Taxes

I'm not sure where to put this so here it is! Has anyone heard the latest on what they want to do with taxes? THey want to add a national SALES TAX up to 25%!!!!! And this is not to replace the income tax, just a NEW tax!
That is to say nothing about Obama's carbon tax (he's been talking about that for a while) which will make gas go up to more than $4 again. Also the state wants to add a new gas and diesel tax! Did they ever, ever think about slowing down on the spending. I cannot believe it. Yesterday, I was in the car so had the radio on and that was all they were talking about. I got so frustrated, I just can't tell you. Stop spending, stop spending, stop spending!

Forums:

CW, why don't you give up, no WMD found and no connection with 9/11 established. We were torturing people to connect Saddam with 9/11, I'm sure that sits well with the world.

xrayspx's picture

Even Cheney said the other day that there was no credible link between Iraq and terrorists.

What can we say CW, sometimes reality tends to skew liberal.

This doesn't sound like a discussion of taxes to me.

"...This doesn't sound like a discussion of taxes to me..."

Resign yourself to the Fate of The Obama.

"...why don't you give up, no WMD found and no connection with 9/11 established..."

Well, then, we just should have left those 500 TONS of Uranium in Iraq. How else could we have made the world a happier place?

All of it, btw, is in Canada for reprocessing today—flown out of Iraq in dribs and drabs over the last six years. A good thing those flights—and their cargo—were kept secret, huh?

Maybe we should just return it. Let's make the world happier.

:)

"...Even Cheney said the other day that there was no credible link between Iraq and terrorists...."

What he said was:

"There was a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up,” Cheney said.

"His point was that the intelligence did show a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, even if Hussein’s government had no link whatsoever to 9/11."

...What can we say sometimes reality tends to skew liberal..."

Yup. But it needs to be repeated often enough.

"...We were torturing people to connect Saddam with 9/11, I'm sure that sits well with the world..."

Funny you should say that. It turns out that Obama quoted Winston Churchill, (the Brits never tortured).

(And Obama's uncle liberated Auschwitz, doncha'know).

That was still another lie, as no such quote was ever made by Churchill. NPR wrote a few (a very few) words on it, but this quote did surface:

"...of President Obama's quoting Churchill saying "We don't torture," Churchill scholar Richard Langworth writes that "While it’s nice to hear the President invoke Sir Winston, the quotation is unattributed and almost certainly incorrect."

"Obama won't be running General Motors", either.

Clinton* did the same thing, relying on the naivety of couch-bound Americans to self-select their version of the truth from the media.

It's Hopey-Changey for America.

:)

Let's see: where was "naive" discussed earlier?

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

tis wrote:
"Well, oc, I assume you are asking about the new marriage bill just passed. I do not believe in it, yet I can see their point. I think marriage is only between a man an a woman but they don't really hurt me-at least I can't think how they do- by marrying.
No Poppa, I don't think there is any way you will change my mind about Obama unless he changes his mind about a LOT of things. Call me old fashioned but as I have said repeatedly, I believe in the old US, capitalism, everyone works hard to get what they have and should not have to take it out of their pockets to give to someone who prefers to sit around and do nothing. I do not believe in wealth distribution as Obama does. I believe if you work hard for anything in life , then and only then, should you be rewarded."
My reponse:
Politeness demands that I respond to this, so here goes.
In your previous post you wrote, "I want the gov. to leave me alone."
Hence, I responded by asking: "has the governor been bothering you tis?"
As you can see my attempt at being a smartass failed miserably! I thought it kind of funny because another Forum member is often confused by abbreviations.
oc

LOL, I guess that could be a confusing abbreviation though! I did mean government, not governoor. Sorry your being a smartass failed miserably. But at least it is funny now.
Funny today seemed to be the day for people to start talking about how bad things are and how worried they are. I had several conversations in which people were saying that they don't think some people realize what is happening. The government is the only one who is hiring. One of them has a spouse who works for Waste Management and they laid off thirteen people last week and are worried about more. Another is in the automotive business and says because of the GM bankruptcy they can't get parts to fix cars from plants. Another is just sick and tired of taking out of their pocket to give to another who is not interested in working to earn his/her own living. Why should I work was this person's thinking.

Funny, today hit me quite differently. For example, I noticed in the want ads that Trite's service department is looking for one skilled mechanic and one person to do oil changes and so forth. I took those ads as a positive sign.
oc

A lot of mechanics from Trites found jobs elsewhere, because they knew what was coming and others lost their jobs. I don't think the ad means what you think it means.

Future tax increases are the major goal to make the US more like France: Strong unions, dozens of nuclear plants, frequent strikes, and a Socialized Healthcare scheme that killed thousands in Paris in 2005. The French inflicted on their people their own 9/11.

(Coming to a place near you, soon).

