Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: No take-a de money!!!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: No take-a de money!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:08:27 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

If that's what the state does, why are you and Hippee even asking the question then.

Beside that, Obama is giving away money that belongs to future generations, kitten. It isn't his, nor is it ours. He is borrowing so much money that there is probably no chance it can ever be paid down. These are ruinous figures... staggering, unprecedented.

And now he wants 75 billion more to pay down the mortgages of some people who got themselevs in over their heads...

How does the stock market feel about Obama's big government giveaway?

Have a listen here:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Welcome to democracy, Sanity: the state takes money and redistributes it. It's the basis upon which the government functions.



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:32:30 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Philosophically speaking, it's never the government's money. It wasn't the government's money that George Bush took to spend on an insane foreign adventure: yet, he did, and where were you, protesting at the INSANE amount he was borrowing in order to finance it? At least, this bill is about trying to improve the economy. You know what? It might work! Economists agree that if nothing is done it will be worse. What do you suggest is done as an alternative? Perhaps I missed it when you came up with your proposal.





_____________________________



(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:34:34 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
It`s either spend the money or risk going into a prolonged depression.

I don`t think America is interested in your neo-conservative "let the economy completely fail, before we act"plan.

It was rejected last November.

Remember?

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:43:38 PM   
shannie


Posts: 200
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group."


By your logic, whoever was against fundung for the Iraq war, had to (for moral consistency's sake) also forego funding for education and highways.....

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:44:16 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

merc, why don't you simply answer the question posed by the OP and kitten ? Do you think that States with Republican Senators and Congressmen who voted against the bill should accept the funds or not ? Stay on topic instead of blowing smoke and raising tangential but irrelevant issues. You can do that , just once, can'tcha ?
cjan, Obviously, checking and reading references aren't required before you write or talk huh?

Post #27 one and one half hours prior to you..
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Unlike you and others who don't answer any question when it comes to explaining how what they were against under President Bush is now accepted and admired under President Obama, I'll answer and provide my opinion on the Bill. It's simple really; don't take money while withholding payment into the "rewarding failure program". I don't know if it's possible at the State level, but as governor I'd do my best to try.


Me - I'm still waiting for any direct answer to why Bush Stimulus II under Obama is better that Bush Stimulus I, or why a troop escalation in Afghanistan is a 'good war'. Some think pointing to that is "fighting windmills". Is that also your final answer?

Unfair just to pick on you, because as of yet not one person supporting President Obama has given an answer to that either, other than a 'bye-bye' or 'I'm out of here'.

Of course, I'm sure your also not wrong; I won't even consider the possibility, anymore than you would. Somehow, I'm sure my answer wasn't 'the', or a direct answer, or something else. It's probably a good idea to practice your rationalization skills and keep them sharp. I'm sure you and all the other Administration apologists will need those skills daily. Unless of course facts and realty replace a position of being a political party apologist. 

And the laughs just keep on coming...  

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 2/19/2009 12:51:33 PM >

(in reply to cjan)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:46:30 PM   
shannie


Posts: 200
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Amazing what a political label change for the President will do to some people.


Wow, so true.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 12:50:21 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


Would it be fair for the constituants of the people who voted no, not to have to pay for the damn thing?

That goes for Hippy too, if one's Gov declines the money, can one stop paying taxes used to fund it?

If EVERYONE ends up paying for it, why wouldn't we get something in return? After all redistribution is YOUR side of the isle, not ours.


So, explain to me why just the first of the Bush tax cuts, at $1.6 trillion, double the current stimulus package, was not considered a redistribution of wealth when it almost exclusively went to the wealthy.

Do you not think that you payed for that tax cut?

(in reply to subrob1967)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 1:00:36 PM   
cjan


Posts: 3513
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Please forgive me, merc. I find reading the tedious drivel in your posts makes me, at best, skim them and I missed your non-answer.

quote:



merc smoke:

"don't take money while withholding payment into the "rewarding failure program".


Since that isn't an option, your "answer" is a non-answer, just an evasive tactic. In case you're not aware, merc, States don't act as agents for the IRS.



To answer your question, imo, the problem with "Bush stimulus I was that , surprise, surprise, it was not designed with oversight, regulation and transparency. The money just went poof. That's not the case with the bill Obama signed yesterday.

Afghanistan ? I think escalation is a mistake that we will come to regret, just as the Russians did. We should get out and focus on finding and killing Binladen and his cohorts.

< Message edited by cjan -- 2/19/2009 1:21:44 PM >


_____________________________

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall ,frozen , dead, from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."- D.H. L

" When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"- Frank Nitti



(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 1:02:28 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
The 'bye bye' wasn't addressed to you: perhaps you do too much snark, so you end up seeing it when it's not there. It was a figure of speech to accompany this:

quote:

kittin

It's the socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor that's got to go. Bye bye!



In effect, I would like for us to say a collective "bye bye" to the corporate whores who have sucked this country dry for decades. Wouldn't you :-) ?



_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 1:02:44 PM   
shannie


Posts: 200
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Everywhere you look there's free government money falling from the sky, everyone's getting gobs of cash just for voting Democrat.


Did the Big Banks vote Democrat?....



(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 1:24:28 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL

........... or why a troop escalation in Afghanistan is a 'good war'.



Damn, that's a tough one!

Could it be that was the only war we should have been fighting?

Could it be that the Taliban which provided training camps and safe haven for Al-Quaeda are now re-asserting control over Afghanistan?

Could it be that Mullah Omar, who gave safe haven to Bin-Laden, and Bin-Laden himself are still free to spread destruction 7 1/2 years after 9/11?

Nah, I guess we should just let bygones be bygones.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 2:13:44 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
In effect, I would like for us to say a collective "bye bye" to the corporate whores who have sucked this country dry for decades. Wouldn't you :-) ?
Absolutely, farm subsidies, school lunch programs; both are forms of 'corporate welfare' because a corporation benefits from them. Add into the equation any individual who does, and is doing, the same thing - and YEAH Baby! Self sufficiency, accountability and personal consequence! Problem is - no politician, let along political party, represents that position.

That position puts us both in direct opposition of the Administration across the board. Having just sent $800 Billion of Corporate welfare out there early this week - obviously President Obama isn't 'our' guy.
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Could it be that the Taliban which provided training camps and safe haven for Al-Quaeda are now re-asserting control over Afghanistan?

Could it be that Mullah Omar, who gave safe haven to Bin-Laden, and Bin-Laden himself are still free to spread destruction 7 1/2 years after 9/11?
ummmm, so we are going to fight in Afghanistan to protect the USA from 'terrorists'? BTW -  Are they once again terrorists instead of 'revolutionary freedom fighters' protecting their homeland? Is that one of the 'CHANGE!'s that we were promised by the new Administration? 

The point was regarding 'status-quo'. Apparently I'm more against sending US troops to die in these quagmires than you or anyone else now rationalizing this deployment as positive.

There's more re-programing of 'ally' 'adversary' going on now than Orwell had in 1984. We ALWAYS were for the war in Afghanistan, we've always been for foreign troop deployment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan
To answer your question, imo, the problem with "Bush stimulus I was that , surprise, surprise, it was not designed with oversight, regulation and transparency. The money just went poof. That's not the case with the bill Obama signed yesterday.

Nice opinion but short on fact. 

Where's the documented oversight? How come you can find it and Wall Street can't and my 'short sell' portfolio is now nearly double the original investment after today; buying short every time an Administration program is announced?
quote:

In case you're not aware, merc, States don't act as agents for the IRS.
Maybe that's why I said; "I don't know if it's possible at the State level, but as governor I'd do my best to try." Not being a Constitutional scholar, I don't know the recourse a State has regarding aid. But I'd sure spend the time to find out and do my best to have the integrity to stand behind my position. Maybe that's why I could never be a politician. 

cjan, Why can't try reading a contrasting opinion without prejudice and with an open...well, never-mind, I just noted the rest of your response and it answered the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Of course, I'm sure your also not wrong; I won't even consider the possibility, anymore than you would. Somehow, I'm sure my answer wasn't 'the', or a direct answer, or something else. It's probably a good idea to practice your rationalization skills and keep them sharp. I'm sure you and all the other Administration apologists will need those skills daily. Unless of course facts and realty replace a position of being a political party apologist. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Please forgive me, merc. I find reading the tedious drivel in your posts makes me, at best, skim them and I missed your non-answer.


I can predict the future!

(in reply to cjan)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 3:10:17 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

ummmm, so we are going to fight in Afghanistan to protect the USA from 'terrorists'? BTW -  Are they once again terrorists instead of 'revolutionary freedom fighters' protecting their homeland? Is that one of the 'CHANGE!'s that we were promised by the new Administration? 

The point was regarding 'status-quo'. Apparently I'm more against sending US troops to die in these quagmires than you or anyone else now rationalizing this deployment as positive.

There's more re-programing of 'ally' 'adversary' going on now than Orwell had in 1984. We ALWAYS were for the war in Afghanistan, we've always been for foreign troop deployment.



I don't think anyone has called them "freedom fighters" since Reagan armed and supplied then after the Soviet invasion.

Do you not think we have an obligation to the 9/11 dead and the families of the dead to bring those most responsible to justice?

Do you not think that a resurgent Taliban is a danger?



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 3:25:57 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Absolutely, farm subsidies, school lunch programs; both are forms of 'corporate welfare' because a corporation benefits from them.


School lunch programs... you've got to be kidding me. That's small fry: irrelevant. The aggro and food industry, yes, because they're blood sucking leeches (read Fast Food Nation if you haven't already). No, Merc, I was thinking of the twenty to forty billion dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, I was referring to Walmart, and to the other free-market preacher clowns who beg for public money whilst keeping the myth of free-enterprise alive. ENOUGH.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 2/19/2009 3:26:20 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 4:13:25 PM   
Truthiness


Posts: 251
Joined: 11/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Do you agree, then, that those who voted against the bill ought to not take a cent from it?



Sure, as long as they're not obligated to fund the bill either.  (One reason I'm refusing to pay any federal income taxes for the next 4 years).

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 4:17:20 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Certainly not all economists



quote:

Economists agree that if nothing is done it will be worse.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 4:19:51 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Do you not think we have an obligation to the 9/11 dead and the families of the dead to bring those most responsible to justice?

Do you not think that a resurgent Taliban is a danger?

Rule,
After 7+ years - I've accepted the fact that "justice" isn't possible. My personal feelings and experiences can not be affected by any 'justice' gained now. We HAD an obligation - after this much time, we have a National embarrassment; which has nothing whatsoever to do with President Obama, or his action to send troops there today.

Is it your argument that we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here? What happened to the idea being expressed not only on CM (not necessarily by you) but in Congress, that sending troops to Afghanistan and/or Iraq strengthened the resolve of the Taliban? Why is the clamor against escalating the war and sending more troops out of the US silent today?

This is hypocrisy at its highest level. Much of the electorate identified bringing the troops home as a reason to support the winning candidate. This troop announcement came out two days ago and not one peep of complaint or dissent!?

However this thread is about money. The Afghanistan reference was to another reference about the expense of foreign war, in particular Iraq, and how this President would not "waste" money the same way. Where is the outrage to this act of wasted resources, both collateral and human?

Personally, I think sending troops into Afghanistan is as futile as sending, and keeping them in Iraq. The locals don't want us. It provides a target of opportunity, and will not resolve the ultimate issues of the region. People there have been killing each other for centuries longer than the USA has existed. There is nothing we can, or should do, to stop them.

Regarding acts perpetrated on the US, as previously stated, my position is to use tactics similar to the Israeli approach. Strategic, definitive, over-blown, retaliation; if not directed to the specific source of the attack to people 'celebrating' it. Back in 2001, I supported blowing up a refinery or two in Iraq or any similarly happy land after 9/11 and announcing one more per day until Bin Laden was turned over to us.

Was Iraq responsible - frankly I didn't care. My position was that if they didn't do it - they knew who did. Terror is the only thing with will combat terrorists and terrorism. The USA wasn't prepared to do that then, and are definitely not prepared to do it now. Instead, we put 17,000 men and woman at risk. Is their blood your path, and definition, of justice served?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Absolutely, farm subsidies, school lunch programs; both are forms of 'corporate welfare' because a corporation benefits from them.
School lunch programs... you've got to be kidding me. That's small fry: irrelevant. The aggro and food industry, yes, because they're blood sucking leeches (read Fast Food Nation if you haven't already). No, Merc, I was thinking of the twenty to forty billion dollars in subsidies to the oil companies, I was referring to Walmart, and to the other free-market preacher clowns who beg for public money whilst keeping the myth of free-enterprise alive. ENOUGH.


Kittin,
Guess I'm not selectively prejudice regarding waste and welfare to suit any rationalized reasoning. The bottom line, is the bottom line; making any corporation 'more equal' is a path to the inequity that you claim to be adamantly against.

We are also in agreement that any welfare makes the concept of "free-enterprise" a myth. For example and keeping it to an example given, a big company can spend any amount necessary to wine and dine school administrators, school boards, and mayors and produce an end product that makes a McDonald's 'Happy-Meal' seem gourmet. 'Mom & Pop' local restaurant can't afford the time or the PAC payment to compete with that. Good point!

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 4:42:41 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:



Corporate welfare is a consistent feature of advanced capitalism. Only one thing has changed: Congress has been forced to confront its contradictions.

One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the US is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidising business. Much of it went to major corporations such as Boeing, IBM and General Electric.
The biggest money crop - $21bn - is harvested by Big Farmer. (...) The middlemen do even better, especially the companies spreading starvation by turning maize into ethanol, which are guzzling billions of dollars' worth of tax credits.


And...

quote:



But the Cato Institute's report has exposed only part of the corporate welfare scandal. A new paper by the US Institute for Policy Studies shows that, through a series of cunning tax and accounting loopholes, the US spends $20bn a year subsidising executive pay. By disguising their professional fees as capital gains rather than income, for example, the managers of hedge funds and private equity companies pay lower rates of tax than the people who clean their offices. A year ago, the House of Representatives tried to close this loophole, but the bill was blocked in the Senate after a lobbying campaign by some of the richest men in America.

(...)

Another report, by a group called Good Jobs First, reveals that Wal-Mart has received at least $1bn of public money. Over 90% of its distribution centres and many of its retail outlets have been subsidised by county and local governments.

There is not and has never been a free market in the US.Why not? Because the congressmen and women now railing against financial socialism depend for their re-election on the companies they subsidise.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/marketturmoil.subprimecrisis

For your edification .

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 2/19/2009 4:43:17 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 4:44:30 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
 
Prior to his being removed from power, Saddam Hussein was in a far better position to threaten the United States and her allies than the Taliban is today - and he had all the motive in the world. 

And those who were most responsible for 9/11 are probably either dead or they're hiding out in Pakistan, but revenge was never the reason for the war. 

Preventing future attacks was, and is.

As it should be.

"An ounce of prevention..." and all that.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I don't think anyone has called them "freedom fighters" since Reagan armed and supplied then after the Soviet invasion.

Do you not think we have an obligation to the 9/11 dead and the families of the dead to bring those most responsible to justice?

Do you not think that a resurgent Taliban is a danger?





< Message edited by Sanity -- 2/19/2009 4:45:04 PM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: No take-a de money!!! - 2/19/2009 5:23:58 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

One of the best studies of corporate welfare in the US is published by my old enemies at the Cato Institute. Its report, by Stephen Slivinski, estimates that in 2006 the federal government spent $92bn subsidising business. Much of it went to major corporations such as Boeing, IBM and General Electric.
The biggest money crop - $21bn - is harvested by Big Farmer. (...) The middlemen do even better, especially the companies spreading starvation by turning maize into ethanol, which are guzzling billions of dollars' worth of tax credits.
Wow BIG numbers even for 2006, and the money was given to companies producing jobs and succeeding! 

Yet the $113 Billion total amounts to less than the interest that my grand-children's children will still be paying on the $800 Billion provided by the most recent subsidy for failing Companies provided by President Obama and Congress.

I expect you're adamant position against that sort of thing will motivate you to spear-heading an impeachment movement on the President and a recall movement against all of the politicians who voted in favor of this week's action?

Let me know when you get it set up and I'll be happy to sign it and contribute to its expansion.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: No take-a de money!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094