[karlos]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

The ray of sunshine in here is that the people in many of these countries are now starting to realize that if they keep letting their tinhorn dictators screw things up not only for them, but for the rest of the world, we won't stand by and let it happen. And, judging by the news, they are starting to demand something different. You can thank George W. Bush for that, not that you could ever say the words without turning purple.

Funny you say that, from this part of the world, the very fact that an Obama could overturn a Bush, gave a lot of people a lot of hope for a better world.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

And what is it they are demanding?

Liberty, and free market economics.

Actually, they a demanding a voice, a vote which is just what Bush and his election funding oil barons try to repress.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

As Barry Hussein said, "this is a teachable moment." The era of Union thugs telling taxpayers what they will and will not do, and how much we MUST pay them, appears to be drawing to a close. This is history folks, don't miss it!

Funny how you see things, me, I'm a bit like Warren

Billionaire Warren Buffett said that rich people should pay more in taxes and that Bush-era tax cuts for top earners should be allowed to expire at the end of December.

[karlos]

[quote=PhantomPholly;228961]
Too, your "war price tally" page is completely bogus - most of the money indicated as "money for the war" would have been spent for readiness whether or not we were over there. Hard to be credible when you continually quote unreliable sources.../quote]

Yes of course some of it would be spent anyway.
I asked you to correct my calculation if you thought it wrong, what is your calculation per tax payer? Mine was $9,913.00 If I'm correct, I still say that's a big burden.

[quote=PhantomPholly;228961]
So to claim that any debt we have is due to military spending is the grossest sort of twisting of the truth imaginable; even some long-time hard-line Libs are finally coming to the honesty platform now, so you can drop the pretense.
/quote]



So here's another source for military spending (very similar amount to the last) which currently is about 1,200 Billion. Number of tax payers is about 138 Million (2007)
$8,695 average per tax payer? So where is the funding coming from if not the tax payer; debt = many years to pay. If you refute these figures, instead of vitriole, sources please

[IamIan]

Interesting :
About Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's work as a Climate Change Skeptic.

NYT

Tree Hugger

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by karlos

So there are roughly 138M US tax payers, that makes about $9,913 per tax payer for a year? Correct me if wrong but that is a shit load.

Could have researched and built quite a lot of RE for that and helped to sustain the economy instead of the arms industry fat cats getting fatter?

Some military funding is needed ... but I agree if even just half that amount of money have gone into RE ... we could have deployed more than ~107 Billion kwh of yearly RE which would be a nice move in allot of ways for domestic energy security as much as environmental concerns... and would be an investment that would continue to give that back again and again year after year... about ~3% of the entire U.S. electrical consumption in 2009.

[Jan]

I think the world is blessed (Well in a non religious way) to live under Pax-Americana. Even for the non western countries. The world is more peaceful and wealthy than ever before. It’s a much better era than the previous (and not so) Pax-Europeana. The era of colonization.

It started with the brilliant way the US ended WW2. By not exploiting the losers as much as possible, like the winners of WW1 did. Japan and Germany are maybe the happiest countries to life under Pax-Americana. I can’t think of any precedent in history that comes close to this brilliant way of changing the world.

But really Bush isn’t part of this brilliant legacy. He did nothing right. Nothing. The current change in the Arab world has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the contrary. Most of the demonstrators believe they are overthrowing ’our’ dictators. Also an idiot conception. But it’s the other side of the spectrum.

I hope America will stay the super power of the world for a long long time, but with not too many republicans in control.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by karlos

Ha ha, so you think I'm helping you out

Yup, and the retarded (eg Sarah Palin, Bush etc) Right see's anyone who is pro-worker as "Radical Left - Wing".

You are mis-informed. The right is pro-worker for the simple reason that more profitable businesses means more jobs. The Unions are pro-Union.

It still astounds me that after 5,000 years of human history showing that all politicians lie that anyone would believe a political group which claims that it is "pro-worker." The only thing workers have that politicians want is a vote (and, in nastier times, angry fists to break things). Unions make our country less competitive, help a few and hurt the many.

OK, nothing wrong with making business strong but effectively what often happens;
"stop perceived over regulation" = freedom to pollute

I'm not aware of any group that is pro-pollution. CO2 is not pollution, by the way.

"push down business taxes" = more tax for Mum & Dad

We've gone over this before. High taxes makes all businesses less profitable. Those already marginal go under, creating less jobs and a smaller taxpayer pool. Lower revenues motivate Liberals to raise taxes again to make up the "lost revenue" (a bogus term, since it was never their money to begin with). Cycle repeats.