:(

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

The developer—on a Saturday—has workmen working at a condo site across from me. Are they getting overtime?

"...The UAW may own a load of stock (40%), albeit without voting board membership..."

One of the biggest US boat builders just announced bankruptcy.

Genmar makes Carver, Marquis, Windsor Craft, Four Winns, Glastron, Larson, Hydra Sports, Sea-Swirl, Wellcraft, Champion, Ranger, Stratos, Triumph, and FinCraft brands. One thousand employees.

Genmar is big, but it's going under.

Genmar is a totally non-union company. Will Obama save it?

xrayspx's picture

Startling.

Genmar is a totally non-union company. Will Obama save it?

You seem to have missed the part of that post wherein I said that while I wasn't completely opposed to what amounted to a bridge loan to allow the car companies to remain in business earlier in the year, do not agree with the large ownership stake we're taking in GM. Many companies relied on the commercial paper market for overnight loans to make payroll payments, etc. When the LIBOR rate shot up and dried up the worldwide short-term commercial loan market, lots of companies felt pain and had to furlough, or not pay their vendors, just to make payroll. So in that climate, yeah, free up some cash to get good companies through the next month.

GM, in my opinion, has deserved to fail for decades. I don't think the decision to keep them afloat has anything to do with union vs. non-union workers, but simply the staggering number of workers that would have been impacted by its closure.

One thing I keep hearing over and over again is that GM is going to fail anyway, and most of these people are still going to lose their jobs, but that what we've done is to spread that out over the next few years rather than over a 1 week period.

I don't know that I entirely agree that it's worse to "rip off the bandaid". So GM fails, Delco immediately follows, Hutchinson SA, subsidiary of TOTAL-Fina-Elf (Formerly Harvard Industries encompassing Harvard Interiors and Kingston-Warren, a Newfields, NH company, among others) will fail, and on down the chain.

If it's going to happen anyway, just let it die. Delco can go on to make crappy radios and branded spark plugs for someone else, or no one else for all I care.

The troubling thing, to me, was a quote from Tis's friend about "not wanting my taxes to pay for a bunch of lazy people who aren't interested in working".

We can't have it both ways, either we do what we're doing to keep people employed, or we don't, and unemployment jags higher, and we as taxpayers are beholden for that associated cost. These people aren't lazy people that don't want to work, they're lazy "overpaid work-to-rule Union bums" that have been working the same job for, in many cases, decades.

xrayspx's picture

The developer—on a Saturday—has workmen working at a condo site across from me. Are they getting overtime?

Why do you hate laissez faire free-market capitalism?

"...I don't think the decision to keep them afloat has anything to do with union vs. non-union workers, but simply the staggering number of workers that would have been impacted by its closure..."
"Too big to fail"?

"...I...do not agree with the large ownership stake we're taking in GM..."
You need to argue with Mussolini—not me.

"...So in that climate, yeah, free up some cash to get good companies through the next month..."
There is no "cash" to "free up". We're currently printing unbacked paper money.

"...GM, in my opinion, has deserved to fail for decades..."
Because management was blackmailed into "free healthcare" to all of UAW—millions of them?

"...The troubling thing, to me, was a quote from Tis's friend about "not wanting my taxes to pay for a bunch of lazy people who aren't interested in working"..."
Maybe read up on them? "Labor proceeded normally" until a Holiday appeared, then a slowdown resulted in overtime paid during the Holiday. (Just one example).

"...either we do what we're doing to keep people employed, or we don't, and unemployment jags higher, and we as taxpayers are beholden for that associated cost..."
Because we're printing unbacked paper money right now—and adding LBJ-style Social Programs on top of that, we're passing on an immense "OPM-debt" to future Americans. (Except for the 3rd-worlders who sneak in).

"...Why do you hate laissez faire free-market capitalism?..."
I object to "sweat shop labor", even when it's "volunteered for". Memorial Day and Saturdays had people laboring on the McMansions around here. (2008's Labor Day too, come to think of it).

If "Observed Holidays"—in particular—AREN'T, I don't think overtime can be justified on McMansion projects that drone on for three years or more. Social constructs should be conserved.

(In Florida, at least, a building permit expires after a certain time—usually a year. "The way we do it down South", to paraphase an old expression).

Here is an interesting article about where the deficit started and where it is going. Notice that Obama's current spending plans represent a small percentage of the deficit problems. I'm sure Pissant through Weakness will love this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&hp

xrayspx's picture

"...Why do you hate laissez faire free-market capitalism?..."
I object to "sweat shop labor", even when it's "volunteered for". Memorial Day and Saturdays had people laboring on the McMansions around here. (2008's Labor Day too, come to think of it)

My question about free market capitalism was me making fun of you for being pissed about Capitalist Pig Developers working on a house on a Saturday. That labor is the magical Silent Hand of Free Market Capitalism at work. And don't be fooled, those construction guys aren't hurting for dough, they're not "sweatshop workers" in the way an 11 year old making sneakers in China is a sweatshop worker, or the way a middle aged immigrant woman sewing shirts in NYC for piecework is a sweatshop worker.

