100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
"At many dealerships, in fact, the biggest problem is the quickly shrinking inventory. Rick Collins Toyota Scion in Sioux City, Iowa, normally would have some 120 new cars on the lot. Today, there are about 15." "Carmakers are also struggling to keep up. General Motors, for example, said it is boosting production by building an additional 60,000 vehicles before the end of the year. But it's not clear whether the additional cars will arrive quickly enough." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112019854 The irony behind this is what are the automakers going to do with all the extra (UAW) assembly line workers when the demand falls on its face in another month? Bet that's going to cost them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at it. From the top to the bottom and each bracket in between most if not all are paying taxes.(of one form or another). Some more other less... Yet one thing is perfectly clear to my eyes... Taxation is at saturation. Representation is little to none. and taxation is fixin to increase inless we show resolve. What say you? The middle class is already sending about 30% of our income to the government as taxes. We cannot afford that and you will see more of the middle class starting to fail if taxes go any higher. We may have a vote, but you are right, there is very little TRUE representation. Not until we get to vote on more than just representation. They could create a whole new set of jobs by creating a 'voting industry' that would allow people to vote on the issues. Sure it would cost money, but since we wouldn't need as many career politicians, those political salaries could go to fund it. i see you never really looked at how many taxes you really pay you analyze it and you will see it is a lot more than 30% fuel tax in ohio is more than 40cents a gallon sales tax is around 7% in most areas state income tax city income tax electric service taxes telephone service taxes building permit taxes fishing permit taxes tobacco taxes hunting taxes farm animal methane tax in some areas water service tax sewer service tax drive too fast tax no stopping at stop sign tax any money collected by the govt is a tax and i am sure there are more that i have not listed what can you think of ???????????????? be well and when you get sick use the trash can (oh yeah the gabage removal tax see they are everywhere  
Do you live in a tree house? I mean seriously. How do you think the trash get's picked up. Roads get fixed or built. Should those that pick up the garbage not get paid? Should we live in slums with the garbage piling up around us causing disease etc? How do you think these things get paid for, phone lines constructed and cleared after storms and the zillion other serices we take for granted. Thanks but I don't want to go back to living in the wilderness.... There is a necessary point of taxation in order to cover many services that cannot be performed efficiently otherwise. Sewer for private use can easily be privatized. Certain utilities like power and water essentially have to be regulated but have no problem being privatized. There are some public services that are required like road maintenance, sewer in public areas, etc. What we do not need is taxes to cover crap like social programs that do not do anything but keep the poor poor or pork projects paid by the feds. the states and cities should take care of those themsleves. We can easily cut a very large portion of the budget by cutting the crap. more taxes is not the answer. Look up the bell curve and taxation. yes, it's a conservative economic ideal, but it's the real world truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Was Hillary Right...
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Wed 08/19/09 09:33 PM
|
|
I miss Bush you didnt have all this controversy and hate speech and hard feelings when he was President LOL Bush really did mean to take this country down the toilet. Obama does want to help so there is a difference., Both had good intentions based on their own point of view. It's all in perception. i do not think Obama wants to help, I think he wants to force his ideals on how America should be on everyone else. EDIT and don't take that to believe I'm defending Bush... he wanted to take away liberties (and largely did) much like Obama is doing now in a different arena. they're all crooks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Print Some More $$$$$
|
|
Interesting.. The democrats controlled the House from 1947 until 1995. They controlled the Senate from 1949 to 1953. 1955 to 1981. 1987 to 1994.. Reagan's tripling of the national debt, obviously, was acceptable to the democrat controlled House.. If it wasn't they could have easily stopped it. I seem to recall the President has veto powers. They didn't stop it because the tax cuts worked to bring us out of the Carter economy. They didn't stop it because the spending was mostly for fighting the Cold War. Well, Bush's tax cuts were the biggest ever for a small segment of the population and we see now how well they worked. Conversely, Clinton raised taxes and precided over one of the longest peacetime recoveries ever. And Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished" with the military that Clinton left to him. And need I remind you that the name 'Bush', in historical terms, will be forever dogged by a travelling companion called 'Banking Collapse'. Or that John McCain was one of the 'Keating Seven'. This spending by Obama is reckless, and done in such record time, with no real understanding of what the consequences are. Their growth projections were absurd, and obviously inflated. They only did it so people would bow, and say yes master, whatever you wish. The only "Hope" I have is that in a year and a half from now, he is referred to as a lame duck.. This administration is a sham. But it IS the one a solid majority of the people voted for. Even the Republicans knew an ultra-conservative candidate was not going to have a chance (although they thought they could pull a fast one with Palin), and it's not like your ideological comrades haven't been given the patience of the American people. They've held the White House, the ultimate bully pulpit, for 20 of the 28 years before Obama. I'm sure Obama is going to do his share of dopey things and I don't run my personal life like EITHER party has run the country. I've been through some pretty nasty hardships of my own and did what I had to do to get through them. And I've done pretty well with what I had to work with. And right now, this President is more of a pragmatist than any Conservative I see on the national scene today. -Kerry O. Reagan was blamed for the debt... the Democrats controlled enough to prevent it. Therefore, everyone was to blame. As for Bush's legacy, though he was a complete bafoon in some things like the massive civil rights grab that was the Patriot Act, will be 9/11. the banking collapse was nothing. a blip on the radar in the start of a major recession - much like the major recession we had at the beginning of Reagan's term thanks to a Mr. Carter. People do not remember recessions. Presidents are remembered for one thing: Kennedy was shot, Reagan is Reaganomics, Clinton the BJ, and W 9/11. And as a note, Bush's tax cuts fueled massive economic growth. What they did wrong was not implementing the self-control that must follow a revenue cut. The Republicans went on a spending spree that put us massively in debt when they should have been cutting back and the key interest rates were not controlled as tightly as they should. nothing fuels growth like a tax cut, but you have to be fiscally responsible otherwise. Clinton, on the other hand, was in the right place at the right time. The tech boom fueled the growth, not the policies of Clinton. He was just smart enough to keep his hands out of it. Either way, both sides have fubar'd the nation into the mess we're in. The partisanship needs to stop and by forcing a one-sided agenda through like is happening now, that is not going to happen. we all need to sit back, have a beer, and figure where we are, where we need to go, and how to get there before we jump in throwing money and resources away. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So anyway, back on the topic of small business...
Isn't part of this being paid for by a fine for businesses that don't provide healthcare and the it's taxed as a benefit for both the company and the worker? i mean. that's what it used to be but it has changed so many times i don't know what's what anymore. i started to read it but by the time i was 100 pages in, it was updated again. If you are taxing the businesses in any way, you are hurting them. Plain and simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Mon 08/10/09 08:35 PM
|
|
So, it's the advocates of the program giving you their talking points... ok.
How about an independent analysis and breakdown of the plan that is not coming from one side or the other? EDIT The more I listen to, the harder I laugh. This is pathetic! EDIT #2 Ok, come on. There is no human being on the planet that asks those questions! Nobody talks like that! EDIT #3 Ok, the "keep your own insurance clip is a riot. It basically attacks those that claim otherwise saying they "have too much free time" and "cherrypick" and goes on to do nothing to dispute it but play a couple clips of our fearless leader claiming that we can keep our own insurance. classic! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Mon 08/10/09 07:22 PM
|
|
I haven't done flash in a while, but what the hell is this skin you are talking about lol. You mean for the player on the actual webpage? if that's the case, good luck. back in the day (flash MX represent!) i would design the page with that skin and then embed the player. if it can be embedded into the vid now, I have no clue.
also, back then IIRC, flash would not play in dreamweaver, only on the page in a new browser window lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Print Some More $$$$$
|
|
As soon as we clean up Junior and his rubber stamp, spineless jellyfish Republican congress's mess, then we can turn our attention to fixing our budget problems. As incredible as this may sound, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. Seriously dude? I thought you were better than this. The damage caused by 8 years of incompetency in the White House(that's as kind as I can be) is not going to be repaired overnight. How about the damage from 95 years of the fed or the 75 years of handouts since the new deal? Stop blaming a failure that has been building for a century on 8 years. Don't be one of the ignorant that refuses to look past the tip of their nose into what was really going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Print Some More $$$$$
|
|
As soon as we clean up Junior and his rubber stamp, spineless jellyfish Republican congress's mess, then we can turn our attention to fixing our budget problems. As incredible as this may sound, there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. Seriously dude? I thought you were better than this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not so sure that people "have" to get paid less than what they are worth. We live in a society where labor is divided to make each life easier. As a simple example: Assume that a person living on their own will need 20 out of every 24 hours to get what they need to survive. It is quite possible that by teaming up with another person they will each only have to work 18 hours out of every 24 to survive. I might become very good at hunting and be able to get more game in a shorter period of time than you. Alternately, you might have carpentry skills and be able to build and repair a dwelling faster and better than me. Villages, hamlets, towns and cities are all based on the principle that many hands make light work; and today in America we are reaping the benefits of this arrangement. Honestly, you no longer have to work more than a couple hours a day to provide for your basic necessities (arguments about welfare meaning you don't have to work any hours aside). The problem comes in when the give and take relationship are mis-matched. How much of one commodity/service is it worth to you to receive a particular commodity/service from me? We use currency to equate mis-matched services. In short, one dollar's worth of goods or services is determined by how difficult it is to perform or create it. How many people pay someone else to do their gardening? Most people decide that it isn't that difficult or important to pay someone else to do it. Without truly developing the entire argument here, currency is basically a physical representation of time and skill. People who have difficult to acquire skills generally demand more money for their services since there is less competition among providers. that means that it is relatively easy to find someone able to perform unskilled labor. In a capitalistic society the market determines a fair value for all goods and services. Believe it or not, it is difficult enough to find someone who is reliable, honest and responsible enough to work unsupervised in even a menial capacity. Therefore, small business owners tend to pay hirer wages to those who prove themselves capable since they want to retain good workers. Is this not the reason that every parent tells their children to get a good education (e.g., learn a valuable skill set)? So they can get a good job and demand a higher wage. When you say that people must work for less than they are worth, it is because you believe that there is (a) an established objective value of worth outside the market or (b) the market has been manipulated in such a way as to inflate the actual market value of an individuals production. I am not sure I would like to argue against the second point (minimum wage is one example). In context of the conversation, let us look at doctors. Doctors invest many years and a great deal of money and effort to attain their skills. They would like to be paid accordingly. However, instead of allowing the market to balance the worth of their service against the money (remember, money = time) they are to be paid; some would suggest that health care costs are too high and doctors fees need to be capped. Usually these people are the ones who are judging the value of the doctor's work through a lens of their own skill sets... it is the argument: They make more money than anyone has a right to make. Anytime the government interferes with the free market's determination of worth, it skews things. Fewer people will choose to enter medicine if the payment they receive for their work is below what they feel it should be (leading to a shortage of doctors which would normally drive up costs; but if the costs are capped it will lead to a loss of services), or they will find a way to circumvent the governments control (there is a movement among Canadian doctors who practice in the states -- since they cannot make enough money in Canada -- to circumvent the new health care plan. They are considering setting up hospital ships that will allow them to practice free of government restrictions in international waters). So when you say that a person must be paid less than they are worth, I am not so sure that I would agree with that. If worth is determined by the value of their service and not an arbitrary chart, I think there is more than enough room to pay individuals what they are worth. Look at it this way, in the service industries, there is no way that you can pay an employee what he is worth unless you plan on charging the customers above the point of market equilibrium. You see, if the market price of an hour's labor on auto repair is $80, then every hour of that employee's time is $80. There is no room for profit unless the business is willing to charge above that market price, effectively creating a surplus. Even as that surplus causes the market price to fall, the required selling price must be fixed above the market price and therefore, we are in a state of perpetual surplus and falling market prices. All profit would have to be derived off of parts and physical goods and in some industries, those do not exist or are a small portion of the profits. Think janitorial and teaching. however, you are correct in that at the most basic civilized level (essentially, anarchy), a person is effectively paid what they are worth provided there is no monetary system. however, in today's modern civilizations, there is no logical way to pay a person what they are worth when money is required for misalignments and gaps. You are also correct in that the government is never neutral. The more regulation you have, the worse the situation becomes as incentive is destroyed. kudos to you though. It's nice to see another member who understands the economics of it all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, but I am trying to sum up the arguments presented in my head... ==== Andrew: We do not need Obama's healthcare package. Yes, some things are broken but this radical intervention is unwarranted. Additionally, he asked a very basic question: Why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I have to pay for my own? (Answer not offered) ==== Adventure: Whether we need the package or not is irrelevant, we cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how horrible it is watching someone drown, if you cannot save them then you are powerless to help. Pretending that you can swim and diving in to save them will only result in both of your deaths. You may have had the best intentions in the world, but the outcome is worse than if you had done nothing. ==== Dragoness: When the original post professed that the vast majority of income tax collected was from the top earners and that the lowest earners actually paid very little income tax, she argued that there is more than just income tax to consider. Other than that, most posts have been a simple: you are wrong or you have misunderstood. ==== Boo: It is good that some people have feelings of responsibility in the government and if you would just listen to Obama speak you would realize that this is package a good thing. Regardless, since the bill is not set in stone yet we should wait for Congress to hash out the details before we discuss it. ==== Honestly, please correct me if I have mischaracterized what I have read. That sounds about right. And since I really didn't respond to the OP (and largely directed at Dragoness' response): The rich pay more taxes, period. They pay the vast majority of income tax. Who pays property taxes on larger property? The rich. Who spends more money and pays more sales tax? The rich. Who pays capital gains taxes on their investments? The rich. Who pays payroll, social security, and other taxes related to business ownership? I'll give you a hint, it's not the poor. And write-offs have nothing to do with it... The rich pay more than the bottom 95% AFTER DEDUCTIONS. In addition, the deductions help the middle more than the wealthy. The wealthy could deal without a few extra thousand whereas the middle class needs deductions for home loan interest, children, and the like. It is obvious that the poor pay taxes, but they only pay the fair taxes like sales tax and gas taxes that apply equally to everyone. Look at it this way: if they spend 100% of their money on gasoline and cigarettes (arguably the two highest taxed commodities in CA), they still are not paying the same tax rate the rich pay on their federal income tax! Then, on top of that, the rich still pay all those other taxes. wow, never realized just how put upon the rich feel. I read an interesting article today. How The Rich Benefit From The Poor Hardly makes me want to cry for the rich, considering no matter what they have to begrudginly spend, the are still wealthy. Regardless, there is no way it can be argued that the rich do not pay more than their fair share in taxes. It is also not done on the backs of the poor. Before I hear the ******** argument about how the poor are not paid what they're worth, the fact is, if the poor were paid what they were worth in a job, that job would cease to exist. A person has to be paid less than their worth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW...the ignorance, the hatred... I'm just going to stay out of this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, but I am trying to sum up the arguments presented in my head... ==== Andrew: We do not need Obama's healthcare package. Yes, some things are broken but this radical intervention is unwarranted. Additionally, he asked a very basic question: Why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I have to pay for my own? (Answer not offered) ==== Adventure: Whether we need the package or not is irrelevant, we cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how horrible it is watching someone drown, if you cannot save them then you are powerless to help. Pretending that you can swim and diving in to save them will only result in both of your deaths. You may have had the best intentions in the world, but the outcome is worse than if you had done nothing. ==== Dragoness: When the original post professed that the vast majority of income tax collected was from the top earners and that the lowest earners actually paid very little income tax, she argued that there is more than just income tax to consider. Other than that, most posts have been a simple: you are wrong or you have misunderstood. ==== Boo: It is good that some people have feelings of responsibility in the government and if you would just listen to Obama speak you would realize that this is package a good thing. Regardless, since the bill is not set in stone yet we should wait for Congress to hash out the details before we discuss it. ==== Honestly, please correct me if I have mischaracterized what I have read. That sounds about right. And since I really didn't respond to the OP (and largely directed at Dragoness' response): The rich pay more taxes, period. They pay the vast majority of income tax. Who pays property taxes on larger property? The rich. Who spends more money and pays more sales tax? The rich. Who pays capital gains taxes on their investments? The rich. Who pays payroll, social security, and other taxes related to business ownership? I'll give you a hint, it's not the poor. And write-offs have nothing to do with it... The rich pay more than the bottom 95% AFTER DEDUCTIONS. In addition, the deductions help the middle more than the wealthy. The wealthy could deal without a few extra thousand whereas the middle class needs deductions for home loan interest, children, and the like. It is obvious that the poor pay taxes, but they only pay the fair taxes like sales tax and gas taxes that apply equally to everyone. Look at it this way: if they spend 100% of their money on gasoline and cigarettes (arguably the two highest taxed commodities in CA), they still are not paying the same tax rate the rich pay on their federal income tax! Then, on top of that, the rich still pay all those other taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care I guess I just don't understand how it is the key to economic recovery. What part did it have to play in the downfall of the economy? How were jobs lost because of health care? http://mingle2.com/topic/show/238331 The French health care system has been quantitatively measured to perform significantly better than our own, delivers universal coverage and costs 40% less as a fraction of GDP. If we simply directly adopted their proven model and decided not to waste any more sessions of Congress on it then we would likely have the most effective and efficient health care system in the world in a couple of years AND it would be 40% cheaper. We are talking about a savings of 4% of our GDP which is a savings of approximately 0.4 x $14,000 Billion = $5,600 Billion ANNUALLY. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html and http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/ http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546219n It would be nice to improve our health care system, provide universal care, and save about $5600 billion dollars each year. If you think this would be beneficial then I urge you to contact your Congressional and Senate representatives and suggest that the try this approach. It might really help a little bit with our economic recovery to say nothing of our general health!
I even volunteer to be the architect of this plan and I will charge only $5.6 billion to do it which is merely 0.1% of the savings in the first year! 
or go ahead and flush the money down the toilet again in 2010 see if I care...(lifts the commode lid suggestively jiggles the handle) 
The thing you don't understand is the serious investment required. You cannot compare ourselves to any other nation (except maybe canada) due to population density and R&D. We are far larger than France. This requires a larger spread of resources than in any european nation. We have five times the surgeons that France does, five times the number of MRI machines, and almost 3.5 times the number of CT machines per capita. These investments require serious capital that France has not spent and also makes it more likely that in an emergency, a patient will have access to technology that could very well save their life. It's all about scale. It is a complete fallacy to believe that just because it "works" to some degree in a smaller nation that it will work for us. We are a nation unlike any other on the planet and we have to approach this problem as such. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
best browser
|
|
Firefox on my Linux partition, Safari on my Windows partition.