Free money is such a pretty fantasy, who wouldn't like to believe in it? But, it is simply a fantasy, not reality.

"improve labor relations" = erode union power

The labor laws in this country are the best in the history of the world. Any "abuses" against which the Unions brought pressure to eradicate have long ago been addressed, and now they are superfluous extortion gangs extorting money from their (forced) members and using it to bribe politicians to create anti-competition laws to protect - the Unions.

Still think the Right Wing has the biggest political donors? Think again...

"increase production" = take business offshore

That would cease if taxes were lower here - again, you are making my point.

"develop new markets" = kill small business offshore

Best way to do that is to bring all the business home. Go, FairTax!

"provide more jobs" = in the third world with cheap labor

Labor is cheap and plentiful right here if you remove the tax burden and roll back the minimum wage to globally competitive levels.

"raise educational levels" = for those with wealth

I'm all for eliminating the failed union-controlled public school system, giving parents Vouchers, and even allowing home-schooling parents to redeem their vouchers (get paid their childs' portion of education tax money for actually doing the work of educating them). Eliminate the indoctrination camps called public schools and education will flourish.

"build better cities" = for industry

Where do you get these goofy ideas - are you a frequent on "MoveOn.org?" Look past the propaganda for a while.

"keep organized business strong and increasingly effective" = increase profits at workers cost

Labor is a commodity. Allow our country full employment by removing crippling taxes, and businesses will have to compete with each other for talented labor. A rising tide lifts all boats. Raise profitability by lowering taxes, and more would-be entrepreneurs will go into business for themselves - again, looking for employees to hire.

Of course I'm being cynical ...

I caught that.

...but it's obvious there needs to be balance between 'right' and 'left'. Anonymous election funds does not create balance.

You are absolutely correct on both counts. We've swung too far to the left, and a natural correction is now in order.

Do you have shares in a tin foil company of something?

lol - no, but I'll be happy to send you some!

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by karlos

Funny you say that, from this part of the world, the very fact that an Obama could overturn a Bush, gave a lot of people a lot of hope for a better world.

Bush was a potato head, and a Progressive. All we did was go from a mildly progressive leader to a full-blown communist. Why that would give hope to anyone is a mystery - but then, people are often self-destructive. Good news is that real Conservatives are finally stepping up to the plate and showing us we CAN bring the Ponzi schemes to an end.

Actually, they a demanding a voice, a vote which is just what Bush and his election funding oil barons try to repress.

No doubt Obama will try to take credit for the movement if it happens to turn out well...

[PhantomPholly]

[quote=karlos;228973]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Too, your "war price tally" page is completely bogus - most of the money indicated as "money for the war" would have been spent for readiness whether or not we were over there. Hard to be credible when you continually quote unreliable sources.../quote]

Yes of course some of it would be spent anyway.
I asked you to correct my calculation if you thought it wrong, what is your calculation per tax payer? Mine was $9,913.00 If I'm correct, I still say that's a big burden.

I don't have a "calculation" per se, but using the price of oil had we NOT gone to war? Perhaps a savings of $2-3 trillion net vs not going to war.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

So to claim that any debt we have is due to military spending is the grossest sort of twisting of the truth imaginable; even some long-time hard-line Libs are finally coming to the honesty platform now, so you can drop the pretense.
/quote]



So here's another source for military spending (very similar amount to the last) which currently is about 1,200 Billion. Number of tax payers is about 138 Million (2007)
$8,695 average per tax payer? So where is the funding coming from if not the tax payer; debt = many years to pay. If you refute these figures, instead of vitriole, sources please

Again bogus - they simply attribute a percentage of the debt to each spending item irrespective of the relevance of those items to the Constitution. Military spending is number one in the Constitution ("To provide for the Common Defense"). Thus, any spending comes FIRST for the military and, if that falls within the revenues of the government, is debt-free. All debt therefore falls to "other spending which might have been reduced but was not.

[karlos]

Plan for carbon price to fan the winds of change

Show the way Aussies!

[Duncan]

Hi Phantom

The labor laws in this country are the best in the history of the world. Any "abuses" against which the Unions brought pressure to eradicate have long ago been addressed

You cannot possibly believe that!!

Better than china's - yes

Better than 100 years ago - yes

Better than, Germany, UK, Canada, Oz, NZ, France..... --- NO WAY!!