domino

Macon, GA

#6636 Apr 9, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Having trouble understanding? The point made was China is about the only one getting the oil. We are not getting the oil from the countries of Afghanistan, and Iraq. Do you now comprehendo?
You are not the one comprehending. I could care less about China getting the oil. I know we are not. That was my only point. Comprehendo?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6637 Apr 9, 2013
chicknbutt wrote:
<quoted text>
If I recall, you're a proponent of the horribly mislabeled "Fair Tax". It;s just another pipe-dream to help the wealthy get accumulate wealth more quickly at the expense of the lower-classes The chances of that becoming our tax system are statistically about 0.00000000142%. Apologies if I remember incorrectly.
The Fair Tax is a CONSUMPTION tax. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. Buy a big ticket item, pay big ticket tax. EVERYONE pays taxes. How does this allow the wealthy to accumulate more wealth quickly at the expense of the lower classes?
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6638 Apr 9, 2013
This is the DoD Current and Future U.S. Drone Activities Map.
Does NOT include non-military Drone usage.

http://publicintelligence.net/dod-us-drone-ac...

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#6639 Apr 9, 2013
FactChickn wrote:
<quoted text>
She read the link I posted depicting precisely how the White House Concert was being paid for. She read about how it isn't costing the taxpayers. She read about how it's a long tradition in the White House by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
She also read about how Former Republican President of the United States George W. Bush The Economy Destroyer spent 32% of his presidency on vacation. She read about the costs incurred to make that happen.
But it didn't fit her "feelings' or "world view" so...
POOF! Those facts just disappeared.
Typical Republican.
lol Yeah...no. For your reading pleasure.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6640 Apr 9, 2013
chicknbutt wrote:
<quoted text>
If I recall, you're a proponent of the horribly mislabeled "Fair Tax". It;s just another pipe-dream to help the wealthy get accumulate wealth more quickly at the expense of the lower-classes The chances of that becoming our tax system are statistically about 0.00000000142%. Apologies if I remember incorrectly.
1. You're right.
2. You're wrong 2x.
3. Probably, the politicians won't go for it.

You don't understand it. Pure and simple.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6641 Apr 9, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fair Tax is a CONSUMPTION tax. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. Buy a big ticket item, pay big ticket tax. EVERYONE pays taxes. How does this allow the wealthy to accumulate more wealth quickly at the expense of the lower classes?
And while you're contemplating the above questions (and probably not responding), do some research on the prebate portion of the FairTax proposal.

Off to work on taxes...
formerresident

Decatur, GA

#6642 Apr 9, 2013
However you do like liquor, french toast, and south florida, where you are welcome to stay.
but I don't understand why the interest. A total waste of money and resources, not to mention privacy, liberty and freedom.
Bored

Commerce, GA

#6643 Apr 9, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is as if the economy isn't bad enough and since the country hasn't been totally destroyed, Obama wants the banks to do the same thing again that has put us in the terrible financial position we are in now. Just maybe if we do it again we can actually cause the collapse of the U.S. Hmmmm, Makes one wonder, if one has enough sense to wonder.


And now one of the architects of Obamacare is concerned about it, and with good reason I might add.

"West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, one of the towering architects of Obamacare, on Tuesday openly criticized program managers for not moving quickly enough to build the system, warning that if it gets off to a bumpy start it will just get worse.

Decrying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as way too complex, he warned the acting Medicare director that Obamacare is "so complicated and if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

The retiring senator also told Marilyn Tavenner at her Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Obamacare rivals tax reform in its capacity to confuse Americans.

"I believe that the Affordable Care Act is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress. Tax reform obviously has been huge too, but up to this point it is just beyond comprehension," said Rockefeller.

Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina also hit Obamacare, questioning predictions that it will save money. He cited a recent analysis that insurers will face an average 30 percent increase in payouts for those covered by Obamacare, which could then be passed on to those insured outside of Obamacare."


And anyone with any sense can foretell a disaster in the making. Will cost billions upon billions to correct, and up and running.

Government is SO incompetent, and so overwhelmed, it is now just a wobbly top spinning drunkenly out of control. A disaster looking for a cure.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-archi...

Since: Jul 12

Villa Rica, GA

#6644 Apr 9, 2013
domino wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not the one comprehending. I could care less about China getting the oil. I know we are not. That was my only point. Comprehendo?
I comprehend that you will never get another reply from me.
domino

Atlanta, GA

#6645 Apr 9, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I comprehend that you will never get another reply from me.
Thank you so much.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6646 Apr 9, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Fair Tax is a CONSUMPTION tax. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. Buy a big ticket item, pay big ticket tax. EVERYONE pays taxes. How does this allow the wealthy to accumulate more wealth quickly at the expense of the lower classes?
Easy. Consumption of percentage of income. Some poor auto-mechanic making 35k and raising 2 kids will likely consume 100% of his income and be taxed on 100%.

