Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why oh Why did they kill government

  1. #1 Why oh Why did they kill government 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6
    Look im not say exactly they are killing our government, they are constantly pileing it up like a the worlds largest bon fire and soon or later its gona go up in a huge flame and guess whos burnning? anyone?

    Its the american people, who work there butts of just to get a decent amount of money, and guess what, thats not the half of it.

    They have to pay for high priced gas, taxes, bills, and lotery money. im not saying the goverments sucking the dollars out of our wallets. no, they just want to use it and give it to people that just waste it AKA the rich 50 billion dollar a year jackass who doesnt give a damn what the american people think.

    So is America burning? No, but some stupid republican who cant manage his own bills and taxes is holding the match, and the gas, i can smell it miles away.

    Obama is makeing history here he says he wants change.

    Wow, thats a big word, and you know what he freaking right about change im tired of seen $3.89 for unlead regular gas. dont look at me look at the truckers look what they have to pay 4 bucks a gallon for disiel.
    and they have to ship stuff around interstate and international so they can bring goods to the american people.

    So if you think im wrong and i dont know any better.

    well think again we are still in a 4-6 trillion dolar debt i have nothing else to say


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Now didn't that feel better?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    manfig

    I agree with what you say and we do have to get rid of these 'self serving' dollar stuffing frenzies and we can do that by pushing through the PUBLIC FINANCING of OUR ELECTIONS and shutting out these 'influence dollars from this political process of electing our public servants.

    We would also have to ban the advertising that is self serving unless it also allows a rebuttal.
    These ads cost money and those with the dollars can influence the public in their favor, so a rebuttal can counter that.
    These ads can be outlawed because they are NOT free speech.

    We also have to balance our budget by taxing the highest earners (billionaires) at 95% of their SURPLUS UNNEEDED STAGNANT incomes.
    All living expanses can be deducted before this surplus income is taxed.
    This way, the lifestyles of these people would NOT suffer any hardships or deprivation.
    Of course these tax levels would be scaled down gradually to a level of 5% for the lowest earners.
    Most would not pay because these low earners SPEND their entire earnings fo their subsistence.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    We've got to do it by decentralizing the ownership of our media services. When a small minority hold the bullhorn, they own all of the democracy.

    It's not enough for a senator to do something that's popular with people. He/she has got to do it when a reporter is watching, and furthermore, that reporter's report has to actually make it onto TV.

    Otherwise they've just done something that *would* be popular *if* anyone knew about it, but which is *not* popular *because* nobody knows.

    Basically if you control what makes it onto TV, you control the whole democracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Dub; Statistically, people handle earnings in different ways. Many folks have put three or more kids through college on manual labor wages and most folks that hit some lottery are broke in weeks to months. Trying to blame, government with 2 million people or the one person heading that government is a bit overboard.

    As for the US National debt, its near 9 Trillion and as a percentage to GDP, the percentage is near what its been for decades. Somewhat higher during WWII and the great depression. Compared to Japan, our 65% debt to GDP is half theirs, which is around 120% of GDP.

    Gasoline/Diesel from the refinery is now about 3.60 and 4.20 per gallon, which is based on what they must pay for the crude oil to produce. A variety of taxes (much higher in most the world) distribution cost and profits to the business dispensing the product, todays average retail is 4.10 up per grade and diesel near 5.00 per. Those 3.60/4.20 cost to produce are exaggerated by regulations mandated by various state laws to conform to some environmental concern and now the requirement to add some bio fuel to the mix. Be careful on who you blame here, because it may be as much your fault as anything.

    Every politician, since George Washington, has offered change and in modern times, change has been the theme of EVERY candidate. Any ruling entity (city/state/federal) after four or more years will inevitably make decisions opposed by well over half their electorate, while the decisions favored are accepted and taken for granted.

