Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 97

Thread: Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1%

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266329]what's 30 billion among friends?

    i love these arguments. Policy X won't solve all the USA's problems therefore it sucks.

    the GOP Doesn't actually make laws, pass bills or have ideas. Obstruct, repeal and cry. Root for a double dip.

    Thanks for that... really... it's a great help.[/QUOTE]

    Actually your arguement only works if you think that the point of government is creating more government. The GOP has plenty of idea such as repealing laws, cutting restrictions, reducing spending, overhauling medicare and medicaid, reducing the size of the post office, privatizing SS. Just because you don't agree with their ideas doesn't mean they don't have any.

  2. #22
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266346]the house passing bills that have no chance of making it through isn't really legislating.[/quote]

    So, to support your argument you have to redefine the word "legislating" to fit your political party affiliation.

    [QUOTE]It's very easy to vote for these bills that are dead on arrival.[/QUOTE]

    And of course, to support your argument you must also redefine the word "obstruction", also to suit your party affiliation.

    In Bitonti World, the party that passes legislation is obstrucuting, and the party who blocks, ignores or does not pass legislation is legislating.

    Kind of remind me of "It's not a tax cut, till Obama says it's a tax cut, then it's a tax cut....maybe".

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266353]So, to support your argument you have to redefine the word "legislating" to fit your political party affiliation.



    And of course, to support your argument you must also redefine the word "obstruction", also to suit your party affiliation.

    In Bitonti World, the party that passes legislation is obstrucuting, and the party who blocks, ignores or does not pass legislation is legislating.

    Kind of remind me of "It's not a tax cut, till Obama says it's a tax cut, then it's a tax cut....maybe".[/QUOTE]

    :clapper:

    Perfectly said...

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266346]the house passing bills that have no chance of making it through isn't really legislating. It's a play act. It's very easy to vote for these bills that are dead on arrival.

    Say what you want about Obamacare, it was a huge piece of legislation and historic that it got passed. What's the last piece of successful legislation the GOP was responsible for? the Patriot act? 10 years ago?[/QUOTE]

    On December 2nd H.R. 3010 Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 was passed in the Senate. It was proposed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) on September 22, 2011.

    [QUOTE][IMG]http://www.gop.gov/resources/images/legislative-digest/title-summary.png[/IMG]
    H.R. 3010 would define “major rule,” “high-impact rule,” “guidance,” and “major guidance” to broaden the definitions of rules that would be impacted by the bill.
    The bill would update and reform the rulemaking process by setting mandatory rulemaking principles. The bill would require that, in a rule making, an agency should make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence and consider, in addition to other applicable considerations, the following:
    [LIST][*]“The legal authority under which a rule may be proposed, including whether a rule making is required by statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether the agency has discretion to commence a rule making;[*]“Other statutory considerations applicable to whether the agency can or should propose a rule or undertake other agency action;[*]“The specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule (including the degree and nature of risks the problem poses and the priority of addressing those risks compared to other matters or activities within the agency's jurisdiction), whether the problem warrants new agency action, and the countervailing risks that may be posed by alternatives for new agency action;[*]“Whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether those rules could be amended or rescinded to address the problem in whole or part;[*]“Any reasonable alternatives for a new rule or other response identified by the agency or interested persons, including not only responses that mandate particular conduct or manners of compliance, but also: the alternative of no federal response; amending or rescinding existing rules; potential regional, state, local, or tribal regulatory action or other responses that could be taken in lieu of agency action; and potential responses that specify performance objectives rather than conduct or manners of compliance, establish economic incentives to encourage desired behavior, provide information upon which choices can be made by the public, or incorporate other innovative alternatives rather than agency actions that specify conduct or manners of compliance;[*]“Notwithstanding any other provision of law; the potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules and other responses, including direct, indirect, and cumulative costs and benefits and estimated impacts on jobs, economic growth, innovation, and economic competitiveness; means to increase the cost-effectiveness of any Federal response; and incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, lower costs of enforcement and compliance (to government entities, regulated entities, and the public), and flexibility.”[/LIST]H.R. 3010 would override provisions in existing law that limit agencies from considering costs in a small number of rulemaking settings. However, the bill would not require agencies to base final rulemaking decisions in those settings on cost considerations at the expense of other statutory considerations.
    In the case of a rule making for a major rule or high-impact rule or a rule that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the bill would require that no later than 90 days before a notice of proposed rule making is published in the Federal Register, an agency must publish advance notice of proposed rule making in the Federal Register. H.R. 3010 would require that the agency:
    [LIST][*]“Include a written statement identifying, at a minimum--the nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule, including data and other evidence and information on which the agency expects to rely for the proposed rule; the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed, including whether a rule making is required by statute, and if so, whether by a specific date, or whether the agency has discretion to commence a rule making; preliminary information available to the agency concerning the other considerations; and in the case of a rule that involves a novel legal or policy issue arising out of statutory mandates, the nature of and potential reasons to adopt the novel legal or policy position upon which the agency may base a proposed rule;[*]“Solicit written data, views or argument from interested persons concerning the information and issues addressed in the advance notice; and[*]“Provide for a period of not fewer than 60 days for interested persons to submit such written data, views, or argument to the agency.”[/LIST]Before it determines to propose a rule, the bill would require the following completion of procedures, and if applicable, the agency would be required to consult with the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The bill would require that if the agency determines to propose a rule, the agency must publish a notice of proposed rule making (Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRs), to include:
    [LIST][*]A statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings;[*]Reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed;[*]The terms of the proposed rule;[*]A description of information known to the agency on the subject and issues of the proposed rule;[*]A reasoned preliminary determination of need for the rule, and an additional statement of whether a rule is required by statute;[*]A reasoned preliminary determination that the benefits of the proposed rule meet the relevant statutory objectives and justify the costs of the proposed rule;[*]A discussion of the alternatives to the proposed rule, and other alternative responses, the costs and benefits of those alternatives, whether those alternatives meet relevant statutory objectives, and why the agency did not propose any of those alternatives; and[*]A statement of whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency seeks to address with the proposed rule; and if so, whether or not the agency proposes to amend or rescind any such rules, and why.[/LIST]After concluding the ANPR process, the bill would allow an agency to publish a Determination of Other Agency Course, describing the alternative response the agency chose rather than to issue a new rule. H.R. 3010 would require that the agency consult with OIRA, and disclose all information provided to or considered by the agency in its decision-making process, including but not limited to any preliminary risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis. The bill would require that if the agency proceeds with the rulemaking, then the agency must give interested parties at least 60 days to submit written data, views or arguments related to the proposed rule, and 120 days to do so for any proposed major or high-impact rule.
    H.R. 3010 would provide an early opportunity for quick administrative appeals of whether the key studies or other information on which agencies base their proposed rules meet standards set under the Information Quality Act (IQA).
    The bill would require that following the notice of a proposed rule making, receipt of comments on the proposed rule, and any hearing held, and before adoption of any high-impact rule (a proposed rules that would impose at least $1 billion burden on the economy), the agency must hold a hearing. The agency would be required to provide a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination at the hearing and limit the hearing to the following issues:
    [LIST][*]Whether the agency's asserted factual predicate for the rule is supported by the evidence;[*]Whether there is an alternative to the proposed rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a lower cost;[*]If there is more than one alternative to the proposed rule that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at a lower cost than the proposed rule, which alternative would achieve the relevant statutory objectives at the lowest cost;[*]Whether, if the agency proposes to adopt a rule that is more costly than the least costly alternative that would achieve the relevant statutory objectives, the additional benefits of the more costly rule exceed the additional costs of the more costly rule;[*]Whether the evidence and other information upon which the agency bases the proposed rule meets the requirements of the IQA;[*]Upon petition by an interested person who has participated in the rule making, other issues relevant to the rule making, unless the agency determines that consideration of the issues at the hearing would not advance consideration of the rule or would, in light of the nature of the need for agency action, unreasonably delay completion of the rule making. The bill would require that an agency grant or deny a petition under this paragraph within 30 days of its receipt of the petition.[/LIST]H.R. 3010 would improve requirements at the final rulemaking stage as well. The bill would require that in adopting a final rule, an agency must do the following:
    [LIST][*]Consult with the OIRA Administrator;[*]Rely only on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical and economic information;[*]Adopt only the least-cost alternative considered during rulemaking that meets statutory objectives, unless the agency explains why a more costly rule is justified to serve interests of public health, safety or welfare clearly within the scope of the statutory provision that authorizes the rule and the more costly rule’s additional benefits justify its additional costs;[*]Publish a notice of final rulemaking giving: “a concise, general statement of the rule’s basis and purpose,” an explanation of the need for the rule, the costs and benefits, any final risk assessment or regulatory impact analysis, and why the agency did not adopt an alternative rule or amend or rescind an existing rule. The bill would require that the agency rest specific, final determinations on the critical issues considered during formal rulemaking hearings, based on data that meets the strictures of the Information Quality Act;[*]Publish plans for periodic review of high-impact and major rules to determine whether the agency’s final rule still is needed, achieves statutory objectives, and produces benefits that justify its costs or whether the rule could be modified or rescinded.[/LIST]The bill would seek to prevent the abuse of “interim-final rules.” H.R. 3010 would seek to prevent agencies in cases of public urgency to issue “interim-final rules” that are effective before full rulemaking procedures are completed, but also requires prompt subsequent completion of full rulemaking procedures and allows affected entities to seek rapid judicial review of agency decisions to adopt interim-final rules (except for national security rules). The bill would allow an agency to forego the rulemaking process when the “rulemaking is undertaken only to correct a de minimis technical or clerical error in a previously issued rule or for other noncontroversial purposes.” Furthermore, if the agency receives significant adverse comment on such rules within 60 days, then it must conduct normal notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    The bill would require the publication of a substantive final or interim rule no less than 30 days before its effective date.
    H.R. 3010 would require OIRA to issue guidelines for agencies to follow as they assess scientific and economic issues in rulemaking, including cost-benefit analysis and assessment of risks; as they observe statute-specific rulemaking regimes in conjunction with the generally applicable procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended; to assure better coordination, simplification and coordination by agencies in rulemaking; and, as they conduct hearings. The bill would require that the agency include in the rulemaking record “all documents and information prepared or considered by the agency during the proceeding” including, at the discretion of the President or the OIRA Administrator, communications from OIRA to the agency. The record must also be made available to the public online whenever feasible, but if not then by other electronic means, and otherwise.
    The bill would exempt the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Markets Committee from performing cost-benefit analysis or holding formal hearings for monetary policy rules (such an exemption is part of the Congressional Review Act).
    H.R. 3010 would curb agency abuse of purportedly non-binding “guidance” – particularly guidance with major economic impacts – to avoid statutory rulemaking requirements. Specifically, when issuing major guidance, the bill would require the agency consult with OIRA; document that the guidance is “understandable and complies with relevant statutory objectives and regulatory provisions;” summarize the underlying evidence; identify the costs and benefits of the guidance; and, describe alternatives to the guidance, their costs and benefits, and why the agency rejected them. H.R. 3010 would require that this documentation be published online or made available to the public by electronic means, or otherwise. The bill would specify that agency guidance is not legally binding, and requires agencies to disclose this on its guidance. The bill would also prohibit agencies from issuing guidance that is duplicative of, or inconsistent or incompatible with, existing statutes or regulations.
    The bill would clarify that an agency’s denial of an Information Quality Act correction petition, or an agency’s failure to grant or deny a petition within 90 days, is reviewable by a court as a final action. The bill would provide for immediate judicial review of agency decisions to establish “interim-final rules” before complying with normal rulemaking requirements.
    H.R. 3010 would clarify the scope and standards of judicial review available under the APA. The bill would allow courts to review agency action for violations of the Information Quality Act and would prohibit judicial deference to agency guidance and other interpretive statements rendered outside of the rulemaking process; agency determinations of cost-benefit issues, other economic assessments or risk assessments that do not comply with applicable OIRA guidelines; and, agency determinations of law and fact to support interim-final rules. The bill would allow agency denials of petitions for hearings or consideration of specific issues in hearings to be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
    H.R. 3010 would not apply to rulemakings pending or completed as of the date of enactment.

    [/QUOTE]

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,226
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266324]bills would get paid

    [/QUOTE]

    Doubt it....hasn't happened in 10 years, why start now. Obama has shown NO desire to help those who need a job get one. he has shown them he wants them to stay on unemployment.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266353]So, to support your argument you have to redefine the word "legislating" to fit your political party affiliation.



    And of course, to support your argument you must also redefine the word "obstruction", also to suit your party affiliation.

    In Bitonti World, the party that passes legislation is obstrucuting, and the party who blocks, ignores or does not pass legislation is legislating.

    Kind of remind me of "It's not a tax cut, till Obama says it's a tax cut, then it's a tax cut....maybe".[/QUOTE]

    warfish I wonder if you care as much about politics as you do about trying to prove my hypocracy. You don't really have views you just like to crap on mine. Prove me wrong.

    I asked a question a week or so ago, probably lost in the sands of time, I wondered how Warfish the pink floyd fan could be so progressive in his rock but anything but progressive in his politics. It's also kinda like how the most conservative posters in the politics forum are the ones cheering for the Jets to go for it on 4th down.

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4266413]Doubt it....hasn't happened in 10 years, why start now. Obama has shown NO desire to help those who need a job get one. he has shown them he wants them to stay on unemployment.[/QUOTE]

    yep you got it. The President wants people to stay on unemployment forever. It's his master plan to creating the ultimate nanny state. You did it. You exposed the cabal. Nice work.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4266348] The GOP has plenty of idea such as repealing laws, cutting restrictions, reducing spending, overhauling medicare and medicaid, reducing the size of the post office, privatizing SS. Just because you don't agree with their ideas doesn't mean they don't have any.[/QUOTE]

    oh yeah my bad. the Gop's ideas are to destroy every aspect of gov't and let the free market reign supreme. that should go well. Good luck with that.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,226
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266441]yep you got it. The President wants people to stay on unemployment forever. It's his master plan to creating the ultimate nanny state. You did it. You exposed the cabal. Nice work.[/QUOTE]


    Where is your evidence of him doing anything to create private sector jobs?

    In fact, the regulations coming down lose jobs. Read Steve Jobs book where he clearly told Obama he was hurting the economy. Obama doesn't care because the bottom 50 percent really dont care. Why should they. they dont pay anything.

  10. #30
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266440]warfish I wonder if you care as much about politics as you do about trying to prove my hypocracy.[/quote]

    You're not being a hypocrite here.

    You're just redefining words with existing definitions.

    Passing bills is obstruction. Not passing bills is legislation.

    Very Newspeak.

    [QUOTE]Prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]

    I think you've had enough. At this stage from the tone of some posts, I get the feeling I might be meeting you and PK in a dark alley in DC some day soon, and that I won't be as pleased to meet the two of you as I might otherwise have thought.

    [QUOTE]I asked a question a week or so ago, probably lost in the sands of time, I wondered how Warfish the pink floyd fan could be so progressive in his rock but anything but progressive in his politics.[/QUOTE]

    I do remember it, although not if I replied or not tbh.

    But since my point here is already well covered, I'll entertain the derail topic, could be fun. Where, as you see it, should I be more progressive in my politics, based upon my social and musical progressive tastes, would you say?

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4266284]Question for the forum:

    Lets say one of the evil 1%ers buys a munibond to avoid paying some taxes. The Muni bond pays a 3% interest rate. That same investor passes up the opportunity to buy an equally rated corporate bond paying 4.5% but subject to taxation. Is the resulting difference of 1.5% essentially taxes paid? Would that for this examples sake be equal to paying a 30% tax?

    From another angle lets say the state of NY needs to borrow money. Assuming no tax incentives the State would need to offer 4.5% interest to find investors. Now tack on the tax savings and the state can borrow at 3%. Should that dollar savings to the State be considered tax revenue?

    Would it be better for the country to simply eliminate the tax incentive for buying municipal debt and simply pay the market interest rate then tax the interest income even though in the end of the day the accounting for this would result in equal dollars to the current system?[/QUOTE]


    I fall in here. Maybe not a 1% though. I have a portfolio of municipal bonds. Mine average between 4.5-5%. Also have corporates -7+%. The difference is not taxes paid. Obviously I am avoiding some federal taxation legally.
    Also I can pick and choose the municipality I want to invest in. I like reliable govs. If they do away with the tax free element who would invest in municipalities. Nobody. The federal gov would fund local projects? Which ones? The hospital or the school. Obama's Illinois project or one in Texas? The union labor project ot the right to work state project? Won't fly.

  12. #32
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    967
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266443]oh yeah my bad. the Gop's ideas are to destroy every aspect of gov't and let the free market reign supreme. that should go well. Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

    [b]pfft, for starters... i mean, those conservatives [/b]

    that's just economic policy. They also want to build a radioactive electric death-fence as a first step in immigration reform. Crucify, gas, and or hang minorities and gays. Repeal the woman's right to vote, declare English the universal language of the the universe, and nuke China, Iran and North Korea... and maybe France.. yeah probable France too.

    [b]Then the liberals... jeez those guys. [/b]

    They want to liquify wall street and pass out wealth based on who needs it the most IE, how small a carbon footprint you leave behind. Make littering a felony, and rename American English the "shame-tongue", White males will be ineligible for political office, or private (haha "private") jobs, paying over the poverty line until such a time that their race-debt has been repaid. Also, everyone will be forced to try some form of gay sex at least once just to make sure you've given the homosexual gene a fair chance to express itself.


    But gee Bitoni, i dunno, why don't you think they can agree on any legislative solutions to our decade old complex social and economic problems?
    Last edited by Axil; 12-06-2011 at 01:53 PM.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266443]oh yeah my bad. the Gop's ideas are to destroy every aspect of gov't and let the free market reign supreme. that should go well. Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

    Not destroy every aspect, just reduce the size and make some things workable. Yeah that is a bad thing.

    No response on my last piece of GOP proposed legislation that has passed? Does it not count because it is short, readable and not overly expensive?

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266346]the house passing bills that have no chance of making it through isn't really legislating. It's a play act. It's very easy to vote for these bills that are dead on arrival.

    Say what you want about Obamacare, it was a huge piece of legislation and historic that it got passed. What's the last piece of successful legislation the GOP was responsible for? the Patriot act? 10 years ago?[/QUOTE]

    Bush passed plenty of big government legislation. Its one of the reasons Republicans abandoned him in 2006. Medicare part D, dept of homeland security etc.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266483]You're not being a hypocrite here.

    You're just redefining words with existing definitions.

    Passing bills is obstruction. Not passing bills is legislation.

    Very Newspeak.[/quote]

    let me be clear getting something through the house, senate, and signed by the President is how I define "passing a bill." That's how everyone, everywhere defines passing a bill. Ron Paul proposing a bill to end the fed that gets killed on arrival, that's not passing a bill.



    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266483]
    I think you've had enough. At this stage from the tone of some posts, I get the feeling I might be meeting you and PK in a dark alley in DC some day soon, and that I won't be as pleased to meet the two of you as I might otherwise have thought.[/quote]


    lets not be dramatic. if you me and PK got together Im sure it would be fun.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4266483]
    I do remember it, although not if I replied or not tbh.

    But since my point here is already well covered, I'll entertain the derail topic, could be fun. Where, as you see it, should I be more progressive in my politics, based upon my social and musical progressive tastes, would you say?[/QUOTE]

    I just think it's interesting. Pink Floyd is progressive rock... probably the greatest prog rock band ever. they took normal rock and blew it out. They progressed the genre. It seems like an open minded thing to love.

  16. #36
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266513]let me be clear getting something through the house, senate, and signed by the President is how I define "passing a bill."[/quote]

    Yes, thats how I define (and everyone defines) "passing a bill".

    You didn't say "passing a bill".

    You used the terms, legislating (which the (R) don't do) and obsctruction (which only the (R) does). You also used "has no ideas".

    Your claim that (R) does not legislate is false. Your claim that (D) has not obstructed passed House (R) legislation is eqully false. Your claim that (R) has "no ideas" is false, they have no ideas you agree with (a very different thing). You are using classic doublespeak here.

    [QUOTE]lets not be dramatic. if you me and PK got together Im sure it would be fun.[/QUOTE]

    I don't know, PK sounded like he wanted to give me a black eye this morning. Probably for good reason, tbh, although not (most likely) why HE'D think it was a good reason.;)

    [quote]I just think it's interesting. Pink Floyd is progressive rock... probably the greatest prog rock band ever. they took normal rock and blew it out. They progressed the genre. It seems like an open minded thing to love.[/QUOTE]

    I tend to think of myself as very progressive (i.e. libertarian, because modern progressives are just as interested in controlling the actions and behaviors of others as conservatives are, only for different reasons and via different mechanics) socially speaking.

    More than most, I'd wager. Philisophically speaing, I am probably the biggest defender of personal freedom on JI Poli-Sci, next to perhaps Tater.

    But I guess I'm not seeing the link here. Enjoyment of a now-40 year old bands music (who was around well before my own birth) should effect my thinking on fiscal, defense and social issues.....how? Social, perhaps, I get. Perhaps you may even think I should follow my musical love's politics, and be socialists liek Mr. Gilmour and Mr. Waters both are, generally?

    Just not seeing it Bit.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266440]warfish I wonder if you care as much about politics as you do about trying to prove my hypocracy. You don't really have views you just like to crap on mine. Prove me wrong.

    I asked a question a week or so ago, probably lost in the sands of time, I wondered how Warfish the pink floyd fan could be so progressive in his rock but anything but progressive in his politics. It's also kinda like how the most conservative posters in the politics forum are the ones cheering for the Jets to go for it on 4th down.[/QUOTE]

    Being conservative on government spending doesn't mean conservative on all things in life. I can root for the Jets to be aggresive and go for it on 4th down while I will be "conservative" and not buy an $11 beer at the stadium or $200 jersey.

    I am a libertarian, small government, low spending and taxes, free market, less regulation, legalize most drugs, etc. Fiscal conservative, could give a damn what you do in the privacy of your home.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    May have missed it, but why stop at 2009? Isn't it nearly the end of 2011? How has the disparity between rich and poor fared since the great recession?

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,226
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4266890]May have missed it, but why stop at 2009? Isn't it nearly the end of 2011? How has the disparity between rich and poor fared since the great recession?[/QUOTE]

    technology advances almost guarantee this trend will continue.....so what's your:

    Solution
    Point


    taxation will not stop this...... Perhaps if the education unions in this country cared about anything except making teachers upper class early retirees we could have real money reach the children and not just the vacationing teachers.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,014
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm just amazed we can live in a country that offers free education, free food, low-cost housing, Medicaid, etc., and we still complain "rich people" don't pay enough . . .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us