Skip to content


Advanced search
  • Board index ‹ General ‹ Speaker's Corner ‹ Politics and World Events
  • Syndication
  • Change font size
  • E-mail friend
  • Print view
  • FAQ
  • Members
  • Register
  • Login

[Still] The President of these here United States of America

A favorite time-sink for many on the fair Medusa
Post a reply
1189 posts • Page 3 of 80 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 80
  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:41 am

DzM wrote:
Clash Cadillac wrote:
Benno wrote:could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?
pretty sure he could.
could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

What would be the purpose of ending the IRS?

There is a popular (by "popular" I mean "a small group of people") theory that the IRS is illegal. This group of people is pretty vocal:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... %20illegal

The IRS and US income tax code is also a favorite target of the Ron Paul campaign (and Ron Paul) that boils down to "taxes == The Gubment controls your life, not you."
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... l%22%20irs


Yes I know all this. I actually watched all the videos from the links that Benno posted a long time ago. But I still have to ask why get rid of the IRS. Do you mean that no one should pay taxes Benno?
And I don't want no grave
Just throw my ashes in the field
And hope there's some soul left to save

W. E. Whitmore
User avatar
Clash Cadillac
Yeoman Rand
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Dakota
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:44 am

Clash Cadillac wrote:
DzM wrote:
Clash Cadillac wrote:
Benno wrote:could he not write an EO ending the Fed? ending the IRS?
pretty sure he could.
could he write an EO creating bullion backed currency?
definitely, lincoln and kennedy both did it

What would be the purpose of ending the IRS?

There is a popular (by "popular" I mean "a small group of people") theory that the IRS is illegal. This group of people is pretty vocal:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... %20illegal

The IRS and US income tax code is also a favorite target of the Ron Paul campaign (and Ron Paul) that boils down to "taxes == The Gubment controls your life, not you."
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... l%22%20irs


Yes I know all this. I actually watched all the videos from the links that Benno posted a long time ago. But I still have to ask why get rid of the IRS. Do you mean that no one should pay taxes Benno?


moreover...why would a Canadian not want Americans to pay taxes. I missed the connection. not to be an asshole here or anything.

What is the tax rate in Canada? Last I heard (from my 4 very good friends that are from there) it was deep indeed. made Hawaii look cheap even. and that's saying something.

sorry. this is none of my affair. but being the head in the sand that I know myself to be I still had to ask. Benno.
-Alone with Everyone-
User avatar
chinaski
Brighella
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Kansas City, MO
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:50 am

LittleCupcakes wrote:Suffice to say, he's listening to the WRONG people

With respect to what? The economy? Military? Everything?

and is most certainly "guilty" of fanatical devotion to the soft socialist ideology of the left.

Well yeah, but that's one of our fundamental differences Lil' C. I'm a dork that grew up on Star Trek and Spock's clichéd mantra that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I happen to agree with the "soft socialist ideology of the left." I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to provide for the common good of its citizenry. This means more than just having a strong military. This means having a health care system that affordable and life-prolonging for all citizens (this does not mean there should not be better health care for those that can afford it, but rather that all citizens should be able to expect that broken bones will be set, infections treated, wounds salved, etc), food and shelter should be a basic right (again they need not be luxurious, but nobody should HAVE to live under bridges because no housing exists that they can afford), a quality education should be within the means of anyone willing to apply themselves, and so-on.

I had a much longer rant about this written but have decided to remove it.

Lil' C, and Benno too - Please tell me what you'd cut. If Gubment Spending is the boogeyman, and taxes are in support of that boogeyman, then what services would you cut? Here's a handy view of the 2009 Federal budget. Military spending accounts for 68% of that budget. All the rest - EVERYTHING - accounts for 32%. So what would you cut? Would you cut back on military spending? If so, how? Would you have an immediate and unilateral pull-out from Iraq and Afghanistan? We're dumping a crap-load of money into both those places, but pulling out immediately and unilaterally would make us even bigger jerks than we already are. The only thing I can think of worse than bombing some country into the stone-age is to bomb them into the stone age and then pull out leaving a note saying "sorry for the mess."

So where else would you cut? Social Security? Health & Human Services ("Medicare")? Non-military national security? Department of Education? Department of Transportation? Where would you cut?

Right now personal income tax accounts for ~33% of the income needed for the budget. ~15% is borrowed (meaning "gets added to the nation's debt"). Eliminate the IRS without making cuts and you end up with a 50% deficit (note that this is, of course, before all the bailouts and stimuli, etc). What do you propose cutting, specifically, to make up for the lost income? What "pork" will you trim?

I'm all for identifying what has worked and what has been mismanaged. I'm positive there's a crapload of wasteful spending going on in every single large institution, government or not. But shaving 5% from this budget and 10% from that budget won't reclaim our missing dollars. What programs en masse would you cut, and how would you propose that whatever service that program provides be recreated either in the public or private sectors?
“I know all those people that were in the film [...] But that’s when they were young and strong and full of life, you know?”
User avatar
DzM
Site Janitor
 
Posts: 10530
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:11 am
Location: Bay Area, California, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Terra, Sol, etc etc
  • Website
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:54 am

DzM wrote:I'm all for identifying what has worked and what has been mismanaged. I'm positive there's a crapload of wasteful spending going on in every single large institution, government or not.
...and how much would it cost to find out those figures?
I wish I'd done biology for an urge within me wanted to do it then
User avatar
Jon
Brighella
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:47 pm
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:22 pm

chinaski wrote:
Clash Cadillac wrote:
DzM wrote:
Clash Cadillac wrote:What would be the purpose of ending the IRS?

There is a popular (by "popular" I mean "a small group of people") theory that the IRS is illegal. This group of people is pretty vocal:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... %20illegal

The IRS and US income tax code is also a favorite target of the Ron Paul campaign (and Ron Paul) that boils down to "taxes == The Gubment controls your life, not you."
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cg ... l%22%20irs


Yes I know all this. I actually watched all the videos from the links that Benno posted a long time ago. But I still have to ask why get rid of the IRS. Do you mean that no one should pay taxes Benno?


moreover...why would a Canadian not want Americans to pay taxes. I missed the connection. not to be an asshole here or anything.

What is the tax rate in Canada? Last I heard (from my 4 very good friends that are from there) it was deep indeed. made Hawaii look cheap even. and that's saying something.

sorry. this is none of my affair. but being the head in the sand that I know myself to be I still had to ask. Benno.


the Canadian dollar is different, making the tax system different
our taxes are generally well spent and well managed
the dollar doesn't lose much value after it leaves our pocket, goes into the government, and then gets spit back out in social services
(private companies can't get a much lower rate)

the american government is disgustingly unable to manage tax funds
simple
end the IRS, get your social services from private companies
they can do it wayyyy cheaper
Last edited by Benno on Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The girl cried out a few times and the old man slept with his mouth wide open and his bad teeth showing.
User avatar
Benno
Scaramuccia
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: Canada
  • Website
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:27 pm

DzM wrote:
LittleCupcakes wrote:Suffice to say, he's listening to the WRONG people

With respect to what? The economy? Military? Everything?

and is most certainly "guilty" of fanatical devotion to the soft socialist ideology of the left.


Lil' C, and Benno too - Please tell me what you'd cut. If Gubment Spending is the boogeyman, and taxes are in support of that boogeyman, then what services would you cut? Here's a handy view of the 2009 Federal budget. Military spending accounts for 68% of that budget. All the rest - EVERYTHING - accounts for 32%. So what would you cut? Would you cut back on military spending? If so, how? Would you have an immediate and unilateral pull-out from Iraq and Afghanistan? We're dumping a crap-load of money into both those places, but pulling out immediately and unilaterally would make us even bigger jerks than we already are. The only thing I can think of worse than bombing some country into the stone-age is to bomb them into the stone age and then pull out leaving a note saying "sorry for the mess."

So where else would you cut? Social Security? Health & Human Services ("Medicare")? Non-military national security? Department of Education? Department of Transportation? Where would you cut?

Right now personal income tax accounts for ~33% of the income needed for the budget. ~15% is borrowed (meaning "gets added to the nation's debt"). Eliminate the IRS without making cuts and you end up with a 50% deficit (note that this is, of course, before all the bailouts and stimuli, etc). What do you propose cutting, specifically, to make up for the lost income? What "pork" will you trim?

I'm all for identifying what has worked and what has been mismanaged. I'm positive there's a crapload of wasteful spending going on in every single large institution, government or not. But shaving 5% from this budget and 10% from that budget won't reclaim our missing dollars. What programs en masse would you cut, and how would you propose that whatever service that program provides be recreated either in the public or private sectors?


dismantle the military, and give 1/160th of that money (roughly the number of member nations in the UN)
to the UN to do what they will with it

if you claim you're committed to universal understanding and prosperity then stick to the true sentiment expressed after WW2
an END to militarism, and replace it with a devotion to understand

as for the rest, leave it up to individual the states to set the level of government provided social security
The girl cried out a few times and the old man slept with his mouth wide open and his bad teeth showing.
User avatar
Benno
Scaramuccia
 
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: Canada
  • Website
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:40 pm

Day 44 of his first term and The Pres just made his opening gambits on Healthcare, a brief speech concluding with "Let's go to work". If the Republicans did not have their heads up Rush Limbaugh's ass at the moment, they would be spinning. Their heads. OK, and their asses as well.
User avatar
philipchevron
Harlequin
 
Posts: 11126
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:03 am
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:17 pm

Benno wrote:dismantle the military, and give 1/160th of that money (roughly the number of member nations in the UN)
to the UN to do what they will with it

1/160th of $515.4B is $3.2B. The United States already contributes $2.4B to the UN (~25% of the UN budget), plus another $1.4B for UN agencies and project. That's a combined $3.8B, or already more than the 1/160th you propose. So from here you would propose simply disbanding the US military? Would we rely on the United Nations to provide national defense? What about things like the Army Corps of Engineers? The National Guard? What should we do with the physical assets of the branches of the military? What about the weapons? What about all the people employed by the military (both servicemen/servicewomen as well as civilian support)?

I'm also be bit confused about how you come up with 1/160th as the right amount to contribute. Are you saying that each member nation of the UN should be contributing 1/160th of the UN operating budget? Each member nation should be contributing 1/160th of their own military budget and disbanding their own military? You're a little unclear on how you've arrived at this number.

if you claim you're committed to universal understanding and prosperity then stick to the true sentiment expressed after WW2
an END to militarism, and replace it with a devotion to understand

That's certainly a Utopian ideal. Maybe some day we'll achieve it.

as for the rest, leave it up to individual the states to set the level of government provided social security

So the states take over Social Security? Interesting. What happens if I move from California to, say, Oregon? Do my California Social Security benefits follow me? Do I get Oregon's new more generous benefits even though I haven't paid into their system? Would there be a risk or problem of people working in one state with low SS payment requirements, then retiring to another state with generous SS benefits?

What about all the other stuff that the Federal Government does? Foreign policy, uniform monetary policy, national transportation infrastructure, consistent environmental protection, etc? Should all of these things also fall to the individual states? Wouldn't that create a labyrinthine patchwork of local taxes/permits/requirements? What makes you think the states would be any better at these tasks than the Federal government? And what makes you think that private enterprise would be any better at it than State or Federal governments?

You said a post or two above that the Canadian government seems to have worked out how to provide national health care, etc. How is it that Canada can figure out how to provide these services in a way that satisfies you, but for the USofA you advocate for privatization as the only possible solution?
“I know all those people that were in the film [...] But that’s when they were young and strong and full of life, you know?”
User avatar
DzM
Site Janitor
 
Posts: 10530
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:11 am
Location: Bay Area, California, USA, North America, Western Hemisphere, Terra, Sol, etc etc
  • Website
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:22 pm

Whoa Benno! Pensions individually managed by each state? Read any Canadian papers recently? The Caisse de Depot de Quebec was mismanaged and lost 26%, or $38 billion, compared with the 16% losses of other Canadian pension fund management firms. What's Quebec going to do?

I think that often centralization of finances is a good idea, as unfashionable as it is with rich provinces. Then the have-not provinces get equalization payments, which allows each province a basic level of funding in health and education, social services and pensions. Without those payments, the disparities would be higher than they are between provinces.

And the tax system has nothing to do with the Canadian dollar being "different". The circumstances and priorities of successive Canadian and US governments have been different.

Even if the US were to beat its swords into ploughshares tomorrow, the medical costs and pensions of those who've served in the military would still cost the US taxpayer a huge chunk of change.

And Chinaski? You are right to wonder why Canadians have so many opinions about the US. What can I say? Talking about the US is a national pastime just about everywhere in the world.

Be assured that Benno's views on many things are not those of most Canadians.
The thing I mean couldn't possibly be done by a thief. Stephen Leacock
Sandyfromvancouver
Brighella
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:47 pm
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:37 pm

LittleCupcakes wrote:What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being not Bush?


Obama to reverse restrictions on stem cell work
And I don't want no grave
Just throw my ashes in the field
And hope there's some soul left to save

W. E. Whitmore
User avatar
Clash Cadillac
Yeoman Rand
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Dakota
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:07 pm

Clash Cadillac wrote:
LittleCupcakes wrote:What is it that he has done that's good? BESIDES being not Bush?


Obama to reverse restrictions on stem cell work



YAY! About time too...
ExFishManAustralis
 
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:26 pm

Sandyfromvancouver wrote:And Chinaski? You are right to wonder why Canadians have so many opinions about the US. What can I say? Talking about the US is a national pastime just about everywhere in the world.

Be assured that Benno's views on many things are not those of most Canadians.


Thanks Sandy. After I wrote that I was afraid it sounded defensive. Being American, it's hard for me personally to see the outside points of view. Especially as I said, some of my very good friends are Canadian and do not critic so harshly.
We have had very long conversations of the pro's and cons of both healthcare and taxes.

Here in Hawaii we have the best coverage that I have ever heard of. Here, employers are REQUIRED to pay for the majority of healthcare benefits. Basically that means I get top of the line health coverage, no deductable, $10 Co-pay, can see ANY doctor I want (without having to get a reference) and it costs me about $12 a week. Honestly, you can't shake a stick at that!
Oh, and there are no applications or waiting lists for procedures, surgery or treatment. Throw in all the D&D coverage, accidental death, dental (60/40), vision etc for a few more dollars....and away I go. I am very lucky. AND, my husband is covered for LESS than I pay.
-Alone with Everyone-
User avatar
chinaski
Brighella
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:50 am
Location: Kansas City, MO
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:54 pm

Where are your responses Little Cupcakes and Benno?

I guess you have both decided to agree with me. Well that was easier than I thought. Welcome to the ranks of us 62% who approve of President Obama.
And I don't want no grave
Just throw my ashes in the field
And hope there's some soul left to save

W. E. Whitmore
User avatar
Clash Cadillac
Yeoman Rand
 
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:37 pm
Location: Dakota
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:28 am

Clash Cadillac wrote:Where are your responses Little Cupcakes and Benno?

I guess you have both decided to agree with me. Well that was easier than I thought. Welcome to the ranks of us 62% who approve of President Obama.


Right because its totally black and white like one thing he does and that completely negates the massive mistakes he has made in other arenas
Phoist
Il Dottore
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:44 am
Location: East of Nowhere
  • Website
Top

  • Reply with quote

Re: The New President

Post Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:25 pm

Analysis: Obama recovery plans sowing some unease
By TOM RAUM
Full URL
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama offered his domestic-policy proposals as a "break from a troubled past." But the economic outlook now is more troubled than it was even in January, despite Obama's bold rhetoric and commitment of more trillions of dollars.

And while his personal popularity remains high, some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's agenda of increased government activism is helping, or hurting, by sowing uncertainty among businesses, investors and consumers that could prolong the recession.

Although the administration likes to say it "inherited" the recession and trillion-dollar deficits, the economic wreckage has worsened on Obama's still-young watch.

Every day, the economy is becoming more and more an Obama economy.

More than 4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in December 2007 — roughly half in the past three months.

Stocks have tumbled to levels not seen since 1997. They are down more than 50 percent from their 2007 highs and 20 percent since Obama's inauguration

The president's suggestion that it was a good time for investors with "a long-term perspective" to buy stocks may have been intended to help lift battered markets. But a big sell-off followed..


Presidents usually don't talk about the stock market. But the dynamics are different now.

A higher percentage of people have more direct exposure to stocks — including through 401(k) and other retirement plans — than ever.

So a tumbling stock market is adding to the national angst as households see the value of their investments and homes plunge as job losses keep rising.

Some once mighty companies such as General Motors and Citigroup are little more than penny stocks.

Many health care stocks are down because of fears of new government restrictions and mandates as part a health care overhaul. Private student loan providers were pounded because of the increased government lending role proposed by Obama. Industries that use oil and other carbon-based fuels are being shunned, apparently in part because of Obama's proposal for fees on greenhouse-gas polluters.

Makers of heavy road-building and other construction equipment have taken a hit, partly because of expectations of fewer public works jobs here and globally than first anticipated.

"We've got a lot of scared investors and business people. I think the uncertainty is a real killer here," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the libertarian Cato Institute.

Some Democrats, worried over where Obama is headed, are suggesting he has yet to match his call for "bold action and big ideas" with deeds.

In particular, they point to bumpy efforts to fix the financial system under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Obama may have contributed to the national anxiety by first warning of "catastrophe" if his stimulus plan was not passed and in setting high expectations for Geithner. Instead, Geithner's public performance has been halting and he's been challenged by lawmakers of both parties.

Republicans and even some top Democrats, including Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, have questioned the wisdom of Obama's proposal to limit tax deductions for higher-income people on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Charities have strongly protested, saying times already are tough enough for them. The administration suggests it might back off that one.

Even White House claims that its policies will "create" or "save" 3.5 million jobs have been questioned by Democratic supporters.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana Democrat Max Baucus, told Geithner last week.

"If the economy loses 2 million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs," Baucus said. "You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.".


Republicans assert that Obama's proposals, including the "cap and trade" fees on polluters to combat global warming, would raise taxes during a recession that could touch everyone. "Herbert Hoover tried it, and we all know where that led," says House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio..

The administration argues its tax increases for the households earning over $250,000 a year and fees on carbon polluters contained in its budget won't kick in until 2011-2012, when it forecasts the economy will have fully recovered.

But even those assumptions are challenged as too rosy by many private forecasters and some Democratic lawmakers.

Many deficit hawks also worry that the trillions of federal dollars being doled out by the administration, Congress and the Federal Reserve could sow the seeds of inflation down the road, whether the measures succeed in taming the recession or not. The money includes Obama's $3.6 trillion budget and the $837 billion stimulus package he signed last month.

To the notion that he favors a government-operated approach toward fixing problems, Obama says none of it started on his watch — the collapsing economy or the taxpayer-funded bailouts designed to keep matters from getting even worse.

"By the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system," he said in an interview posted Saturday on The New York Times' Web site. "And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system."

Polls show that Obama's personal approval ratings, generally holding in the high 60s, remain greater than support for his specific policies.

"He still has a fair amount of political capital, so the public is willing to cut him some slack and go along with him for a while," said pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "But the public will have to get some sense that the kinds of things he's proposing are going to work, or are showing some signs that they are working."

Allan Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics, a Boston-area consulting firm, said the complexity and enormity of the crisis make it hard to solve.

"There's no way to get it all right, regardless of which president is making policy," Sinai said. "The problem is the sickness got too far. The actions taken, medicine applied, were mainly the wrong actions. So it's just worse, and it gets harder to deal with. At this stage, there is no easy answer, no easy way out. It's a question of how we fumble through."
http://shanemacgowan.is-great.org
http://joeycashman.is-great.org
User avatar
MacRua
Site Janitor
 
Posts: 4468
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:40 am
Location: A bog far, far away...
  • Website
Top

PreviousNext

Board index » General » Speaker's Corner » Politics and World Events

All times are UTC

Post a reply
1189 posts • Page 3 of 80 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 80

Return to Politics and World Events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

  • Board index
  • The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB
Content © copyright the original authors unless otherwise indicated