• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 340 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
You seem to be capable of quantifying wealth, being rich, only in terms of a monetary status.

We knew it was all just about money, Scott, but even I didn't think you could be so stiff and rigid by nature. You sit stiffly and rigidly at your work place and on your estate, your life's mission being to ensure that this immense mass of accumulated wealth progressively solidified and under no circumstances dissolved. In the course of time your entire world took on the rigidity and solidity, the absolute hardness, of this mass and fused with it into a dreadful, sickening unity, without even noticing what was happening.

I noticed, however.
C,mon Rhub... I'm rich in many ways having nothing to do with money. The govt just hasn't figured out how to tax that (yet).

So when we are talking about taxes I'll go ahead and keep it to levels of income... I mean if you are ok with that.
 
Scott SoCal said:
You forgot to mention there are those who think they see everything because they think they know it all (you).

Your theory should be easy to prove, no? Have at it...

The proof is in the war mongering of Cheney, Rumsfeld et al that then, just look at the case, led to the former vice president's company getting the sweetest deals when the bombs stop falling and it was time to rebuild.

Now I know there is a certain class of provincial American that needs to be baby walked around and shown everything before he gets it, but really Scott, even I'm shocked at your obstinate blockheadedness here.

Then, in the reports I have read, the Halliburton contracts looked all too suspicious. The lack of transparency was appalling. I'll bet Assange has lots of good stuff too.

In about 75 years everything should be brought to light.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
rhubroma said:
The proof is in the war mongering of Cheney, Rumsfeld et al that then, just look at the case, led to the former vice president's company getting the sweetest deals when the bombs stop falling and it was time to rebuild.

Now I know there is a certain class of provincial American that needs to be baby walked around and shown everything before he gets it, but really Scott, even I'm shocked at your obstinate blockheadedness here.

Then, in the reports I have read, the Halliburton contracts looked all too suspicious. The lack of transparency was appalling. I'll bet Assange has lots of good stuff too.

In about 75 years everything should be brought to light.
After Katrina Haliburton got 500 million..(before the evacuation had even been completed) to rebuild naval facilities damaged..Well there really aren't many except for some that Northrup Grumman uses... They subcontracted and their subcontractor subcontracted and ended up using about 50 mil.. Haliburton got 400 mill for absolutely nothing. I'd bet Haliburton had to take 100 million and put it straight into a dubai account for the VP.. Tax free of course.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
The proof is in the war mongering of Cheney, Rumsfeld et al that then, just look at the case, led to the former vice president's company getting the sweetest deals when the bombs stop falling and it was time to rebuild.

Now I know there is a certain class of provincial American that needs to be baby walked around and shown everything before he gets it, but really Scott, even I'm shocked at your obstinate blockheadedness here.

Then, in the reports I have read, the Halliburton contracts looked all too suspicious. The lack of transparency was appalling. I'll bet Assange has lots of good stuff too.

In about 75 years everything should be brought to light.
If Assange had dick on Cheney I'd guess it would already be out there.

I seem to remember a guy who divested his shares (both common and preferred) before and immediately after he became VP. Cheney was not CEO of Haliburton past August of 2000. His decision to become VP probably cost him millions in preferred stock alone, but I don't think you want to go there.

Now, if you want to say that Cheney was receiving income from Haliburton during his tenure as VP then you must also say this "income" was in fact deferred compensation for a period of time he had worked and ran the company ( around $400k if memory serves). This is public information and it was money owed to him in the form of income he earned but elected to take at a later time.

There are very few companies in the world that have the capabilities that Haliburton has. That is a fact. Scream about 'no-bid' contracts if you want, but if there is to be a bidding process that results in one bidder then what is the difference?

If you want to argue that Haliburton is a corrupt corporation, then fine... you have plenty of evidence to make that case. But if what you present above constitutes proof of Cheney benefiting financially by concocting a scheme to take the country to war only to line his own pockets in the rebuilding of Iraq then you shall receive a failing grade.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
After Katrina Haliburton got 500 million..(before the evacuation had even been completed) to rebuild naval facilities damaged..Well there really aren't many except for some that Northrup Grumman uses... They subcontracted and their subcontractor subcontracted and ended up using about 50 mil.. Haliburton got 400 mill for absolutely nothing. I'd bet Haliburton had to take 100 million and put it straight into a dubai account for the VP.. Tax free of course.
Overwhelming proof right there.

BTW, did Obama take us to conflict in Libya for personal financial gain? War-time presidents get a lot more money on the lecture circuit after they are out of office. Just curious...
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
redtreviso said:
After Katrina Haliburton got 500 million..(before the evacuation had even been completed) to rebuild naval facilities damaged..Well there really aren't many except for some that Northrup Grumman uses... They subcontracted and their subcontractor subcontracted and ended up using about 50 mil.. Haliburton got 400 mill for absolutely nothing. I'd bet Haliburton had to take 100 million and put it straight into a dubai account for the VP.. Tax free of course.
you'd bet, but where is your proof?
 
Scott SoCal said:
If Assange had dick on Cheney I'd guess it would already be out there.

I seem to remember a guy who divested his shares (both common and preferred) before and immediately after he became VP. Cheney was not CEO of Haliburton past August of 2000. His decision to become VP probably cost him millions in preferred stock alone, but I don't think you want to go there.

Now, if you want to say that Cheney was receiving income from Haliburton during his tenure as VP then you must also say this "income" was in fact deferred compensation for a period of time he had worked and ran the company ( around $400k if memory serves). This is public information and it was money owed to him in the form of income he earned but elected to take at a later time.

There are very few companies in the world that have the capabilities that Haliburton has. That is a fact. Scream about 'no-bid' contracts if you want, but if there is to be a bidding process that results in one bidder then what is the difference?

If you want to argue that Haliburton is a corrupt corporation, then fine... you have plenty of evidence to make that case. But if what you present above constitutes proof of Cheney benefiting financially by concocting a scheme to take the country to war only to line his own pockets in the rebuilding of Iraq then you shall receive a failing grade.
Look, Scott, America went to war over oil in Iraq. This implies a political-corporate arrangement, the exact details of which will be covered up for a long, long, time to come.

But this is irrelevant.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
Look, Scott, America went to war over oil in Iraq. This implies a political-corporate arrangement, the exact details of which will be covered up for a long, long, time to come.

But this is irrelevant.

Alright, you say the exact details will not be known for a long, long time but you accuse Cheney of taking the country to war resulting in thousands of deaths & untold destruction all for personal monetary gain.

That is a helluva accusation to make only to say the exact details will not be known for a long, long time.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Alright, you say the exact details will not be known for a long, long time but you accuse Cheney of taking the country to war specifically to, resulting in thousands of deaths, untold destruction all for personal monetary gain.

That is a helluva accusation to make only to say the exact details will not be known for a long, long time.
this is an internet forum, baseless accusations are normal, maybe even required.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This speaks volumes. Taxes are the confiscation of labor. To say that the elimination of a tax is in actuality a direct subsidy is completely backwards. I agree that taxes are required to sustain government so please don't get me wrong.... but let's be honest about what a tax actually is.

Payroll taxes are particularly interesting. An employer pays taxes for having the unmitigated gall of hiring someone. I don't get it but I'd imagine that does not surprise you.

This is just factually inaccurate. You are yanking my chain here, right?
Taxes:
Taxes are not confiscation of labor. They're confiscation of earnings (including, but not limited to earnings from labor), and in some cases confiscation of property (property taxes). No one has ever claimed anything different. Without taxes, there would be no functioning government. Every country in the whole world works on this principle. It is sad that such a simple fact is lost on the tea party and libertarians. It says much about the political culture of this country. Taxes are the way for a government to generate revenue.

Payroll taxes:
You can and should think of payroll taxes as part of the salary which the government takes in order to pay for benefits (since the employer obviously doesn't pay unemployment benefits after downsizing, or medicare or social security for their former employees). This is really a good thing for employees. Think about all the suckers who invested in the ENRON pension plan. It's either payroll taxes, or higher wages (so that workers can save up for unemployment/medicare/social security themselves), or higher taxes on earnings which can be used to provide unemployment/medicare/social security. You need at the minimum a kind of Bismarck welfare state. Payroll taxes seem to be the most just and simple way to implement that. The times where you could hire someone to work for subsistence without taking any responsibility concerning pension, medical expenses and other benefits are long long gone, which is really a good thing.

Job creation:
No, I'm serious: (numbers up to end of 2010).
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This speaks volumes. Taxes are the confiscation of labor. To say that the elimination of a tax is in actuality a direct subsidy is completely backwards. I agree that taxes are required to sustain government so please don't get me wrong.... but let's be honest about what a tax actually is.

Payroll taxes are particularly interesting. An employer pays taxes for having the unmitigated gall of hiring someone. I don't get it but I'd imagine that does not surprise you.



This is just factually inaccurate. You are yanking my chain here, right?
It does speak volumes that you make that statement. Do you think you live in a vacuum? The taxes that we all pay are our obligation to help support the society in which we live and the society that makes it possible for us to own a business in the first place. Do you think that you are powerful enough that you could have a business at all if you only had back all that money that has been "stolen" from you in the form of taxes. Bear in mind how much it might cost you to protect what you have from the starving hordes desperately trying to take it from you for simple survival.
You wouldn't have a business if it were not for the social safety net that society and government provide, none of us would.


BTW you didn't say if you were in the health ins. biz or not.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Taxes:
Taxes are not confiscation of labor. They're confiscation of earnings (including, but not limited to earnings from labor), and in some cases confiscation of property (property taxes). No one has ever claimed anything different. Without taxes, there would be no functioning government. Every country in the whole world works on this principle. It is sad that such a simple fact is lost on the tea party and libertarians. It says much about the political culture of this country. Taxes are the way for a government to generate revenue.

Payroll taxes:
You can and should think of payroll taxes as part of the salary which the government takes in order to pay for benefits (since the employer obviously doesn't pay unemployment benefits after downsizing, or medicare or social security for their former employees). This is really a good thing for employees. Think about all the suckers who invested in the ENRON pension plan. It's either payroll taxes, or higher wages (so that workers can save up for unemployment/medicare/social security themselves), or higher taxes on earnings which can be used to provide unemployment/medicare/social security. You need at the minimum a kind of Bismarck welfare state. Payroll taxes seem to be the most just and simple way to implement that. The times where you could hire someone to work for subsistence without taking any responsibility concerning pension, medical expenses and other benefits are long long gone, which is really a good thing.

Job creation:
No, I'm serious: (numbers up to end of 2010).
Taxes are, at their core, a confiscation of labor. Period.

I acknowledge the need for government and how it is to be funded. Size and scope is the issue.

Payroll taxes are silly and one of the reasons there needs to be tax reform in this country. Just tax people and companies on earnings and be done with it. Take away all deductions, simplify the code and stop with the social engineering already.

There is a little more recent data on the jobs front. You might want to take a look at it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Employers-added-54K-jobs-rate-apf-3059717337.html?x=0&.v=5

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aaee3aa8-8dd7-11e0-a0c4-00144feab49a.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/white-house-poor-jobs-numbers-bumps-road-recovery/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Employment-growth-brakes-rb-325963585.html?x=0&.v=3

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43268037

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/recovery-languishes-as-americans-await-signal-of-better-times-peter-coy.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
It does speak volumes that you make that statement. Do you think you live in a vacuum? The taxes that we all pay are our obligation to help support the society in which we live and the society that makes it possible for us to own a business in the first place. Do you think that you are powerful enough that you could have a business at all if you only had back all that money that has been "stolen" from you in the form of taxes. Bear in mind how much it might cost you to protect what you have from the starving hordes desperately trying to take it from you for simple survival.
You wouldn't have a business if it were not for the social safety net that society and government provide, none of us would.


BTW you didn't say if you were in the health ins. biz or not.
I don't disagree, please re-read my post.

Taxes are the confiscation of labor. To say that the elimination of a tax is in actuality a direct subsidy is completely backwards. I agree that taxes are required to sustain government so please don't get me wrong.... but let's be honest about what a tax actually is.
I am only very indirectly involved in the health insurance world. Slightly involved would be an over-statement.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
” From Scottsdale, Arizona, retired tech executive and Tea Party activist Arch McGill says people fear government: “The elite need to visit the West, Midwest, and South to get an understanding of the mood of the people -- they are ****ed, buying guns and food for the coming battle.”
Spurred on by rabble rousing idiots of the right wing.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
PALIN: He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed.

http://youtu.be/oS4C7bvHv2w

 
patricknd said:
this is an internet forum, baseless accusations are normal, maybe even required.
Patricknd, you pride yourself on pointing out all the spelling errors, though are weak on everything else. All things required notwithstanding.

But we had expected so much more from one as intelligent and as promising as you. Such a illusion.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Overwhelming proof right there.

BTW, did Obama take us to conflict in Libya for personal financial gain? War-time presidents get a lot more money on the lecture circuit after they are out of office. Just curious...
It is the Saudi business model... One of the Saud princes has to get 10% on all defense purchases the kingdom makes... TO HIM PERSONALLY.. Bush and Cheney think that is just the neatest thing ever..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
Patricknd, you pride yourself on pointing out all the spelling errors, though are weak on everything else. All things required notwithstanding.

But we had expected so much more from one as intelligent and as promising as you. Such a illusion.
In other words, Patrick, he's disillusioned because you seem to be willing to think for yourself. This can be very upsetting because uniformity of thought is required.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
It is the Saudi business model... One of the Saud princes has to get 10% on all defense purchases the kingdom makes... TO HIM PERSONALLY.. Bush and Cheney think that is just the neatest thing ever..

Did they tell you that?





Didn't think so...
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
rhubroma said:
Patricknd, you pride yourself on pointing out all the spelling errors, though are weak on everything else. All things required notwithstanding.

But we had expected so much more from one as intelligent and as promising as you. Such a illusion.
such an illusion ;)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts