[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The austerity hawks get there way? Get ready for a shiitier economy if this comes to fruition.
It’s ok…I’m sure someplace this is the GOP’s fault…Right?
And we can just borrow more money on the national credit card and keep things humming along while the deficit continues to grow at a ridiculous rate…Right?
[/quote]
On the first point no. On the 2nd point yes. Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.
lol at linking 5 articles about Democrat fear mongering and thinking it somehow refutes any point that was made. (Hint: because it proves the point quoted)
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes.
Only in America can a politician say “If we only increase spending by 9.7 instead of 10, we have to close up shop, terroists will kill us all and the world will stop spinning” do people actually think that makes sense. And turn around and call those that question the GodKing “morons”.
God I love this country.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[/quote]
Okay, assuming that is true, that’s one guy who at some point paid a hell of a lot more than his secretary.
Most people do not live off capital gains, not even the rich. [/quote]
First off that was a great video Pittbull.
Warren Buffett lives off of Dividends (15% tax rate) and Capital Gains (used to be 15% now it is 20%) only. He does not pay himself a salary from Berkshire Hathaway (0 tax rate). He pays himself stock so he only pays taxes when he sells those shares. He does pay taxes on dividends and capital gains though. The rich get richer because they own everything through a company (assets or investments), and the poor get poorer because they buy expenditures (Xbox). [/quote]
Okay, what percentage of people in America are ina position to live off capital gains / pay themselves with stock options?
I bet it’s not very high. If the poor didn’t buy Xbox’s all the time they wouldn’t be so poor.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. [/quote]
No, you called me a moron, and now an idiot because you can’t actually have an adult conversation. You can’t refute my points, so you insult me, in the hopes that it makes my points invalid.
This tactic fails among people that can think.
I can teach a parrot to say “2 + 2 = 4”. Just because that parrot doesn’t understand math, a moron in your opinion, doesn’t make 2 + 2 = 6.
Maybe, maybe not. Not sure why you automaticly assume that a) this delay will actually happen b) these companies are so government-esk they can’t adapt to a change such as this and find a way to cut costs because of it.
I would imagine this delay will cut down on lost baggage costs, and even some labor in the teams that turn flights around during transition. And extra 90 mins could mean 1 or 2 less people per shift, per hanger, per airport…
I would imagine booking smaller flights could cut down on these delays as well, smaller planes mean lower fuel costs, lower upfront investment.
Seems to me it is fuel prices that have been the biggest driver of margin decreases…
And it also seems to me the bottom of this peice makes your entire arguement null and void. But you can ignore that whole [i]Details on how the Federal Aviation Administration or Transportation Security Administration will handle furloughs haven’t been made clear yet. But the airlines said it doubted too many flights would be affected.
“We remain confident and we urge and expect that whatever happens will not significantly impact our air-travel system. It’s too important,” Elwell says.[/i] part if you want to. I mean a “sky is falling” arguement isn’t as concerned with facts and circumstances is it?
If this were true, you wouldn’t have responded in the first place, it isn’t like you post here a lot. Nor would you call me so many names.
I think you are full of the bullshit here.
Personal attacks and assumptive conjecture.
SOund arguement, sound indeed.
No, I don’t actually watch any news or opinion on TV. In the rare moments I do watch TV, it is typically History channel or movie stations.
Not sure you read any of my posts at this point. Because if you did you wouldn’t be projecting like this.
Hmmm, like the consequences of the last time the government did this in 1986? Should I look at those?
Fear monger much?
How is it that less of an increase in funding year over year, so the budget going from X to 8X, suddenly equates to less police and firemen? How does that happen? Why do you accept that sort of conversation from your government? How does that make any sense in your mind?
How old are you?[/quote]
My god…talk about completely owning somebody…take it easy Beans, that guy is not gonna be able to walk tomorrow.
And yet, he ignores all your points.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I was at the Y soaking in the hot tub last night after squats with about 7 seniors in the tub. The conversation moved seamlessly straight from how the government spends too much and the deficits are killing us to their SS/medicare/medicaide benefits sucked and needed to be increased with better drug coverage. Its weird how everybody wants cuts as long as the cuts don’t effect them. [/quote]
I love speaking to older people who say, “I hate socialism.” They do not realize their SSI, Medicare benefits are Social Programs. They put in x amount of dollars, and receive x times 10 in benefits. The only people that are going to loose out are the people 45 and younger. We are the ones who are having to pay for this, and we can not get jobs because the old people are not retiring at 65. They want to work till they die.
This is the reason SSI was originally passed so the older people could retire and the younger people could get jobs.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[/quote]
Okay, assuming that is true, that’s one guy who at some point paid a hell of a lot more than his secretary.
Most people do not live off capital gains, not even the rich. [/quote]
First off that was a great video Pittbull.
Warren Buffett lives off of Dividends (15% tax rate) and Capital Gains (used to be 15% now it is 20%) only. He does not pay himself a salary from Berkshire Hathaway (0 tax rate). He pays himself stock so he only pays taxes when he sells those shares. He does pay taxes on dividends and capital gains though. The rich get richer because they own everything through a company (assets or investments), and the poor get poorer because they buy expenditures (Xbox). [/quote]
Okay, what percentage of people in America are ina position to live off capital gains / pay themselves with stock options?
I bet it’s not very high. If the poor didn’t buy Xbox’s all the time they wouldn’t be so poor. [/quote]
I also agree it is not very high, but there are a lot of retirees that live off of SSI, dividends, and capital gains, because that is all they have. I was just using an example against you saying that not even the rich could live off of dividends and Capital Gains.
Your last sentence does not make sense to me in the context of your paragraph. Are you saying that poor people would be richer if they did not buy an Xbox, or are you using sarcasim.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I also agree it is not very high, but there are a lot of retirees that live off of SSI, dividends, and capital gains, because that is all they have. I was just using an example against you saying that not even the rich could live off of dividends and Capital Gains.
Your last sentence does not make sense to me in the context of your paragraph. Are you saying that poor people would be richer if they did not buy an Xbox, or are you using sarcasim.[/quote]
I’m confused. I don’t think and never said very many people can live off capital gains. Pitt put the video of Buffett up, which I think is a 1 in a million example. I would hate to see the capital gains rate increase because seniors would be hurt the most. Do you think retirees should pay the same rate as working folks do?
Like I said it is a very small % (likely) that can live off of capital gains. I should, I suppose, have said, unless they are retired. Not many people are in the boat Buffett is in, was my point.
My last sentence was in response to your last sentence. Xbox is a luxury item. If the “poor” didn’t buy the latest xbox, big screen tv, Ipad, etc…well they wouldn’t be nearly as poor. at least in many cases.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I also agree it is not very high, but there are a lot of retirees that live off of SSI, dividends, and capital gains, because that is all they have. I was just using an example against you saying that not even the rich could live off of dividends and Capital Gains.
Your last sentence does not make sense to me in the context of your paragraph. Are you saying that poor people would be richer if they did not buy an Xbox, or are you using sarcasim.[/quote]
I’m confused. I don’t think and never said very many people can live off capital gains. Pitt put the video of Buffett up, which I think is a 1 in a million example. I would hate to see the capital gains rate increase because seniors would be hurt the most. Do you think retirees should pay the same rate as working folks do?
Like I said it is a very small % (likely) that can live off of capital gains. I should, I suppose, have said, unless they are retired. Not many people are in the boat Buffett is in, was my point.
My last sentence was in response to your last sentence. Xbox is a luxury item. If the “poor” didn’t buy the latest xbox, big screen tv, Ipad, etc…well they wouldn’t be nearly as poor. at least in many cases. [/quote]
We are both on the same page. Not trying to pick a fight or anything. I agree with you.
If there is a tax rate system it should apply to everyone including retirees. Most retirees live off of only SSI, and think that percentage is around 75-90%. Those individuals pay 0 in income taxes, so changing a retirees income bracket is a mute point.
Poor people buy expenses and rich people buy assets.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. A 90 minute delay at every top airport during the summer travel season equals hundreds of millions of dollars lost by each airline. The airline industry has been hit incredibly hard over the last 4 years so this could cause many to go under. That would cause the air travel system to grind to a halt, which would tank the economy. We are a travel based country, so no flights=no money.
But I don’t really care what you think about all of this. You are just another idiot in this country that thinks that all of this is some stupid reality show bullshit. You watch your idiotic opinion channels and think that this is some fucking game, just like the politicians. Instead, you should be looking at the consequences of their actions. That is what will hurt you, not bipartisan bickering. Less police + less fireman + less prison guards + less ATC = a really shitty country with high unemployment. Add in the proposed decreases in unemployment benefits and that equals increased crime (remember that the police forces are about to be gutted?).
So keep thinking that this is all some game idiot.[/quote]
This is funny, I enjoy the mentality that all the people furlowed are going to go into comas on their days off. None of them will seek out other employment or pick up extra jobs or spend more time with family or be active in their community or consume goods and services, they will just vanish. And, with all the vanished meat inspectors and air traffic controllers, the corporations producing beef and flying planes will just scrap all any plans finding ways to provide goods and services more competitively. And since there aren’t any meat inspectors or air traffic controllers to make the corporations care and because the corporations are completely incapable of inherently valuing anything, the butchers will start taking dumps in the ground beef and pilots will try to tear the wings off of planes for fun.
It sounds like the rapture only from Democrats instead of Christian fundamentalists.
Sequestration has come and gone like the Mayan Calendar. The world has not ended.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sequestration has come and gone like the Mayan Calendar. The world has not ended.[/quote]
Ahh…I think you are being a bit presumptous.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.[/quote]
Funny you mention Solyndra and alternate fuels, an interesting and saddening situation has occurred here in Fuckifornia…
As the tree-hugging, unbathed, unwashed, unshaved, and unkept Liberals who love green energy and the environment moan about oil consumption, we here in the Liberal wet dream state have encountered an enigma of epic proportions.
It seems that within the past few years, Californians have been consuming less oil, probably from less driving in a down economy, as well as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars. So the state has less revenue from the gas tax. Yay, the Bay Area smellies are lighting up a fatty in celebration, right ? WRONG. The State Board of Equalization raised the gas tax with no one noticing, because the state is so broke, they need the revenue.
So, the Liberals crying for less carbon pollution got their wish, only to find that it meant less tax revenue. So to compensate, the gas tax went up, by 10%, giving California the highest gas tax in the nation, more than Hawaii.
This proves the whole Global Warming scam was nothing but a hoax, and a front as a money grab by politicians.
Notice how the state cried about lack of revenue, not boasting about “a cleaner and more efficient society.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.[/quote]
Funny you mention Solyndra and alternate fuels, an interesting and saddening situation has occurred here in Fuckifornia…
As the tree-hugging, unbathed, unwashed, unshaved, and unkept Liberals who love green energy and the environment moan about oil consumption, we here in the Liberal wet dream state have encountered an enigma of epic proportions.
It seems that within the past few years, Californians have been consuming less oil, probably from less driving in a down economy, as well as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars. So the state has less revenue from the gas tax. Yay, the Bay Area smellies are lighting up a fatty in celebration, right ? WRONG. The State Board of Equalization raised the gas tax with no one noticing, because the state is so broke, they need the revenue.
So, the Liberals crying for less carbon pollution got their wish, only to find that it meant less tax revenue. So to compensate, the gas tax went up, by 10%, giving California the highest gas tax in the nation, more than Hawaii.
This proves the whole Global Warming scam was nothing but a hoax, and a front as a money grab by politicians.
Notice how the state cried about lack of revenue, not boasting about “a cleaner and more efficient society.”
[/quote]
Read somthing about this in the Journal today. SOmething about the teacher’s pension being between 4.5 & 6.5 billion unfunded, lol. Even after the massive increases the people voted for in November.
haha.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.[/quote]
Funny you mention Solyndra and alternate fuels, an interesting and saddening situation has occurred here in Fuckifornia…
As the tree-hugging, unbathed, unwashed, unshaved, and unkept Liberals who love green energy and the environment moan about oil consumption, we here in the Liberal wet dream state have encountered an enigma of epic proportions.
It seems that within the past few years, Californians have been consuming less oil, probably from less driving in a down economy, as well as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars. So the state has less revenue from the gas tax. Yay, the Bay Area smellies are lighting up a fatty in celebration, right ? WRONG. The State Board of Equalization raised the gas tax with no one noticing, because the state is so broke, they need the revenue.
So, the Liberals crying for less carbon pollution got their wish, only to find that it meant less tax revenue. So to compensate, the gas tax went up, by 10%, giving California the highest gas tax in the nation, more than Hawaii.
This proves the whole Global Warming scam was nothing but a hoax, and a front as a money grab by politicians.
Notice how the state cried about lack of revenue, not boasting about “a cleaner and more efficient society.”
[/quote]
How many scientists who aren’t on the payroll of corporations do not believe in global warming?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.[/quote]
Funny you mention Solyndra and alternate fuels, an interesting and saddening situation has occurred here in Fuckifornia…
As the tree-hugging, unbathed, unwashed, unshaved, and unkept Liberals who love green energy and the environment moan about oil consumption, we here in the Liberal wet dream state have encountered an enigma of epic proportions.
It seems that within the past few years, Californians have been consuming less oil, probably from less driving in a down economy, as well as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars. So the state has less revenue from the gas tax. Yay, the Bay Area smellies are lighting up a fatty in celebration, right ? WRONG. The State Board of Equalization raised the gas tax with no one noticing, because the state is so broke, they need the revenue.
So, the Liberals crying for less carbon pollution got their wish, only to find that it meant less tax revenue. So to compensate, the gas tax went up, by 10%, giving California the highest gas tax in the nation, more than Hawaii.
This proves the whole Global Warming scam was nothing but a hoax, and a front as a money grab by politicians.
Notice how the state cried about lack of revenue, not boasting about “a cleaner and more efficient society.”
[/quote]
How many scientists who aren’t on the payroll of corporations do not believe in global warming?[/quote]
Don’t know, don’t care. But this proves that Global Warming was nothing but a money grab.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Stimulus will make the economy grow and the deficit shrink.[/quote]
Solindra did wonders for the economy… Shit son, we should force dollars where the market doesn’t want them more often.
I’ll be honest, I’m not 100% against stimulus spending, but I am 100% at thrid parties who pay no price for being wrong NOT being in charge of where that spending goes. [/quote]
Solindra was a brand new technology and needs to be incubated just like the internet was. No wonder there.
The Solindra debacle was nothing compared to the gutting of the regulations which helped to enable the finance sector to single-handedly bring down the U.S. economy. Shit son if we can have more of these so called “free market fantasies” we will all be in the poor house.[/quote]
Funny you mention Solyndra and alternate fuels, an interesting and saddening situation has occurred here in Fuckifornia…
As the tree-hugging, unbathed, unwashed, unshaved, and unkept Liberals who love green energy and the environment moan about oil consumption, we here in the Liberal wet dream state have encountered an enigma of epic proportions.
It seems that within the past few years, Californians have been consuming less oil, probably from less driving in a down economy, as well as purchasing more fuel-efficient cars. So the state has less revenue from the gas tax. Yay, the Bay Area smellies are lighting up a fatty in celebration, right ? WRONG. The State Board of Equalization raised the gas tax with no one noticing, because the state is so broke, they need the revenue.
So, the Liberals crying for less carbon pollution got their wish, only to find that it meant less tax revenue. So to compensate, the gas tax went up, by 10%, giving California the highest gas tax in the nation, more than Hawaii.
This proves the whole Global Warming scam was nothing but a hoax, and a front as a money grab by politicians.
Notice how the state cried about lack of revenue, not boasting about “a cleaner and more efficient society.”
[/quote]
Read somthing about this in the Journal today. SOmething about the teacher’s pension being between 4.5 & 6.5 billion unfunded, lol. Even after the massive increases the people voted for in November.
haha. [/quote]
Try $60 Billion unfunded. Total state unfunded liabilities are $618 Billion. Yes, you read that correctly.
It’s actually funny, next week is our election for the new Mayor of Los Angeles. The Republican Kevin James is doing quote well in the early polls. Unions (ALL Union workers), will get an 11% raise within the next 18 months, imagine who the fuck gets this in this economy.
I think the upcoming bankruptcy of Los Angeles, projected in 2014 has woken people up.
It seems what’s worse than having a Republican leader, is a society that is being broke as a joke.
The Dept of Water and Power Union President Brian D’Arcy openly admitted to expecting a raise should the leading Democrat he donated $2 million to (Wendy Gruel) get elected.
I’ve met many business people who have said clean energy is the future. It really doesn’t even have to be about Global Warming. Looking long-term, a dependence on unsustainable energy is inherently dangerous anyway. Lots of businesses are modifying or building more eco-friendly infrastructure because it translates into positive present value cost savings from greater energy efficiency.
Plus, the entire Global Warming movement has been mostly informational, giving awareness to the issue and generating discussion. All increases in pro-Global Warming discussion have been met with increases in counter arguments. But at least people were given the chance to think about the issue on their own, something that wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the aggressive efforts of the movement.
But facts are facts, record temperatures are being recorded seemingly ever year. There’s little debate the planet is getting warmer and sea-levels are rising but rather if it is natural or materially man-perpetuated. I’m of the thinking why risk it when you can intelligently transition to smarter energy without minimal externalities such as lost jobs and societal welfare.
The thing is, wide-spread individual and business focus on energy efficiency should also lower gas prices, ceteris paribus.