BDashe 0 #26 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. It really depends on what the definintion of "is" is. Or clear evidence of WMDs. Or 'Read my lips" and "these aren't taxes, these are revenue enhancements." Yup! When it comes down to it, I like to refer to my buddy Winston Churchill: 'A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.' Doesn't get more simple or correct than that. I don't care how much you make, less tax = more $ in the citizens' pockets. I'm not bias, I hate all politicians equally.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 February 26, 2009 QuoteWhen will it stop??? When Pinky and I finally rule the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #28 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhen will it stop??? When Pinky and I finally rule the world. but.... where are you going to find rubber pants our size? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 February 26, 2009 QuoteYup! When it comes down to it, I like to refer to my buddy Winston Churchill: 'A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.' Doesn't get more simple or correct than that. I don't care how much you make, less tax = more $ in the citizens' pockets. It erroneously implies that min(f(x)) occurs at x=0. (In this case, f(x) = amount of money left in citizens' pockets after obligations and expenses are paid, including taxes, as a function of x, which is the tax rate.) Supporting such a conclusion requires a rigorous proof. Anytime taxes allow citizens to obtain a price discount on something with near universal demand by utilizing buying power obtained by purchasing a good or service as a collective, instead of as individuals, then paying taxes for that good or service results in more money in citizens' pockets.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 February 26, 2009 Quote Quote When will it stop??? When Pinky and I finally rule the world. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #31 February 26, 2009 QuoteWell ... he did say one true thing Quotewe're also suffering from a deficit of trust ding, ding. We have a winner.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #32 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. Help me out. What's the difference?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #33 February 26, 2009 Don't you mean max(f(x))? min(f(x)) is what all the nasty Democrats are trying to achieve. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #34 February 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteYup! When it comes down to it, I like to refer to my buddy Winston Churchill: 'A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.' Doesn't get more simple or correct than that. I don't care how much you make, less tax = more $ in the citizens' pockets. It erroneously implies that min(f(x)) occurs at x=0. (In this case, f(x) = amount of money left in citizens' pockets after obligations and expenses are paid, including taxes, as a function of x, which is the tax rate.) Supporting such a conclusion requires a rigorous proof. Anytime taxes allow citizens to obtain a price discount on something with near universal demand by utilizing buying power obtained by purchasing a good or service as a collective, instead of as individuals, then paying taxes for that good or service results in more money in citizens' pockets. Nerd. he he he. We're not subsidizing anything that's helping everyone, or barely anyone as well. Government handouts to the poor don't do sh*t and it only benefits them. There will always be class differences, there will always be poor, old, rich, middle... the list goes on. No amount of taxing is going to change that, it just p*sses people off that made something of themselves cuz the money gets wasted on bullsh*t border fences, wars, failing programs that never work (universal health care- good luck!), corrupt officials, kick backs... Let everyone keep as much money as possible and more will get spent, i promise.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #35 February 26, 2009 > We're not subsidizing anything that's helping everyone . . . . I'd argue that the highway system, the center for disease control, the military and the air traffic control system help everyone. >Let everyone keep as much money as possible and more will get >spent, i promise. Well, that is literally untrue. I assume you mean "if the government doesn't spend it people will spend more of it." I don't think that's true either. If we got rid of NASA, for example, there would be no corporations building space shuttles. If we got rid of the military, no one would be building nuclear aircraft carriers. If we got rid of the highway system, people _might_ do that on their own - but it would not be anything that we would recognize as the interstate system we have today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #36 February 26, 2009 OMG, that made me laugh. Thanks, I needed that today.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #37 February 26, 2009 The thing that leaps out at me these days is: What is being measured? No one seems to be able to agree on that. Doesn't bode well for solutions that work.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBachelor 5 #38 February 26, 2009 Well, he didn't let facts get in the way of an entertaining speech: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama_4There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #39 February 26, 2009 Seriously Bill? I'm not saying get rid of the government and have a tax free anarchy, though I figured someone would decide to push my post to such a ridiculous extreme. Yeah, we need a judicial system, police, infrastructure, a military and sure even a space program... But it still confounds me to think getting out of debt by getting in even deeper debt, all the while painting the rich entrepreneurs as bad for creating jobs and the infrastructure of the country, then punishing them with EVEN MORE TAXES... is going to work. I dont even make 6 figures and I think all that sh*t is abslutely the most illogical cr*p of all time. Furthermore, and more on topic, I'll repeat myself: yes; if americans have more money by not being taxed and subsequently having it wasted on terrible government programs designed by politicians that think they're f*cking robin hood and have no clue what makes the economy turn, more money would get injected back to the economy by the economic system our country is founded on- capitalism!!! Is that a concept that makes too much sense or something? Yeah, sure, some will get invested and not spent, but only to be spent or reinvested another day! That also increases our faith in the banks and allows them to do what they do without needing the government to give em hand outs. And if a company like GM is gonna fail, let em! I love my corvette but let's see how the UAW feels when their unsustainable demands come to fruition. Dont try and tell me we're going to get into over 3.5 trillion in debt by building our military, freeways that are absolutely necessary, NASA, education (which needs SERIOUS reform before investment anyway), and all major pre-existing gov't programs. We'll triple the debt by keeping the same stuff? Show me the math. Half of the ones we already have are bogus, why create more?! I mean come on, that whole way of thinking is horse sh*t. Who is ready to watch the US dollar try to do its best impression of Zimbabwean dollar?So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 February 27, 2009 QuoteQuote It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. Help me out. What's the difference? Earmarks are inserted without debate, or relevance to the legislation. This was an omnibus spending bill, and there was considerable debate on what went in, particularly in the settling between the two houses, and to get the GOP votes in the Senate. Pork is any spending on stuff you don't have any stake in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #41 February 27, 2009 Quote Quote Quote It was full of pork, not earmarks. Many consider the distinction unimportant, but it makes the statement true, or as as true as any propaganda coming from the White House for the past several residents. Help me out. What's the difference? Earmarks are inserted without debate, or relevance to the legislation. This was an omnibus spending bill, and there was considerable debate on what went in, particularly in the settling between the two houses, and to get the GOP votes in the Senate. Pork is any spending on stuff you don't have any stake in. Well if this hunk of shit bill was debated, where the hell were the pissed off representatives on TV talkin' about the nearly 9,000 earmarks for stupid shit in it. Oh wait, they were on Glenn Beck.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
