Tuesday open thread
Eatur quo deorum ostenta et inimicorum iniquitas vocat. Iacta alea est.
Where are you going today?
February 26, 2013 - 7:47 AM
February 26, 2013 - 7:47 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
25 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
Economists tell us that the consumer will lead the nation out of this no growth economy with high unemployment and the economy will not begin to take off until the consumer starts buying again.
Well don’t count on it happening any time soon!
Retailers are preparing for a triple whammy due to the restoration of the payroll tax, climbing gas prices, high taxes, flat employment and wages which will eat up consumer’s disposable income and leave them with less cash to spend on clothing, groceries, and eating out and other consumer goods.
Add to that Gov. McDonnell and the GOP controlled legislature just enacted the largest tax increase in the history of Virginia. There are no physical conservatives in Richmond. Tea partiers take note!
Companies like Wal-Mart are lowering sales forecasts ahead of expectations that consumers will cut spending. A GDP of less that 3% and unemployment of 8% or more along with high taxes and huge deficits are here to stay for a long time to come.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323549204578318192889335274.html
The nation is following the failed European model of low productivity, high unemployment, high taxes, huge debt, and cradle to grave entitlements.
Here’s one the left has not gotten in focus YET. Think of all the votes they could get from pet owners if they made this a national program. Please note the link for the free 250 minute cell phone in the article, paid for by your tax dollars.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/24/scooby-snaps-new-mexico-organization-offers-pet-food-stamps/
I agree that many economists insist that our consumer economy will not be resuscitated until consumers consume more, but that is not going to happen when cutting spending means more job loss, more uncertainty, more turmoil and more pain. The wealthy are the only class being catered to and there are simply not enough of them to sustain our economy. They have gained even as the rest of us have lost, but they have not created jobs.
–
The long, slow slog to prosperity will be on the backs of the workers. Nothing new under that sun.
Granted, it is your credibility “Bubba Greene”…
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
–
It is not ‘the left’ who needs to beat the bushes for voters…
Bubba, followed the link and read the story. Didn’t see anything about a 250 minute cell phone.
Wow John R., you are so off base with your conclusions I don’t even have the time or energy to address them all.
The situation you describe is created in large part by wealth disparity. So a partial solution would be to redistribute the wealthy from the corporations and extremely wealthy individuals to those in the working class. Probably the best way to do this is through higher taxes on capital gains, a 100% inheritance tax on estates worth more than $1 million and a more progressive tax system.
Nope, Bubba, no cell phone paid for by our tax dollars when I was there. But that site sure does seem obsessed with scantily clad women and who’s doing “it” to whom.
All I got to say is if Boehner back tracks. He is done.
So folks, whose telling the truth about Obama’s anti-2nd Amendment intentions……..Obama? Or the NRA (ironically through Obama’s own DOJ)?
As also per today’s RT:
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-uses-justice-memo-accuse-obama-guns-084745794.html
And:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/23/politics/nra-new-ads/index.html
Two google ads for Assurance Wireless that also mention Food Stamps…guess because you have to qualify for food stamps to qualify for the free phone?
At any rate…this is paid for by tax dollars. The tax is paid by wireless companies, who pass it along to those of us who actually pay for our cellphones.
What happens if the sequester happens next week and the sky does not fall?
The worst case scenario for the Obama administration is that the sequester occurs and causes little or no pain for the average American and it is clear that the country does quite well with reduced spending.
This is why Obama is going about the country spouting doom and gloom for the country if the sequester takes place and widows and orphans will starve.
The truth is that the government will still spend more under the sequester than it did last year. the sky did not fall last year!
Sec. Napolitano made the outrageous statement that homeland security will suffer grave damage under the sequester, “I have never seen anything like this. It will have to affect our core, critical mission areas.”
What Napolitano neglected to mention is that the Dept. of Homeland Security will have a larger budget under the sequester than it did last year. It only cuts the rate of growth. Were we less safe last year?
It will be bad news for the administration if all the doom and gloom fails to occur under the sequestration. That’s Obama’s biggest fear!
Nude women! Where were the nude women? One thing about a lot of those links. They have revolving ads. Go once and get one ad, someone else goes and gets maybe a different ad. Never seem to see the same ads. But if there were nude women I’m going back ’cause I did not see any. BTW, Sandi, there is no doubt conservatives are in a crack when it come to seeking votes. Of course that hardly means their views are “wrong” but it does mean the views of the other side garner more support. It’s like the free hot dogs with the grand opening. Free stuff always brings out the moochers. Moochers support the left. What’s the conservatives to do? Offer free stuff as well? Maybe. But then they are no longer conservatives. Of course it also might be that to the conservatives, the idea of reform invloves some aspect of real reform. Maybe like the immigration rules that are in places like Australia. Now I have not read up on it in a long time but when I was there YEARS ago I seem to recall they required things like proof of employment, proof of health insurance. I’m not sure they did not even have some net worth requirement. Of course most nations do not grant the child of illegals citizenship. Stuff like that might be considered reform. Immigration reform is one topic. The status of 20 million illegals is another. To the left “reform” means give me your vote if I give you (criminals) legal status.
Regardless of the fact that “sequestration” was Obama’s idea & innitiative.
Regarless that 2 months ago he threatened to veto any attempt to remove it.
Regardless of the fact that as it stands it would be less than 1% of change in the rate of increase of current spending.
Regardless of the fact that it would be less than 2.5% of increase in spending over the next decade.
Obama is touring the nation (especially, today, VA) scaremongering as to the affects.
Regardless of the fact that this has been SOP for Obama; lies & scaremongering (think eleminating SSN, Medicare….Ryan pushing grandma over the cliff, etc., etc.)….
….pray tell, if 1-3% cuts can cause such catastrophic damage….was that same 1-3% actually funding all such programs?
Please….once again, 1-3% decrese in increase….not cuts.
It was a “poison pill” for a reason. Boehner, et al, must call this buff.
Our leader hits the nail with the reality hammer, yet again.
All would be right but for the “corporate jet owners”.
Apparently they account for the 38 thousand dollars per second we accumalate in federal debt. (What is the cost of Air Force One)?
The general picture here should be obvious. The GOP wants to eliminate tax loopholes in order to lower marginal tax rates & increase economic activity.
The dems want to eliminate tax loopholes & increase taxes in order to increase (deficit) spending.
Yes, yes…
and yet the producers of the Oscars took their private jet to the White House to discuss the super-secret appearance of Michelle Obama for which to announce the best picture.
THIS is important stuff.
It has become a circus! Where are the miniature ponies?
Miniature ponies George? Perhaps they can be found at the link provided by Bubba.
So can you all explain why a corporate entity should make millions (or even billions) and owe no income tax but the hourly or salaried wage workers barely making ends meet pays 12 to 20 percent income tax?
17 – can’t explain it all Sandi. It’s a fair question. Let’s eliminate the tax loopholes and establish a flat rate.
#18 Hoo, are “tax loopholes” the same kind of loophole as the “gun-show loophole?”
You mean perfectly legal? Yes.
.
Differences:
.
1 – there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that the perfectly legal “gun show loophole” supports, in contrast to the unconstitutional laws that limit the ability of people to keep and bear arms. Put differently, there is no constitutional basis for the situation that caused a “loophole”.
2 – income taxes are constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. While loopholes are perfectly legal, in it is also perfectly legal (and more effective from an enforcement and revenue standpoint) to insist that everyone pay the same amount.
Uh, Bubba, I said scantily clad, not nude. There really is a difference. Down on the right side you have photos of bikini models holding photos of bikini models, Jennifer Love Hewitt posing in swimsuits, scantily clad women at the Oscars, an article about who John Mayer (sp?) has, ahem, and so on. Seriously.
-
BTW, I saw these because I futilely looking for the “free” phone thing.
#20 What’s a loophole then?
And why do you want to eliminate one thing that is “perfectly legal” but not another?
As an old married fart, I’d take the free phone over the scantily-clad/nude women.
22 – a loophole is a poor, but politically convenient (in that it obfuscates the truth), term for a legal way to maximize a legal benefit in spite of attempts to short-circuit those benefits.
23 – I don’t look at it as eliminating loopholes (I confess to a poor choice of words), I look at it as extending a benefit to everyone. But I can see that folks are having a hard time understanding the notion of Person X, who makes three times the income as Person Y, paying three times more in taxes instead of (as Sandi’s question indicates) a smaller percentage.
Truth be told, I favor abolition of the income tax, and return to running the government via import tariffs, as was the case prior to the 16th Amendment. But so much more would have to happen to make that viable that I am now convinced that a flat tax is the best of poorer alternatives. And I mean a real flat tax, not the bogus one being touted by quasi-libertarians and neo-Cons.