U.S. Politics

Page 130 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep. This should work:rolleyes:


At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the "Ex-PATRIOT" - "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy" - Act to respond directly to Saverin's move, which they dub a "scheme" that would "help him duck up to $67 million in taxes."
The senators will call Saverin's move an "outrage" and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.
The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.
Maybe Schumer should just propose to nationalize Facebook. Problem solved.

http://news.yahoo.com/senators-unveil-ex-patriot-act-respond-facebooks-saverins-110209401--abc-news-politics.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey VeloCity, the state of Maryland has managed to define who they consider "wealthy."


The majority of Democrats - who control more than two-thirds of the chamber - favored the bills. They argued the measures will help the state by providing more money for public education and health services.

“We’re doing things for the community,” said Delegate Dereck E. Davis, Prince George’s Democrat. “Those are the people that we’re trying to help with this budget.”

Lawmakers voted 77-60 in favor of a bill that will raise income-tax rates and lower the value of personal exemptions for single residents making more than $100,000 and couples making more than $150,000.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/16/assembly-oks-260m-tax-hike-teacher-pension-shift/?page=all


The really cool part is the tax increase is retroactive to January 1.

But the best part is this:


Counties and unions for state employees, who will receive a 2*percent raise from the tax increase, praised the legislature after the House of Delegates voted 77 to 60 for the package.

That is pretty slick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/md-passes-income-tax-hike-on-six-figure-earners/2012/05/16/gIQAfPutUU_story.html
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh my. A dumb question but you are not even able to define who's not paying their fair share. Who are you talking about when you spout your talking points?
Yeah, Scott, it's a really dumb question. And fair share? Did you not read what I wrote? Everyone's taxes go up, and the increase in tax rates increases incrementally as you move up the income scale, so that the higher one's income, the higher the tax rate, until a cap is reached in the highest bracket. Really, really not a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently a tough one to accept.

Oh and close the loopholes on corporate taxes, since, according to your boy Mitt, they are people too and should therefore be paying their fair share (and if you really wanted to help business, let's stop being complete idiots and get the health-care monkey off their backs as well and institute a government-run single-payer system like the rest of the ****ing world does. And stop giving special tax breaks to high-profit oil companies for ****'s sake.)

Uh, lessee. The tax code allows for child deductions and home mtg interest deduction on at least the first home.

The tax code does not take the rest of your crap into account (as in... does not care).

Again, Adjusted Gross Income, who's wealthy? You're quick to demonize and ridicule but surprisingly slow to define.
You asked me to define "wealthy", which I did. So let's try this again: someone who's making $1 million in expensive NYC is not as "wealthy" as someone who's making $1 million but lives in low-cost Des Moines. Someone who is single and making $1 million is going to be a lot more "wealthy" than someone who's making $1 million per year but has 5 kids. Etc etc. See why it's a dumb question? "Wealthy" is entirely contextual.

And if you really want to get into it, who says "wealthy" is strictly quantitative income/standard of living anyway? I don't make an enormous amount of money but I'd be more than willing to pay higher income taxes if they went toward funding social programs that provide benefits to me personally and to improving society as a whole - like a universal health care system for eg - because that would make me personally as well as American society as a whole better off in terms of quality of life. And isn't quality of life what it's really all about? That's what the Canadians and Scandanavians et al. have stumbled on and what we here in the US still largely have failed to grasp - quality of life and "wealth" are not entirely synonymous with income.

Not irrelevant and we do this already. I take it a flat tax, zero deductions, is out of the question?
A flat tax is absurd and the idea that it would simplify our tax system is a myth.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
LMAO.

Not again...

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate



Two years running.

Those dems are the adults tho:rolleyes:

http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/
You mean the budget that was loaded up with amendment gimmicks by the Republicans so as to guarantee that it would be rejected? The one introduced by Sessions that was 56 pages long and contained no details? Did the fact that not a single Dem voted for the president's "budget" not make you think "hmm something wrong here"? But I think you already knew that and decided, like a true conservative, to spin it anyway.