    Obama is no doubt a nice person, certainly articulate when speaking a prepared speech (on monitor), but is truly (IMO) not knowledgeable in history, economics, world affairs and the US Constitution. I say this knowing he graduated from Harvard Law School, majored in the Constitution and taught 12 years on the Constitution at Chicago University.
    Nothing he offers, could be enacted by him alone and using the Executive powers to create law (executive powers) is limited to his term and still must comply with ALL federal law and the constitution. He is not going to be able to change anything of importance and very few presidents ever have. If he could, you would likely not like the results...

    It would be interesting to know which rich people your worried about. I realize sports people (golfers to football players) or the so called Hollywood Stars (other media) make a great deal more than most of us, but are they not entitled to a portion of the receipts they bring in...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well part of the problem, for diesel at least, is that certain laws are in place that set the requirements in such a manner so that only very few refineries in the country can process it. It's not all at the raw crude level.

    I know this because I have a friend who has been going down to Mexico to buy their diesel for only 2.00 a gallon American. They don't have the same restrictions down there, and so more of the refineries can process it. Or at least that's their explanation for why it's cheaper.

    If it's because it's untaxed down there, then we'd have to be taxing it quite a lot up here.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Obama is no doubt a nice person, certainly articulate when speaking a prepared speech (on monitor), but is truly (IMO) not knowledgeable in history, economics, world affairs and the US Constitution. I say this knowing he graduated from Harvard Law School, majored in the Constitution and taught 12 years on the Constitution at Chicago University.
    Nothing he offers, could be enacted by him alone and using the Executive powers to create law (executive powers) is limited to his term and still must comply with ALL federal law and the constitution. He is not going to be able to change anything of importance and very few presidents ever have. If he could, you would likely not like the results...
    Well, initially he'll probably have a very sympathetic congress. Some of his economic ideas are pretty good, some of them are just plain overly optimistic.

    I'm not much of a monetary egalitarian myself. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor just puts lots of money in the hands of incompetent people who will waste it.

    It would be interesting to know which rich people your worried about. I realize sports people (golfers to football players) or the so called Hollywood Stars (other media) make a great deal more than most of us, but are they not entitled to a portion of the receipts they bring in...
    I wouldn't trade places with most of those people. You pay a terrible price for all that money when you become a celebrity. Everyone knows who you are and your life really isn't treated as your own anymore.

    If you get a divorce, or commit a crime, or .... whatever else... people act like "you let them down", as though your celebrity status actually gives them the right to demand that you conduct your personal life in a certain way.

    No thank you. As long as my job pays enough to live, eat, and occasionally buy something nice for myself, I would prefer to stay a private citizen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Mexico, the government, owns the oil industry. Its called subsidizing but the reality, they sell to their public, below what could be received if sold to other countries. Many (most oil producing) governments own this industry and do the same, sometimes well below the cost to produce.

    I have not researched this, but doubt Mexican diesel or gasoline is compatible to California's requirements. These products used in any other US State, could not be sold in California...

    kojax; Yes, the fear of many people today is that Obama, if elected, will have near or over a 60% Congress, at least in the House. The Senate will be short of 60%, to prevent the 'filibuster rule' (preventing action) but close enough that the controlling membership will be reduced to a very few. Even if McCain is elected, Congress will be very close to 'Veto Proof'.

    The reality under US Tax Law, is the rich and/or those in the Corporate World, have alternative means for compensation. Being paid in 'Stock Options' the most common. Many times when you hear a persons wages, they are a combination of privileges, options and salary, the salary a very small portion of the final figure. Increasing taxes will only place 'money' in limbo, or not being transfered, the backbone of our system.

    Dub, Cosmo and many folks try to condemn the rich or those making millions per year. They usually mean from the corporate world, not realizing there are far more individuals making very large sums in other fields, they never consider, who have developed and promoted a 'Name Trademark' worth literally billions. While I agree, privacy has its value, these folks play the game, know the cost and if nothing else live comfortable lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •