World Politics

Page 405 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ok, that made me smile.:)

I'm confident Barry O has marginalized himself so badly that John Chambers doesn't even take his calls anymore.

You read Romney's plan yet? Or are you still waiting for MoveOn to tell you what you should think about it? Do you need me to re-post the link? You know I will....

waiting for you to name ONE.. psst UBS is not a US company even though your savior Phil Gramm is on the board.

Yes I read Romney's plan.. Just tax the little people who owe their souls to the heavenly corporation.."you've done enough, you blessed exxon, goldman sachs"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
waiting for you to name ONE.. psst UBS is not a US company even though your savior Phil Gramm is on the board.

Yes I read Romney's plan.. Just tax the little people who owe their souls to the heavenly corporation.."you've done enough, you blessed exxon, goldman sachs"


So, you saw nothing you agree with?

BTW, Chambers is not with UBS.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
ChrisE said:
I would like to announce my candidacy for the president of the US.

I propose to just make the corporate tax rate zero, along with those making over 250k, or let's make the corporate rate zero and give them money. We could do away with say national parks and the FDA and give the savings from those programs to corporations. We could fire the FAA controllers, firefighters.

I mean WTF if you don't have an extinguisher in your house you don't deserve to live and plus you are taking away my freedom to burn or not. These colors don't run! Get govt off our backs!

Besides that God should take care of you. Just think how bad the Texas fires and drought would be right now if Governor Perry hadn't instructed us to pray for rain a few months back. Of course, it hasnt rained but I am sure our praying altered the rate of evaporation or something so it is all good. I am grateful to Governor Perry for saving us.....he will be my secretary of defense after I bust that junky wind tunnel tested hairy azz in the primaries. You hear he has some sympathy for those illegals taking our jobs? WTF?

Anyway we could give all of the national park land to the oil companies and they could drill on that land for free, and do away with any job killing fines or retrobution programs whenever they spill something. We should let industry polute the air with no economy wrecking fines so as to promote job growth. No more pesky fishing or hunting limits places upon real Americans by the traitorous tree-huggers. Beside there is good fishing around oil rigs.

I think we should champion a weekend warrior program where thankful Americans making less than 250k come and work for these companies for free on weekends, thus making them more income and fostering demand for their products. Then, with all of the increased tax intake as a result of all of these zero taxes we could increase the defense funding at some steady rate that we can all agree on, because my ingenious plan will surely bring out the jealous evildoers, commies, minorities, feminazis, homos, and just plain old stealth liberals that hate us for our freedoms. We real Americans must stand up and unite, and take our country back! Bomb their soil, take their oil! Smoke em out!

I figure if this plan would be put in place unemployement would be zero within a year, and we would all be making over 250k/yr and businesses will not be taxed, which in turn should ensure infinite tax intake by the govt!

And, oh yeah. I would outlaw abortion and abduction of hot white chicks, unless there are abductions when I am under scrutiny by the liberal media.

Who is with me?
I am with you and as to the bolded .......It is a good God dammmmm thing he prayed for our rain. Otherwise we would all be proper ****ed by now! Thank bejubus for Rick Goodhair Perry!

Hey TFF that Mits romneer feller did not do nutten I tell yah!
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
redtreviso said:
waiting for you to name ONE.. psst UBS is not a US company even though your savior Phil Gramm is on the board.

Yes I read Romney's plan.. Just tax the little people who owe their souls to the heavenly corporation.."you've done enough, you blessed exxon, goldman sachs"

Hey get back to your FoxNews man.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Mitt Romney just kicked everyone's a$$ in the debate. It wasn't even close.

Perry is a bumbling idiot.

Hey I just threw all my aluminum cans and bottles into the Bayou next to my house. :D recycle is for fools. :D
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So, you saw nothing you agree with?

BTW, Chambers is not with UBS.

You are in love with that Chambers guy aren't you.. Is he your alfalfanator?
Is he like a randian apostle? Ever heard of Sandy Lerner? I guess you were still the want for nuthin little ninja turtle at the mx track then?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
You are in love with that Chambers guy aren't you.. Is he your alfalfanator?
Is he like a randian apostle? Ever heard of Sandy Lerner? I guess you were still the want for nuthin little ninja turtle at the mx track then?

Hmmm.... Soros much? I bet you do.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,960
1,388
20,680
Scott SoCal said:
Goddammit TFF, you are ****ing me off because you are way better than this:D

Why did GE pay no Corporate tax last year?

And while it's true 2/3rd's of American corporations paid no corporate tax last year do you know why this is?

Don't let me down here:)

That's easy. It is because our entire system is broken, completely and beyond repair. It has reached the inevitable end game where the entire thing is rigged for the top 10% and anyone who thinks different is either an idiot or willfully ignorant.
You can put any other argument to it that you want, it won't be right.
 
Mar 11, 2009
10,526
3,842
28,180
Thoughtforfood said:
Mitt Romney just kicked everyone's a** in the debate. It wasn't even close. Perry is a bumbling idiot.
I didn't see it quite that far, but if Perry's going to get the nod he's going to have to...well, reshape his image, message, almost everything. If he thinks going after Social Security, and talking about unfunded mandates for things like border patrol are going to get him elected, he'll take down the entire Tea Party with his anchor. Romney looked very polished, like he's been doing this for years, because, he has. The even worse news for Perry is that I thought he was fed pretty much softball questions, and while people are saying Romney went after him, I thought Mitt could have been much more brazen.

Disappointed by Huntsman. He seemed almost smug, like he's lost his belief that he could be civil and win the election since he's stuck in low single digits, and has decided to come off like a know-it-all.

Would like to see a Romney-Obama debate about now.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,932
55
11,580
ChrisE said:
I would like to announce my candidacy for the president of the US.
...
Who is with me?

From what I read, your humourous political platform (assuming you aren't really serious!) is surprising close to what a lot of real candidates are spouting. Blah blah ... God ... blah blah ... cut taxes ... blah blah ... more guns ... blah blah .. elect me.

In France we are lucky to have DSK. He brings the political debate to a much higher level.
 
Mar 11, 2009
10,526
3,842
28,180
Hugh Januss said:
That's easy. It is because our entire system is broken, completely and beyond repair. It has reached the inevitable end game where the entire thing is rigged for the top 10% and anyone who thinks different is either an idiot or willfully ignorant. You can put any other argument to it that you want, it won't be right.
You left out "corrupt". Other than that, no real disagreements, you pretty much got it.

I will be locking the thread now.
 
May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
""President-Elect Obama’s advisors feared in 2008 that authorities would oust him in a coup and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to a law school dean who served as one of Christopher Edley Obama’s top transition advisors. Barack Obama

University of California at Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr., left, the sixth highest-ranking member of the 2008 post-election transition team preparing Obama's administration, revealed the team's thinking on Sept. 2 in moderating a forum on 9/11 held by his law school (also known as Boalt Hall). Edley sought to justify Obama's "look forward" policy on Bush-era lawbreaking that the president-elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009.

But Edley's rationale implies that Obama and his team fear the military/national security forces that he is supposed be commanding. It suggests also that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even though voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history. Edley responded to our request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears, which we present below as an exclusive email interview. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a coup. ""

http://justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=460%20%3Cimg%20src=
 
Captain_Cavman said:
It's too late for bold and visionary thinkers and planners right now. The ship is losing power and the tide is remorselessly dragging her towards the rocks. While below decks the band plays to a mesmerised public.

People of vision, or at least historical perspective, will come in handy for rebuilding from the wreckage though.

I agree. Such people, if they do exist, haven't got a chance at taking control of the vessel.

So in Italy we read the austerity measures, which were passed in parliament yesterday, made the financial markets gain over 4.5%.

Thus normal people will see increased taxes and less public services, while the financial gurus and share holders make a killing.

This rather succinctly explains why the system is hopelessly corrupt and unjust. But a revolution is nowhere to be found.

The band (though I could have said banks) just keeps playing the music and those in third class continue to be entertained.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,654
2
0
Caledon said:
Strewth, a sexist Australian. Who'd have thought such things exist?

Awe look luv, get us another tinnie since your up cleaning. My **** is stuck to the couch and there's another 3 hours till the finish of this stage....

Nearly as insightful as your analysis that if a Spaniard is not working he must be out begging.

Priceless.

So I don't like feminism and that makes me sexist? geez, you'd have to be dumb as dog**** to think that. I have no problem with equality but it is sometimes it is an unrealistic ideal that people have in the workplace. I think society can over-compensate in having gender equality in society due to males being the dominant gender in the past in roles such as business & government. I think feminists can often have double standards in that because women have not been treated equally in the past that they now needed to be treated extra special to compensate for the past.

It is a shame that you have such a ridiculous stereotype about the Australian male of which you basically paint me and other Australian males as bogans. I never actually said that about a Spanish person anyway as you have taken my post completely out of context. I would be more than happy to continue this discussion about such issues and even though I may disagree with your opinion I will still respect it. Think what you want about me with my opinions about issues but don't paint me to be sexist or a bigot.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I didn't see it quite that far, but if Perry's going to get the nod he's going to have to...well, reshape his image, message, almost everything. If he thinks going after Social Security, and talking about unfunded mandates for things like border patrol are going to get him elected, he'll take down the entire Tea Party with his anchor. Romney looked very polished, like he's been doing this for years, because, he has. The even worse news for Perry is that I thought he was fed pretty much softball questions, and while people are saying Romney went after him, I thought Mitt could have been much more brazen.

Disappointed by Huntsman. He seemed almost smug, like he's lost his belief that he could be civil and win the election since he's stuck in low single digits, and has decided to come off like a know-it-all.

Would like to see a Romney-Obama debate about now.

that's why i told scott that obama vs. perry wasn't a lock. it's easy to be a front runner when your mouth is shut and you look presidential, but perry makes too many comments about things like texas ceceding from the union and other strange things that scare a lot of people.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Goddammit TFF, you are ****ing me off because you are way better than this:D

Why did GE pay no Corporate tax last year?

And while it's true 2/3rd's of American corporations paid no corporate tax last year do you know why this is?

Don't let me down here:)

It's only partially due to offshore tax burden. Do you seriously believe that large multi-national companies are multi-national because of taxes and not their desire to find profit in large numbers of countries? No large corporation in today's world is so myopic as to think that the best money is to be made by limiting yourself to the borders of one nation. There are people with disposable income all over the place just looking to buy sh!t.

To suggest that multi-national corporate strategy is due to lower tax burdens in other countries is disingenuous because there are plenty of tax loop-holes in our country that drive a corporations US effective tax burden down to nothing. Creative accounting can make lots of tax disappear.

Now, if you want to discuss simplification of the tax code enabling us to lower our corporate tax rate while actually bringing in more revenue from those corporations by giving them few to any loop-holes to avoid those taxes, I am all ears. But to continue to couch this as "US corporations won't do business here because of our excessive tax rate," when the effective tax rate is as low as any major industrialized nation, go ahead. Someone who doesn't know what they are talking about might believe you. I don't.

Second subject: If Mitt Romney keeps the tone he showed last night, and avoids swaying into psycho social conservative mode, he will destroy Obama next year (if he gets the nom). That man is a moderate through and through, but he looks like a president, sounds like a president, and exudes a calm certainty. People are looking for someone to tell them it is going to be okay (it won't), and Romney can confidently and convincingly do so.

Perry is a freaking idiot.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
It's only partially due to offshore tax burden. Do you seriously believe that large multi-national companies are multi-national because of taxes and not their desire to find profit in large numbers of countries? No large corporation in today's world is so myopic as to think that the best money is to be made by limiting yourself to the borders of one nation. There are people with disposable income all over the place just looking to buy sh!t.

To suggest that multi-national corporate strategy is due to lower tax burdens in other countries is disingenuous because there are plenty of tax loop-holes in our country that drive a corporations US effective tax burden down to nothing. Creative accounting can make lots of tax disappear.

Now, if you want to discuss simplification of the tax code enabling us to lower our corporate tax rate while actually bringing in more revenue from those corporations by giving them few to any loop-holes to avoid those taxes, I am all ears. But to continue to couch this as "US corporations won't do business here because of our excessive tax rate," when the effective tax rate is as low as any major industrialized nation, go ahead. Someone who doesn't know what they are talking about might believe you. I don't.

Second subject: If Mitt Romney keeps the tone he showed last night, and avoids swaying into psycho social conservative mode, he will destroy Obama next year (if he gets the nom). That man is a moderate through and through, but he looks like a president, sounds like a president, and exudes a calm certainty. People are looking for someone to tell them it is going to be okay (it won't), and Romney can confidently and convincingly do so.

Perry is a freaking idiot.

Your links commonly blasted the "GE paid no corporate tax" and "2/3rds of American corporations pay no corporate tax".

2/3rds of American corporations are S-Corps and, by design, are pass throughs to the company's owner... for income tax purposes an S-Corp is basically a sole proprietor. There will never be coprporate taxes paid from this group and the ONLY reason this is ever brought up is to inflame the left.

GE's situation is dubious and an indicator of how broken the system is. Among other things, the US tax code allows GE and other multi-nationals to write off taxes paid to foreign governments on profits made overseas against their taxable income brought home. With our current system, knowing that income GE brings home will be hit at a much higher rate than what they pay abroad, why would they bring this money home? As a public company, Immelt has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to create value. What responsibility does GE have to pay more in corporate tax than they owe? Immelt did not write the tax code.

Now, do we as a country need to re-work the tax code? Yes and I have been stating as much since I started posting on this thread.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
That's easy. It is because our entire system is broken, completely and beyond repair. It has reached the inevitable end game where the entire thing is rigged for the top 10% and anyone who thinks different is either an idiot or willfully ignorant.
You can put any other argument to it that you want, it won't be right.

I disagree. I think it would not be that hard to fix what's wrong. But there is no doubt our system is broken and corrupt.

As for the top 10%... what you write would be true if those were always the same people. The fact that people come and go from this group is evidence that the system is in fact not rigged. If it were, people like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jerry Yang, Larry Page, Howard Schultz, James Gosling, Michael Dell, Pierre Omidyar, Bernie Marcus would never ever be allowed in to the club.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Your links commonly blasted the "GE paid no corporate tax" and "2/3rds of American corporations pay no corporate tax".

2/3rds of American corporations are S-Corps and, by design, are pass throughs to the company's owner... for income tax purposes an S-Corp is basically a sole proprietor. There will never be coprporate taxes paid from this group and the ONLY reason this is ever brought up is to inflame the left.

GE's situation is dubious and an indicator of how broken the system is. Among other things, the US tax code allows GE and other multi-nationals to write off taxes paid to foreign governments on profits made overseas against their taxable income brought home. With our current system, knowing that income GE brings home will be hit at a much higher rate than what they pay abroad, why would they bring this money home? As a public company, Immelt has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to create value. What responsibility does GE have to pay more in corporate tax than they owe? Immelt did not write the tax code.

Now, do we as a country need to re-work the tax code? Yes and I have been stating as much since I started posting on this thread.

And the companies owner has so many write offs that HE or SHE doesn't pay anywhere near the rate corporations in other countries pay, so lets not play that game either. Putting forth the proposition that this GE's "sole proprietor" is paying anywhere near the highest world wide taxes for his corporation (based on either corporate tax rate or personal income tax) is laughable. Talk about creating facts to support your position...

Sure, it needs to be re-written so that the loop-holes written in for the benefit of a minority of citizens (now that corporations are citizens) is certainly a good thing. I am also quite sick of the 50% don't pay taxes crap considering that much of the ability for people to do that is because of the child income tax credit instituted by RONALD REAGAN. Not to mention the fact that the bottom 50% only have 2% of the wealth. We wouldn't touch our deficit if we taxed them 100%.

Past that, I do believe we can structure the system differently. I am currently taking Federal Income Tax Law, and it is mind bogglingly complex for no apparent reason.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
And the companies owner has so many write offs that HE or SHE doesn't pay anywhere near the rate corporations in other countries pay, so lets not play that game either. Putting forth the proposition that this GE's "sole proprietor" is paying anywhere near the highest world wide taxes for his corporation (based on either corporate tax rate or personal income tax) is laughable. Talk about creating facts to support your position...

Sure, it needs to be re-written so that the loop-holes written in for the benefit of a minority of citizens (now that corporations are citizens) is certainly a good thing. I am also quite sick of the 50% don't pay taxes crap considering that much of the ability for people to do that is because of the child income tax credit instituted by RONALD REAGAN. Not to mention the fact that the bottom 50% only have 2% of the wealth. We wouldn't touch our deficit if we taxed them 100%.

Past that, I do believe we can structure the system differently. I am currently taking Federal Income Tax Law, and it is mind bogglingly complex for no apparent reason.


Putting forth the proposition that this GE's "sole proprietor" is paying anywhere near the highest world wide taxes for his corporation (based on either corporate tax rate or personal income tax) is laughable. Talk about creating facts to support your position...

You lost me here.

GE's a C-Corp and thus subjet to corporate taxes. S-Corps, by design, are not. By the numbers, roughly 2/3rds of US corporations are S-Corps... not subject to corporate tax but income is passed through to owners and then taxed as ordinary income.

Of the business's in the US, the vast majority are Sole Proprietors and Sub Chapter S-Corps. These two groups do not pay corporate taxes.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
How 9/11 began the decline in our democracy

By Vincent Warren, Special to CNN
September 7, 2011

Editor's note: Vincent Warren is executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The Center represented Maher Arar in his 2005 civil suit against the United States. Its dismissal by a district court in Brooklyn was upheld on appeal, and last year the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

(CNN) -- A year after the attacks of 9/11, Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained during a layover at JFK on his way home to Ottawa. He was held in solitary confinement for two weeks, interrogated and denied access to lawyers.

The Bush administration labeled him al Qaeda, and rather than send him home to Canada, they sent him to Syria, a country known for using torture. There, over the course of a year's confinement in a cell he describes as the size of a grave, he was repeatedly interrogated and tortured.

He was never charged and never tried. After a year, the Syrians released him and publicly stated he had done nothing wrong. Later, the Canadian government apologized and awarded him more than $9 million in compensation.

Around the same time in and around New York, immigrant men from countries ranging from Turkey to India were being swept up on minor immigration violations and detained for months on end, even after they were cleared of any connection to terrorism. They were sometimes held in solitary confinement. They were not permitted to reach out to family or friends or lawyers, and some were subjected to physical and verbal abuse and forbidden to practice their religion.

How did this happen? How did a nation that prides itself on being the world's greatest constitutional democracy become one that sends innocent people to be tortured or indefinitely detains and abuses immigrants who committed no crime?

September 11 was tragic in many ways, and it marked the beginning of the greatest decline in democracy in our country since the Japanese internment during World War II and the Red Scare of the 1950s.

It was the day we began to let fear erode our belief in our own system of government, with all its checks and balances and laws and treaties. Playing on that fear, our government began to operate outside the law and in the process destroyed many more lives than those lost in the attack.

Let us list some of the more egregious ways our most cherished protections were swept aside:

Our government engaged in surveillance of citizens, spying without the court approval required by law. For example, in March 2010 a federal judge found that the government under the Bush administration had violated a federal statute when in 2004 it wiretapped Al Haramain, a now-defunct charity organization in Oregon, along with two of its lawyers.

The Bush administration did more than that, though. Shortly after 9/11 it authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on the telephone calls and other electronic communications of millions of Americans, most of whom were suspected of no crime.

It tortured in our name. Arar's rendition to Syria (and the secret renditions of others) proves that the United States tortures or hires others to torture on its behalf. The United States sent prisoners to these places --Egypt is another -- with the knowledge that they were places known for torture and other human rights abuses.

Additional proof, if it's needed, of what is tolerated in this new America can be found in the horrifyingly graphic photographs, revealed to the world in 2004, documenting prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention center. Since the publication of those photos, the government has admitted to other instances of torture, most notably at the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

Even today, under the guidance of the president who promised change, the U.S. government continues to imprison people for years without trial or due process.

After 9/11, President Bush threw due process out the window, holding prisoners at Guantanamo without charging them and subjecting some of them to unfair military tribunals. President Obama has extended these illegal and unjust aspects of Bush's Guantanamo approach. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo and starting new military tribunals for detainees there.

Our government created and continues to defend vague and far-reaching laws. It made dissent, a basic right protected by the First Amendment, into a criminal act, going so far in one 2005 case as to monitor a group gathering at a Quaker meeting house in Florida to plan anti-war protests.

It subcontracted our interrogations and other military duties to private corporations with little accountability for their actions.

It hid detainees at Abu Ghraib in violation of international and domestic law and kept them hidden from the Red Cross.

And it created, at Guantanamo Bay, a legal black hole that has become a worldwide symbol of the way our country has turned its back on human rights and the law.

At the Center for Constitutional Rights, we see the faces of these new victims every day. Our clients are men and women who have been caught up in unlawful sweeps, racially profiled, sold for bounties in distant villages. They have been held indefinitely, tortured, abused.

Their lives were destroyed because too many times they were "the Other" and did not deserve our respect or even our protections.

But democracy is the presumption of innocence. The right to due process. The body of laws and international agreements that have been carefully built up (and fought for) over centuries to protect all people from arbitrary authority and persecution.

Maybe it's time to admit we lost our way and start on a new path.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
1
0
What determines whether a President is seen at the time, or perceived by history, as being 'good or 'bad'? I'm just a simple old fool who lives abroad, so my perspective is probably different to most who live in the US and who have to put up with the sh!t and horror that passes for 'normal' life in the US today.

I pass presidential judgement based on my perception of where the guy's heart is, what his intentions are, and whether or not he appears to be just plain stupid, evil, a criminal, a war criminal, or all of these, like the last idiot from Texas. Yes, I'm still on about Alpe's ridiculous contention that Obama is 'worse' than Nixon or Dubya were. In my view, the mere fact that any intelligent person can come to such a conclusion truly beggars belief. Obama has been a huge, mega-disappointment to all those of us who voted for him and who hoped for at least some of the change that he promised. I, like many, wish that he had shown more balls to push through his agenda, to implement affordable comprehensive health care, to close Gitmo, to regulate the banks and corproations, to make taxation more equitable, and to bring Bush era war criminals to justice. Obama also had the misfortune to inherit the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Sure, he's been a failure and a great disappointment to his supporters around the world, but he's not an evil man, so to compare him to vile and evil criminals like Nixon or Dubya is totally beyond the pale in my book.

I can't believe how many pages have been added in the few days since I last looked in here, and although there are loads of comments I'd like to respond to, I really can't be bothered to trawl through all these posts that divert from the essence of the problem - namely, that the current US system of government is literally, figuratively, and morally bankrupt - from top to bottom. That is not Obama's fault. That is down to the fact that an essentially and traditionally very right wing country, has mutated into an extreme right wing one, enslaved to the God of Extreme Profit and increasingly dominated by reactionary thought of a kind usually only seen in Arab sheikdoms or banana republics; a country that is still trying to regulate its affairs based on an outdated 200 year old document in a social climate where any progressive thought is labeled left wing or extreme left wing, and where God is constantly called upon for guidance.

Even the right wingers here (except for Scott, of course) appear to agree that the system is broken beyond mere 'repair', yet few, if any, are prepared to accept the logical conclusion that some of us expat lefties have inevitably and sadly come to - some kind of fundamental social/political/economic revolution needs to take place before the country lurches even further to the extreme lunatic right under someone like Perry, Bachmann or heaven forbid, Palin. Not enough people in the US seem to realize or care that US politics are the laughing stock of the world. In previous centuries, many people around the world saw the US as an egalitarian society that promised a better life, a progressive country that stood up for freedom and democracy in an otherwise corrupt and reactionary old world. That view has tilted 180 degrees. The US now personifies bullying, repression and social injustice. US military and economic support has kept the vilest regimes imaginable in power, and allowed these to continue to repress their own people.

Start by putting all the lawyers up against a very big wall. (Yes, this means most of Congress.) Allow the ultra-loony Hun wing to secede from the union, expel the worst dregs of our corrupt society......I'm starting to repeat myself, so I better stop now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
What determines whether a President is seen at the time, or perceived by history, as being 'good or 'bad'? I'm just a simple old fool who lives abroad, so my perspective is probably different to most who live in the US and who have to put up with the sh!t and horror that passes for 'normal' life in the US today.

I pass presidential judgement based on my perception of where the guy's heart is, what his intentions are, and whether or not he appears to be just plain stupid, evil, a criminal, a war criminal, or all of these, like the last idiot from Texas. Yes, I'm still on about Alpe's ridiculous contention that Obama is 'worse' than Nixon or Dubya were. In my view, the mere fact that any intelligent person can come to such a conclusion truly beggars belief. Obama has been a huge, mega-disappointment to all those of us who voted for him and who hoped for at least some of the change that he promised. I, like many, wish that he had shown more balls to push through his agenda, to implement affordable comprehensive health care, to close Gitmo, to regulate the banks and corproations, to make taxation more equitable, and to bring Bush era war criminals to justice. Obama also had the misfortune to inherit the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Sure, he's been a failure and a great disappointment to his supporters around the world, but he's not an evil man, so to compare him to vile and evil criminals like Nixon or Dubya is totally beyond the pale in my book.

I can't believe how many pages have been added in the few days since I last looked in here, and although there are loads of comments I'd like to respond to, I really can't be bothered to trawl through all these posts that divert from the essence of the problem - namely, that the current US system of government is literally, figuratively, and morally bankrupt - from top to bottom. That is not Obama's fault. That is down to the fact that an essentially and traditionally very right wing country, has mutated into an extreme right wing one, enslaved to the God of Extreme Profit and increasingly dominated by reactionary thought of a kind usually only seen in Arab sheikdoms or banana republics; a country that is still trying to regulate its affairs based on an outdated 200 year old document in a social climate where any progressive thought is labeled left wing or extreme left wing, and where God is constantly called upon for guidance.

Even the right wingers here (except for Scott, of course) appear to agree that the system is broken beyond mere 'repair', yet few, if any, are prepared to accept the logical conclusion that some of us expat lefties have inevitably and sadly come to - some kind of fundamental social/political/economic revolution needs to take place before the country lurches even further to the extreme lunatic right under someone like Perry, Bachmann or heaven forbid, Palin. Not enough people in the US seem to realize or care that US politics are the laughing stock of the world. In previous centuries, many people around the world saw the US as an egalitarian society that promised a better life, a progressive country that stood up for freedom and democracy in an otherwise corrupt and reactionary old world. That view has tilted 180 degrees. The US now personifies bullying, repression and social injustice. US military and economic support has kept the vilest regimes imaginable in power, and allowed these to continue to repress their own people.

Start by putting all the lawyers up against a very big wall. (Yes, this means most of Congress.) Allow the ultra-loony Hun wing to secede from the union, expel the worst dregs of our corrupt society......I'm starting to repeat myself, so I better stop now.

I am not sure any President in my lifetime was evil. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't view those I oppose politically as evil. Wrong headed? Sure.

You build up GWB as a monster, Nixon was a monster, Reagan was a monster... but Clinton was a hero and Obama, while disappointing, is really a saint that has run into a bunch of evil that will not allow him to do good things on behalf of all of humanity. It's hard to take all this emotional reaction seriously.

Another common theme is how you arrogantly seem to speak for the rest of the world... as if there is no divergence of opinion anywhere except the effed up and backwards USA. Sorry, but this simply is not true.

Speaking for myself, I do not believe our system is broken beyond repair. Call me an optimist or perhaps naive, but there are some simple things that could be done to curb rampant corruption that threatens our system of government. The problem is there seems to be little political will to enact simple solutions. The political class on both sides is only concerned with winning and losing and staying in power. Doing what's best for the country is not real high on their priority list.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
You lost me here.

GE's a C-Corp and thus subjet to corporate taxes. S-Corps, by design, are not. By the numbers, roughly 2/3rds of US corporations are S-Corps... not subject to corporate tax but income is passed through to owners and then taxed as ordinary income.

Of the business's in the US, the vast majority are Sole Proprietors and Sub Chapter S-Corps. These two groups do not pay corporate taxes.

And that "vast majority" are not subject to the overall corporate tax rate in their PERSONAL taxes, so your argument that our corporate tax rate being the hindrance is without much merit based on the information you put forth, no? Because the original discussion was over the fact that US corporations are not producing jobs because the CORPORATE tax rate is too high...well, the effective rate ISN'T, and if the majority of S corps are paying INDIVIDUAL taxes, that rate is RARELY close to the CORPORATE tax rate, ergo: False argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.