And the Washington Times? Come on, even by conservative standards that paper's an embarrassment, like a lib quoting from The Daily Worker or something.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Yep, those Rs in Congress. Adults, every one of them.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Still looking good for Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Looking at the tossups, no way Virginia should be in there - Obama's been up significantly in every poll with a spread that hasn't changed for a year. That's not likely to be reversed by Nov. He's way up in NH in recent polls as well, and up slightly but consistently in Ohio. Those three alone give him the win (assuming all the others are safe bets, which they probably are). And if he does take CO, WI, IA, and FL as well (I think he's lost NC though), going to end up being an electoral if not popular vote landslide. At what point does he get to do the GW Bush thing and claim a mandate? ;)

btw after all the noise about the CBS/NYT poll, why no mention in the conservative world of yesterday's FoxNews poll showing Obama up by 7 over Romney nationally? And up among women 55-33? Crickets.

EDIT: may have spoken to soon about losing NC - most recent poll has Obama up by 1. So NC is apparently still in play, although I do think in the end it'll go to Romney.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
VeloCity said:
[...]The one introduced by Sessions that was 56 pages long and contained no details? [...]
Republicans like small governments, operating on small budgets, that produce small bills and work for a small amount of people. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
Yeah, Scott, it's a really dumb question. And fair share? Did you not read what I wrote? Everyone's taxes go up, and the increase in tax rates increases incrementally as you move up the income scale, so that the higher one's income, the higher the tax rate, until a cap is reached in the highest bracket. Really, really not a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently a tough one to accept.

Oh and close the loopholes on corporate taxes, since, according to your boy Mitt, they are people too and should therefore be paying their fair share (and if you really wanted to help business, let's stop being complete idiots and get the health-care monkey off their backs as well and institute a government-run single-payer system like the rest of the ****ing world does. And stop giving special tax breaks to high-profit oil companies for ****'s sake.)

You asked me to define "wealthy", which I did. So let's try this again: someone who's making $1 million in expensive NYC is not as "wealthy" as someone who's making $1 million but lives in low-cost Des Moines. Someone who is single and making $1 million is going to be a lot more "wealthy" than someone who's making $1 million per year but has 5 kids. Etc etc. See why it's a dumb question? "Wealthy" is entirely contextual.

And if you really want to get into it, who says "wealthy" is strictly quantitative income/standard of living anyway? I don't make an enormous amount of money but I'd be more than willing to pay higher income taxes if they went toward funding social programs that provide benefits to me personally and to improving society as a whole - like a universal health care system for eg - because that would make me personally as well as American society as a whole better off in terms of quality of life. And isn't quality of life what it's really all about? That's what the Canadians and Scandanavians et al. have stumbled on and what we here in the US still largely have failed to grasp - quality of life and "wealth" are not entirely synonymous with income.

A flat tax is absurd and the idea that it would simplify our tax system is a myth.
Did you not read what I wrote? Everyone's taxes go up, and the increase in tax rates increases incrementally as you move up the income scale, so that the higher one's income, the higher the tax rate, until a cap is reached in the highest bracket. Really, really not a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently a tough one to accept.
Yep. Read it. My response was "we do this already".

Oh and close the loopholes on corporate taxes
Ok. Which ones? Define them for me.

and if you really wanted to help business, let's stop being complete idiots and get the health-care monkey off their backs
I think this is already happening. Lots of companies are going to ditch sponsored plans and pay the "fine". But this is what the legislation was designed to do, right?

You asked me to define "wealthy", which I did.
Really? Could you point that out to me as I must have missed it.

someone who's making $1 million in expensive NYC is not as "wealthy" as someone who's making $1 million but lives in low-cost Des Moines. Someone who is single and making $1 million is going to be a lot more "wealthy" than someone who's making $1 million per year but has 5 kids. Etc etc. See why it's a dumb question? "Wealthy" is entirely contextual.
Oh I see. Very nuanced. So, for the sake of argument, in your example above let's pretend the numbers you use are the AGI of these families. Tell me, what is the difference in Federal tax rate or the amount of the $1 million they will pay in Federal taxes? Does the dude in NYC pay more or less?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
You mean the budget that was loaded up with amendment gimmicks by the Republicans so as to guarantee that it would be rejected? The one introduced by Sessions that was 56 pages long and contained no details? Did the fact that not a single Dem voted for the president's "budget" not make you think "hmm something wrong here"? But I think you already knew that and decided, like a true conservative, to spin it anyway.

And the Washington Times? Come on, even by conservative standards that paper's an embarrassment, like a lib quoting from The Daily Worker or something.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Yep, those Rs in Congress. Adults, every one of them.
Jay Carney... A "balanced approach".:D That poor guy....

Americans do support a balanced approach. Problem is, the dems are liars. Tax increases today for spending cuts tomorrow. Been there done that.

The one introduced by Sessions that was 56 pages long and contained no details?
Are you saying Sessions misrepresented the President's proposed budget?

Did the fact that not a single Dem voted for the president's "budget" not make you think "hmm something wrong here"?
Not at all. It happened last year too. 97-0.

That's two consecutive years the Preezy got shut out in the Dem controlled Senate. Embarrassing? Not to you it seems.

Even the Union is ****ed.

President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget was slammed May 16 as an “attack on the middle class and our most vulnerable citizens” by the United Auto Workers (UAW).

Oh, and then there's this;

Obama’s virtual budget was introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions, the GOP’s budget leader in the Senate.

Early this year, White House officials drafted a bare-bones budget request, but neither they nor their allied Democratic senators have developed a complete budget package for debate in the Senate since 2009.

Yep, those dems are serious as a heart attack.

And you have issue with Sessions? lol

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/16/auto-union-slams-obama-budget-as-attack-on-the-middle-class/
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Jay Carney... A "balanced approach".:D That poor guy....

Americans do support a balanced approach.
A balanced approach would necessitate tax increases to go along with spending cuts, including defense. One party is proposing just that. The other wants to cut taxes and increase defense spending, even on projects the Pentagon itself wants cut.

Been there done that.
Yep, but back then it was called the "the Bush administration" instead of "the Romney administration". Other than the name, though, there's little difference.

Are you saying Sessions misrepresented the President's proposed budget?
By not providing the details behind the numbers? Yep, most certainly he did. But misrepresentation was entirely the point of the Sessions show.

Not at all. It happened last year too. 97-0.

That's two consecutive years the Preezy got shut out in the Dem controlled Senate. Embarrassing? Not to you it seems.
Yep, and for exactly the same reason, ie your "adult" Republicans like to play games with the country (see also: ceiling, debt).

As Harry Reid put it, the Rs prefer wasting time on show votes meant to embarrass Obama than actually working with Ds on producing anything of substance. The Congressional Rs are an embarrassment to the country. But not to you it seems.



Read a bit more carefully next time. The UAW slammed all of the GOP proposals, including Sessions' version of Obama's budget.

But one of the commenters sums it up best:
The GOP presents a fake "Obama budget". Nobody votes for it, BECAUSE IT IS SATIRE. Then the idiot media trots out their annual "Zero Votes for Obama Budget" headlines and the lemmings fall for it yet again. This process repeats itself every year without fail.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
A balanced approach would necessitate tax increases to go along with spending cuts, including defense. One party is proposing just that. The other wants to cut taxes and increase defense spending, even on projects the Pentagon itself wants cut.

Yep, but back then it was called the "the Bush administration" instead of "the Romney administration". Other than the name, though, there's little difference.

By not providing the details behind the numbers? Yep, most certainly he did. But misrepresentation was entirely the point of the Sessions show.

Yep, and for exactly the same reason, ie your "adult" Republicans like to play games with the country (see also: ceiling, debt).

As Harry Reid put it, the Rs prefer wasting time on show votes meant to embarrass Obama than actually working with Ds on producing anything of substance. The Congressional Rs are an embarrassment to the country. But not to you it seems.



Read a bit more carefully next time. The UAW slammed all of the GOP proposals, including Sessions' version of Obama's budget.

But one of the commenters sums it up best:
A balanced approach would necessitate tax increases to go along with spending cuts, including defense. One party is proposing just that. The other wants to cut taxes and increase defense spending, even on projects the Pentagon itself wants cut.
I'll tell you what. You guys go ahead now with the cuts and we'll agree to the tax increases a little later. Fair?

Yep, but back then it was called the "the Bush administration" instead of "the Romney administration". Other than the name, though, there's little difference.
Nope. Reagan was lied to by Tip and the boys. Different kettle of fish.

By not providing the details behind the numbers? Yep, most certainly he did. But misrepresentation was entirely the point of the Sessions show.
Anyone besides you making this claim?

Yep, and for exactly the same reason, ie your "adult" Republicans like to play games with the country (see also: ceiling, debt).
You're right. we should just rubber stamp any and all debt increases. No questions asked.

As Harry Reid put it
This guy's the embarrassment. Don't think history's gonna be real kind to this POS.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yep. Read it. My response was "we do this already".
Yep, and all anyone has ever proposed is that we do it some more.

Ok. Which ones? Define them for me.
Well, let's take one in particular, the offshore shell companies. That little loophole ended up costing you nearly $500 in your own taxes last year, Scott. One would think you'd be a little ****ed off about that.

I think this is already happening. Lots of companies are going to ditch sponsored plans and pay the "fine". But this is what the legislation was designed to do, right?
'Cept Rs are content to leave that monkey on the back of employers rather than do the sensible thing and adopt a universal health care system like every other developed country has done, and all in the name of ideological consistency.

Really? Could you point that out to me as I must have missed it.
You have missed the point entirely, that's obvious.

Oh I see. Very nuanced. So, for the sake of argument, in your example above let's pretend the numbers you use are the AGI of these families. Tell me, what is the difference in Federal tax rate or the amount of the $1 million they will pay in Federal taxes? Does the dude in NYC pay more or less?
Not nuanced at all, that's the point - here in the real world it's impossible to pin down something that's entirely contextual. NYC dude making $1 million pays the same taxes as Iowa dude but I wouldn't define NYC dude as "wealthy" when compared to Iowa dude making the same amount. And all you asked was to define "wealthy".

But even so, I'll play along. It's really a pretty simple concept: right now, rates at the higher brackets proportionate to those lower down are too low, ie those at lower brackets are paying, proportionately (not in absolute amounts), more than those in higher brackets (primarily based on the theory of Reagan's loony trickle-down economics). In other words, Scott, you're bearing more of the national tax burden, relatively speaking, than is Mitt Romney, and you apparently intend to vote for Romney even though he and not you will benefit greatly from his tax proposals. That's as loony as trickle-down economics. So how 'bout we increase rates across all brackets, raise those increases proportionately up the brackets, set a top cap higher than the current 35 (say 40), and go from there. (Or, alternatively, since the top bracket begins at what, 350,000 or so, why not introduce several more brackets above that - say 350,000-500,000, then 500,000-1 million, and so on - and increase their rates incrementally from 35? That someone making $1 billion a year only pays a 2% higher rate than someone making $180,000 a year is not only proportionately unfair, it's also really stupid.)
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I'll tell you what. You guys go ahead now with the cuts and we'll agree to the tax increases a little later. Fair?
How 'bout we go with the tax increases first and decide on cuts once the economy is back on track?

Nope. Reagan was lied to by Tip and the boys. Different kettle of fish.
Not sure where Reagan came in to this, but nope, he wasn't. What Reagan was, was pragmatic. Unlike the ideologues that have taken over the Republican party of today.

Anyone besides you making this claim?
Yep, pretty much everyone who isn't Republican. Did you know that the WH went on record saying that the amendment didn't deserve to pass? Jeez, Scott, one would think that might be a hint that it's a gimmick.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/218817-white-house-dismisses-vote-on-obama-budget-as-gimmick

You're right. we should just rubber stamp any and all debt increases. No questions asked.
Sorry, did you miss this?

http://investmen****chblog.com/guess-who-raised-debt-ceiling-most-often/#.T7VDRuhSRWQ

Rubber-stamped 18 times under Reagan and 7 times under GW, the latter by many of the same folks like Boehner and Cantor who are so against it (but only as of Jan 20th 2009 of course). Maybe you guys could've asked Reagan and Bush to quit with the spending? We Obama supporters would've appreciated that instead of our guy having to take so much crap cleaning up your folks' mess.

This guy's the embarrassment. Don't think history's gonna be real kind to this POS.
Conservative history or real history? If the former, probably not. The latter I think will be a bit kinder. And more accurate.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/228077-house-appropriators-approve-state-dept-bill-with-anti-abortion-language

On abortion, the bill cuts off all funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and reinstates the Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule. The rules says that all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. funding must refrain from performing or promoting abortion services...The committee also approved an amendment to prevent any funding being used to negotiate the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) who is running for Sen. Jon Tester’s (D) seat, offered the amendment and argued the ATT could be used against civilian gun owners in the United States.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/arizona_ken_bennett_obama_birth_certificate_birther.php

The man in charge of running Arizona’s elections has gone to the birthers. Secretary of State Ken Bennett now says he’s not convinced Barack Obama was really born in the United States and so he is threatening to keep the president off the ballot in November.
Yep, sure, Republicans, the party of adults. But they are the party of fiscal responsibility, at least, right?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/228245-republicans-taking-aim-at-earmark-ban

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) denounced the “horrible abuse” of the earmark process under the prior GOP majority,
Er, yeah, never mind. Defenders of individual liberty, surely?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/republicans-ndaa-detention-terrorist

Whoops, nope, maybe not that either. But tax cuts will solve everything!

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/17/when_mitt_ridiculed_clinton/singleton/
Romney and today’s GOP often cite the balanced budgets and surpluses that marked the late years of the 1990s, generally crediting them to what was then a Republican-controlled Congress. They’ll also give Clinton a measure of credit, if only as a backdoor means of slamming Obama, by citing welfare reform or some other compromise he struck with Republicans. But there’s really only one thing that Bill Clinton did to erase the deficit: He raised taxes on the rich – against the wishes of every single Republican in Congress. Clinton’s 1993 budget, which was enacted as the country was emerging from a recession and confronting leftover deficits from the Reagan years, hiked rates on the top 1.2 percent of income-earners and created a new 39 percent tax bracket. Republicans branded it “the biggest tax increase in world history” and screamed that it would kill millions of jobs and plunge the country back into recession...The Republican warnings about a second recession never materialized, and as the economy picked up strength, the new Clinton tax rates (on top of the hikes that President George H.W. Bush enacted over his own party’s objections in 1990) produced a revenue windfall and the resulting surpluses — which Romney and Republicans now hail as the work of a Democratic president who, unlike Barack Obama, just didn’t believe in class warfare.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VeloCity said:
How 'bout we go with the tax increases first and decide on cuts once the economy is back on track?

Not sure where Reagan came in to this, but nope, he wasn't. What Reagan was, was pragmatic. Unlike the ideologues that have taken over the Republican party of today.

Yep, pretty much everyone who isn't Republican. Did you know that the WH went on record saying that the amendment didn't deserve to pass? Jeez, Scott, one would think that might be a hint that it's a gimmick.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/218817-white-house-dismisses-vote-on-obama-budget-as-gimmick

Sorry, did you miss this?

http://investmen****chblog.com/guess-who-raised-debt-ceiling-most-often/#.T7VDRuhSRWQ

Rubber-stamped 18 times under Reagan and 7 times under GW, the latter by many of the same folks like Boehner and Cantor who are so against it (but only as of Jan 20th 2009 of course). Maybe you guys could've asked Reagan and Bush to quit with the spending? We Obama supporters would've appreciated that instead of our guy having to take so much crap cleaning up your folks' mess.

Conservative history or real history? If the former, probably not. The latter I think will be a bit kinder. And more accurate.

How 'bout we go with the tax increases first and decide on cuts once the economy is back on track?
So, you think we jump start the economy with tax increases? Novel.

How about we start behaving like adults on the spending side, then once the economy is actually on track we talk about raising taxes?

Naw, that'll never work. Big govt knows better than me how to spend my money. So yeah, full speed ahead.

Maybe, since tax increases will spur economic activity, we can look at the flat tax. Say, 45% across the board? Not high enough?

I'm all for a smoking economy so if that's not high enough you just let me know.

Not sure where Reagan came in to this
Really??

Did you know that the WH went on record saying that the amendment didn't deserve to pass?
:D lol. So remind me again.... when was the last time a budget was passed? The adolescents running the show just don't seem to have priorities they wish to share with the rest of us, so let the game playing continue. It's only the country's budget we are talking about.

Rubber-stamped 18 times under Reagan and 7 times under GW, the latter by many of the same folks like Boehner and Cantor who are so against it (but only as of Jan 20th 2009 of course). Maybe you guys could've asked Reagan and Bush to quit with the spending?
Ok. As for Reagan, one more time, he had an agreement with democrats to raise revenue (which he signed into law) in exchange for a 3-1 spending reduction. Kind of like what Obama is trying to sell with his "balanced approach". Well, and this is the really funny part.... the Dems actually had no intentions of cutting spending. Hilarious right? I mean... they just played Reagan like a cheap violin... just freaking awesome. So, they still spent like drunken sailors because they even had MORE money to pay off their constituents with.

Well played Dems, well played.

We Obama supporters would've appreciated that instead of our guy having to take so much crap cleaning up your folks' mess.
Yeah. Yup.

You know the debt is nearly 16 Trillion now? It's 2 Trillion higher than when we started arguing on this board. It's almost as much as was added during Reagans eight years in office.

How many generations will it take to clean up Obama's mess? Dunno.

Kinda can't wait to see how bad the finances get once Obamacare hits full force. That will be one mess that never gets cleaned up. But hey, we can always raise taxes again.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Yep, adults usually renege on a deal.

The House on Friday passed a $642 billion defense bill that abandons the deficit-cutting agreement that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans backed last summer.
And fiscally-responsible ones at that.

On a 299-120 vote, lawmakers backed the spending blueprint that adds $8 billion for the military for next year. The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move. Lawmakers also rejected the military's request for another round of domestic base closings. The spending blueprint calls for money for aircraft, ships, weapons, the war in Afghanistan and a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel, billions of dollars more than Obama proposed. The bill snubs the Pentagon's budget that was based on a new military strategy shifting focus from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to future challenges in Asia, the Mideast and in cyberspace. The bill spares aircraft and ships slated for retirement, slows the reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps and calls for construction of a new missile defense site on the East Coast. A Democratic effort to stick to last year's deficit-cutting pact and cut $8 billion from the bill failed Friday on a 252-170 vote.
If you think the Rs are interested in reducing deficits, Scott, you're a moron. Don't know what else there is to say. Fortunately, there is an adult in the WH who will veto it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gODOkCJsd_mqIiaMtwiwWG9T-Ssw?docId=8f20e345ee944d898bb6c28264e35831
 
I notice some of the right-wing brought Reverend Wright back into the discussion. Since religion is apparently now fair game, I'm curious when the left is going to start asking questions about Romney's Mormon faith. Sort of like how Mormon "Prophets" have final say over everything. Or the special underwear they wear night and day. Or Jesus time in America. Or...
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
I notice some of the right-wing brought Reverend Wright back into the discussion. Since religion is apparently now fair game, I'm curious when the left is going to start asking questions about Romney's Mormon faith. Sort of like how Mormon "Prophets" have final say over everything. Or the special underwear they wear night and day. Or Jesus time in America. Or...
That's right and an angle revealed the Truth behind a golden curtain.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Classic liberal thinking. It's THE FOOD'S FAULT.



Why not just tax fat people? We could, through Obamacare, charge fat people significantly higher fines than non-fat people.

http://www.theindychannel.com/health/31079697/detail.html
Check my previous link to the "weight of the nation" on HBO. I am not saying taxing is the solution, but overweight people in the US (and elsewhere) are really going to cause problems.

I thought in the documentary, they said it would cost 150B a year (in the US). I wasn't sure if I heard that properly because it sounds insanely high, so i googled around a bit:

"if every American were to reduce his or her intake by 100 calories a day, that would cost the food industry between $30 and $40 billion." What sector of the economy is going to willfully reduce the size of their industry by $30 to $40 billion?

Suarez: Yet at the same time, obesity is costing us some $200 billion a year.

'Weight of the Nation': U.S. Obesity Crisis Tackled in HBO Special
They had some estimates, forgot the actual numbers, but they said liver transplants would surge in the next decade. With 68% of the people overweight or obese, their livers become 'calcified', or they'll get a 'fatty liver' (their structure changes because fat, which is naturally present in the liver, increases, which decreases the liver's ability to do its job) and since you can't live without one, they'll have to be replaced more and more.

Apparently the military can't find enough fit people anymore. Too many who apply are too heavy and they wouldn't be able to cope with the demands of the job.

With 68% of people overweight or obese, it will affect the entire US workforce, and not only for jobs you need to be 'fit' for. Besides, insurance premiums will sky rocket (Don't some medical insurers already charge higher premiums if you are overweight?)

Since childhood obesity has grown exponentially in combination with statistics that overweight/obese children have a 77% chance of staying overweight/obese (contrary to 7% for children who weren't overweight/obese to become overweight obese during adulthood), the number of overweight/obese people is only going to grow.

What's the solution? Because a problem it is...
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
...find below a good article of an item that should be an election issue...the huge military budget....the article looks at how spending on military goods compares to other parts of the economy and how diverting military spending to other parts of the economy would impact job growth...

http://truth-out.org/news/item/9215-dont-buy-the-spin-how-cutting-the-pentagons-budget-could-boost-the-economy

...and do keep in mind that some older studies had shown that spending of programs such as welfare and food stamps has twice the mutiplier effect of military spending...whether that still applies is something I can't say but at one point this was the case...

Cheers

blutto
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts