OT: No taste for Coulter/Beck-style hate speech.

Page 2 of 11  
On 3/24/2010 10:51 AM, RonB wrote:

You still do not get what Glen Beck, the conservative movement and others are saying. This new health care tax added 409 billion dollars of new taxes on the people who create jobs (Per this mornings news). As the taxes from this bill moves through the economy, this will add about 4.09 trillion dollars to the cost to the side of the economic equation. This will increase cost will cause consumer prices go up to cover the increased cost.
Even as this 409 billion dollar increase in taxes comes into effect, we are about to get another huge increase in taxes as President Bush's tax cuts are allowed to expire. The average person's taxes will be going up at the same time he is being hit with the fees for not having insurance.
I know there are those who think you can added taxes and it not effect the average person. There has never been a tax that average person has not been paid either directly or indirectly through increased prices. Remember the failed attempt of the 70's when the inflation rate was running over 15%. If you are not that old, read about financial problems to the carter years, and how the President Reagan brought the economy under control. Under his tax cuts and other measures he instituted, the economy prospered until the pelosi plunge on September 28,2008. This was when pelosi reneged on her constitutional responsibilities for the monetary system and the market lost 3000 points in 14 days.
As we all know the government will take it taxes regardless of your economic condition, (they tax your unemployment benefit). The people who were creating job, will trim back on their employees to compensate for that 409 billion dollars of new taxes.
We will be extremely lucky with obama economic policies if this only cost 1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, especially after they spend any monies collect in the next four years on pork barrel projects.
The financial industry will stabilize and return to its historic growth rate. However with the 409 billion dollars of addition taxes and the expiration of President Bush;s tax cuts, the unemployment rate will remain at about 10% for the next several years.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/24/2010 09:42 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

And the Iraq war cost how much again? (When they should have been in Afghanistan, if anywhere.)

Over what period do you define it's "historic growth"? Obviously its recent growth rate (before the recent collapse) was unsustainable.
Chris
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/24/2010 11:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:

I don't know what you are trying to add with the Iraq war comment unless you are trying to blame President Bush for obama's 409 Billion dollars in new taxes.
"historic growth"?
This information can be found on any investment website
The historic returns per year for stocks adjusted for inflation for in the S&P500 1871 -2009 8.39% 1900 -2009 8.23 1950 -2009 8.71 1980 -2009 9.03
In 2006 when the Democrats took office the DOW was 11000 points. In March 16, 2009 after obama was in office for three months the market reached 6600, or the lowest point it had been in 10 years
Today the market has recovered to about 10500 points and has been there since about mid October, except after obama said he was going to impose a tax on the salaries of the executive in the financial industry when it dropped to 9800. It has nearly recover the 700 points.
Most managed stock funds have returned about 10% per year for the last 50 years.
Based on the 30 year trend line of the the stock market (Logarithmic plot) the market as measured by the DOW should be about 14500 or because of the obama' economic policies about 30% higher than it is today.
That is what I mean by the "historic growth"
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The bottom line is that we are mired is a period where the unemployment rate is in double digits--and that is measuring the people who are currently getting unemployment benefits. This does NOT count the number of people who have dropped off the roles nor does it account for the people who are UNDEREMPLOYED--lost their jobs and are making far less than they used to make.
And there are also companies who are reducing salaries in one form or another. For example, last year, my company [a Fortune 500 company] made *all* of its employees take one week per quarter off without pay. I didn't realize how much I really lost until I looked at my W-2. Thing is, even all the bigwigs who were making $100,000, $250,000, $1,000,000 a year [in salary] all lost the same percentage. Add all that lost salary up for a company that was still able to maintain 50,000+ employees and that comes to one heck of a number. They are thinking about doing this again this year--and I have heard other companies do this and/or simply reduce salary.
All of this will naturally REDUCE the amount of taxes the government collects. Where are you going to get all these new tax dollars from? Does Michelle Obama grow money plants in her garden?
Somehow people think somebody else can and should pay for everything they desire. And the poor bastards who worked their asses off to get "rich" had to give up a lot and endure a lot to get where they got. They had to work long, hard hours both at work and, probably, at school. They needed to make money to spend money to make more money. They needed to risk what they have earned in the effort to get more. And many have probably done things that they will regret whenever they are on their deathbed (like loving work more than family, which is a HUGE one).
The thing is, you can do and be whatever you want to be in this country. No matter what anybody else says. You guys are ripping on Beck. What was he in the past? A flat-out broke drunk who had to turn his life around to get where he got. I can't help it if many of you don't like his views--that is beside the point. The guy literally worked and is working his ass off. Anybody and everybody can do that.
I don't make much money and I am far, FAR from rich (I can say that because Obama gave us the "definition" for rich to be anybody making over $250,000 a year). I am 50 years old and I don't think I will ever even get to being "half-rich" but that is my choice. I choose not to work 15 hour days 6-7 days a week and never take vacation. I choose to not continue to go to college or any other type of schooling. I choose to spend more time with my family. Blah, blah, blah. There are others around me who are younger than me who are real go-getters and who work like crazy and do all the little things to get themselves ahead. They started out more-or-less equal to me and have zoomed past me. I can do just as good of work but my priorities are different.
I guess what I am saying is that the people who need all this help because they simply do not make enough money usually CHOOSE to stay in the situation they are in. They don't want to work longer hours. They do not want to go to school. They do not want to switch careers. They do not want to move so they can get a job. They don't want to do a lot of things for a variety of reasons and almost all of them are nothing more than rationalizations. Sure, doing any one of those things is hard, sometimes EXTREMELY hard, but how much do they really want the "more" they are asking for? Not as much as they want something else is the bottom line.
And it simply is not fair to have "rich" people pay more than their fair share. It is ludicrous. It has been proven over and over again in socialist experiments that you take away all motivation if you take the money an industrious person makes and give it to others so they can be equal. Where is the motivation for the industrious guy. Pretty soon, he will produce the same output as the less industrious guy and then you have TWO people who need to be "helped" and it will take MORE industrious people to make up the difference.
Lastly, I wanted to SCREAM whenever I heard Obama say "his" health care bill would provide FREE doctor visits, FREE prescriptions, FREE shots, FREE (fill in the blank).
NOTHING IS FREE!
It irritates me whenever I hear people say that the "rich" people SHOULD pay more taxes. THEY DO!!! Both in percentage and in sheer dollars. And even if the percentages were the same, the sheer dollars would still be a lot higher.
The progressive liberal say that is is only FAIR the "rich" should pay more. We all want to be fair, but what does fair mean?
Suppose four guys go out to lunch, and split the check four ways. Is that fair? Suppose one had a tuna sandwich, and another had lobster?
Well, maybe it would be fair to say that each pays for what he eats? But suppose one of the guys makes $100,000 a year and the others make only $50,000. Would it be fair to say the one who makes the big bucks should pay twice what the others do, regardless of what he eats, because he makes more?
If it were you, you probably wouldn't think it was "fair" to ask your friend to pay for your meal, though an increasing voting bloc feels it is very fair to ask other people to pay for things they want.
Let΄s take another example.
Suppose 100 adults with jobs live on your street. And you get together and decide that it would be wonderful if you had a new playground that would cost about $10,000. So you vote and the new playground wins.
Then you have to vote how much each person should chip in to buy the playground, and the vote goes like this:
- Five of the adults are charged a total of $6,000 for the playground everyone will use.
- Another 45 of the adults have to get together and chip in an additional $3,700.
- And the last 50 adults have to pool their resources and come up with $300 between them.
Is that fair? (That was the US tax code in 2006.)
Well, President Obama and his Social Democrat Party said no way is that fair.
Those five people have to come up with a lot more money than just $6,000, so the 45 pay less, and the 50 who were paying $300 now pay nothing.
Under that help-the-rich guy George Bush and the Republicans in 2006, 5% of Americans—those with incomes over $153,000, paid 60% of the taxes, while the bottom 50% of Americans paid 3%. (IRS figures.)
Once more than 50% of the public pay nothing, what is to stop them from voting to take everything from those who pay more?
And all in the name of being fair.
Ugh...I will await the ripping that is sure to ensue because of this post.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Congressional Budget Office said the eventual cost of invading and occupying Iraq (including interest) will be well over two trillion dollars even if U.S. forces all get out on schedule. And they never did find those pesky WMDs, did they.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DGDevin wrote:

Yes they did. It's name was Sadaam Hussein.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd have paid good money to see the Iraqi air force drop Saddam Hussein anywhere on U.S. soil including my front yard. Somehow I don't think he would have produced the "mushroom cloud" the Bush administration kept warning us about.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No apostrophe in its, Hey Bu'b.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tyrone Tiews wrote:

Arghh! You're right.
It's okay, though. According to the rule of Conservation of Apostrophes," for every wrong apostrophe placement, there is another that is incorrectly omitted.
Still, that doesn't absolve me of the self-imposed sanction of sitting in the corner for an hour.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tyrone Tiews wrote:

Robocop is the village idiot... I mean village spell cop around here.
Mind your place!
--
Jack
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

Yep, the war cost a bunch. The eight Bush years added about $900 billion to the national debt. Obama reached $900 billion in his first month in office, and has run up in excess of $3 trillion his first year. Not counting what's to come.
As far as Afghanistan, during the Bush administration, no matter how much agitation went on, the killing or capturing of Osama ben Laden was NEVER a goal of the United States. The singular goal of the United States was to prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To do this, several strategies were employed to disrupt or curtail terrorist financing, safe harbors, communication, recruitment, training, and movement. These strategies have been spectacularly successful. If, during prosecution of these tactics, OBL ended up dead or caught, that would have been a plus, but was never a goal.
In the decade prior to the Bush years, there were one or two attacks on the U.S. or its interests abroad per year: The 1st WTC bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, attacks on our embassies, kidnapping of diplomats, and so forth.
Since the Bush goals were implemented, there has been not a single instance of an attack on U.S. civilian interests in the U.S. or against U.S. interests abroad.
Until Obama became president. Since then, there have been three.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/24/2010 04:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Plus another trillion or so in increased interest on the added borrowing, plus the ongoing cost of supporting disabled veterans, plus the cost of refurbishing the military after it's over.

Wasn't the Bush bailout in the previous year close to the same amount?
Arguably that $3T is in pretty exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure the stimulus was all that useful, but you certainly can't say that the situation was normal.

Why were they in Iraq then when the bad guys were in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

How much of that is just "testing the new guy"?
Chris
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You think the TeraBux that Obama has borrowed will be interest free?

No. Obama is spending that money again, too.

The next 20 years will be "exceptional" too?

Iraq was unfinished business. After 911 there was no way to leave it unfinished.

He failed. Now what?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:27:29 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Please tell us all what Iraq had to do with 9/11.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

It's kinda confusing. The federal fiscal year starts on September 1st, and the new president is sworn in the next January. I was counting the last full fiscal year for which Bush was in charge. Obama was president for 3/4 of the fiscal year in which the bailout occurred - TARP business was in force.
Further, the bailout under Bush was only an "authorization," it was Obama administration that actually spent the money. If the bailout was not considered a good idea, Obama could have merely declined to participate.
The Bush people say they did not have enough time remaining in their term to fix the economy, so they kicked the can down the road.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit. The goal was to hand big bucks to big oil and friends. Mission accomplished.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

Thank you very much Bush, my pension fund owns big oil. Also owned GM and Chrysler before Obama the Red stole it from us.... Thank you Obama you communist bastard.
--
Jack
Fight Socialism.... Buy a Ford!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/26/2010 1:09 PM, Jack Stein wrote:

Making a lot of money for you, were they? :)
Good thing your fund included Ford...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

They have over the years, and likely would have again, just like Ford.

Yes, Ford didn't take the "bailout" money, and the stock, after going down to under $2 is up to around $11 the last I looked. Thanks for the "bailout" Obama, you communist bastard... Can't say it enough...
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

They have over the years, and likely would have again, just like Ford.

Yes, Ford didn't take the "bailout" money, and the stock, after going down to under $2 is up to around $11 the last I looked. Thanks for the "bailout" Obama, you communist bastard... Can't say it enough...
--
Jack
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.