I dunno, Safari just seems more intuitive and faster to me, but it does have occasional hangups. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it wrong that I really want to send some bogus emails to that address?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the increase in costs I have incured how can it not effect the economey!!!!!!!!Over 400% in last ten years!!!! I have less money to spend on consumer goods. I HAVE HAD TO CUT BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same pay check with less money!!!! Look at the rise in costs and what is spent on healthcare by ALL OF US and say it doesn't effect the economy What plan are you on? My plans have all been through the exact same company at my last 4 jobs and in the 6 years, the price changed maybe 50%. Inflation alone accounts for a large portion of that. Either way, while that does have a small impact on the economy, it is not significant to piss $100B a year away on it. Besides, that is largely incurred costs from fraud and abuse and other flaws in our current system - flaws that will only be exacerbated by throwing money at it. All things involving money impact the economy, however, this is like deer hunting with a missile. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, you are wasting your time, Dragoness. Funny, I feel the same about myself and Adventure... we talk from information and fact and receive nothing but feelings in return. All the good will in the world will not work if the underlying structure you are trying to fix is flawed. ...as we've seen...all our lives...Liberalism is an emotionally based ideology...it's all about caring...feelings...the end result is secondary...outcomes really don't matter...as long as you're trying...I read that garbage everyday...when it comes to Obama...they say..." well at least he's trying "...
Would that garbage be Rush, or Beck or Fox? Please!!! the other side has feelings, their just usually anger and sarcasm etc. He's doing more than trying, but you won't find that out from your sources. I always saw it the other way with ends and means: the conservative economic thought is that the means justify the ends while the liberal economic ideology is that the end justifies the means. Case in point: Obamacare. It doesn't matter how much money is being wasted on a broken system or how much you have to tax the rich to do it, all that matters is that everyone has health insurance. And no hard feelings lol. I got about two hours sleep last night and really didn't translate that one from brain to fingers all that well lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, you are wasting your time, Dragoness. Funny, I feel the same about myself and Adventure... we talk from information and fact and receive nothing but feelings in return. All the good will in the world will not work if the underlying structure you are trying to fix is flawed. LOL now that is a joke, right? NO joke. Medical bill is not a problem... It is like inserting c into an equation of a=b: A = it is folly to borrow money to pay a debt. B = We are doing just that. C= has nothing to do with above equation... It is a non-sequitar... Priorities are quite clear. Fill sand bags. Only for those nay sayers who really do not have a valid reason to try to stop it. The other post was a joke though. actually, no, it's not. I still to this day have not received a reason why we NEED this plan. My arguments are simple: the rich should not have to pay for the poor, the poor still can have healthcare, they just have to pay (what a concept!), and the system is flawed severely and we need to fix the inefficiencies of the system instead of throwing money into a bottomless pit. All logical, all based in fact. Common reply: we are the greatest nation in the world and we just need it! I'd say that argument is the real joke but it's not even a logically valid argument. Seems to be alot of that going around by the defenders of Obamacare. Come on, give me one good argument and back it up with fact. I just want to see if it can be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Never let a good crisis go to waste"
Sounds all too familiar. I always find it ironic how one side that once declared W to be "fear mongering" with the Patriot Act and terrorists to now laugh at the other who believe this is the other side of the coin. It has nothing to do with economic recovery. It is understandable that bankruptcy due to medical bills is a large problem, but there are many factors not included: How did those live? Did they skirt the few hundred a month to cover their family in order to spend unnecessary capital elsewhere? Were they eligible and decided they did not need healthcare? There are many holes in the figures for medical-related bankruptcies just as much as the 47 million figure for uninsured. This is nothing but a large push for the Obama agenda. It is no surprise. If you don't believe me, look at what has passed: the stimulus with billions in special (often democratic) interests, the appropriations bill which was supposed to not have any pork get loaded with plenty of it, and now, a push for a nationalized health plan. What in all of that has changed anything on Wall Street? In fact, I believe fully that what they have done has completely exacerbated the situation as those involved were not even allowed to be taught a lesson by the market - it was nothing but a few symbolic sacrifices in the canning of a few CEOs. No reform, no change. Just another politician pushing their own agenda with charisma. hopefully, that will soon run out. Unfrotunately, it may not be soon enough. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
