Re: Four More Years

by TopContender Thu Nov 15 2012, 13:35

Hillary will run, because she is already leaving her Sec of State post.

Republicans, will see Chris Christy the feisty Gov of New Jersey , Rand Paul who is Ron Paul's son, and Marco Rubio a very popular Cuban American out of Florida.

by da silva Mon Nov 19 2012, 00:10

Unless the republicans distance themselves from the christians and tea baggers and become progressive then they'll never get elected again.

by Gelert Mon Nov 19 2012, 00:31

TopContender wrote:
Gelert wrote:Another 1,453 more days of this...?

Ha, this is TC politics. It will never end regardless of what party is in office.

by TopContender Mon Nov 19 2012, 04:33

Gelert wrote:
TopContender wrote:
Gelert wrote:Another 1,453 more days of this...?

Ha, this is TC politics. It will never end regardless of what party is in office.

Ha, because both parties are selling this country out.

by glendo Mon Nov 19 2012, 05:59

IMO americans as a whole have distanced themselves from the rest of world since 9/11, and it's unhealthy. some of the ideologies, ideas, politics, and beliefs coming from the masses/politicians/media is scary, arrogant, and downright weird. it's a combination of isolationism mixed with 'american exceptionalism'.

this too has a global affect on ecomomies and politics... and i see it as a bad affect at the moment.

IMO i would cringe if a Republican gets the seat, based on their current guise. too many wack-jobs in the mix, with basically stupid ideas.

is the party bad? yes it is at the moment.

by da silva Tue Nov 20 2012, 02:36

So that's Rubio proving he's an idiot!

by H8R Mon Nov 26 2012, 18:27

First off.

Obama and the Fed prevented a Depression. Love or hate them they listened to the writings and Noble prize of Milton Friedman, who is also a conservative. If we had listened to the Right wing nutters and gone austerity crazy we would have plunged into it head first. The simple answer is you can't make money scarce when you're in a downturn..it will lead to a depression.

Republicans really need to reevaluate their relationship with Grover, Rush, Hannity, Fox News, the tea party and their subconscious racism. A strong, intelligent Republican party would be good for this nation, we do not need the Mob they've become.

by Danny Boy Mon Nov 26 2012, 20:26

H8R wrote:A strong, intelligent Republican party would be good for this nation,

by TopContender Wed Dec 05 2012, 02:33

Here it comes. The Republicans caving in on spending. These guys will actually raise taxes to pay for the military even though we don't need to spend the money. Both sides suck. Republican overspend on military, and Democrats on entitlements. Until that is fixed we Americans are screwed.

by eso Wed Dec 05 2012, 04:18

TopContender wrote:Here it comes. The Republicans caving in on spending. These guys will actually raise taxes to pay for the military even though we don't need to spend the money. Both sides suck. Republican overspend on military, and Democrats on entitlements. Until that is fixed we Americans are screwed.

Obama's re-election is essentially a mandate to raise taxes on the highest earners, and the repugnants are having a hard time swallowing that pill.

As much as I deplore our level of military spending, the huge cuts at this time will cause massive unemployment since defense contracting is one a few areas of our manufacturing not fully outsourced already. The repugnants don't like to talk about it, but military spending is the rightwing stimulus and always has been. And they like to get those lucrative military contracts in their districts too so they can bring that fat government bacon home to their constituents.

eso

by TopContender Thu Dec 06 2012, 02:50

Obama won with less votes cast, and a lower percentage than in 2008. We Republicans nominated a used car salesman. Hell he even got less votes than McCain.

Washington doesn't have a tax revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Someone has to stop this regard in office or we will end up like Greece. Some of us are just waiting for the world to call our debt.

by eso Thu Dec 06 2012, 03:04

You're so retarded TC. Our tax rates are at their lowest levels in 50 years, and 2 trillion of the increase in current debt is directly because of the bush tax cuts.

Republican policy since Reagan has been been spend, borrow and kick the can down the road. The country is falling apart and our once enviable education system is a joke. These things cost money and continually cutting taxes has lowered the quality of life throughout the nation. Having a civil society does have cost and we just aren't paying enough.

You can listen to your bought and paid for right wing pundits and get delusional information if you wish, but that does not make it reality just as those same pundits predicting a Rmoney landslide was not reality.

eso

by **Henrik** Thu Dec 06 2012, 13:28

I would say that the deficit problem in the US today is not exclusively the result of tax breaks to the rich or an over spending of the government, it is the sum of both of these. Clearly there is a need to increase the income for the state at the same time as spending is better controlled. To simply say that there can be no tax increases as the Republicans are saying is complete idiocy as spending cuts alone will never be able to be large enough to reduce the deficit.

But other than just trying to tax the rich more, there is one big major issue in the US today when it comes to tax income, and it is your onshore tax havens. The first, and by far the most important, is Delaware. The fact that 60% of all Fortune 500 companies are registered in Delaware should in itself be a huge alarm, but yet it seems the US media is not really talking much about this. Instead there is always a preference to go out and criticize places like Switzerland, Singapore and Luxembourg, as it is always far easier to attack these foreign countries than to begin cleaning up at home.

For sure there is a need to increase tax on the rich, but I would think there is an even bigger need, and also one that is more justified, to properly tax all the big rich American corporations.

Here is an interesting article from the NY Times about Delaware: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thrives-as-a-corporate-tax-haven.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

by Gelert Thu Dec 06 2012, 19:37

Good read Henrik.

As a subscriber of many years to "Private Eye" - who 'champion' complaints about Corporate "trousering", I have read many an article about The Delaware Loophole.

Here in the UK, Starbucks & Amazon & Google have just been "out-ed" by the mainstream press as being Corporate "Tax-Dodgers".
Private Eye has been banging-on about these three (amongst others!) for years now, as it happens....

Anyhoo - I'm awaiting the outcome of Starbucks' latest gambit: vis "we admit to Tax AVOIDANCE (legal BTW), but we want to discuss this with HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs aka The Tax Office).

Seems that Starbucks wants to organise some kind of publicity campaign to restore their "good name" amongst us regular tax-payers.

And this might even end-up with Starbucks no longer buying all of their coffee beans from that well-known coffee-bean-producing country Switzerland... scratch

So...how are Swiss Coffee Futures looking there, Hen...?

by **Henrik** Thu Dec 06 2012, 19:41

Ah but Switzerland has become the major commodity trading centre. It doesn't matter where the products come from... Has nothing to do with tax avoidance.

Besides, I don't like Starbucks coffee. Much prefer a proper Italian brew.

by Gelert Thu Dec 06 2012, 20:26

Henrik wrote:Ah but Switzerland has become the major commodity trading centre. It doesn't matter where the products come from... Has nothing to do with tax avoidance.

Nothing to do with Tax EVASION (illegal), but plenty to do with Tax AVOIDANCE (legal).
Semantics? Yes!
But that's the whole problem here - in a nutshell.

by Danny Boy Thu Dec 06 2012, 21:16

If I had the choice, and to make the world a better place, I would bomb america to oblivion and leave the Swiss alone, and that has NOTHING to do with the Swiss maid that persuaded me to leave a flight in Geneva to have 3 days and nights of sex in that city where far to many women wear fur coats.

by **Henrik** Thu Dec 06 2012, 21:52

Gelert wrote:
Henrik wrote:Ah but Switzerland has become the major commodity trading centre. It doesn't matter where the products come from... Has nothing to do with tax avoidance.
Nothing to do with Tax EVASION (illegal), but plenty to do with Tax AVOIDANCE (legal).
Semantics? Yes!
But that's the whole problem here - in a nutshell.

Sorry Gelert, but the commodities trading in Geneva is not about tax avoidance either. It has to do with the fact that they have developed a market expertise, attracting most major players over the years, and is able to provide a strong and stable financing environment. Here is an interesting, although perhaps a bit biased, article about the history of Geneva as a commodities trading hub: http://www.swissstyle.com/geneva-trader

But as always, and in spite of the fact that Switzerland has actually becoming much more serious about properly regulating the finance world than pretty much any other place (especially the big ones like USA, UK, France and Germany), the media and people in general will still always see the Swiss as those sneaky, dirty little bankers profiting from all the worlds evil.

In my opinion, a lot of governments around the world could actually learn a thing or two from the Swiss. But hey, it is always easier to blame the others rather than cleaning up your own house...

by TopContender Thu Dec 06 2012, 23:20

eso wrote:You're so retarded TC. Our tax rates are at their lowest levels in 50 years, and 2 trillion of the increase in current debt is directly because of the bush tax cuts.

Republican policy since Reagan has been been spend, borrow and kick the can down the road. The country is falling apart and our once enviable education system is a joke. These things cost money and continually cutting taxes has lowered the quality of life throughout the nation. Having a civil society does have cost and we just aren't paying enough.

You can listen to your bought and paid for right wing pundits and get delusional information if you wish, but that does not make it reality just as those same pundits predicting a Rmoney landslide was not reality.

eso

I just want to go back to the spending rates under Clinton. Unfortunately Obama would never dream of that.

As for the education system, I see it as an organization that wastes a lot of money. We spend more per student than any country in the world, but we get these results. I say the Feds need to back off, and let the states, and local communities deal with it.

by eso Sat Dec 08 2012, 07:56

TopContender wrote:

I just want to go back to the spending rates under Clinton.

To stand any chance of addressing the debt tax rates need to be at the level they were under Clinton, i.e. pre-Bush tax cuts.

Those cuts have added 2 trillion to the debt in the lat 10 years. 2 unfunded wars have added another 2 trillion, and Medicare part D that doesn't allow the government to negotiate rates with pharma suppliers adds and 1T... and all you can do is blame the guy that got stuck with the bill. Republican politics of the last decade has been the Dine-n-dash raping of the country.

eso

by TopContender Sat Dec 08 2012, 18:50

Both sides have pet projects that cost us a on of cash. I also don't think raising taxes will bring in more revenue. I look at California this month who raised taxes via prop 30 only to see revenues drop.

I don't see Obama cutting the way he needs to. He was voted in with his Santa Claus like social spending, and the republicans will never give up the defense spending.

by glendo Sun Dec 09 2012, 09:51

that's the problem. republicans didnt win. the people have spoken.

they should allow the winning government their way of doing business, if/when they win government again (god forbid) then it's their turn to do it their way.

they look like a toddler throwing a tantrum right now.

by TopContender Sun Dec 09 2012, 21:29

Our system is setup very differently. We have multiple checks in place. It makes sure that one guy or group shouldn't be able to dominate policy.

by da silva Mon Dec 17 2012, 17:38

TopContender wrote:Our system is setup very differently. We have multiple checks in place. It makes sure that one guy or group shouldn't be able to dominate policy.

That was true until Cheney and Addington shored up executive power.
Cheney's law

by Gelert Mon Dec 17 2012, 20:18

TopContender wrote:We have multiple checks in place. It makes sure that one guy or group shouldn't be able to dominate policy.

Interesting.
Is this why you guys spell "cheque" and "check" the same...?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/12/billionaires-warn-higher-taxes-could-prevent-them-from-buying-politicians.html

by Sponsored content