|
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/20/2011 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:40:46 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:54:39 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote: Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear engineer. DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became. I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws. Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly involved profit. No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well. According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is needed?? That's what you're claiming... Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups? What groups? There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several others were combined. For some reason you think that represents terrible bloat. Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the collection of methane from cow farts? So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your argument? They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time) Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared. You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these boondoggles. Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military? "Under some agency"? You are obviously shooting from the hip. You are making one of those false equivalencies you are so famous for Jessica De Plume. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/20/2011 8:42 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/02/2011 3:38 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:59:59 -0700, wrote: On 20/02/2011 11:38 AM, wrote: You moved back to Canada because you were thrown out of the US. And I took my job with me! You mean your unemployment. Job /= sitting on couch. No. When I said I needed to return to Canada for personal reasons, they said I should report to the Canadian office. Never even changed bosses. Part of the reasons were the Canadian investments needed some attention I couldn't do in the US, and I could see the US was headed for the wall. loonies traded at 1.013 -- I like. I wouldn't trade a moron for a loonie. Your not even a moron, so you have nothing to trade. Morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt. Plus, judging by her sour attitude, Jessica probably isn't getting any. What a loser. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L G wrote: gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse, primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason to the right, this cant happen here. why? well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it. we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid something the american right is opposed to. only the rich get paid. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 20/02/2011 7:03 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:53:47 -0700, wrote: HHAHAHAHA you're the right wing fool! YOU voted for welfare for the rich. not me, sport I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush. architect of the bailout? henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009... Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:56:27 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote: That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too. Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic and you don't have a chart to dispute that. No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very republican of him huh? BTW your chart does not take that into account. It's still a long term problem with long term fixes available. It doesn't need to be fixed this year or next on the backs of the lower and middle classes. Both programs are NOT underwater, although they will be if nothing is done. It's a right wing fantasy. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote: DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became. I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws. Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly involved profit. No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well. According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is needed?? That's what you're claiming... Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups? What groups? There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several others were combined. For some reason you think that represents terrible bloat. That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the pot of money. Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published facts. A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much oversight in the first place. So, there should be less? Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the collection of methane from cow farts? So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your argument? I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it simple. ?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something. They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time) Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared. You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these boondoggles. Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military? The power grid has been controlled by the power producers quite successfully over the years. The government has a regulatory function but that function does not require a cabinet level department. In fact a smaller organization would be able to react faster in an industry that is changing like this one. And, it's been regulated by the over-all agency. You want no regulation, basically putting it in the hands of corporations. I think I'll pass on that. They have such an excellent record, e.g., Big Oil. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 20/02/2011 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:36:16 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:52:46 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:37:13 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:20 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote: Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit. The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant. Completely untrue and misleading as usual. What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in the out years? SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW. WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter benefits. So what. That's a long-term problem not a short term one. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...rming_soc.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...shortfall.html That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too. Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic and you don't have a chart to dispute that. No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. So are you afraid your welfare check will bounce? -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote: It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money. I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a check for. Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are bored. Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction. What do you think the median income of that group is? $500,000? $1M? Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80 billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the $1.1 trillion deficit. Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close. Facts please? You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is wrong? I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top. I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also understand it won't fix the problem. They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long way toward doing that. Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"? You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6 million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4% tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said the median was 500k. Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 6:59 AM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote: That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too. Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic and you don't have a chart to dispute that. No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very republican of him huh? BTW your chart does not take that into account. SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was stolen, with interest. Obama can do it. He set the precedent. How can government stimulate it? Just moving debt from one line to another, like paying a credit card with another. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 20/02/2011 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote: bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:43:29 -0500, wrote: Are you the only fool that thinks government is doing a good job? and how's wall street doing after sucking 10 trillion out of the economy in the last 3 years? we back at full employment? Wall Street again? Businesses don't suck money from the economy, blind man. They conduct business with strict rules in place. Bob doesn't understand Wall street created that $10 trillion in the first place, there was no real money to "suck out". We loved the money while we thought it was real but it wasn't. All that happened was the ponzi failed, as they all do. gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse, primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason to the right, this cant happen here. why? well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it. we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job? Tag line says it all. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 9:14 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote: gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse, primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason to the right, this cant happen here. why? well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it. we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid something the american right is opposed to. only the rich get paid. Maybe you should consider that they do something right that you should consider doing. Here is your first step to getting "rich". Get out of debt, you can't get rich paying other people for money. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote: gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse, primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason to the right, this cant happen here. why? well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it. we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for it. I suppose there may be some money in smuggling arms into Gaza. With tourism in Egypt in the toilet, guess they can be professional rioters and looters. Ya, and then the world will whine when they get caught and shot in Gaza. But Obama got his way, an unstable middle east and businesses not investing in American oil development because of BP. Obama be doing a good job in making all the wrong decisions. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 20/02/2011 9:14 PM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/20/2011 9:38 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:39:33 -0700, wrote: On 20/02/2011 3:37 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:55:20 -0700, wrote: On 19/02/2011 9:05 PM, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:23:49 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 4:21 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:04 -0700, wrote: On 18/02/2011 9:15 AM, Frogwatch wrote: On Feb 18, 11:01 am, need wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/18/11 10:44 AM, Frogwatch wrote: The Obamanations are not interested in democracy as shown by what is happening in Wisconsin. When the other side wins the election, they engage in an illegal walkout to prevent legislation. Remember "Card Check" where they tried to deny people the right to vote on unionization? They have no interest in Democracy, they are interested in raw power. Winning the election was not good enough because they do not recognize who won. When that happens, the next step is.................. ...right-wing racist-birthers like you move to another country? Yes, we know you are trying to clear this group for your 2012 propaganda run. Remember how each and every Progressive here answered Tim's call for civility with a defined, NO, NO, NO!? Here is your story. Democrats, being thugs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsn...layer_embedded Here is another "brave" liberal, attacking old women... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFdaz_VUJE Here is another advocate of "free speech" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBDqG...1&feature=fvwp I wonder if our friend Donnie was in this crowd? http://www.breitbart.tv/hate-rally-p...ca-with-trash- left-behind/ Oh, did you notice Tim doesn't post here anymore? The lefties do not recognize elections and routinely attack any dissent and then blame everyone else. Their own shot Gifford and they blamed Palin. Lefties eventually always resort to mass murder as Obama's best friend Bill Ayers said he wanted when he said he wanted to kill 20 million Americans. The liberal lefties up here are the same. Irrational zealots of telling others they will pay for their welfare. Nosy types too. I think you should move to Yemen immediately. I'm sure they'd welcome your dislike of gov't. Have more peaceful places to consider. I wouldn't move to a Muslim country for any reason. Don't worry, they won't let you in. Either would Panama or Costa Rica if they find out what you'd be doing/saying about their gov't. Funny, I have already been told I more than qualify and the bank already provided me with the reference I need. Looking at some properties now. And I didn't say anything bad about Panama or Costa Rica... When I go out on a boat fishing, I will not think of you. Do have to bone up on my Spanish though. Funny... you should leave immediately. Not for a bit yet. Besides, I already check, I can get Internet down there to pester you. If we move I will give you a month or two break. Then rub it in. Sure. Right. You don't have the basic instinct to do more than sit and complain. Heh? defumer is confused. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 2/21/2011 2:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/02/2011 6:59 AM, HarryK wrote: On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote: That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too. Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic and you don't have a chart to dispute that. No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very republican of him huh? BTW your chart does not take that into account. SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was stolen, with interest. Obama can do it. He set the precedent. How can government stimulate it? Just moving debt from one line to another, like paying a credit card with another. That would work for me. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote: It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money. I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a check for. Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are bored. Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction. What do you think the median income of that group is? $500,000? $1M? Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80 billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the $1.1 trillion deficit. Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close. Facts please? You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is wrong? I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top. I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also understand it won't fix the problem. They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long way toward doing that. Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"? You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6 million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4% tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said the median was 500k. Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? You're both missing the mark by a mile. 400 people? WTF? $250k? WTF? Taxes could be raised on everybody, in progressive fashion, and the debt would be shortly taken care of. Even the lowest wage-earners wouldn't miss a percent or two. The answer to the "business" community that says it will hurt job growth is "Get the **** out of here. We'll import Indians and Chinese to run the businesses." Both of you have been brainwashed by the pols on the tax issue. Spending is another issue. SS is simple. Plenty of solutions have been discussed. Exhorbitant Medicare costs are caused by the socialist Medical/Insurance industry. Address those costs and that goes away too. That's a socialist system for the millionaires and billionaires. A prime example is the Governor of Florida. But there's plenty of others. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 9:16 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, wrote: On 20/02/2011 7:03 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:53:47 -0700, wrote: HHAHAHAHA you're the right wing fool! YOU voted for welfare for the rich. not me, sport I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush. architect of the bailout? henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009... Bush's last budget passed in by Congress and an incoming new president. It is an Obama SPEND. For example, Bush only gave GM $13 billion after the senate didn't want to be blamed for it. $13 billion just to keep the GM corruption going long enough for Obama bailouts. I liked Bush at one point, but when he was bailing out banks I turned on him immediately. No way should taxpayers be bailing out banks, especially with those billion dollar depositors. They should have eaten the losses. Insure middle class up to $250K and let them sink. Both turned out to be corrupt. Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? For me? Great. And you? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? That is all? I did much better than that. oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street Oh, you mean economy. Yep, low debts, solvent government, good economic policies....yep...China is eating your lunch because their government is more honest with currency and debt. USA needs to boot Bernke and the liberalism economists right out of DC. Bernke and Treasury bozos need to know, no one has ever debt-spent their way out of a debt problem ever. But they always make it worse. NY Crude up $5.50 for the day so far and Dated Brent at $106.50 I would say Obamaflation is coming to a pump near you. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:32:47 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote: It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money. I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a check for. Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are bored. Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction. What do you think the median income of that group is? $500,000? $1M? Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80 billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the $1.1 trillion deficit. Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close. Facts please? You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is wrong? I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top. I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also understand it won't fix the problem. They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long way toward doing that. Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"? You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6 million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4% tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said the median was 500k. Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? You're both missing the mark by a mile. 400 people? WTF? $250k? WTF? Taxes could be raised on everybody, in progressive fashion, and the debt would be shortly taken care of. Even the lowest wage-earners wouldn't miss a percent or two. I agree with everything except the last comment. If someone is at the lower end of the scale, every penny counts. The middle class could probably stand it, assuming we get more job growth back. I'd call that a medium term solution. The answer to the "business" community that says it will hurt job growth is "Get the **** out of here. We'll import Indians and Chinese to run the businesses." Both of you have been brainwashed by the pols on the tax issue. Spending is another issue. SS is simple. Plenty of solutions have been discussed. Exhorbitant Medicare costs are caused by the socialist Medical/Insurance industry. Address those costs and that goes away too. That's a socialist system for the millionaires and billionaires. A prime example is the Governor of Florida. But there's plenty of others. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:41:22 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for and now that they dont have to pay bribes to the govt to have a job, the market system can take over. we havent learned that in the US. here we have crony capitalism where the middle class has no protection against the raw forces of crony capitalism |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:19:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: But Obama got his way, an unstable middle east and businesses not investing in American oil development because of BP. Obama be doing a good job in making all the wrong decisions. HAHAHAHA obama caused this?? i guess what he should do is part the red sea and send in the marines! |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:16:39 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/02/2011 9:14 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote: and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid something the american right is opposed to. only the rich get paid. Maybe you should consider that they do something right that you should consider doing. yeah. they have no problems stealing. and i work for a living. you right wingers glorify theft Here is your first step to getting "rich". Get out of debt, you can't get rich paying other people for money. gee. the rich stay rich by losing their money and getting the middle class to make up their losses |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:43:59 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:15:15 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:58:55 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:00:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote: hey DEREGULATED WALL STREET WHEN THEY REPEALED GLASS STEAGALL you CLOWN!! Hmm which president signed that bill? How many Democrats voted for it? gee. clinton signed it at the 11th hour after gramm sneaked it into the bill at the last minute....courtesy of his wife who happened to be an ENRON VP Bull****. Clinton was praising that deregulation. There was no "sneaking" involved. which is, i suppose, why gramm stuffed it into the legislation at the last minute. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:47:58 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:16:50 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, Canuck57 wrote: Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street Why do you think the banks and wall street are GOP operations? They give most of the money to democrats http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 HAHAHA why not go back to LINCOLN?? that's for 2002...8 years ago! how about last year, when teh dems started talking RE regulating wall street? THEN WS started to shovel money to the GOP: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wall-...ry?id=11359466 |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:39:14 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/02/2011 9:16 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, wrote: henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009... Bush's last budget passed in by Congress and an incoming new president. It is an Obama SPEND. HAHAHAH how can obama spend it when he wasnt president when bush signed it??? bush's last budget was during obama's first term in office. and it had a 1.2T deficit Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? For me? Great. And you? yeah. you're 100 million working americans, right? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? That is all? I did much better than that. oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street Oh, you mean economy. Yep, low debts, solvent government, good economic policies....yep...China is eating your lunch because their government is more honest with currency and debt. USA needs to boot Bernke and the liberalism economists right out of DC. HAHAHAH bush and the GOP ran the country for 6 of the last 8 years and 22 of the last 30 how's that working out for us? when CDO's went from 320 BILLION to SIXTY TWO TRILLION under the GOP uh...that make us strong? when wall street sucked 10 TRILLION out of the economy...we still able to fund aircraft carriers and marine brigades with an economy that's dying? but the rich are doing well... Bernke and Treasury bozos need to know, no one has ever debt-spent their way out of a debt problem ever. But they always make it worse. gee. if that's the case why did the 29 depression end in 1940 when the govt started to spend for war? NY Crude up $5.50 for the day so far and Dated Brent at $106.50 I would say Obamaflation is coming to a pump near you. courtesy of bush's failed middle east policies. but all it took was a trillion he spent and 4400 dead US troops but they werent rich so the right ignores them |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 12:28 PM, HarryK wrote:
On 2/21/2011 2:12 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 21/02/2011 6:59 AM, HarryK wrote: On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote: That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too. Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic and you don't have a chart to dispute that. No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very republican of him huh? BTW your chart does not take that into account. SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was stolen, with interest. Obama can do it. He set the precedent. How can government stimulate it? Just moving debt from one line to another, like paying a credit card with another. That would work for me. Actually, if you are retired and getting Social Security you should be mad as a hornet. All that Social Security money being loaned and skimmed to the government for peanuts. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:02:11 -0800, wrote: No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to change your mind. So, what's the point? You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be in the red forever and try to say that is fine. I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse than nonsense. Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very republican of him huh? BTW your chart does not take that into account. It's still a long term problem with long term fixes available. It doesn't need to be fixed this year or next on the backs of the lower and middle classes. Both programs are NOT underwater, although they will be if nothing is done. It's a right wing fantasy. You really need to read a paper or something. This is the second year that SS has spent more than it takes in, five years ahead of the date they said that would happen. A decade ago they were even saying this would not happen until 2018-2019. From the 2010 SSA trustees report "Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period." Considering their track record on "predictions" I doubt the 2012-2014 surplus will happen. That assumes we are going to reproduce the Bush boom years of 2004-2006 again. Medicare has been upside down for years. From the trustees' report "HI expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law through 2013 ...The HI trust fund has not met the Trustees’ formal test of short-range financial adequacy since 2003." The 2014 thing assumes nobody changes the new health care law taxes. The chance of that was only made worse by Obama cutting payroll tax revenues by 2% (in the democratic congress) and they are even talking about more cuts, perhaps dropping the payroll tax altogether. They added taxes in the health care bill to get a good CBO cost estimate and before the ink was dry they cut them again. I think the plan is to dump the whole program into the general find and remove any illusion that this is anything but a welfare program. They have been spending any surplus as fast as it came in since 1939 so there is no "trust fund". Just exactly what fixes do you see coming any time soon? I know you say we need to raise taxes but your party does not seem to agree. Both parties have bought into the idea that lower taxes creates more revenue or that higher taxes stifle the economy (whether it is down or if it is booming) . They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. So governemnt borrows it for 0.25% interest rate in a 5% environment, they are then just turning Social Security into a tax revenue source. Hardly fair. If government wants the money, they should be at least paying Social Security real-inflation plus 3%. Hey, everyone wants money for nothing including government. Does not mean they should be allowed to raid Social Security. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 1:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:41:22 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for and now that they dont have to pay bribes to the govt to have a job, the market system can take over. we havent learned that in the US. here we have crony capitalism where the middle class has no protection against the raw forces of crony capitalism Where did you think all the Obama bailout spending went? It didn't go to the middle class people. So if you think the middle class should not bailout the rich, how come you vote Obama? -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 2:08 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:47:58 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:16:50 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, wrote: Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street Why do you think the banks and wall street are GOP operations? They give most of the money to democrats http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 HAHAHA why not go back to LINCOLN?? that's for 2002...8 years ago! how about last year, when teh dems started talking RE regulating wall street? THEN WS started to shovel money to the GOP: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wall-...ry?id=11359466 Face it, corrupt debtors, corrupt corporation and delinquent debtors like GM all love democrats, they are so willing to screw the taxpayer for bailouts and corruption. You voted for Obama, not me. I don't believe in bailouts. Bailouts using the tax system is pure corruption. If Chavez does the same thing, media would say corruption third world. In America we call it bailouts. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On 21/02/2011 2:12 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:39:14 -0700, wrote: On 21/02/2011 9:16 AM, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, wrote: henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009... Bush's last budget passed in by Congress and an incoming new president. It is an Obama SPEND. HAHAHAH how can obama spend it when he wasnt president when bush signed it??? bush's last budget was during obama's first term in office. and it had a 1.2T deficit Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big swings. and how's govt by wall street working out? For me? Great. And you? yeah. you're 100 million working americans, right? we growing at 9% PER YEAR? That is all? I did much better than that. oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street Oh, you mean economy. Yep, low debts, solvent government, good economic policies....yep...China is eating your lunch because their government is more honest with currency and debt. USA needs to boot Bernke and the liberalism economists right out of DC. HAHAHAH bush and the GOP ran the country for 6 of the last 8 years and 22 of the last 30 how's that working out for us? when CDO's went from 320 BILLION to SIXTY TWO TRILLION under the GOP uh...that make us strong? when wall street sucked 10 TRILLION out of the economy...we still able to fund aircraft carriers and marine brigades with an economy that's dying? but the rich are doing well... Bernke and Treasury bozos need to know, no one has ever debt-spent their way out of a debt problem ever. But they always make it worse. gee. if that's the case why did the 29 depression end in 1940 when the govt started to spend for war? NY Crude up $5.50 for the day so far and Dated Brent at $106.50 I would say Obamaflation is coming to a pump near you. courtesy of bush's failed middle east policies. but all it took was a trillion he spent and 4400 dead US troops but they werent rich so the right ignores them Actually a joint session of Congress, Dims and GOP gave Bush the money and marching orders. I agree in that US needed to retaliate for 9/11, but it should have been 180 days of bomb the crap out of them then leave. Forget occupation, too expensive in blood and in money. -- Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing. |
Winning elections is not good enough
In article ,
says... On 21/02/2011 10:41 AM, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:14:37 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L wrote: gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse, primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason to the right, this cant happen here. why? well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it. we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the rich are doing in egypt, OK? What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a job they'll work and get paid Work doing what? There is not a lot of work to do in Egypt, nor much money to pay for it. I suppose there may be some money in smuggling arms into Gaza. With tourism in Egypt in the toilet, guess they can be professional rioters and looters. Ya, and then the world will whine when they get caught and shot in Gaza. But Obama got his way, an unstable middle east and businesses not investing in American oil development because of BP. Obama be doing a good job in making all the wrong decisions. By design of course. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:20:40 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:32 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote: DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became. I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws. Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly involved profit. No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well. According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is needed?? That's what you're claiming... Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups? What groups? There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several others were combined. For some reason you think that represents terrible bloat. That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the pot of money. Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published facts. What "fact"? Disbanded only meant they got different stationary. I guarantee you the building and all the people in it were still there. They just lost some of their autonomy to decide what they should be regulating. You sure are an expert in so many things! Esp. when the published facts don't match your view. A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much oversight in the first place. So, there should be less? There was less Things are a bit more complicated now. Perhaps we should go back to the regulations in place before the 1920s. Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the collection of methane from cow farts? So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your argument? I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it simple. ?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something. It also does not equate to putting more management overhead on top of an agency that was working just fine. It's not clear it was "working fine." That's your interpretation that's unsupported. They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time) Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared. You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these boondoggles. Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military? The power grid has been controlled by the power producers quite successfully over the years. The government has a regulatory function but that function does not require a cabinet level department. In fact a smaller organization would be able to react faster in an industry that is changing like this one. And, it's been regulated by the over-all agency. You want no regulation, basically putting it in the hands of corporations. I think I'll pass on that. They have such an excellent record, e.g., Big Oil. Smaller agencies regulate better than big ones. The bigger an agency becomes the more political it becomes and politics hurts effective regulation. Maybe. There needs to be standards. Bigger agencies tend to impose standards across smaller agencies. I totally dispute the political nature of the argument. Perfect example.. Texas school boards. It is simple to explain that. As soon as you become a cabinet level office, the top 5 or 6 levels of management become political appointees, not professional managers. "Brownie" was a political appointee and he did a heckuva job didn't he? That is the kind of thing that happens when you take a civil defense "agency" and make it a political "administration". It even gets worse when it is a cabinet level "department". This was done by the Bush administration. It shouldn't have been done. I agree. However, just because Bush did something poorly, does not mean that all agencies are in the same situation. I'd call your argument a genetic fallacy but it may be another kind that escapes me at the moment. (Not an insult. Look it up.) |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:26:05 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:22 -0800, wrote: Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"? You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6 million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4% tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said the median was 500k. Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
|
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:40:50 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:30:13 -0500, wrote: I am not sure how to penetrate the dream world you live in. It's a faith based belief system. :-) Actually I can tell you how it will get resolved. At some point there will be no one willing to buy any more US debt. Interest rates will skyrocket and the economic system as we now know it will grind to a halt. Inflation will run rampant and social security checks will become worthless pocket money. There will be massive rioting in the big cities and shortages of just about everything. It will not be pretty at all. I'm thinking about buying another sail boat or a farm in the country somewhere. Yes, that's a correct analysis. We're not particularly close to that situation. In more than a sense, any kind of economic system beyond simple transactions is a faith-based system. That's the definition pretty much of 'full faith and credit.' |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:32:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:54:13 -0800, wrote: They just want to use the platitudes you parrot that this will get fixed some time in the future and they kick the can down the road. Very unfunny. If you can't actually support your point of view, perhaps it's time to retire from the discussion. Since you don't seem to be very interested in boats or boating, why don't you leave the group? Wilbur is lonely over on r.b.c after you jilted him. What is *your* problem? I think you're just afraid of me (or anyone who challenges your self-made authority). I have no idea who Wilbur is and I only visited rec.boats.cruising for a look-see a few days ago. It didn't seem that interesting. How about you go there, since it appears to be much more about boating, and that's what you want, right? |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:50:34 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:07:03 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:20:40 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:08:32 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote: DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became. I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws. Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly involved profit. No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well. According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is needed?? That's what you're claiming... Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups? What groups? There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several others were combined. For some reason you think that represents terrible bloat. That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the pot of money. Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published facts. What "fact"? Disbanded only meant they got different stationary. I guarantee you the building and all the people in it were still there. They just lost some of their autonomy to decide what they should be regulating. You sure are an expert in so many things! Esp. when the published facts don't match your view. I know what I saw. Well, let's see... say I walk down a street and I see a mugging. Do I then conclude that all streets have muggings on them? That seems to be what you're saying...because you saw something that means it happens everywhere. I also seem to understand government jargon better than you. Maybe it is because I grew up around it, most of my friends worked there for their whole career and I worked there for 15 years. It you want to talk about the patent attorney business I will deter to your experience. What gov't jargon? Seems to me you're speaking regular English (more so that some people in fact) :) A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much oversight in the first place. So, there should be less? There was less Things are a bit more complicated now. Perhaps we should go back to the regulations in place before the 1920s. In some cases, maybe we should. Which cases? Like extreme poverty, no safety net, terrible food safety, etc., etc. Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the collection of methane from cow farts? So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your argument? I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it simple. ?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something. It also does not equate to putting more management overhead on top of an agency that was working just fine. It's not clear it was "working fine." That's your interpretation that's unsupported. We were not having plant melt downs when AEC was regulating them. Which melt down is that? I can think of 3-mile island... Here's list. You pick... http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time) Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared. You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these boondoggles. Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military? The power grid has been controlled by the power producers quite successfully over the years. The government has a regulatory function but that function does not require a cabinet level department. In fact a smaller organization would be able to react faster in an industry that is changing like this one. And, it's been regulated by the over-all agency. You want no regulation, basically putting it in the hands of corporations. I think I'll pass on that. They have such an excellent record, e.g., Big Oil. Smaller agencies regulate better than big ones. The bigger an agency becomes the more political it becomes and politics hurts effective regulation. Maybe. There needs to be standards. Bigger agencies tend to impose standards across smaller agencies. I totally dispute the political nature of the argument. Perfect example.. Texas school boards. That assumes "one size fits all" and it never does. What does regulating nuke plants have to do with Texas school boards? Are you changing the subject again or is this a false equivalency? Never said it does. I said you need standards... minimum standards, like what the EPA does vs. what California does extra if we have a mind to. I made an analogy. Sorry if you don't understand. It is simple to explain that. As soon as you become a cabinet level office, the top 5 or 6 levels of management become political appointees, not professional managers. "Brownie" was a political appointee and he did a heckuva job didn't he? That is the kind of thing that happens when you take a civil defense "agency" and make it a political "administration". It even gets worse when it is a cabinet level "department". This was done by the Bush administration. It shouldn't have been done. I agree. However, just because Bush did something poorly, does not mean that all agencies are in the same situation. It is more "the same" than it is "different" and Homeland Security was one of those departments I said we didn't need when you asked. It is just another bloated bureaucracy smothering an assortment of agencies that were working pretty well before we screwed with them. I don't believe I disputed not needing DHS. Another Bush baby. |
Winning elections is not good enough
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:01 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:08:05 -0800, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:26:05 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:22 -0800, wrote: Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"? You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6 million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4% tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said the median was 500k. Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed. The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans. Why? So you agree with my numbers now? OK The answer to your question is simple. Rich people are the only ones who can afford to buy congressmen. If the republicans were not taking point on these tax loopholes, the democrats would be doing it. Did you see this. A real eye opener about who is bribing whom. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008 Agree with which numbers? The fact is that the Republicans blocked a reasonable tax increase and have made the situation worse. I agree the Bush tax cuts should have expired, I always have, but I also know it would not approach fixing this $1.1T deficit. Yes, it would. OVER THE LONG TERM. The projection for the whole thing (resetting to 2001 rates for everyone) was only about $70B a year ($700B over 10 years) That is why I put this in perspective and cited the total net worth for the top 2%. That would take care of the deficit for about 18 months and there wouldn't be a US economy anymore because you liquidated all the big companies. You need to start thinking longer term. |
Winning elections is not good enough
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com