Somebody else making 50 million would have a hard time consuming 100% of his income. So he gets taxed on 5% or whatever of his income.

Those who start the game with the lowest untaxed income wins.
ChicknButt

Douglasville, GA

#6647 Apr 9, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
lol Yeah...no. For your reading pleasure.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/...
Yeah, I read that earlier.

SLEAZY REPORTER: "I know!(light-bulb pops on over head!) Let's interview some die-hard Obama Haters and call it NEWS! The Republicans love it when do that! The more slanted the better! They like reading things they agree with."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6648 Apr 9, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
So, tell us (in your opinion), who is the Designer, by what process does it design, can this process be observed and replicated, as a theory what does it predict.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconcep...
.... When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species.

Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.

...Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong.. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
I condensed your post for space and pertinent points.
1. The "who" is irrelevant to the discussion, the point is that a "Designer" is necessary. And I will ask you -can evolution be observed and replicated -to answer, no, macroevolution, which is the point of contention, cannot be observed and replicated - and what does evolution predict?

2. "leading eventually to different species" - where are the intermediate species? As British paleontologist Henry Gee wrote "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." Each fossil is "an isolated point...with no knowable connection to any other given fossil."

3. "Once a molecule forms that is self replicating" Ah, but there's the rub. How did that first self replicating molecule come to be. Scientists have tried (and failed) for decades to create the "basic building blocks of life" under ideal laboratory conditions. And yet we are to believe random chance is the "primordial ooze" somehow managed it. Now THAT'S faith. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA realized that the origin of life presented a huge obstacle to evolution proponents. His proposal was that earth was "seeded" by spores engineered on a distant planet. Now that is rich, he will not accept the concept of an Intelligent Designer of the universe and life on this planet, but he will accept the idea of an ALIEN "intelligently designing" spores that are then "planted" here. And by the way, who designed the intelligent alien? Infinite regress, anyone??

4. Finally, the theory of evolution fails the very definition you used. It has "self consistency" "agreement with observations" and "usefulness" only when it is accepted on "faith". But this is not the topic for a banter back and forth on the merits of evolution vs intelligent design. But it would be intellectually honest to present both views to students with the pros and cons of both laid out. That would foster healthy discussion and debate. The theory of evolution is still just that, a THEORY in the most literal sense of the word -meaning "an unproven assumption" . To assert it as FACT is far more an act of FAITH than of science. And proponents of ID are more than willing for ID to be taught in the same fashion - as a theory.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6649 Apr 9, 2013
^^^correction above
random chance IN the "primordial ooze"

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6650 Apr 9, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us, how often do the majority of home sellers sell their home - daily, weekly, yearly. Would you term such sellers as Active Investors with excess capital seeking investment opportunities. The high turnover rate for this type of investment is what led to the establishment of 1031 Exchanges, to capture all those gains that were so easily acquired.
Your response is completely irrelevant to my point. You are talking about home sales for investment or leasing purposes or large scale business ventures. I was talking about Joe Smith down the street who sells his home to either upgrade or downsize and makes a profit on the sale. Mr Smith is the type of everyday person who is hurt by an increase in capital gains tax increases.

Bill in Dville, please correct me if wrong.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6651 Apr 9, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad it ain't so...
http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/04/18/g...
During the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, co-moderator and ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson asserted of capital-gains tax cuts that "in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down." Gibson later asserted that "history shows that when you drop the capital-gains tax, the revenues go up." In fact, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, asserted in an April 17 American Prospect blog post addressing Gibson's statements: "[T]he evidence that a capital gains tax cut raises revenue is rather dubious, since most of the apparent increase is likely due to timing: investors delay selling stock when they know a tax cut is imminent. After the cut takes effect, they then declare their gains and pay taxes at the lower rate." Indeed, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Revenue and Tax Policy Brief states that "[r]ising gains receipts in response to a rate cut are most likely to occur in the short run" and that investor responses to capital-gains tax cuts in the short term can "mislead observers."
...In addition, numerous economists have said that cuts in capital-gains taxes do not pay for themselves, let alone increase revenue. In an article published in the Journal of Public Economics, N. Gregory Mankiw -- former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- and Matthew Weinzierl asked, "To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself?" Mankiw and Weinzierl concluded, "In almost all cases, tax cuts are partly self-financing. This is especially true for cuts in capital income taxes" [emphasis added]. Discussing those findings in a 2007 blog post, Mankiw noted, "Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger -- about 50 percent -- but still well under 100 percent." A May 17, 2006, Knight Ridder Newspapers article citing Mankiw's study noted that "paybacks of 50 ... percent still mean a net revenue loss for the Treasury." The article also reported, "Treasury Secretary John Snow conceded Tuesday that the much-touted tax cuts for capital gains and dividend income don't drive today's strong economy. Asked by Knight Ridder if the tax reductions paid for themselves, Snow acknowledged that they don't."
To quote Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, the CATO Institute
"A recent Congressional Budget Office working paper found that the responsiveness of capital gains realizations to the tax rate is quite large.... a 10 percent cut in the capital gains tax rate would increase ongoing realizations by 7.9%....the government's revenue loss from a capital gains tax cut will only be about one-third or less of the loss if taxpayers didn't change their behavior. Alternately, tax rate increases will gain the government little added revenue.(However) At a macroeconomic level, capital gains tax cuts would have numerous effects. Share prices would rise, thus increasing the wealth of millions of Americans. Investment ...would be spurred and entrepreneurial industries would be strengthened.....Stronger economic growth from a lower capital gains rate would raise government revenues from all tax sources. Two different studies (Allen Sinai) and (Stephen Entin) found that a capital gains tax rate of 15% would raise more than a 20%(Sinai) or 24%(Entin) rate because GDP, employment and stock prices would be higher. Alan Greenspan, in the 1990's, testified that the capital gains tax rate's "major impact is to impede entrepreneurial activity and capital formation"

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6652 Apr 9, 2013
Capital gains (cont)

Alan Greenspan testified: "I argued that the appropriate capital gains tax rate was zero."
+++++

The United States now has some of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world (this includes state rates, not just federal.) This discourages investment not just of American individuals and businesses, but also discourages foreign investors who will look elsewhere for more favorable tax rates before investing their money.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6653 Apr 9, 2013
Doo wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out his Grandpa Bush that acutally helped arrange loans to Hitler to finance WW2....which my Dad had to fight in and a lot of my Uncles. His name was Prescott Bush...google him brainwashed!
And George H W Bush was also fighting in that war. What does Prescott Bush's connection to a bank that held German govt money have to do with anything? Are you as bothered by the fact that Joe Kennedy (JFK and RFK's father) was a rabid anti-Semite who agreed with Chamberlain's German appeasement policies, was furious that Britain won the Battle of Britain because, in his view, it just delayed Britain's inevitable defeat by Germany and who got recalled from his post as British ambassador by FDR because he was (without approval of the US govt) trying to negotiate with Hitler.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#6654 Apr 9, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing, I never heard those statements. I heard they had plans to save social security so it would still be there many years from now. Now your great leader,Obama, wants to cut $1,000.00 a year from the S.S. retirement checks. Then he wants more taxes and new spending programs. He never mentioned cutting welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, free medical care, free phones, and all the other handouts to the "less fortunate". He also wants to regulate how much money you can put away for your retirement. How do you like that? Why should anyone have the right to tell you how much money you can put aside for your retirement? Why don't you liberals mind your own business and just take care of your own financial future instead of sticking your nose in everyone's business and trying to tell them how to live their lives? Keep your nose's out of my life would you please?
Yeah, isn't it great that Obama is going to rescue us from saving "more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings." It must be wonderful to be so all-knowing that he KNOWS the maximum level anyone should need in their retirement years. Wow, what a guy.
history is no les

Cleveland, GA

#6655 Apr 10, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Great! Saved you some work. We ALL know how you libs hate to work.
Off topic but here who cares. Libs hate to work and all the other nonsense you spout reminded me of just why the Republican Party is in such shambles. Compare it to the Catholic Church and it becomes obvious!. In a 2009 report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated that one in 10 adults in the U.S. was raised Catholic but has broken with the church. Its teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control and treatment of women were often cited as reasons.

Sounds just like the Republican Party, out of touch with the majority of its members. In the news today is a possible compromise between parties on a few gun laws. And the idiot wing of the Republican Party is already talking about filibuster. Considering a large majority of Americans wants something done itís just another nail in the coffin of what was once the party of Lincoln. With nuts like you taking the way you do, itís doomed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Savannah Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Biking In Savannah,Georgia (Jul '13) Nov 16 Sam Smart 11
savannah. behind the conspiracy.. Nov 13 Sam Smart 1
Councilman Ernie Stanhope caught dancing win BR... Oct 29 Jasmine M 2
Protests continue in West Savannah in wake of o... Oct 29 BoBo 4
Blanket drive to benefit area animal shelters Oct 28 Tonya 1
dead beet shit head cops in port wentworth GA (Jul '08) Oct 27 Jerry J 58
SCPS tops Portal 24-14 in Robertson's return Oct '14 Vanessa 1
Savannah Dating
Find my Match

Savannah People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Savannah News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Savannah

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:27 am PST

Bleacher Report 8:27AM
Insider Buzz: Browns Won't Start Manziel in 2014, Not Sold on Hoyer Long-Term
ESPN 9:56 AM
Ryan: 4-7 Falcons remain in 'driver's seat'
Bleacher Report12:00 PM
Buzz: NFC South Mess Has Owners Considering Change to Playoff Format
NBC Sports 2:13 PM
Matt Ryan on Mike Smith: We've got to make him right
Bleacher Report10:47 PM
5 Bold Predictions for New York Giants' Week 13 Matchup