A Foreigner's Question

SolomonVII · Nov 1, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
I did some math...
A company employing [making 250k] 6 peeps and one manager will be paying out $102,000 in salary alone.
If taxes are raised to 40% for that company they will be paying out $100,000 on taxes.

The company must eat the losses of income thru theft and or loss. [Tax deductions never equal the rightful amount]

Plus that company must pay out insurances on the building and then the other operating costs to maintain business. Including costs for fuel for heating, and water, and other expenses on a monthly basis. And let's not forget leases on the building or rent.

The owner will procure very little at the end of the year..let alone end of the month.
So all in all, what will the owner do?

The manager will be chopped, the peeps will be cut to three and the owner will be forced to work hours where he could have paid someone who needs a job...
And another few options the owner would have would be to either shut down completely if this doesnt reduce his overhead or going overseas to rebuild and probably gain.

Anyone else see how this tax the rich structure is going to kill us?

Raising taxes very often results in a net loss revenue for government. Taking money away from those who are the shrewdest with money is just not a good way of making the pie grow bigger. Taxes them more will only result in a smaller pie overall.
It will not kill you, but the net effect will be to make everyone poorer.

Other countries have of course gone down that road. It has not killed them either, but few are as rich as the US has been, and most will be much poorer too without a welathy America as a market.

Also, there are still government warehouses filled with goods to help the victims of Katrina. Building bigger governments through redistributing the wealth through them is just not the most efficient way to help thoe poor and those in need either.
I think that GWBush could be given some credit for understanding that very often locla churches are the better distributors of charity than institututions. To be fair, Obama Barrack is not unfavorable to this kind ofredistribution throguh local churches either.

Hooksta · Nov 1, 2008

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

Well it looks like Algeria, Iraq, and the Congo prefer McCain....the rest of the world seems to go for Obama. Nuff said.

benedictaoo · Nov 1, 2008

AMDG said:
You forgot to mention that he calls it "fairness" to take our hard-earned money and redistribute it to those who don't work at the same time he won't lift a finger to help his half-brother in Kenya (who lives in squallor) while he enjoys the life of a millionaire, and at the same time he lets his illegal alien aunt continue to live in a slum in Boston (while taking her little campaign funds). And speaking of campaign funds, doesn't strike anyone odd that one candidate broke his promise to take fair campaign funds (while tricking the other into signing papers for it), then raises 3 or 4 times more than the other and not offering to share a penney, but talking about all of us being "fair" and for us to redistribute our wealth" through taxation? Seriously, how is that not the socialism the Church speaks against?

I was just now this second talking about that with my husband. He says he didn't know his Aunt was here and was getting evicted. yeah right.

SolomonVII · Nov 1, 2008

benedictaoo said:
I was just now this second talking about that with my husband. He says he didn't know his Aunt was here and was getting evicted. yeah right.

The MSM has done as a very good job of covering all the dirt up from everybody so far- even Obama too apparently.

Let's just hope for her sake the Obama machine and the media don't decide to run the same smear on Auntie now as they just did on Joe the Plumber.

SolomonVII · Nov 1, 2008

Oneofthediaspora said:
Solomon ... yes you are assuming incorrectly that ultra right wing and neo-conservative have negative connotations for me.
The terms are descriptive; not perjorative.

Let me give you some explanation and a point of reference so you know where I am coming from.

I make my judgement re Bauer on his views regarding how the economy should be run and his views on immigration. On these points he could be judged to be somewhat to the right of, say, Margaret Thatcher. It's reasonable to describe her as right ring and so "ultra" in Bauer's case seemd a fair description. Bear in mind though that as far as I am concerned, ultra is an adjective of degree not of value.
Pro-life stance, championing family values and Christianity are neither right or left wing in British politics. How they have come to be identified with one particular shade in the US political spectrum puzzles me.
Neo-conservative again is merely descriptive. It's a movemnet in US politics. I think Bauer would describe himself as such.

The reason I pointed out his political flavour, if you remember, was because I think such a man may have other motives than semantic accuracy in describing Obama as a socialist.

about Maggie said:
.... government statistics it has been estimated that social breakdown is costing the taxpayer over £100 billion per annum, and no fewer than 100,000 Britons are claiming incapacity benefit on the grounds of drug or alcohol addiction, a figure that has more than doubled in the past decade.Meanwhile, the Governor of the Bank of England has informed Parliament that accurate economic forecasting is now nearly impossible because the Government has no idea how high recent immigration has been - something confirmed by the Home Office's confession that the 13,000 immigrants expected from Eastern Europe had, in fact, numbered 600,000.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher complained that New Commonwealth immigration was ''swamping" Britain, yet today the net number of foreign immigrants entering Britain every year is more than 12 times the number of East African Asians who entered Britain during the entire Seventies.

Even on immigration, I doubt than anyone on either side of the Atlantic is as much of a conservative as Margaret Thatcher was. More than Ronald Reagan even, Margaret Thatcher is the very definition of a right-wing conservative. Virtually any poltician would be lucky to aspire to the levels of conservatism that she achieved. she was the icon of an ultra-conservative.
And what she was battling against was socialism too btw, as it is commonly defined.

Cjwinnit · Nov 2, 2008

SolomonVII said:
More than Ronald Reagan even, Margaret Thatcher is the very definition of a right-wing conservative. Virtually any poltician would be lucky to aspire to the levels of conservatism that she achieved. she was the icon of an ultra-conservative.
And what she was battling against was socialism too btw, as it is commonly defined.

I can probably get away with saying this on the internet but I think Thatcher was one of the best things to ever happen to my country.

benedictaoo · Nov 2, 2008

SolomonVII said:
The MSM has done as a very good job of covering all the dirt up from everybody so far- even Obama too apparently.

Let's just hope for her sake the Obama machine and the media don't decide to run the same smear on Auntie now as they just did on Joe the Plumber.

With 2 days left I think she'll get sweapt under the carpet.

Did anyone here Bams latest speech? Now he says he and Biden, "Were gonna change the world."

Lord help us.

benedictaoo · Nov 2, 2008

SolomonVII,

It is amazing how the young have had their minds closed so shut as to not even entertain what other people are saying. That takes an education

I think this is the truest thing I read on these forums so far. For what I feel Bams has planned on the education front, it won't take a whole lot of effort to "teach" it.

benedictaoo · Nov 2, 2008

Cjwinnit said:
I can probably get away with saying this on the internet but I think Thatcher was one of the best things to ever happen to my country.

I find it fascinating that a Europeans definition of a "ultra" conservative would be Reagan. He was not "ultra." An example of a ultra would have been more Pat Buchanan, whom I would have voted for in 2000 had I thought he had a shot at winning.

It's funny that a conservative like Thatcher is seen as ultra and not respected over there as Reagan is here. He is deem by the majority as being one of the greatest presidents we had ever had.

No one would dare talk trash about him. The demos do not bash him they way they do Bush and know they would be done if they tried it on the campaign trail, he is so beloved by so many.

Even Clinton the radical liberal deferred to some his policies because they worked.

Oneofthediaspora · Nov 2, 2008

CJwinnit in your post before last I don't see how you can make the jump between realising that two parents in a family is obviously a good thing and your previous suggestion that the more right wing elements in British politics champion the family or the rights of the unborn whilst those left of centre don not.
Again do you have any evidence for this other than the non-sequitous anecdote you posted above?

Let's take a look at some of the communities that your heroine Mrs. Thatcher set out to and succeeded in destroying. There are numerous examples but for the purposes of illustration lets consider South Yorkshire collieries and the Welsh valleys.
Have a look at divorce and abortion rates rates pre and post 1984 in these two areas. Have a look at the rates of alcoholism and drug addiction too.

Again, conservativism whith a small "c" has little to do with the political party who call call themselves "Conservatives". Look at the cross party voting patterns re abortion and the stem cell and embryonic research bill.

benedictaoo · Nov 2, 2008

So what's the deal with Tony Blair? Why didn't y'all like him?

SolomonVII · Nov 2, 2008

benedictaoo said:
SolomonVII,

I think this is the truest thing I read on these forums so far. For what I feel Bams has planned on the education front, it won't take a whole lot of effort to "teach" it.

It has proved itself very true for me. It is quite amzaing to me how so many young people are incapable of making a basic argument against those of us who disagree with what they so obviously have been taught in school. the play they victim card, then engage in name-calling and labelling, personal attacks, swarming, and a whole host of other emotion-based stretegies, but to actually meet the arguments head on, show the defects in either the logic or the premise, use counter-examples in order to show how their opponents examples do not hold up, or otherwise rationally argue against what is being said-this is a rarity.
Assuredly, it is not a lack of intelligence or education. However, in spite of multi-culturalism, diversity does not exist in the young people's world of ideas. It is a monolith. Very many young people in uran environments don't even know any conservative thinking people. To actualy express some conservative ideas on their own would subject them to the same racist labellling and ridicule that is the typical response to all conservative arguments.
They have good reason not to engage rationally against any conservative argument that is based upon facts and good logic. Once they become convinced of its truth, they will be given by their friends and colleagues the same racist monker that all conservatives must now wear upon our foreheads.

What Ayers and Obama were doing with the Annenburg fund in Chicago had nothing to do with raising the math and science scores of inner city kids, and actually teaching them skills that might allow them to have some actual marketable skills. Academically, the millions spent were a total failure.
What they were doing was indoctrinating the next generation of the monolith of Democratic voters.
And they were able to get their hands on the charitable donations from a Republican to do this.

Isn't that precious!!

benedictaoo · Nov 2, 2008

SolomonVII said:
What Ayers and Obama were doing with the Annenburg fund in Chicago had nothing to do with raising the math and science scores of inner city kids, and actually teaching them skills that might allow them to have some actual marketable skills. Academically, the millions spent were a total failure.
What they were doing was indoctrinating the next generation of the monolith of Democratic voters.
And they were able to get their hands on the charitable donations from a Republican to do this.

Isn't that precious!!

It's them mocking the country is what it is.

They were teaching even little kids to be anti authority and anti government. You take that and Michelle OBama who said that this country is down right mean and that she has never been proud of it and then you take what Bams said the other day, that the Iowa caucus is what vindicated this country for him...

How on earth are we on the verge of voting in a man who has such obvious contempt for our country?? It's boggles the mind.

And as far as the funding coming from Catholic and Republicans sources, what did Ayres say, "guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country."

And when the Bill O' Reilly show surprised Ayres with cameras at his house asking him if he's repentant for his crimes, like trying to blow up police stations, who does he call to get the cameras off his property? The police.

Unbelievable mockery.

Oneofthediaspora · Nov 3, 2008

Bendictaoo ... because he was a liar.

Weird · Nov 3, 2008

Oneofthediaspora said:
Bendictaoo ... because he was a liar.

fair enough.

benedictaoo · Nov 3, 2008

Oneofthediaspora said:
Bendictaoo ... because he was a liar.

what did he lie about? I really don't know. The WMD war thing?

Oneofthediaspora · Nov 3, 2008

Amongst other things, the WMD capacity of Iraq.
There were also intelligence documents pertaining to this that he stated did not exist. Unfortunately for him they surfaced and were verified.

Did the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert and advisor to Her Majesty's Government, make the news in America?

Oneofthediaspora · Nov 3, 2008

Cynics shrug their shoulders and say "Well, politicians lie to get things done".

Why Blair's particular lying got so stuck in the British psyche and will be the thing he is most remembered for is a bit of a mystery.

benedictaoo · Nov 3, 2008

Oneofthediaspora said:
Amongst other things, the WMD capacity of Iraq.
There were also intelligence documents pertaining to this that he stated did not exist. Unfortunately for him they surfaced and were verified.

Did the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert and advisor to Her Majesty's Government, make the news in America?

It could have. I really do not keep up with international news.

But the guy can't be all bad... he converted to Catholicism so that tells me something about the man. The HS is working.

This whole war satiation deal, I have a feeling that years to come we will find out what we really are not being told and I think we will find out that we were/are in now, are in more danger then we know and that Bush and Blair had their reasons.

Oneofthediaspora · Nov 3, 2008

I didn't mind him too much TBH. I didn't respect him a great deal either but there are worse people. I am probably with the cynics who weren't surprised that he lied. I couldn't condone it, but it didn't surprise me.

What I didn't understand was why he lied at all. He didn't need to. If he said "We're going to war because America is going to war and we support them" I don't think many people would have disagreed.
I mean, look at our history ... we have a very low threshold for going to war and once we're at war the British public do not complain about casualties. It's something they expect.

I was glad he became a Catholic.

A Foreigner's Question

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Advocatus Diaboli (Retired)

Legend

Legend

Legend

Junior Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Junior Member

Newbie

Legend

Junior Member

Junior Member

Legend

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency