas under it, so he doesn't have to work anymore. Although, he still does. He sells food to local area restaurants for a large food distribution network.
Maybe the people you know are working for a paycheck. The people I know are working for their future. There is a difference. It is possible to work your way out of whatever job you have now. We don't have a rigid class system
I can only vote for 2/50 federal senators. That means that 48/50 senators that I can't vote for are looking out for states other than my own. I have much more voting power in local elections than I do at a federal level.
Crap... make that 2/100 or 1/50. This is the second time I've made that mistake.
1) You say that states can take over services, yet states are often doing a lot worse than the feds and unlike the feds, they are frequently required by their constitutions to have a balanced budget, so they can't even do short term deficit spending until the economy improves. In my home state of North Carolina, they basically gutted public education, among other things, to solve the budget gap. You want NC to now have to cover the burden that the feds used to cover? Fat chance.
Federal income taxes are deducted from state income taxes. If the federal government charges a 35% income tax, that means that states may tax 65% of income. If you lower the federal income tax rate, you are increasing the pool that states may tax from.
Also, if the NC legislature can't figure out how to take care of the things they must take care of, elect a legislature that can. I can only vote for 2/50 federal senators. That means that 48/50 senators that I can't vote for are looking out for states other than my own. I have much more voting power in local elections than I do at a federal level.
2) If you really want the economy to grind to a halt, a federal sales tax is a good way to do it. How will taxing/penalizing economic transactions help people make more economic transactions
Strange that states that charge a sales tax with no income tax are doing much better than those that rely in income taxes. Compare Florida to Michigan. Compare Texas to California.
Also, with the introduction of a federal sales tax, federal income taxes would also need to be relaxed some. We could charge a 5% sales tax and eliminate federal income taxes on all income below $100,000.
3) The top 1% pay most of the tax burden because they have by far most of the wealth in this country and benefit the most, directly or indirectly, from government services. Why do so many right-wingers act as though these people are being unfairly burdened with having to pay for the country that allowed them to become and remain wealthy? I don't think we ought to soak the rich, but as part of a multi-faceted plan to fix the budget, they ought to pay, you know, just a little bit more. Not just the top 1% either, of course.
Strange. I drive on the local interstate much more than the top 1%. Sure, those interstates bring products to my local store, but I buy them from there, so I benefit from that as well. My bank account is FDIC insured, just as the rich guy's, but I don't have over $250,000 in any account, so I'm 100% covered; rich people are not. The US Military protects my house from foreign invaders just as it does the mansion on the other side of town, and the guy in that mansion paid more for that military than I did.
However, since our local utilities are tiered, the rich pay more per gallon water or watt of electricity than I do. Since their property taxes are higher, they pay more of that teacher's salary than I do and wealthy people tend to have fewer children, and even those don't go to the public school they are paying for. Since our income taxes are progressive, they pay more for every mile of road, every tank, every bullet, every prisoner and every square foot of public housing.
So to say that the rich pay less for the benefits they receive is absolute bullshit. The top 50% pays 96% of income taxes, more if you count capital gains or corporate taxes. The top 5% pays over 50% of all federal income taxes. Please, PLEASE try to tell me that the top 5% of the US population receives more than 50% of government services. All I'd have to do is point out that the military and medicare/medicaid take a majority of our federal budget. Since military benefits are distributed equally and the wealthy don't use medicare/medicaid, that argument is extremely easy to debunk.
So, again, to say that the rich pay less for the benefits they receive is absolute bullshit. You need to stop lying or educate yourself.
I don't know where you got this quote, but it's wrong:
The TEA Party wants the government to not exist--ushering in a bright fantasy utopia where we'll presumably repair our own roads, house our own prisoners, and allow corporations and the rich and powerful to do whatever the hell they want (power which they won't, of course, dare abuse or exploit).
Allow me to fix it for you:
The TEA Party wants the federal government to follow the 10th Amendment and only do what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution--ushering in a bright utopia where the states will repair their own roads, house their own prisoners, and allow people to make their living without being encumbered by too much government interference. (of course regulating interstate commerce is a federal power spelled out in the Constitution. Business entirely within a state would be state regulated only)
There! It sounds much more reasonable when it's the truth and not just want you want to true so it backs up your preconceived opinion.
I'm all for spending cuts, but without taxes being raised on the wealthy, it's just more of the same BS
Total income tax for the year 2010 was about $900 billion. Total federal debt was $1,300 billion. So, if you double the income tax on everyone, not just the rich, income taxes would bring in another $900 billion. That leaves us still $400 billion in the hole.
If you were to also double corporate taxes, which brought in about $191 billion, you would be much closer. However, a corporate tax is really just a hidden sales tax. Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do. Of course, since the US government can only tax corporations in the US, it's a sales tax for domestic goods only. This gives imported products an advantage over domestically produced products both here in the US and overseas. Why not just charge a sales tax on all non-necessity products (food and medicine could be exempt from sales taxes, for example).
Oh, but I forgot, all that paper being traded back and forth "creates jobs".
Yeah, it does. See, companies sell stocks to expand their business. When companies expand, they create jobs. Why is this so hard to understand? As for those "asshole speculators" you mention, these guys are one trade away from bankruptcy. If you think they make easy money, why don't you become one and give all of your profits to those poor families in the projects you mentioned?
I understand that you hate people who have more than you do, but you have to understand that there are those that have less than you do that are just as likely to hate you and come after YOUR property. On a world scale, you are extremely rich. You have a computer, Internet connection, running water, climate control and other luxuries that most in the world could only dream about. Why don't you give what you have to some poor person in Haiti, for example? This is what you are proposing we do to the rich in this country, right? As for your domestic debt problems, as I've pointed out above, math trumps you class envy.
The problem with home purchases is they are inherently inflationary. The bank loans you $X, you spend $X, some broker pockets 5% of X, yet the house is still worth X. If you turn around and sell it tomorrow, you could get $X back, and pay another broker 5% of your X. The banks make a fortune on interest. The broker makes a fortune plastering his ugly anglo-saxon face on every bus shelter and lawn sign. The entire system is a feedback loop that will ultimately bankrupt everything.
Or do you actually believe it is fundamentally sound for a concrete and lumber box to take 20+ years for a couple to pay ? Did it take two people 20 years to build ? No ? Did it take 20 people two years to build ? Neither ? Then it's not worth 20 years of payments. The grossly unbalanced game of free market economics can only be played for so long; after a while, you run out of new people to extort.
Um... banks don't build houses; home builders do. If you think a "a concrete and lumber box" is not worth the $150,000 that the builder charges for it, I think you should get into the home building business. You could sell quality homes for much cheaper than those other guys and still make a fortune for yourself.
Bring Mexicans in just to tax them? I've got a better idea.
Tax the rich.
OK. So you tax the rich, what... 75%? 95%? Even if you taxed the "rich" 100%, it still wouldn't make a dent in our deficit. Now you have a worse job problem than you had before, since these "rich" guys can no longer invest money into the stock market, which allows companies to expand and create jobs, or buy bonds that allow local and state governments to hire people to build and maintain roads, public transportation and build libraries.
Three things have to happen before our debt issues are resolved.
1) Cut spending. If services suffer, let the states take over those services.
2) Tax everyone. Once everyone is paying taxes, say, via a federal sales tax, suddenly everyone will realize that it's their money that the government is spending. If you pay no taxes, you don't care how the government spends tax money. The top 1% pay a vast majority of the tax burden. Imagine how much more money the government would receive if you started taxing the other 99%!
3) Cut Spending. I can't say this enough.
As for "Tax the rich":
Given that we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion even after taking in $899 billion in total income tax revenues, does anyone in his or her right mind think raising income taxes on everyone or 'raising taxes on the rich’ would solve the problem? We would have to see income tax revenues from everyone go up by more than a double. That is, with a $1.3 trillion deficit for 2010, we would need an extra $1.3 trillion in income tax revenues on top of the $899 billion we got in 2010. That is not going to happen. And, instead of getting a reduction in spending, we are actually ramping it up for fiscal year 2011. Now that’s crazy.
In other words, the deficit alone is more than our entire income taxes bring in. If you double the income taxes on EVERYONE, not just the rich, you would still fall about $430 billion short of just covering the deficit. The deficit is $1.3 trillion. Income taxes area bout $900 billion. Bringing in another $900 billion won't cover the $1.3 trillion annual deficit. Sorry, but math trumps your class envy.
Also, as a side note, state and local income taxes are calculated AFTER federal dollars are taken out. If you raise the rate from, say, 35% to 70% on the "rich", that takes a huge bite out of state and local budgets. Instead of being able to tax the wealthy on 65% of their total income for the year, states and local governments would only be able to tax on 30% of the year. This would literally cut state and local tax receipts in half AND STILL NOT PAY OFF THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
Our political situation is horrible, and shows no signs of becoming better. The Tea Party dominates the GOP, and the Democratic president folds faster than a house of cards whenever they do something stupid.
Let me break it down to the most basic of concepts:
Democrats want the government to spend more. The TEA Party wants the government to spend less.
Who do you think is right here?
You are wrong.
Note that just a few years ago Clinton ran several years of surplus budgets and paid down some of the debt, without the trillions in cuts that Obama's austerity bullshit includes. It is possible, but it seems the last okay politicians from the 90's are now gone.
Clinton ran one year of surpluses. And to be more accurate, it wasn't Clinton at all. Clinton was the president. Congress writes the budgets. Now, to be fair to Obama, the deficits are not his problem either. Again, congress writes the budgets.
Yes, the president does deserve some of the responsibility, as he signs the budget and does work with congress, but that only really applies when congress is of a like mindset of congress. For example, the economy, budget and deficit when Bush had a Republican controlled congress was more to Bush's credit/blame that it was when Bush faced a Democrat controlled congress. Obama deserves more of the credit/blame when Pelosi/Reid were the congressional leaders than he does now since congress is split.
Both are owned by the extreme right-wing and criminal Newscorp. That they try to cultivate multiple brand images is more a sign of a corporate personality problem than it is of unbiased functionality.
You do realize that Murdoch supported Hillary Clinton, right? You do realize that Fox is NOT FoxNews, right? Murdoch is a business man. His only agenda is making a profit, which is what businesses are supposed to do. Murdoch looked at the news landscape and realized that it was dominated by left wingers and slanted far to the right of the American public. So, he created a news network that is right of center, but one that still presents both sides of the political spectrum. What do you know... Fox News is the number 1 cable news channel and has been since shortly after its creation. Why? Because Murdoch found that a majority of the population was not represented in news coverage. He grabbed them up and left all the rest to fight over the minority of what is left.
Excuse me. I don't mean to embarrass you, but your ignorance is showing.
Episode 1: Creation ...
Episode 2: Noah's Ark
THE IGNORANCE! IT BURNS!
FoxNews is not the same as the Fox that airs Family Guy. You are just as ignorant you claim FoxNews viewers are. The sad part is that you don't let it repeatedly proving it in public.
Probably like most people here, my initial reaction was to wonder why the hell an organization that hates science and rational thought is hosting Cosmos, and more importantly, whether they'll turn it into a soapbox for god-knows-what. If Neil Degrasse Tyson is on board though, I'm a little less worried. That man doesn't take any bullshit, and if Fox tries to muscle him into anything, he's going to walk away. That can be your canary in the coal mine to see if the show is worth watching.
Like someone else mentioned, the Fox that airs Family Guy, The Simpsons and formerly Married with Children is not the same as FoxNews that airs Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity and formerly Glenn Beck. I guess it's true that ignorance is the base bigotry. The sad part is, you don't even know who to hate.
You are like General Custer hating Gandhi because he was an Indian.