Those types of sweatshop workers are why we have labor unions and labor law in the first place. Your neighborly construction guys are getting paid well for their OT and holiday work. They're getting paid as a direct result of the laborers who came before them rising out of their factories in the early 1900's and striking for just these sorts of things.

When I spoke of "freeing up operating cash" you're right, that wasn't clear. What I meant was "cover for the commercial paper trade, which was non-existant". You understand how institutional lending works right? Caterpillar or GM might take out a loan for $5MM on Tuesday to be paid back on Wednesday, to make sure they have liquid assets on hand for things like payroll or scheduled vendor payments.

That is the oil that lubricates large business. Without those short term loans, companies grind to a halt and can't meed their obligations. That's what happened earlier this year. It would be bad to let good companies fail because they can't get an overnight loan at 0.01% and start defaulting on payroll.

What we learned yesterday with Cheney's crass statements is that it was known that GM was known to be a failing company that couldn't be helped in this way, but they gave them money anyway, just to make it fall on the next guy to try and fix.

You still seem to want to talk only about GM, and not about AIG, why is that? Do you see the two takeovers as different in some way?

"...On the up side...we'll be out of Iraq by the end of 2011..."

We'll still be over there, somewhere, rest assured.

"...That's good news considering we're still losing soldiers there...The NYT yesterday had the names of 4 more kids who passed away..."

I don't think they "passed away".

Plus, you haven't been made aware of two who died here, in the states, as a result of Terror?

xrayspx's picture

"...That's good news considering we're still losing soldiers there...The NYT yesterday had the names of 4 more kids who passed away..."

I don't think they "passed away".

Plus, you haven't been made aware of two who died here, in the states, as a result of Terror?

Since you don't state explicitly, I'm left to assume you're talking about the Army Recruiter murder?

You never answered my question as to why that guy is a terrorist, but the other 5 examples of politically motivated killings I cited were merely "criminals".

"...You never answered my question as to why that guy is a terrorist, but the other 5 examples of politically motivated killings I cited were merely "criminals"..."

They're ALL criminals.

"Terror" depends on if a large enough group is causing the terror, and if a large enough group is concerned enough to call it terror.

If none dare call it Terror, then it isn't Terror?

Which is why you didn't answer my question regarding if McVeigh HADN'T been identified, what group would be CONSIDERED TERRORIZED—and by whom?

You say he is White Supremacist, but he mass-murders WHITES?

Illogical!

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

">...Your neighborly construction guys are getting paid well for their OT and holiday work. They're getting paid as a direct result of the laborers who came before them rising out of their factories in the early 1900's and striking for just these sorts of things..."

I'm aware of all the above, and might be counted among them some days.

Ironically, Labor Unions got us "Labor Day", a national day OFF from work. I'd very much like for THEM to observe it.

And they're NOT so "neighborly".

The noise, the cursing, the blocking of my driveway by commuting contractor trucks, the unannounced daily electricity cut-offs, the dynamiting and ground-shaking-bustle in this entire neighborhood on weekdays is bad enough.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Payback is a bitch sometimes.

Somebody remind me on Monday to call Pratt & Whitney in Connecticut: Their monkey is loose again.

Whatever that is supposed to mean I have no clue. Go ahead and call them, have a blast.

xrayspx's picture

Which is why you didn't answer my question regarding if McVeigh HADN'T been identified, what group would be CONSIDERED TERRORIZED—and by whom?

If no bomber had claimed responsibility for the US Embassy bombings, who would feel terrorized, and by whom? If no one had been identified in the USS Cole bombing, who would feel terrorized, and by whom?

That does not make these random acts of violence, they are still terrorism no matter how you slice it.

When a man drives up and blows up a federal building, who do you think is supposed to be terrorized? The Feds. And by whom? Wackjobs.

Turns out the Feds were right, they were blown up by a wackjob.

"...When a man drives up and blows up a federal building, who do you think is supposed to be terrorized? The Feds. And by whom? Wackjobs...Turns out the Feds were right, they were blown up by a wackjob..."

The Feds are supposed to be concerned about the security of the American people. That's why we SHOULD have been concerned about the bombings of our embassies at Tanzania and Kenya, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and 10,000 other Terrorist acts worldwide.

Instead...Bupkis—totally unconcerned with over a BILLION wackjobs.

(And the murder of an abortion doctor just doesn't equate, somehow).

It reminds me of "Lieburul-Think" when Soviet Communism was juxtaposed to American Capitalism saying, "They are equal, but opposing social constructs".

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Pages